New FDR Decode, page 14

privacy

Pages: << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 01:37 PM by iSunTzu

Originally posted by R_Mackey

The NTSB Flight Path Study and csv file provided by the NTSB claimed to be decoded by the NTSB from AA77 FDR, conflicts with Warren's data.

The software used by P4T to decode the FDR file was not stolen. Yet another unproven libelous false accusation from those who find anything to support their government dictated theory.

You guys said the software was stolen. I found your discussion by google your fantasy web sites it revealed, the person supplying the software had to be secret or get fired. That sounds like stolen to me. Clear it up and source the software supplied; names, companies etc. Please clear this up. Who supplied the software and what company was it from.

The NTSB csv file matches Warren's data, and as such is verified both ways. Even witnesses and RADAR verify Warren's data, and the NTSB data. If you could prove your lie that the data conflicts you would prove it and not make posts of trying to talk your lie away. Prove it with facts, math and other science; no more talk. For once get some substance from all your FAA verified pilots.

The NTSB data verifies Warren’s independent original decode, your pilot for truth stolen software decode verifies warren’s decode.

Picked at random, numbers decoded by the NTSB, Warren, and pilots for truth sanctioned decode. Values Vertical G, longitudinal G, lateral G, Altitude, Heading Mag, Airspeed, N1left, N1 right, and Pitch.

NTSB 8:29:31, 0.97, 0.1, -0.003, 21588, 278.8, 319.5, 96.5, 96.4, 4.9
Warren got the same numbers!
Pilot for Truth OOPS, -0.022 lateral G; math? Pitch 4.92 very close for FAA verified pilots. 320 on the Airspeed, mislabeled. Cute on the magnetic heading -81.2 on the heading which means 360 - 81.2 = 278.8 BINGO, pilots for truth verify Warren, and the NTSB!

Please explain how you make up lies about Warren not matching the NTSB?

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 02:08 PM by Reheat

reply to post by turbofan

Most folks, when they are in a hole, stop digging. I told you the reason there is a difference between what the FAA requires for an installed system versus the Altimeter bench test specs.

Only Googleologists (such as yourself) are familiar with the manufacturing specs. Pilots, on the other hand know what the AIM says and that's what they use to determine if an altimeter meets the accuracy requirements for flight, both VFR and IFR. If you don't accept this then find an ATP rated pilot not in the cult that would delay a flight for an ~70' altimeter error. Maintenance will laugh and dispatch would tell him the altimeter meets FAA requirements.

That hole is getting deep. If you dig far enough it will exit somewhere in China!

This is my 13th green fly I've killed this afternoon They keep getting nastier.

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 02:17 PM by turbofan

reply to post by Reheat

Those 13 flies should read, 'FRIES"... as in what you serve at your day job.

You have no proof, no source, no physics to back up YOUR THEORY that
a pressure altimeter introduces an automatic 50 foot error below 1000 feet
when installed in the aircraft.

You should also know these tolerances are max. possible limits and do not
imply that a device will operate on the extreme end of the scale. The devices
are designed to work at typical values, NOT at their limits. This is something
your GL clan loves to forget when 'studying' the data. You have to make
the sensors operate at max tolerance (in your favour of course), or operate
out of tolerance to make your story fit.

PLEASE show me an aircraft rated static tube that exhibits such a great
pressure loss that it would produce 50 foot error!

You do realize other instruments are connected to this static port and
their readings would be effected too? Well, guess what...the data doesn't
reflect your theory unfortunately.

Just remember when you're swatting those fries:

- I have an FAA calibration spec that shows a tolerance of +/- 20 feet
below 1000 feet.

- I have a link to an avionics mfg. that shows the specifications in the
FAA/FAR regulations have absolutely NOTHING to do with performance
and tolerance of a product.

- I have other "NTSB" data which shows a corrected PA that is within
tolerance on an aircraft that had a higher descent rate, being "Flight 93"

- I have access to real Boeing documentation through real pilots and
other aviation professionals that are registered at FAA.gov

You have nothing but a theory...much like every thread over at JREF.

Keep those bird strikes coming!

P.S. IsunTzu: P4T didn't steal any software. An employee from ARINC
met with one of the P4T members privately to find out the truth. His identity
remained hidden to prevent loss of his job when no other agency would
come through. Nothing wrong with that imo.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by turbofan]

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 02:40 PM by tomk52

reply to post by R_Mackey

Rob,

Are you an utter child?

Is saying "OK, I'll concede that trivial point" some sort of personal affront that you cannot endure? Everyone makes mistakes, Rob.

Even me, Rob.
Even the REAL "R_Mackey".
Adults admit mistakes, Rob.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
You may want to look up the term "irrelevant". The dihedral is "irrelevant" to the relative position between the wings & the static ports.

757 Diagram
Tom, Dihedral is very relevant. Take that front view above, diagram the location of the static port, and draw a line from the static port to the tip of the wing parallel to the ground.

Who gives a rat's butt about the tip of the wings, Rob?? The static port is not out at the tip of the wing. Nor half way out the wing.

Nobody has to DIAGRAM squat, Rob. In the image that I provided, you can SEE the static ports. You can SEE the wing roots. You can see their relative locations.

Rob, are you daft? Are you unable to look at a photograph? Do you think that others are unable to look at a photo and see this?

Here. Look again. Static Ports & Wings for a 757

It is mounted on the fuselage. Directly IN FRONT OF the wing root. Not below the wing. Not above the wing. Directly in front of the wing root. For the express purpose of keeping it OUT OF high & low pressures created below & above the wing as much as possible.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
The static port is below the wing chord for the length of the wing and therefore in the high pressure zone.

DID YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN REFERENCE??

Allow me to quote:

"Figure 3 [see link below. -tk] shows a typical subsonic static pressure distribution on an aircraft fuselage (ref. 2). The measured minus true static pressure, ∆P, normalized to compressible dynamic pressure, qc, is plotted as a function of fuselage position. Zero static pressure error on the fuselage exists at locations 2 through 5. One of these locations is chosen for the static port."

Here's the referenced diagram, Rob: Static Pressure Distribution

Note that this diagram is showing a PRINCIPLE, Rob. The diagram shows "a TYPICAL subsonic static pressure distribution". On a typical, generic airframe. The PRINCIPLE is clearly enunciated in the paragraph above. The PRINCIPLE is that you put the static ports at locations where the static pressure, along the fuselage, deviates from the true, freestream static pressure AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.

The static ports are NOT mounted in any high pressure areas. Most specifically not in the one below the wings.
They are NOT mounted in any low pressure areas. Most specifically not in the one above the wings.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
The static port is NOT in the low pressure zone above the wing, which is required for your theory.

Are you truly balmy, Rob??

Why do you make up lies & then clumsily, buffoonishly attempt to attribute them to me?

Only a fool, a liar or a twoofer would interpret ANYTHING that I've posted as a claim that the ports were "in the low pressure zone above the wing".

Are you a fool, Rob?
A liar, Rob?
A twoofer, Rob?

Are those questions straight out of the "Department of Redundancy Department", Rob?

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Pitch attitude does not matter as the static port will always be in the high pressure zone below the wing chord.

[facepalm]

Tom

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 02:54 PM by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
The static ports are NOT mounted in any high pressure areas. Most specifically not in the one below the wings.

Check the static port on any high wing aircraft. It is below the wing. A Cherokee has the static port directly underneath the wing almost half the span away from the fuselage on the back of the pitot tube! This alone proves your above statement false.

The static pressure below the wing is higher than the pressure above the wing. The pressure under the wing is ambient. Bernoulli's principle creates a low pressure above the wing. This is why static ports are located below the wing, in the "high pressure zone" (as compared to above the wing).

This zone extends from the wing root to the wing tip.

Now, you noticed the PA dropped in altitude at rotation, it can only drop in altitude if the pressure is higher than previously. How do you think the pressure got higher at the static port during rotation?

All else is again personal attacks and ad homs. Tom, relax, take some deep breaths. Your frustration is showing.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 03:25 PM by tomk52

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
Nonetheless, I have read it carefully. And it simply reinforced the points that I made.

If you read it, you would know that it does not reinforce anything you have been saying and in fact proves how errors are removed from the static system during type certificate testing.

No,... Anaeroid[sic] wafers do not "wear".

Make a phone call and learn.

www.google.com...=en&q=duncan+avionics&aq=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=642c18fb4411ca2e

I don't need to make a phone call, Rob.

And Duncan Aviation is a "Systems integrator", Rob. They don't make the components. They install them. They replace them. They calibrate them.

I've designed & built several components that use corrugated diaphragms. Including linear electromagnetic actuator and, whaddayknow, aneroids for barometers.

You design the aneroids such that the corrugated diaphragms mount back-to-back, and are typically electron beam welded in a vacuum along an outer flat to form the capsule. The internal mating surfaces of the radii of the outermost corrugation are designed to ROLL on each other when the bellows contracts & expands.

ROLLING motion, Rob, produces no sliding. No sliding means "no wear", Rob. And there are no other moving parts in the capsules, Rob.

The typical, long term failure modes of aneroids are:
1) a pinhole leak that loses the internal vacuum.
2) aging of the diaphragm material (i.e., loss of temper).

Neither one of these failure modes is "wear", Rob.

Just a detail, Rob. No biggie.

Tom

[edit on 6-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 03:40 PM by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
I don't need to make a phone call.

And Duncan Aviation is a "Systems integrator". They don't make the components. They install them. They replace them. They calibrate them.

1-800-228-4277

Ask for Joe at the bench who has replaced worn aneroid wafers in altimeters.

The typical, long term failure modes of aneroids are:
1) a pinhole leak that loses the internal vacuum.

This is known as Tear.

Also..

They are sealed at 29.92, not in a vacuum.

A stack of sealed aneroid wafers comprise the main component of the altimeter. An aneroid wafer is a sealed wafer that is evacuated to an internal pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury (29.92 "Hg).

Source Page 3

If they were sealed in a vacuum, they wouldn't move with changes in static pressure and be flat all the time.

You sure you build these things?

2) aging of the diaphragm material (i.e., loss of temper).

This is known as wear.

Wear and tear, just what I said is part of the reason the FAA set limits at +/- 75 feet from field elevation.

(although a pinhole would need immediate replacement)

Aging doesn't cause an altimeter to have a more than 150 foot error in one flight.

To sum up, still no proof the data belongs to N644AA, no proof N644AA caused the damage at the Pentagon, no proof for the claimed 150 PA "error", no proof for the object measured by RA.

Hopefully someone will provide proof in the next 14 pages.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 04:10 PM by iSunTzu

89, 57, 4, are the RADALT readings from the last three seconds of Flight 77 before a terrorist pilot fly 77 clumsily into the Pentagon having to pull 1.7 Gs in the last second to avoid smacking into the overpass.

89 feet, 57 feet, and 4 feet from an instrument accurate in use to 1 foot. During flight this is accurate to 1 foot or 2 percent.

The altimeter is accurate to +-75 feet in use before moving, can be off over 200 feet in flight and the reading on the FDR are outside of a 757 certification speed. Proved to be over 50 feet off by calculating the elevation at takeoff. This is easy to take Flight 77 data and see the errors in altitude STORED in the FDR. All I can do is remember the charts showing what reality is.

Why is the altimeter showing errors from known elevations of over 50 feet. What were the errors in Flight 93 on the runway? I showed the math on takeoff for Flight 77, all the over flight no Flight 77 impact have done is talk about static accuracy of +-20 feet just sitting at sea level at certification speeds and normal flight activities. I have yet to see normal flight activities include flying at full throttle, at 89, 57, and 4 feet above the ground at 483 KIAS pulling 1.7Gs. Nice try but the no plane crowd has lost sight of what altimeter parameter is stored acting as if it is what the pilot see in his presentation; it is not, it is the raw data from the altimeter stored in the FDR incase the NTSB needs to see if it was accurate and corrections made to that value were right.

89 feet, 57 feet, and 4 feet accurate to 1 foot. Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, the RADALT supports that fact, as does finding the FDR in the Pentagon.

The fantasy of a fly over is dashed by the FDR, DNA, and tons of aircraft parts.

Flight 77 engine. Evidence of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon never refuted with facts and evidence.

Flyover, never supported with fact and evidence. No RADAR return for the fly over.

What was the quibbling on the 4 foot RADAR Altimeter again?

reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 07:40 PM by tomk52

Originally posted by R_Mackey
... blah, blah, techno-babble ...
Check the static port on any high wing aircraft. It is below the wing. A Cherokee has ...

It's NOT a hang glider.
It's NOT a Cherokee.
It's NOT the Goodyear blimp.
It's a Boeing 757.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
blah, blah, blah...
misdirection, misdirection, misdirection...
technobabble, technobabble, technobabble...
This is why static ports are located below the wing, in the "high pressure zone" (as compared to above the wing).

AHHHHH...

Now the goal posts have been replanted at: "... high pressure zone (AS COMPARED TO ABOVE THE WING)."

Not clever in the slightest, Rob. Deceptive & childish.

They are not put into "a high pressure (as compared to above the wing)".
They are not put into "a low pressure (as compared to below the wing)".
They are not put into "an aft position (as compared to the nose of the plane)".
They are not put into "a forward position (as compared to the tail of the plane)".

From Your Own Reference, Rob. LOOK AT IT, Rob.

Static Pressure Distribution

The static ports are NOT placed in ANY of the high or low pressure zones. They are placed, as nearly as possible, at one of the 4 points (point #2, #3, #4 or #5) that are NEITHER high NOR low pressure zones.

In the case of the 757, it is placed (for obvious reasons) at point #3, (although lower on the fuselage).

Your own reference says that your "high pressure zone below the wing" claim is utter rubbish.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Now, you noticed the PA dropped in altitude at rotation, it can only drop in altitude if the pressure is higher than previously. How do you think the pressure got higher at the static port during rotation?

Changed AoA. Which changes the flowstream around the fuselage, and changes this entire Pressure Profile.
__

BTW, you do not ELIMINATE sensor errors. You REDUCE them.

And you reduce them by taking lots of data points during your flight testing, and then generating "Empirical Equations". The general way to do this is to create 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th order polynomial equations in each of your independent variables. These multivariate polynomials are generally very good at eliminating error WHEN YOU INTERPOLATE within experimental data points. They frequently blow up and give you large errors WHEN YOU EXTRAPOLATE outside of your experimental data points.

For example, when you have generated an airspeed corrections at sea level for your PA sensor. If your experimental airspeeds data is taken between, say, 80 kts & 350 kts, you can expect that the very same empirical corrections that keep your PA accurate within that range will produce sizable errors at sea level & 500 kts.

This is "sensor calibration 101", Rob.

You can not possibly be this dense. Ergo, you are being childishly argumentative.

You're not "frustrating", Rob. Just annoying.

Tom

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:23 AM by 911files

Originally posted by R_Mackey
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?

Yes Rob, I know about the lift thing, Dr. Snyder had me deriving a few equations for it back in the 'good ole days'. All of what you say is fine and dandy at low speeds, but based on the RA and acc data in the FDR, there was definitely something going on in that environment which has the PA marching to a different drummer.

I have no opinion on 'critical mach'. Not my area.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:24 AM by R_Mackey

Good evening Tom,

Originally posted by tomk52

Originally posted by R_Mackey
... blah, blah, techno-babble ...
Check the static port on any high wing aircraft. It is below the wing. A Cherokee has ...

Originally posted by R_Mackey
blah, blah, blah...
misdirection, misdirection, misdirection...
technobabble, technobabble, technobabble...
This is why static ports are located below the wing, in the "high pressure zone" (as compared to above the wing).

Editing quotes. Very mature Tom.

Tom, I'll be honest with you. I am a bit tired of going round and round with someone who is unable to make a post without personal attacks. I have let it slide that you refer to me as "Rob", "Fraud", "Poser". without proof (which I believe is also against ATS T&C), but the personal attacks in every-single-post you type are just getting to be a bit much for an adult discussion. If this were a debate in a proper venue, you would have lost long ago. When you claimed that aneroid wafers are sealed with an internal vacuum for the purpose of measuring pressure just confirmed my suspicions that this argument is a waste of time and it appears you are just making stuff up as you post, perhaps googling the terms while trying to keep up, as did Ryan Mackey when he parroted the Wiki claims that Boeing's typically cruise above their critical mach.

Tom, if you accept Warren's AA77 decoded data, you must accept UA93 data. Please view the UA93 data. The "error" at take-off is the same exact "error" at end of data, where the data shows the aircraft diving at more than 34,000 fpm at over 488 knots. There is no change in error due to excessive speed or high rate of descent. Your theory that somehow the PA on AA77 data provided by Warren increased in error by 3 fold from take-off to end of data, is just that, theory. A theory which is unfounded except perhaps through incredulity, but mostly innuendo. Further, your theory of such change/increase in error has been proven wrong using precedent and data reported to be from the same type aircraft experiencing much more extreme conditions, again, according to the data.

Once again, those here who support the impact theory have not provided any proof for their claims. Photographs are not proof. Parroting DNA claims as made by the govt is not proof (especially when it is known labs can and do fabricate DNA). Claiming the PA was 150 feet in error is not proof. Claiming 4' RA is not proof without cross checking PA for the object being measured. Claiming Warren's data is authentic without even verifying the code, and the fact it conflicts with the NTSB Flight Path Study and the NTSB provided csv files, is not proof of an impact.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:45 PM by tomk52

reply to post by R_Mackey

Rob,

Ego. Bluff. Bluster. Arrogance.
All swamped in an overwhelming helping of "wrong".

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
The typical, long term failure modes of aneroids are:
1) a pinhole leak that loses the internal vacuum.

This is known as Tear.

No, a pinhole is known as a pinhole. Not a tear.

Most often, pinholes happen at the "e-beam weld overlap".

Originally posted by R_Mackey
They are sealed at 29.92, not in a vacuum.

An aneroid wafer is a sealed wafer that is evacuated to an internal pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury (29.92 "Hg).

LMAO...

"EVACUATED to an internal pressure of 29.92" Hg."

In vacuum tech, "evacuated to 29.92" Hg" means "total vacuum", Rob.

From another one of your own references:

The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge
"Aneroid. The sensitive component in an altimeter or barometer that measures the absolute pressure of the air. It is a sealed, ﬂat capsule made of thin disks of corrugated metal soldered together and evacuated by pumping all of the air out of it."
Appendix / Glossary
Page G-3

Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Appendix

LMAO. Shall this become YOUR "B757s cruise above Mcrit".

Originally posted by R_Mackey
If they were sealed in a vacuum, they wouldn't move with changes in static pressure and be flat all the time.

The diaphragms are springs. You counterbalance the external pressure against the deformation of the diaphragms. They are specifically sized (in diameter & thickness) to not collapse completely & to give you a linear response to OUTSIDE static pressure.

There's no air in aviation altimeter aneroids. For two reasons:
1. Inside air becomes a 2nd, undesirable non-linear spring when it compresses.
2. Temperature effects: warm air expands, adding a huge error to the reading. A vacuum does not expand with temp.

Some aneroids are not completely evacuated. These are ones that don't see large pressure or temp excursions. Such as indoor barometers. Not aviation altimeters.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
You sure you build these things?

"Built".
And yeah. I'm sure.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

2) aging of the diaphragm material (i.e., loss of temper).

This is known as wear.

No, it is not.
It's called aging, loss of temper, self annealing or stress relaxation.
Nobody who really knows what is going on calls it "wear".

Although I can believe that some mechanics might say that they are "worn out". Or "tired" or "old".

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Wear and tear, just what I said...

No, Rob. Nothing like "what you said".
The opposite of "what you said".

Arrogance.
Bluff.
Bluster.
Fail.

Tom

[edit on 7-11-2009 by tomk52]

[edit on 7-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 03:02 PM by tomk52

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Good evening Tom,

Good afternoon, Rob.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52

Originally posted by R_Mackey
... blah, blah, techno-babble ...
Check the static port on any high wing aircraft. It is below the wing. A Cherokee has ...

Originally posted by R_Mackey
blah, blah, blah...
misdirection, misdirection, misdirection...
technobabble, technobabble, technobabble...
This is why static ports are located below the wing, in the "high pressure zone" (as compared to above the wing).

Editing quotes. Very mature Tom.

We've been disagreeing about the location of the static port on AA77, a Boeing 757.

In attempting to win some trivial point, you introduce a "high wing plane". Which is irrelevant to the discussion.
You introduce a (low wing) Cherokee. Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Rather than waste bandwidth on the irrelevant, I substituted "blah, blah, blah...".

Next, I made a bunch of points based on your own references.
You proceeded to ignore every point that I made. And ignore your own references. And launch into ANOTHER irrelevant derail about dihedrals & Bernoulli's principle.

I replaced this pile of steaming irrelevancies with "misdirection" and "techno-babble".

It was NOT "immature", Rob.

It was "concise and cutting thru the BS".

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Tom, I'll be honest with you. I am a bit tired of going round and round with someone who is unable to make a post without personal attacks. I have let it slide that you refer to me as "Rob", "Fraud", "Poser". without proof (which I believe is also against ATS T&C), but the personal attacks in every-single-post you type are just getting to be a bit much for an adult discussion.

It's simple.
1. You are NOT the real "R_Mackey". You POSE AS "R_Mackey". The real R_Mackey confirmed this.
Ergo, you ARE a "poseur".

2. Posing as "R_Mackey", you said a bunch of nonsense that is the known opposite of what the real "R_Mackey" has said repeatedly. And then you signed R_Mackey's name to YOUR crap.
Several people asked you if you were the "real" R_Mackey. You refused to answer.
Ergo, you are a "liar". A liar by omission in this case. But a liar, nonetheless.

3. You are allegedly engaging in debate with several people about a variety of different subjects. You constantly refuse to address anyone else's points. You won't answer anyone else's questions. And you constantly engage in misdirection, goal post moving, and irrelevant techno-babble.
Ergo, as a debater, you are a "fraud".

4. Like all people who don't understand the concept of respect, you see nothing wrong with taking someone else's good name, attributing opinions to it that they find anathema, and playing "angry little troll-boy" games with it.
Ergo, you are a self-indulgent, disrespectful, spoiled little troll-boy.
(Made all the more ludicrous by the fact that you're probably about 40 years old.)

5. Like any busted teenager, you think that you can hide your "obvious to anyone with two functional brain cells" con behind "you can't PROVE it".
Ergo, you act the "teenage Perry Mason" fool.

6. And for the last bunch of posts, you've been crying to the Mods that "they... they... they're PICKING ON MEEEE".
Which makes you the local techno-bully who turns into a whiney little girl when you can't ban anyone who disagrees with you.
[You know exactly what I'm talking about, of course. LoL. Because I don't have to hide behind someone else's name.]

I think that about lays out the facts of the situation, don't you? Rob?

Originally posted by R_Mackey
If this were a debate in a proper venue, you would have lost long ago.

Ahh, the inevitable, & ever-so-mature, "strutting victory dance".
What took you so long?

[End Part 1]

[edit on 7-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 03:03 PM by tomk52

[Part 2]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
When you claimed that aneroid wafers are sealed with an internal vacuum for the purpose of measuring pressure just confirmed my suspicions that this argument is a waste of time and it appears you are just making stuff up as you post, ...

I LOVE IT!!

Be sure to not drop this topic when you come back, Rob.
Or will you just retire your "R_Mackey" puppet ...?

Originally posted by R_Mackey
... perhaps googling the terms while trying to keep up, as did Ryan Mackey when he parroted the Wiki claims that Boeing's typically cruise above their critical mach.

What was that word that you brought up, Rob?? Oh yeah, "immature".

Would that be "immature", as in "insulting someone who is not here to defend his position"?
Or "immature", as in "beating a dead horse over, and over, and over, and over, ..."?

THAT kind of "immature", Rob?

Well, that's the part of your nonsense that deals with the boring stuff:
Tom & Rob's Excellent Adventure.
I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did, Rob.

My next post to you will deal with the 9/11 stuff.
It'll be a bit. Got some work to do...

Cheerio.

Buck up, bunky. There's probably still a bunch of 16 year olds out there who think that "You're the Spiffiest!!" I'm sure they'll all buy DVDs.

LMAO.

Tom

[edit on 7-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 03:25 PM by iSunTzu

Originally posted by R_Mackey
... if you accept Warren's AA77 decoded data, you must accept UA93 data. ... The "error" at take-off is the same exact "error" at end of data, ...

... have not provided any proof for their claims. Photographs are not proof. Parroting DNA claims as made by the govt is not proof (especially when it is known labs can and do fabricate DNA). Claiming Warren's data is authentic without even verifying the code, and the fact it conflicts with the NTSB Flight Path Study and the NTSB provided csv files, is not proof of an impact.

How do you ignore the 4 foot accurate to one foot RADAR Altimeter reading again?
Care to prove your Flight 93 statement with some math; show your work?

When will you show the math for Flight 93 altimeter error? You were asked many posts ago to show your work or retract the claim.

The takeoff errors in the altimeter for 77 were confirmed by you to be greater than 50 feet. I posted pilot guides for 757 pilots what confirm the Altimeter in flight has errors as high as 200 feet; for NORMAL flight.

If you insist on Flight 77 being above the Pentagon with the RADALT reading 4 feet, that places Flight 77 at 122 feet, not 176 feet; 54 foot error. And Flight 77 would still impact the Pentagon is less than .3 second in a negative pitch.

It doesn’t get better! If you say the 4 feet RADALT is a lamppost, the 100 MSL foot lamppost places flight 77 at 110 feet MSL, and that becomes a 66 foot error and more time for 77 to descend into the Pentagon.

Was it over the last few lampposts at 80 feet MSL (mean sea level) with 77 at RADALT 4 feet about 10 feet for the bottom of the jet, make for 90 feet MSL, the Altimeter is 176 feet and the error is 86 feet. Did we mention altimeter lag in dives and climbs? Pilots know this fact and they plan level off 10 percent of the VVI, about 360 feet for the 3600 foot per minute Flight 77 decent if you were planning a level off, and that will make pullout before the ground and a flyover not likely since we fine all the Passengers and the aircraft in and around the Pentagon. Even the jet fuel fireball is what a jet fuel fire ball at 483 KIAS hitting a building with the engines running full throttle looks like. How did they fake that? Thousands of people have to be in on your fantasy, even the people killed since they made phone calls.

No matter what you make up, the RADALT, the negative pitch, the 3600 foot per minute decent foils the fantasy flyover. The fact is the data has been in your hands for years and you either were hiding the final seconds to keep your fantasy alive, or your pilots for truth sanction decode failed to decode the final 5 seconds; one less than the NTSB, and 5 less than Warren who is fast becoming the prime expert on FDR decoding.

The FDR supports impact, the thousands of parts of 77 in this photo supports impact; talk and faulty math support flyover.

Parroting the DNA could be faked; paranoid junk talk not evidence. 8 years the DNA stands and prove impact.

Flight 77 wing tip hit post; on final track of 61.5 degrees.

Tree hit by a 483 KIAS Flight 77.

Photos are evidence, go ahead prove they are not. Prove they are fake, prove any of your claims and earn a Pulitzer Prize; talk by a few conspiracy theorists who are pilots does not earn anything.

Warren’s data is the same as your decode and the NTSB and your statements are false. Show the work.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 05:35 PM by R_Mackey

Wow, a 3 post reply from Tom with multiple edits for each. I feel so honored.

Tom, I didn't bother to read your posts thoroughly as again it appears mostly personal attacks, unproven accusations and ad homs. Also, your posting style of YELLING caps, nervous laughter, and liberal use of punctuation is a bit over-the-top for an adult discussion. But colorful!

I normally wouldn't have bothered to reply to such posts after already demonstrating how such a discussion is counter-productive, but I felt the need to clear this up.

I will concede the wafers are sealed in a vacuum. I recalled it was based on pressure changes from 29.92 and therefore air in the container so I did a quick search for a source and posted it. I forgot it was based on spring action as I was taught this stuff long ago. Perhaps you've heard the old saying, "I've forgotten more than you've learned"? Perhaps not...

Thanks for taking the time to look it up and referencing it properly!

Unlike Ryan Mackey and others who make excuse for the govt story, I personally have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth also admit when they're wrong.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

This doesn't change the fact you have failed to prove that the PA is 150 foot in error and the fact all you have is theory. Unfounded theory that is proven false with precedent and data. The fact that altimeters are mostly mechanical with virtually "no friction" as correctly pointed out by Tom, combined with the fact modern electric altimeters make use of Air data Computers, there is not much room for error as compared to, for example, a Cessna 172 pitot-static system.

Keep in mind, the argument used by Tom and his friends that the aircraft was operating "outside its envelope" is wrong. Based on data, the aircraft was traveling .70-.72 Mach. Mmo for a 757 is .86M. Well within the envelope of the aircraft with respect to compressibility issues which could affect the static system. This is why Ryan Mackey attempted to use the "Boeing's typically cruise above their critical mach" claim. Since this has been proven wrong, there is virtually no excuse for altimeter error in excess of 150 feet.

If anyone can prove .70-.72 is above critical mach for a 757, and therefore affects the static pressure system, you may have an argument. Till then, your theory is unfounded.

@iSunTsu

Originally posted by iSunTzu
The takeoff errors in the altimeter for 77 were confirmed by you to be greater than 50 feet.

This is why I ignore most of your posts as no such thing occurred (same as your "stolen software" libelous claim).

The 50 foot error was based on calculations made by your camp measuring from Google Earth. I used such an error to show how it lines up with RA if in fact a flyover took place. You still have yet to prove what the RA is measuring from.

In reality and more appropriate, the error in PA is 18 feet as initially calculated. Your camp didn't understand why PA increased during take off roll. I used Google Earth as a quick reference to illustrate why the PA increased during the roll (the runway is not flat). Your camp then realized using Google Earth was more in your favor of your theory (50' vs 18' error) and as such, used that data point instead of more accurate data. It's wrong. I pointed out Google Earth is not as accurate as the runway threshold elevations posted on Jepp Charts/AirNav and USGS.

The rest of your post is off topic. If you would like to discuss parts recovered and positive ID, there are many other threads on ATS which discuss such a topic.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 05:56 PM by R_Mackey

double post - deleted

[edit on 7-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 08:17 AM by turbofan

Now that we're done with the semantics (hopefully) and construction basics
of aneroid devices, I'd be happy if someone would concede the '50 foot error'
nonsense of static port intergration to the vent of a pressure altimeter.

reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 08:30 AM by ImAPepper

Originally posted by turbofan
I'd be happy if someone would concede the '50 foot error'
nonsense of static port intergration[sic] to the vent of a pressure altimeter.

As soon as you concede flight 77 was hijacked and slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 11:59 AM by tomk52

reply to post by R_Mackey

Rob,

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Wow, a 3 post reply from Tom with multiple edits for each. I feel so honored.

You shouldn't. This isn't going to go well for you.
You're gonna get a mild spanking.

Now, you'll choose to take this spanking like an adult, & learn something from it.
Or you'll choose to take it like a petulant child.

From your history, I'm betting on column B.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Tom, I didn't bother to read your posts thoroughly ...

LMAO.

Yes, Rob. You did.
You know it. I know it.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I will concede the wafers are sealed in a vacuum.

Yes, Rob. I know they are.
You were guessing. You guessed wrong.
I knew.

Now, what shall we do with some of your OTHER assertions?
Such as your statement that:

Originally posted by R_Mackey
When you claimed that aneroid wafers are sealed with an internal vacuum for the purpose of measuring pressure just confirmed my suspicions that this argument is a waste of time and it appears you are just making stuff up as you post, perhaps googling the terms while trying to keep up

Shall we now use YOUR epistemological dictum to conclude that ...

1. ... you, Rob, are just making stuff up as you post?
2. ... you, Rob, are googling the terms while trying to keep up?
3. ... debating you is simply a waste of time.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I recalled it was based on pressure changes from 29.92 and therefore air in the container so I did a quick search for a source and posted it. I forgot it was based on spring action as I was taught this stuff long ago.

And now the excuses start.

"I was wrong... But it's not MY fault...!"
Being wrong is ALWAYS your own fault, Rob. There are zero excuses.

You may have been "taught this stuff a long time ago", but you did not KNOW this stuff back then.

The real story is that someone told you some of this stuff a long time ago. There is so much info to absorb in getting a pilot's license that they told you just enough to allow you to use the information. A pilot does not need to know the details of how an aneroid works in an altimeter. He needs to know how to use the altimeter. And he trusts that specialists (called engineers) have designed the device to work reliably.

The proof that what I am saying is true is that your CFI was able to turn you into a pilot WITHOUT knowing this level of detail about aneroids. Just like you have (presumably) been able to turn rookies into pilots WITHOUT knowing this detail either.

All of us have had the experience of REALLY knowing something, but forgetting. Whenever that happens, someone simply has to remind us of the true situation. If we really KNEW the material, the understanding will all come back immediately. If we had some generic, diffuse misunderstanding, then it won't.

You had a diffuse, generic misunderstanding of how aneroids were made. The principles were OK. The details were wrong.

I am an engineer, Rob. Not an academic.

In engineering, the right answer requires that you be right in BOTH the principles AND the details, Rob. Not in the principles alone.

Being an engineer also means that my social skills in situations like this, and my concern for your "self-esteem" as you utter one erroneous statement after another, are non-existent.

[End Part 1]