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: 21
12
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
Again, we are assuming the official story is true.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by turbofan]


Who said Integrated Consultants have the definitive simulation about the event? I know it is a convenient strawman for you to beat up on, but last I checked IC was not commissioned by anyone - certainly not the US Government nor the Pentagon to develop such a simulation or theory. You can point to it and flog it all you want, but it is based on their own interpretation. You can beat it up all you want, refer to it all you want, worship it all you want, do whatever you want all you want, but it really is nothing but a very, very good simulation of their own interpretation of what happened.

You still cannot tell me with any level of exactitude the angle of bank, the degree of yaw or the precise wing position on impact with the lamp poles. If you do, you will be lying (go ahead...it hasn't stopped the others) because that data is not known. Since that data is not known, you (nor Integrated Consultants) cannot produce anything more than a reasonable concoction of what happened, something that is at best a digital invention of one's mind. Since you are not anything closely resembling a professional simulation programmer/developer, you can't even produce that.

Keeping up with you and your fellow PfT "experts" is not something I aspire to. I like my company to be intelligent, honest and truthful, unlike the crew from the clubhouse. On top of not being able to discuss with any credibility the Camp Springs 1 departure or the "vectoring" of Gopher 06 up along P-56 claim or the surface to air missiles at the Pentagon claim or the wings ripping off unless they don't issues, your leader flat out lied about something the real R_Mackey never said, a habit more and more of you people are taking as a preferred tactic of debate.



It's not a strawman, it's what has been deduced from the DoD video.

Now please stop dancing around and tell us what that white trail of smoke
might be, and what part of a 757-200 could produce the smoke (if not the
jet engine).

After that, you tell us what object the aircraft struck in order to produce
that white smoke.

Once you complete that task, please tell us the wing span of a 757-200
and the distance between light pole #1 and light pole #2.

We'll see how much research you have done based on your next reply.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

It is clear why those who have been banned from P4T are in fact banned, and why those who refuse to confront P4T directly, refuse to do so.


I confronted on your forum you about your refusal to provide any positive evidence of a so-called 'flyover" despite you claiming it repeatedly and showing it in your own animation.

And you still can't provide a stitch of positive evidence for any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon."


Of course you had to "suspend" my membership on P4T forum because I easily showed that you could not provide a single piece of evidence, that you willfully refused to provide evidence to support your claim that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon," and why you completely discredited yourself and P4T.

Now you're whining that you don't want to play by the rules.




[edit on 14-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Now please stop dancing around and tell us what that white trail of smoke
might be, and what part of a 757-200 could produce the smoke (if not the
jet engine).

After that, you tell us what object the aircraft struck in order to produce
that white smoke.

Once you complete that task, please tell us the wing span of a 757-200
and the distance between light pole #1 and light pole #2.

We'll see how much research you have done based on your next reply.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by turbofan]


Turbo, I have to publicly agree with you on this aspect. Factor in that according to photographs and VDOT, the VDOT camera pole was 'clipped' by the wingtip. Although the math works for an ecounter with poles #1 and #2, I have been unable to find a wingspan solution with accounts for both light poles and an encounter with the VDOT camera pole.

Also, fightfighters are baffled by the 'smoke', especially the time factor between pole impact and development of the 'smoke' trail. Not to mention that not a single eyewitness that I am aware of mentions the 'smoke' trail.

So there are some oddities left to be explained fully and worthy of further investigation.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by 911files]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Thank you John, I do appreciate that you are able to consider these points
as fair topics of debate.

As for jthomas:

It has been over 8 years and not one shred of solid evidence provided
to show "AA77" struck the Pentagon. Maybe you can help out your buddy
Trebor and explain the smoke; origin; and pole/wing data.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

As for jthomas:

It has been over 8 years and not one shred of solid evidence provided
to show "AA77" struck the Pentagon. Maybe you can help out your buddy
Trebor and explain the smoke; origin; and pole/wing data.


Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. You haven't convinced anyone of your claims. And you won't get anywhere in the real world unless you do.

I just get to sit back and point out why.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Turbo, I have to publicly agree with you on this aspect. Factor in that according to photographs and VDOT, the VDOT camera pole was 'clipped' by the wingtip. Although the math works for an ecounter with poles #1 and #2, I have been unable to find a wingspan solution with accounts for both light poles and an encounter with the VDOT camera pole.


Well, I revisited my old work and I have to reverse myself. I've linked an image from GE using their ruler to obtain some critical values.

Pole 2

Using some simple right angle trig, I derived a simple formula to determine the maximum true heading which would include a clip of the VDOT camera pole, pole #1 and a graze hit on pole #2.

True Heading < [90 + (Angle from true north to pole #2) - (ACos(Wingspan/Distance from VDOT camera pole to pole #2))].

Using this formula, I get 62.5 degrees for the values in the image using 124 foot for the wingspan. I tried multiple measurements and the lowest value I came up with was 62 degrees. Since the recorded heading was 61.5, the plane definitely was capable of striking all three. It would have been a tight fit, but quite possible.

I am open to any other distance and/or angular values you might wish to suggest. So I stand corrected. There is a mathematical solution that fits.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Nice work

It's amazing what resources we have online these days and it doesn't look like much has changed in that area.

What gets my interest is that tree which was shown to have been damaged in a 9/11 photo posted earlier. The tree has obviously changed since 9/11 but its location looks mighty close to where the right-hand engine would have passed going by your scaling and the height looks to fit as well for that engine to have swallowed the top of the tree.

Could that green foliage passing through the turbine have been the source of the smoke? I doubt it would have done much, if any, physical damage to the engine and a thin haze of smoke is sometimes only noticable when viewed from a distance against a dark(ish) background (thinking about the gate cam shot).

I'm not making definite claims - just considering what looks like plausible possibilities to me.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
What do you mean by "graze hit"? Pole #2 was severly bent near mid-height.

Wing span of a 757-200 is 124 feet, 10 inches.

www.boeing.com...

www.airliners.net...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
What do you mean by "graze hit"? Pole #2 was severly bent near mid-height.


Solve the same formula for where h is known (61.5) to find the distance perpendicular to the flight path relative to the VDOT camera pole.

Perpendicular distance =(distance from VDOT camera pole to #2)Cos([90-heading+(true angle to pole #2)]

Solving for the same GE measurements as before, impact would occur ~120 feet perpendicular to the VDOT camera pole, or in this case 4-5 foot in along the port wing.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by 911files]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by 911files
 


Nice work

It's amazing what resources we have online these days and it doesn't look like much has changed in that area.

What gets my interest is that tree which was shown to have been damaged in a 9/11 photo posted earlier. The tree has obviously changed since 9/11 but its location looks mighty close to where the right-hand engine would have passed going by your scaling and the height looks to fit as well for that engine to have swallowed the top of the tree.

Could that green foliage passing through the turbine have been the source of the smoke? I doubt it would have done much, if any, physical damage to the engine and a thin haze of smoke is sometimes only noticable when viewed from a distance against a dark(ish) background (thinking about the gate cam shot).

I'm not making definite claims - just considering what looks like plausible possibilities to me.


I discussed this with Pat Creed and others (firefighters and pilots) and the issue for them is not what may have caused the smoke trail as much as the time required for the 'smoke' trail to develop. The majority felt like there simply was not enough time if the damage occurred in the light pole area.

As for me, I simply don't know enough to have an opinion on it. Your guess is about as good as anyone else's at this point. Rob and gang like to make fun of the real Mackey for suggesting a bird strike 4-5 seconds out as being the cause of the 'smoke' and possible power loss. Yet like you, it was mere speculation and not a formal hypothesis. As it turns out, the data loss was a software issue (not reading full frames) and not an FDR issue.

That speculation was based on odd values at the last subframe in the NTSB CSV (such as cargo door open) indicating something catastrophic. In Warren's RO, those values are not in the subframe indicated in the NTSB CSV, but in the final partial subframe. At this point, neither Warren or I have a clue why that would be. Another oddity for the speculative realm.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I'm following along as a laymen for most of this. But really what you have done here is confused me:




Turbo obviously does not understand acceleration as applied to aircraft accelerometers as evidenced by BS examples and his statements that the light pole(s) strike would definitely show up in the decoded data. Maybe enough to detect, maybe not depending on the location of the strike on the aircraft.


You state his examples are BS and then turn around and make a conditional agreement with the example.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

I can provide you a reason why there weren't hundreds who witnesses a fly over.
No you can't.

It is called perceptual blindness. Study it. Research it. And learn from it. It might just save your life.


Neither you nor anyone else can claim to know what hundreds of individuals could or could not see all around the Pentagon. You have no ability to do so. Not even Craig Ranke does that. In fact, he shows how easily it would have been to see a "jet fly over and away from the Pentagon:"




This is exactly why Roosevelt Roberts saw a large passenger plane leaving Pentagon airspace seconds after the explosion.


Wrong. If Roosevelt Roberts had actually seen a flyover so would scores of others who were amongst the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon. In any case, CIT got nailed on their claim easily:

www.veoh.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm still waiting to press accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the impact confirmed in person and on video. I have yet to see that. Got any of that?


As you already know, none of us need that. We have all of the other evidence that converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

So, SwingDangler, when are you going to present us a eyewitnesses statements from anyone claiming to see a "jet fly over and away from the Pentagon" as YOU claim.

See www.abovetopsecret.com... for a reminder.

You are just as stuck in your fairy tale as you were 3 years ago, completely unable to make any case for a so-called "flyover."


Thanks for the reminder as exposing your dishonesty. Earlier in this thread you stated I made that claim 3 years ago. I didn't. You said I made that claim in the thread above. I've never posted on that thread. Why do you spout dishonesty?

Why do you call Roberts a liar? Listen to the audio interview with him. How can you claim what he did or didn't see? Again contradicting yourself. Why don't you follow your own advice:


Neither you nor anyone else can claim to know what hundreds of individuals could or could not see all around the Pentagon.

Yet hear you claim to know what Roberts did not see!


Why do you contradict yourself in your own post? I provided one possible reason why people didn't see a fly over. Yet you accept press accounts of alleged eyewitnesses to the impact that when interviewed to verify their account state they DIDN'T see the impact.


By the way in that thread you said Roberts account was not verified. Well it has been now. You've heard the audio interview with CIT, correct? I did not accept the fly over theory early on and like you wouldn't not accept it until a witness was presented. And there he is....confirming his original account. Yet your assertion is that he is lying.

By the way, did you study perceptual blindness yet?

Ahh never mind Jthomas. Don't worry about responding to my questions. You are trying to derail the thread. Welcome to my first ignored person on ATS.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Thanks for the reminder as exposing your dishonesty. Earlier in this thread you stated I made that claim 3 years ago. I didn't. You said I made that claim in the thread above. I've never posted on that thread. Why do you spout dishonesty?


Dear me, you've posted elsewhere, including your own blog, and every time I show how ridiculous your claims are. Remember, the NWO is all knowing.


Why do you call Roberts a liar?


I never did. You and CIT misrepresented what he said.


Listen to the audio interview with him. How can you claim what he did or didn't see?


CIT claimed he saw the jet fly over the South Parking Lot. CIT lied. CIT knows what Roberts actually said and so do you. It is quite clear in his interview that he was on the loading dock at the South Parking Lot looking in the direction of Lane 1 of the lot. Your NOC flight path makes it impossible for AA7 to have flown over the South Parking lot in any position. Roberts did not lie. You and CIT did, and you still do.

You should be ashamed of yourselves but "Truthers" have no shame nor scruples.


I provided one possible reason why people didn't see a fly over.


We are not interested in your speculation SwingDangler. We are waiting for you to support YOUR claims that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon." You have had 8 years to find and interview hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon. You haven't lifted a finger. You do not have a stitch of evidence.

You have had eight years to explain why not one person ever reported to the news media or to your Crack Investigation Team that they ever saw any "jet fly over and away from the Pentagon" as you have claimed all these years. You cannot offer any explanation that if there had been a flyover immediately after the explosion WHY NOT ONE of those hundreds of people in a position to see a flyover didn't go into a rage that the media never reported any such thing, nor why they haven't contacted you and CIT.

You have EPIC FAIL written all over your forehead, SwingDangler. As has been said over and over, one can never underestimate the intelligence of a 9/11 "Truther." Thanks for revealing it again to us.




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


Turbo obviously does not understand acceleration as applied to aircraft accelerometers as evidenced by BS examples and his statements that the light pole(s) strike would definitely show up in the decoded data. Maybe enough to detect, maybe not depending on the location of the strike on the aircraft.


Wow, I missed this quote. Who posted this? Is this person trying to tell
us that an accelerometer which is precise down to three decimal places
and can sense a change in any axis by ~ 32 feet/s/s cannot feel the crashing
of FIVE LIGHT POLES?!


Let's see ...

The aircraft drops 0.032 feet per millisecond in altitude and the acclerometer
can feel that change ... but it can't pickup the slamming of either metal
light pole (one of which was bent nearly 90 degrees)?

This is just some cracked up GL logic. Pretty much as bad as the Static
Port lie that TomK told us. Notice he hasn't shown up yet?

Would the GL responsible for claiming the accelerometer lie care to step
forward? I have a cheap 3-axis accelerometer sitting at home waiting
for a video challenge!



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Let me clarify my statement John:

How does a wing that 'grazes' the metal pole cause a 90 degree bend?



[edit on 15-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Wow, I missed this quote. Who posted this? Is this person trying to tell
us that an accelerometer which is precise down to three decimal places
and can sense a change in any axis by ~ 32 feet/s/s cannot feel the crashing of FIVE LIGHT POLES?!


Check here...

Originally posted by Reheat
Turbo obviously does not understand acceleration as applied to aircraft accelerometers as evidenced by BS examples and his statements that the light pole(s) strike would definitely show up in the decoded data. Maybe enough to detect, maybe not depending on the location of the strike on the aircraft. His touting of accelerometer sensitivity is again misleading. How is one suppose to determine the difference between turbulence and a light pole hit? Those light pole were designed to breakaway from strikes by automobiles. I seriously doubt an impact would be distinguishable from normal burps in data by a 757 at 450 + knots.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The same Reheat that can't interpret an FAA specification?


Check this out Reheat: I have an accelerometer reading a pass down
the 1/4 mile in my car, and it picked up some tire slip when shifting from
2nd to 3rd gear at 90 MPH. Are you sure you know how these things
work?





How is one suppose to determine the difference between turbulence and a light pole hit?


About 1.5 seconds from "impact" you should see a 'burp' in the Accel. values.

Not to mention, a change in EGT for the engine that was pouring out
white smoke.

Have you found any of this yet?



[edit on 15-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Let me clarify my statement John:

How does a wing that 'grazes' the metal pole cause a 90 degree bend?


That is a question for a civil/mechanical engineer, not me.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
oops, my bad.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


68, 66, 67, 71, 75, 59 (computed from pressure altitudes)
79, 40, 50, 94, 32, 53 (computed from radar altitudes)



So, the GL's say this data indicates a slam into a wall?


The trend shows a pull-up and then a 16 foot drop for PA. Hmmm...


Show how these values were derived Turbo.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join