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: 25
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RearheatApparently you hit your head the last time you did it.


Are you saying I cannot achieve -1g by hitting the brake? Yes, or no?


Originally posted by RearTreat
A pull up would not reduce longitudinal g until after airspeed bleed-off, Einstein. Since you like to quote data where is that in the data prior to the significant longitudinal G reduction? Oh, I see it's not there = EPIC FAIL.


BS about the airspeed bleed-off. You don't even know how accelerometers
work. Care to tell me what airspeed bleed has to do with accelerometers
smart guy?

Speaking of missing data, where is that white smoke source? You know
the readings that MUST be within the data before your "fantasy impact"?



Originally posted by Retreat
How much reduction would that require? Is it in the data? Witnesses testified the aircraft was at full power and based on the excessive and increasing airspeed there is no doubt it was. = EPIC FAIL.


My witnesses say the aircraft was NoC, and moving much slower. They
also saw it banking as it just passed over the Annex. My witnesses are
real, and on video.

Many of them drew a flight path and described the same thing. So,
what are the odds and probability of all of these witnesses describing
an event that never happened?

Care to show me any of your witnesses besides some internet quotes "Repeat"?




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Apparently you think it impacted a flag pole on top of the building as it flew over............


Does your vast knowledge of physics indicate flag poles are stronger than break-away street light poles?


Does your fabulous experience and in-depth insight into accelerometers tell you that would produce...

LATERAL ACCELERATION (G's) -0.564
LONGITUDINAL ACCEL (G's) -1.083 (or maximum recordable)

in the last frame of the FDR?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

However, the final postion is, I believe, some 200 plus feet north, on the cloverleaf, of where it should be for light poles and impact.

Is this sort of error just something to be accepted from the FDR or is it significant ?


Yes Alfie, the internal navigation system (INS) tends to 'drift' during extreme course changes (such as the 330 degree turn). Over time, it will adjust back to a more representative position. In the case of AAL77 the INS positional can be 'aligned' with the IAD, DCA and ADW ASR radar positional information to get reasonable corrections.

Lat Offset Long Offset
0.000666667 0.0031

These are the 'best fit' offsets based on radar data, but keep in mind that there is also measurement error in the radar returns. So based on the cumulative evidence, the empirical position can be determined within a few hundred foot radius. For a more accurate portrait, the Citgo 'shadow', the poles, and other physical evidence is required.

So yes, the data should have ended the debate. Unfortunately some people live in a fantasy world where physics and math are no longer 'proof'.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Right...


Can anyone tell Reheat what is connected to the Pressure Altimeter's static port?



His friend Tom got it wrong, but he's still trying to push the myth that
he knows!

Also explain to reheat that accelerometers don't need "AIR" to function.
Ask him what "airspeed bleed-off" has to do with accelerometers!


Funny how this question is totally avoided by Reheat.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


That's a good one; almost as funny as 24 knot winds moving aircraft debris,
and not a plume of smoke!
:lol


Would the vinyl from an airplane seat be considered aircraft debris?


I still think the 11.2 G's was MUCH funnier.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


John, let's see some data for the smoke trail. Are you ready to suggest
what part of the aircraft system produced this white trail of smoke?

Once we get that nailed down, we'll look at the sensors involved in
monitoring that system and look for hard data to support the theory.

While you're thinking abuot that, please calculate the odds and probability
of 5 witnesses describing and drawing a flight path North of Citgo, a plane
moving slowly. and a plane banking after crossing over the Annex.

We'll start with 5, then you can figure the exponential values when adding
the total number of CIT witnesses.

BEfore anyone comes back with the, "but they also said it hit the Pentagon"
crap, ask yourselves who planted the light poles...

[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
John, If you want to deal with this TF character about acceleration, press on. I don't have the time or patience to deal with his non-sequitur BS, ignorant insults, and lack of understanding of rather simple aeronautical issues.

If he brings something new to the discussion that peaks my interest I'll consider coming back to respond to him in this thread.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
John, ask reheat what "airspeed bleed-off" does for accelerometers.

Ask him what air in general has to do with accelerometers.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


911 files

Thank you for the information. If position, using FDR and radar, can only be determined to within a few hundred feet that will obviously not kill noc of itself.

Sorry to bother you again, but does the fact that the plane was on a heading of 61.5 degrees help ? Is that a product of FDR ?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
John, let's see some data for the smoke trail. Are you ready to suggest
what part of the aircraft system produced this white trail of smoke?
[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]


Turboman, as I've stated many times, that is not my area. I have no opinion on the subject for that reason.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Sorry to bother you again, but does the fact that the plane was on a heading of 61.5 degrees help ? Is that a product of FDR ?


Recorded by the FDR yes. The FDR is simply recording parameters supplied by other measurement systems. Yes it helps in that it fits the physical evidence at the scene.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
John, If you want to deal with this TF character about acceleration, press on. I don't have the time or patience to deal with his non-sequitur BS, ignorant insults, and lack of understanding of rather simple aeronautical issues.


Nah, it is all just going over his head. If he does not get that the final long acc was greater than the FDR field could handle then he is not going to understand anything else I woud have to say about acc. I feel your frustration. Darn, he even has an MIT Ph.D. in mathematics here to help him understand it and still does not get it.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Still waiting for those calculations JOhn...since you're all into Math and stuff.

Maybe your MIT friend can help you out? You know, odds and probablility?

You should also look into the smoke trail origin if you're such the honest
researcher you say you are.

Do YOU understand that 'airspeed bleed-off' has nothing to do with accelerometer reading?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Do YOU understand that 'airspeed bleed-off' has nothing to do with accelerometer reading?
[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]


Do you understand that no one says it does?

As far as calculations etc., you'll just have to wait for the release of "Zoe's Flight" in the Fall 2010 or Winter 2011. Anything I assert will have the equations either in footnotes or in a rather extensive appendix dealing with the radar/fdr correlations. Why should I give you a freebie when others will be buying the book? I would go to the trouble here, but you would not understand them if I did.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by 911files]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Are you people reading this stuff?

We have asked and asked you all to stay on topic and now you're posting like children at the dinner table that are not talking to each other.

Post on Topic please!!!!

Leave the other Posters alone except to answer their post.

Stop taking to another poster, in order to answer someone you're "not talking too".. (Even I can't figure that one out)

Let's try and act like adults.

Someone does not agree with you. OK We get it. Playing games with names, talking "around" someone and adding snide childish remarks to posts is not going to change their minds.

Can we please have an intellectual, adult conversation?

Thank you

Semper



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
You should also look into the smoke trail origin if you're such the honest
researcher you say you are.
[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]


Now dealing with this seperately. I have already told you that I have looked into it. However, all I can do is repeat the opinion of others since I am NOT a chemist, or engine specialist. Now I did have a guy with a Masters in Chem. E. from Purdue who was my apprentice at DuPont who might be able to address the issue. But the whole reason we hired him was to assist me with many of the chemical processes we were controlling which I was not qualified to address.

That is the case here. The smoke trail is a chemistry problem, not a physics problem. I am not a chemist, ergo my opinion on it is not worth the time required to type it.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Nah, it is all just going over his head.


In reality what he's attempting is to conceal the fact that he doesn't understand longitudinal aeronautical acceleration (g). He used a pull-up (in futile desperation as an example of a a reduction in longitudinal g) when, in fact that would primarily produce vertical g. I actually conceded that there would be longitudinal g reduction after the airspeed began to bleed-off (aircraft decelerates). It would not be significant, certainly not - 1 +. He's pulling the same tactic as his Messiah by blustering nonsense in an attempt to conceal his ignorance.

The problem is that he nor his cult can explain away the rather significant lateral and longitudinal g in that last FDR frame readout.

That is obviously an impact and along with the other overwhelming physical evidence to include the 4' Radar Altitude leaves but one rational conclusion. Their continued BS about no aircraft impact at the Pentagon is on it's DEATH BED, but they just can't let it go without this long stream of desperate trivial crap in an attempt to save face.

It's over! The "Fat Lady" is already singing.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Can anyone confirm for me please that the deceleration recorded by the FDR coincides with the 4' radio altitude.

I have read in various places that the deceleration was possibly shortly before impact. Anyone have a view on that ?




top topics



 
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join