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.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by A W Smith
this should put an end to this thread, From mister Mackey himself




Will the real R_Mackey please stand up?


I know you may think there is only one R. Mackey in your world, but there are many more in the real world.

Hey look, here's another!
bats.blogs.nytimes.com...


It seems anyone and everyone who backs their statements with actual source is "Balsamo" to the self-proclaimed anonymous "pilots" on here.

Has Ryan Mackey at JREF yet figured out that Boeing's do not "typically cruise" above their Critical Mach?

That was pretty funny.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by R_Mackey]




posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
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?


Aah! "Verified by the FAA" again. Is this the same FAA that you imply has manipulated radar data and radio transcripts, but if authentic makes you embarrassingly WRONG, AGAIN AND AGAIN?

If it is the same FAA then using your logic this verification gambit is no good. Try again.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
If it is the same FAA then using your logic this verification gambit is no good. Try again.




And I suppose all these photographs in uniform on the flight deck are photoshopped?

Please provide proof.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

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


With all of the lies tossed out by your gov. administration, you better
believe it. Ever hear/read the term, "independently verified"?

Since you like internet quotes so much, I have found the ultimate:


"9/11 was an inside job", God.


It must be true, I found the quote on the internet.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Once again I must school the pretend internet pilot!


Originally posted by ReheatSchooled by an auto mechanic is one of the funniest jokes I've heard in a while.


You need to study your opponents and their career paths.


Originally posted by Reheat
What I said was correct. That's why you didn't quote it.


Oh? Is that why I didn't quote it?



The 20' accuracy that Turbo has been touting is a manufacturer's tolerance on the instrument itself which does not include the piping and other installation issue such as, placement and performance of the static ports. Consequently, it is misleading and WRONG.


Ohhh...so, by adding the piping and stuff, the reading goes up by 50'
error? Like more than double error? Like?
Sort of defeats the purpose
of calibrating a device 'out of system' huh?


I believe there only three antennas with one cockpit display. However, the FDR records data from all three inputs individually.


Wrong. Still wrong.

The FDR receives only ONE value from the RAD ALT. system NOT three!
Yes, there are three transceivers, however there is only one output value
recorded in the FDR based on the information read from the RAD ALT. box.



The misleading crap continues. The tolerances listed above are "BENCH TEST requirements for an instrument, not operational requirements for an installed altimeter system.


Please provide your source for alternate system tolerances in/outside
of the aircraft.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by iSunTzu
 


This has nothing to due with "auto landing". It has everything to do with
altitude ASL when corrected.

Now which set of data do you want to throw out? Flight 93, or Flight 77?

It seems the PA was keeping up and in tolerance when corrected for
Flight 93 and that aircraft was nearly "nose down". How much PA error
did that data receive at a higher rate of descent?

Let me know which data you think is wrong...or if the Pressure Altimeters
seem to work better in a nose down dive.

You may also want to check what that FRICTION table is used for, and what the
error refers to (hint: needle deflection).

[edit on 3-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Turcois? Did not say anything even remotely resembling a "fly over". For you to use him as a "fly-over" witness is absolutely absurd.


Really? What does it mean to you when a witness says, "I saw the plane
pick up" and motion with his hand like an aircraft is ascending?

Why would Hani begin to ascend if he was supposed to be aiming for
the Pentagon?


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


He saw a commercial airliner over the south parking lot. If not, "AA77"
what aircraft do you think he saw immediately after the explosion?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
He saw a commercial airliner over the south parking lot. If not, "AA77"
what aircraft do you think he saw immediately after the explosion?


He *said* he saw "Uh, it looked like to me at that time, uh, uh, uh, large, uh, aircraft-liner"..."around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like."

What direction was it headed?

"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."

Why do you selectively quote someone? Why do you only pick out the words that YOU like to hear, and not the other words?

Your...and CITs *only* witness to a "flyover" has an account that is more screwed up and confusing than a soup sandwich.

Tell us, Tino, how Roberts saw an "aircraft-liner" over South Parking heading southwest when a second earlier (supposedly) Turcois said he saw the aircraft "pull up a little" (original CIT interview on LC forum) from his perspective at the Citgo as it crossed Route 27?

As much as you people like to do that, you can't have it both ways.

Please. Tell us Turcois's account of the "fly over". No embellishment, no "he deduced a fly over", no "He meant a fly over", no "He intended a fly over", no "He implied a fly over", no "He hinted a fly over". Tell us, verbatim and word for word, what Robert Turcois said he saw regarding a "fly over".

Tell us how the aircraft could get from wherever Tucois said the fly over occurred (assuming you can come up with creative-enough language) to south parking lane 1, headed southwest.

Please. We'll wait.

Seriously. You guys are going to have to go back to the drawing board and get a bit more creative to get a credible "fly over" witness/theory.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Now which set of data do you want to throw out? Flight 93, or Flight 77?

It seems the PA was keeping up and in tolerance when corrected for
Flight 93 and that aircraft was nearly "nose down". How much PA error
did that data receive at a higher rate of descent?



Wow, GREAT point Turbofan. I never thought to look that up.

The last second of data for United 93, according to the NTSB, shows a more than 34,500 fpm descent rate (that's THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND, not three thousand as shown for AA77 data), yet only has a 60 foot error from PA (when adjusted to local MDT [Middleton, not Mountain time for you GL's]) vs. Ground elevation!

So, I suppose those who make excuse for the government story feel a 3,600 fpm descent rate can have almost THREE times the error than a 34,500 fpm descent rate? Perhaps United 757's have THOUSANDS of times more accuracy in their Air Data Computers than do American Airlines?

Which cake do they wish to not eat?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by A W Smith
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.





posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


Really? What does it mean to you when a witness says, "I saw the plane
pick up" and motion with his hand like an aircraft is ascending?



What does it mean to you when a witness says:

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall."

or when a witness says:

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Typical PFT/CIT. Dismiss the witnesses that prove your fantasy wrong.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Do you have independent verified accounts of these quotes, or video
statements?

Anyone can write some text and claim a person said it. Just remember,
I have the ultimate witness statement:


"9/11 was an inside job.", God


Trebor, what plane did Rosevelt see immediately after the explosion if not "AA77"?

Lastly, If the plane was pulling up according to Robert ... it could not have
been descending like the FDR wants us to believe and it could not have
hit the light poles. Why would Hani suddenly pull-up if he was that close
to the Pentagon?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Do you have independent verified accounts of these quotes, or video
statements?

Anyone can write some text and claim a person said it. Just remember,
I have the ultimate witness statement:


Once again, the rant of a no-planer. You don't see it on video, it fails to exist.

Have you ever read a book, Turbofan, or does your research involve watching Pandora's Box on a continuous loop on your DVD player? Try reading "PENTAGON 911" or "FIREFIGHT". Two very good books that deal with facts, not fantasy. If money is an issue, I will be more than happy to send you my copy of them. Or, try amazon.com, they have a used book section where you can get them rather inexpensively.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Trebor, what plane did Rosevelt see immediately after the explosion if not "AA77"?


You tell me. What plane did Robert's see over by lane 1 in south parking at "50 to less than 100 feet" headed southwest when AA 77 was supposed to be "pulling up" as it crosses over Route 27 heading for its fly over"?

Why don't you or CIT go interview Roberts again? Oh that's right - the way you two clubs massacred his words made the PPF ban any of their personnel from talking directly to anyone about this. Nice work, boys! Talk about poisoning the well of information!

Roberts is mistaken in what he saw. Simple as that. So simple even you, Tino, should be able to understand it. There *was* no aircraft over by lane 1 in south parking at "50 to less than 100 feet" headed southwest. NOBODY else saw it. Turcois didn't see it. Brooks and Lagasse didn't see it. Deb Anlauf, Donald Bouchoux , Mike Walter, Sean Boger, Lincoln Liebner, Hugh "Tim" Timmerman, James R. Cissell, Daryl Donley, Bobby Eberle, Penny Elgas, Mary Ann Owens, Scott Perry, Frank Probst , Noel Sepulveda, G. T. Stanley, Steve Storti, Carla Thompson, Terrance Kean, Dave Marra, Mark Petitt , Aziz El Hallou, Robert A. Leonard, Mike Dobbs, Joe Harrington, Rick Renzi, Vin Narayanan, Steve Anderson, Don Wright, Don Chauncey, Steve Gerard, Lesley Kelly, James Robbins, Ken Ford, Christopher Munsey all said nothing about a plane over near lane 1 of south parking and being at “50 to less than 100 feet” and headed southwest. You and CIT are going to have to go back to the drawing board *one more time!* and be a bit more creative in your "fly over" witnesses.

You cannot argue that Turcois is correct as well as Roberts. Well, as PfT you can, which is what is expected here. The aircraft are in two physically different locations, flight regimes, directions, everything, yet PfT argues they are the same plane. Beautiful.

When are those trials again?


Lastly, If the plane was pulling up according to Robert ... it could not have been descending like the FDR wants us to believe and it could not have
hit the light poles. Why would Hani suddenly pull-up if he was that close
to the Pentagon?


Great. We'll be able to get you on record here. What is YOUR pick? Robert Turcois's testimony or the FDR?

If you pick the FDR, then Turcois words are null and void. If you pick Turcois, all your arguments about how the FDR disproves an impact with your football bat argument of the RADALT/PA goes in the trash bin.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

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"

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?


TurboFan,

You are truly an amazing character. Don't get all blushing, now. That was NOT a compliment.

All of your response is typical bombastic Truther BS with zero substance.

Since you are apparently too lazy or too incompetent to provide links to your claims, I searched for your "evidence".

Whereupon I find out that you are too incompetent to get the names right.
The first guy's name is not "Turcious". It is Robert Turcios.
The second guy's name was NOT "R. Rosevelts". It was "Roosevelt Roberts, Jr."

You possess a Truther's typically abysmal inability to get the simplest of facts correct. Quel surpris...!

I just finished listening to the interview between CIT & Mr. Roberts.
Audio found here: www.thepentacon.com... .
Transcript of that pathetic imitation of "an interview" found here: /ybopssv

In which, one can hear the amusing sounds of Mr. Marquis shoe-horning his own "facts" into the opinions of Mr. Roberts. While Mr. Roberts is a bit distracted while driving.

LMAO... GREAT technique to get someone to allegedly say whatever you want them to...

BTW, TF. The fact that another plane was flying overhead (at a couple thousand feet) is not in doubt. It was the C-130, piloted by Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. Who watched AA77 plow into the Pentagon.
www.youtube.com...

And here is the testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses.

ALL of whom see AA77 plow into the side of the building. Just like Col. O'Brien.
NONE of whom see another plane buzz the Pentagon. Just like Col. O'Brien.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Of the above, 104 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Here are a couple of dozen videos of eyewitnesses taken ON SEPT. 11th (not years later) of people who witnessed AA77 hit the Pentagon.
www.911reality.com...

NOT ONE mentions the giant passenger jet that buzzes over the top of the Pentagon.

Are they all lying, TF?
Or are the CIT folks just "creating testimony"?

Now comes the interesting question, TF. You've been shown all of the above 100 times before.

Why do you continue to ignore the eyewitness testimony of 100s of people??
Why do you continue to promulgate the baloney of a couple of amatuer Clouseau's who fabricate their own "testimony"??

Tom



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
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.


Sure thing.

A couple dozen "videos" of eyewitnesses, recorded on 9/11/01.
www.911reality.com...
[Note: same videos from post above.]

Since "YouTube-ology" is the only "scientific method" (??) that you acknowledge. LMAO.

Tom



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by turbofan
Now which set of data do you want to throw out? Flight 93, or Flight 77?

It seems the PA was keeping up and in tolerance when corrected for
Flight 93 and that aircraft was nearly "nose down". How much PA error
did that data receive at a higher rate of descent?



Wow, GREAT point Turbofan. I never thought to look that up.

The last second of data for United 93, according to the NTSB, shows a more than 34,500 fpm descent rate (that's THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND, not three thousand as shown for AA77 data), yet only has a 60 foot error from PA (when adjusted to local MDT [Middleton, not Mountain time for you GL's]) vs. Ground elevation!

So, I suppose those who make excuse for the government story feel a 3,600 fpm descent rate can have almost THREE times the error than a 34,500 fpm descent rate? Perhaps United 757's have THOUSANDS of times more accuracy in their Air Data Computers than do American Airlines?

Which cake do they wish to not eat?


Some people's kids...

Why are you still POSING as Ryan Mackey & LYING to everyone?

Just curious...

Tom

[edit on 3-11-2009 by tomk52]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Balsamo's sock ...
The last second of data for United 93, ..., a 60 foot error from PA (when adjusted to local MDT [Middleton, not Mountain time for you GL's]) vs. Ground elevation!
Which cake do they wish to not eat?

The terrorist loyalists did not show the work. Where is the calculation for the PA error; what is the source of PA in flight 93. What were the errors on takeoff? What is the altimeter setting for takeoff for 93, and the altimeter setting where 93 crashed. Wait, you guys say 93 never crashed; 93 is still airborne.

What was the altimeter setting for 93 when it taxied out (30.11 130 foot PA error)?

The TLs admit a 60 foot error in PA in PA; without showing any work at all. Where is the 11.2G math to go with your cupcakes?

Please show your work on how you determined a 60 foot error for flight 93 with the last second of PA = 2189'. In your presentation please show how you determined the actual height of Flight 93, how you calculated the QNH, and other evidence to support your effort. Thank you very much

You never explained why the pilot for truth FDR decode has 5 columns for RA after schooling me on the 6 RADALT related values in the 1,110 parameter file. Why does your sanctioned decode with stolen software have 5 RA columns when there are 3 RADALT sets?

[edit on 3-11-2009 by iSunTzu]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
Why are you still POSING as Ryan Mackey & LYING to everyone?

Just curious...

Tom

[edit on 3-11-2009 by tomk52]


Isn't it obvious? Cap't Bob has some problems understanding that his qualifications are not all that impressive so he has to impersonate someone else on the web who's qualifications *are* impressive.

Just what we have come to expect from the PfT Boys.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by tomk52
Why are you still POSING as Ryan Mackey & LYING to everyone?

Just curious...

Tom

[edit on 3-11-2009 by tomk52]


Isn't it obvious? Cap't Bob has some problems understanding that his qualifications are not all that impressive so he has to impersonate someone else on the web who's qualifications *are* impressive.

Just what we have come to expect from the PfT Boys.


Did you see his "out", from the post at the top of this page??

Supply your own self-righteous, teenage whine here:


"So you think that he's the ONLY 'R. Mackey' in the world...?"



I assume that everyone over 50 is all too familiar with the "lying teenager two-step".

Non-brain-dead Adult: "Where have you been?"
Brain-dead Teenager: [Picture of innocence...] "Out with my friend, Ryan Mackey. You know, the guy from school that you like."
NBD A: "Yeah, I know Ryan. You weren't with him."
BD T: [Horrible imitation of annoyance. Slight nervousness...] "Yes, I was."
NBD A: "I talked to Ryan's parents."
BD T: [Eyes starting to go wide.] "Well, they don't know everything that Ryan does."
NBD A: "After I talked to them, I talked to Ryan."
BD T: [Full body pucker. 72 point, neon pink "Oh, oh" scrolls across forehead. ...Looooooong pause... Eyes brightening...] "Oh, you're so dumb...! You think that he's the ONLY "Ryan Mackey" in our school...?"

Thanks "R_Mackey". It's been years since I've had a good laugh like this.

Gee, Cap'n Bob. Life's tough when you can't CENSOR people for the unforgivable sin of questioning your mendacious butt, ain't it?!! LoL.

Tom


[edit on 3-11-2009 by tomk52]

[edit on 3-11-2009 by tomk52]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join