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: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
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.


Oh it goes beyond that. Only eyewitnesses interviewed and approved by 'truthers' are credible, even though to a person they claim the plane hi the Pentagon.

This whole thread lost 'truther' credibility when R_Mackey, aka Capt'n Bob showed up. I take nothing presented by liars with much credibility. Here yoiu have one claiming nothing on the internet is credible unless 'independently verified' and then another posting nothing but links to material on the internet.

I am not a pilot or aerospace engineer, but there are four seperate values for RA recorded in the FDR. Some have claimed there are 3 RA instruments (with pictures) and others claim there is just one. I don't know enough to resolve the matter. What I do know is that there are 4 recorded, and all 4 meet every test I can come up with to show that they are extremely reliable for the 12 recorded flights. There is only one recorded PA, and it has demonstrated a significant inaccuracy for the available dataset. I also know that a device measuring air pressure is going to have some significant challenges at the speeds recorded at end-of-flight.

Sad that a person with such low credibility would diminish what little might be left of it by stealing the ID of someone who does have credibility to post in an internet forum.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
This whole thread lost 'truther' credibility when R_Mackey, aka Capt'n Bob showed up. I take nothing presented by liars with much credibility. Here yoiu have one claiming nothing on the internet is credible unless 'independently verified' and then another posting nothing but links to material on the internet.


Sad that a person with such low credibility would diminish what little might be left of it by stealing the ID of someone who does have credibility to post in an internet forum.


Yes its also sad that there is no R-Mackey registered over at pilots for twoof. You would think someone who defended it and was so familiar with it would register there. You have been outed Balsamo as a liar. And this bears repeating.




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.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Anytime you guys are exhausted from your Balsamo Bashfest, feel free to address the issues. Here they are again from page 9 and 10.


Originally posted by R_Mackey

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.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Anytime you guys are exhausted from your Balsamo Bashfest, feel free to address the issues.

The number of members in this thread who have called other members liars, is incredible.

I hope that they have looked at the terms and conditions of this website. Accusations are difficult to retract when they have been quoted.


Can anyone explain this to me:
Who is Warren Stutt affiliated with? I've read some of his posts on some forums but I don't know if he has any official title with respect to the 9/11 investigations. I've clicked on his website, but it does not list any credentials with regards to being an official 9/11 investigator. Is he just an independent researcher?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by R_Mackey
 



Originally posted by R_Mackey
Anytime you guys are exhausted from your Balsamo Bashfest, feel free to address the issues. Here they are again from page 9 and 10.


Originally posted by R_Mackey

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.




I answered your questions.

I provided 63 (out of 64) "serial numbers": the DNA of all, but one, of the passengers & crew on the plane. As described here: www.pbs.org...
And in several places, here: /ykz39lc

Here's the DNA report. Not that you'll read it...
web.archive.org...://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf

And finally, "we" don't have to prove anything about the altitude calibration of the FDR.

YOU are the silly, silly little boys who are claiming that:
1. the data taken off of THIS FDR recorder [ www.911myths.com...
911_fdr.jpg ],
2. pulled out of THIS wreckage [ www.911myths.com... ] ...

... PROVES that ...

... [wait for it] ...

"... THAT FDR was not pulled out of THAT wreckage...?!!

One does have to admire your chutzpah, if not your common sense, in taking such a stance. Your common sense clearly does not rise to the amount possessed by your slightly-above-average-IQ fence post.

Silly, silly boys.

Tom

PS. BTW, there are numerous, completely understandable explanations for your 150 foot altimeter difference. Those explanations include 1) lag time, 2) excessive speed of the plane (outside the altimeter calibration envelope) and (my fave) 3) G forces on the delicate internal mechanisms of the altimeter.

All of these factors WILL, without question, affect the accuracy of a baro-altimeter.

As explained above, which factor is the predominant one is totally irrelevant.

Since THAT FDR came out of THAT wreckage. (Think about it for another 5 or 6 years. Perhaps the light will dawn someday. LoL.)

PPS. Why are you still posting as "R_Mackey", even tho you've been busted as a poseur?

Mucho Chutzpah.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by tomk52]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tomk52
 


The 3rd & 4th links in my post above have characters that apparently glitch ATS's url recognition.



Here they are on their own.

The DNA Report

The Flight Data Recorder from the Pentagon

OK, that works.

Tom



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
I provided 63 (out of 64) "serial numbers"


Where? Do they match the maintenance log for N644AA?



the DNA of all, but one, of the passengers & crew on the plane. As described here: www.pbs.org...
And in several places, here: /ykz39lc

Here's the DNA report. Not that you'll read it...
web.archive.org...://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf


DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show - NY Times, Aug 17, 2009

SCANDAL TOUCHES EVEN ELITE LABS - Chicago Tribune, Oct 21, 2004.


And finally, "we" don't have to prove anything about the altitude calibration of the FDR.


You do if you want to prove your theory.


YOU are the silly, silly little boys who are claiming that:


Violation ATS T&C 2.



1. the data taken off of THIS FDR recorder [ www.911myths.com...
911_fdr.jpg ],
2. pulled out of THIS wreckage [ www.911myths.com... ] ...

... PROVES that ...

... [wait for it] ...

"... THAT FDR was not pulled out of THAT wreckage...?!!


Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II



Silly, silly boys.


Violation ATS T&C 2.



Those explanations include 1) lag time, 2) excessive speed of the plane (outside the altimeter calibration envelope) and (my fave) 3) G forces on the delicate internal mechanisms of the altimeter.


All speculation.

Here are facts.
Air Data Calibration and Measurement



PPS. Why are you still posting as "R_Mackey",


Off topic.

It's the name I chose.


even tho you've been busted as a poseur?


Unproven speculation and false accusation.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Who faked the DNA for the people killed? Has anyone told the victim families of this ridiculous fantasy claim? 8 years and no evidence for anything to refute 77 impacting the Pentagon.

The final pitch readings in the FDR are negative. No fly over.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey


PPS. Why are you still posting as "R_Mackey",


Off topic.

It's the name I chose.


even tho you've been busted as a poseur?


Unproven speculation and false accusation.


And yet just a few posts up you claimed to be "just another R Mackey". ???


Originally posted by R_Mackey

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

[edit on 2-11-2009 by R_Mackey]


Not many get to choose their birth name Rob. Why is it that you demand that others post under a real name and chastise those who post under a pseudonym? But fail to hold yourself to those same standards Rob Balsamo?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan

Turbofan,


Originally posted by Reheat 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.



Originally posted by turbofan
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?


Not quite.

By adding piping "and stuff", the ERROR in the reading goes up by 50'.

Since the "and stuff" includes a bunch of stuff that is outside of the control of the altimeter manufacturer, including:

1. the length & diameter of the piping
2. the number of other systems that are accessing (read "changing") the static pressure

But MOST importantly:

The error between the actual static pressure away from the plane and the static pressure measured at the static port. And this measured static pressure is affected by:

3. the location of the static port on the plane,
4. the effect of the shape of the plane on the stability of the flowstream around the plane, and specifically at the location of the static ports.
5. the effect of the plane's attitude on the flowstream at the static ports.
6. the effect of the plane's airspeed on the flowstream at the static ports.

So the measured static pressure changes with ALL of those effects. Meaning that the INSTALLED performance will be much less accurate than the BENCH TOP performance. Just as Reheat told you.


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



Originally posted by turbofan
Please provide your source for alternate system tolerances in/outside
of the aircraft.


How about 200+ years of basic, remedial level engineering. That proves, without question, that the errors associated with components & installation are ADDITIVE when determining the errors in the final product.

Have you ever heard of ANSI Y-14? It's the standard way that desigers define geometric dimensions & tolerances. And determine what level of accuracy you are going to get out of an assembly, based on the tolerances (i.e., errors) in the components. And the geometric errors in the final assembly are ALWAYS greater than the errors in the components.

Just the same way, FUNCTIONAL errors in a finished assembly (in this case, the plane) are always GREATER than the individual functional errors associated with the component (in this case, the altimeter, the piping, the static ports, the other instruments, etc.).

Just as the FAA error allowances for installed altimeters are greater than the instrument-only allowances.

Just as the FAA has increased error allowances based on airspeed. ("X feet per 100 knots". I forget the number off the top of my head.)

You are aware, I assume, that an altimeter will read HIGHER in elevation the faster that a plane in level flight goes, aren't you? You are familiar with Bernoulli's Principle, aren't you?

Geeesh... this is trivial stuff, Turbofan.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tomk52
 


Great post, Tom!

You've put it all together in one concise post. This amply shows the "technologist" for what he really is.....a "gogleinvestigator" without a clue.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
You are aware, I assume, that an altimeter will read HIGHER in elevation the faster that a plane in level flight goes, aren't you? You are familiar with Bernoulli's Principle, aren't you?

Geeesh... this is trivial stuff, Turbofan.


I see Tom still hasn't read the Airdata And Calibration links provided for him numerous times.

Tom, you are partially correct with respect to a Cessna 172. Most of the errors you express are carefully examined and minimized in plumbing chosen, length, location of ports. etc/

High to low, look out below, low to high, kiss the sky... etc etc... such errors are removed via air data computers and data acquisition units on modern jet aircraft.

It's simple arithmetic to remove such errors once the variables are known. This is why there is testing prior to an aircraft being type certified. But again, it is still yet to be proven if the data we are speaking of in this topic, came from N644AA, or if N644AA caused the damage at the Pentagon.

The reason the FAA gives a max requirement of +/- 75 feet error is mainly due to the fact you aren't always at the exact point on the field where field elevation is measured and recorded on the chart. It's also due to wear and tear. Over time, the aneroid wafers in altimeters wear, and therefore will not set to exact field elevation. This error does not wear/increase in one flight. It takes years for an aneriod wafer to wear. Therefore the same error at take-off is the same error applied throughout the flight. Once exceeding 75 feet, they then need to be either replaced or re-calibrated. Altimeters are required to be inspected and serviced every 24 months.


It's funny to see some here tout the VSI, the most laggy instrument on an aircraft, has the lag errors removed in an IVVI/IVSI, yet claim that lag errors are never removed from Pressure Altitude read off the ADC. Tom, how can a VSI be calibrated for instantaneous readings and free of errors, yet a PA be full of errors, when both sense pressure from the same static port? It's kind of like Ryan Mackey at JREF claiming .70 is above Mcrit for the 757, yet at the same time claims the aircraft is extremely controllable.

By the way, has anyone yet informed Ryan Mackey at JREF that Boeings do not "typically cruise" above their Critical Mach? Not a very credible statement from someone claiming to be a NASA scientist.

Weedwacker, you claim to be a 757 pilot, what is Mcrit on the 757? Did you "typically cruise" above such a number? If not, why not?

So, to sum up,

Page 12 and it still has not been proven this new data from Warren is from N644AA, it has not been proven N644AA caused the damage at the Pentagon, it has not been proven that the data provided by Warren is more than 150 feet in error, it has not been proven Warren's decode is even correct (no one has verified his program), and it still has not been proven from which object the RA is measuring.

What has been proven is some people prefer theory, personal attacks, false accusations, violating ATS T&C, and are more concerned with the UserID I chose to register, instead of attempting to seek truth.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

What has been proven is some people prefer theory, personal attacks, false accusations, violating ATS T&C, and are more concerned with the UserID I chose to register, instead of attempting to seek truth.


What we want to know Balsamo, is why you chose to use Ryan Mackey's name as your user name when you have two other names here at ATS.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by R_Mackey

What has been proven is some people prefer theory, personal attacks, false accusations, violating ATS T&C, and are more concerned with the UserID I chose to register, instead of attempting to seek truth.


What we want to know Balsamo, is why you chose to use Ryan Mackey's name as your user name when you have two other names here at ATS.



And he wonders why no one takes him seriously. I'm not sure they understand air pressure changes at high speeds over there at P4T. But then again, isn't it differences in air pressure over a curved surface that makes a plane possible in the first place?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
What has been proven is some people prefer theory, personal attacks, false accusations, violating ATS T&C, and are more concerned with the UserID I chose to register, instead of attempting to seek truth.

Amen to that and I'm not even religious.

If I recall correctly, ATS has a policy where a (famous) person must prove themselves to use their proper ID. I think it was in the UFO threads over a year ago when Jose Escamilla used his own name to login. He had to justify to the Moderators and/or Springer that he was who he said he was. I might be wrong on the details, I'm not searching for the thread now. Similarly, John Lear used johnlear as his login name. Presumably the same would be true for Robbie Williams, if he wanted to use his name, instead of chrisonabike.

If the alleged NASA scientist, Ryan Mackey wanted to join ATS and use his name, then he would need to prove his identity first. However, in this instance - R_Mackey is a free choice of name. R could mean anything... Robert, Roger, Ronald, Randy...

Back to the topic, no one answered me about my Warren Stutt questions... can anyone give me a couple of sentences explaining Warren Stutt?

Reheat's lack of detail in his OP speaks for itself. He only mentions 'an Australian', not the name of the Australian. He doesn't link to the other thread that he mentioned and he doesn't link to any of the data. It just seemd to be a bait for turbofan to respond.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw





Back to the topic, no one answered me about my Warren Stutt questions... can anyone give me a couple of sentences explaining Warren Stutt?



Did you look into his website? He is an Aussie, like you!

www.warrenstutt.com...

If you are interested in him, might I suggest you e-mail him?

wstutt@warrenstutt.com

He seems like a pretty decent person. He is a member of PFT & JREF.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Did you look into his website? He is an Aussie, like you!

I mentioned in my post nearer the top of this page where I stated that I looked at his website. Other than some basic links, it still does not answer my questions about him.


Originally posted by ImAPepper
If you are interested in him, might I suggest you e-mail him?

It seems that I'll have to email him, if no one in this thread can give me a couple of sentences describing who he is and who he is affiliated with.

Thanks, anyway.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
But then again, isn't it differences in air pressure over a curved surface that makes a plane possible in the first place?


You are correct 911Files. The curvature of the upper surface of the wing creates a low pressure, therefore a higher pressure under the wing. High pressure always travels to low. This creates lift. This is basic aerodynamics 101.

Unfortunately for your theory, the static port is located below the wing chord (notice Tom dropped this argument when I asked him to provide a front view of static port location). Being that the static port is located below the wing, and therefore in a high pressure zone, and the fact the aircraft was "pulling G's" at such a time, this would artificially create a lower reading in PA due to high pressure. Meaning the actual aircraft altitude is higher than the PA data point, if there were any such error.

911Files, do you also agree with Ryan Mackey that Boeing's "typically cruise" above their critical mach?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
By adding piping "and stuff", the ERROR in the reading goes up by 50'.


B.S.! How far away is the Pressure Altimeter from the static port?

Can you tell me were the static port is located on a Boeing 757-200
in relation to the Pressure Altimeter?


1. the length & diameter of the piping


Wow, this should be good. Tell me the length AND diameter of the static
tubing.



2. the number of other systems that are accessing (read "changing") the static pressure


If the aircraft uses a pitot-static port, the PA only draws from the outer
tube indicating static pressure.



3. the location of the static port on the plane,
4. the effect of the shape of the plane on the stability of the flowstream around the plane, and specifically at the location of the static ports.
5. the effect of the plane's attitude on the flowstream at the static ports.
6. the effect of the plane's airspeed on the flowstream at the static ports.


I'm well aware of this. Tell me where the static port is located and
you will have encompassed all of these considerations.



So the measured static pressure changes with ALL of those effects. Meaning that the INSTALLED performance will be much less accurate than the BENCH TOP performance. Just as Reheat told you.


B.S.! More ramblings. Let's see some data. Some links. Let's see some
physics!

You show me a tube of x feet of length that drops a significant amount
of pressure along its length.

The only way you'll get an extreme static error along a short length of
tube is IF the port is blocked precventing the pressure from equalizing
in the Pressure Altimeter.

This garbage about 50 foot of altimeter error between the vent port and
static port is a freaking laugh.

YOu have some questions to answer to show me you and/or Reheat know
the location of the static port in relation to the PA.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

By the way, has anyone yet informed Ryan Mackey at JREF that Boeings do not "typically cruise" above their Critical Mach? Not a very credible statement from someone claiming to be a NASA scientist.



Why don't you tell him genius? I mean you got all that credibility goin for ya? right champ?

en.wikipedia.org...




Early transonic military aircraft such as the Hawker Hunter and F-86 Sabre were designed to fly satisfactorily faster than their Critical Mach number. They did not possess sufficient engine thrust to reach Mach 1.0 in level flight but could be dived to Mach 1.0 and beyond, and remain controllable. Modern passenger-carrying jet aircraft such as Airbus and Boeing aircraft have Maximum Operating Mach numbers slower than Mach 1.0 but they are routinely operated faster than their Critical Mach numbers.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join