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.
Originally posted by Alfie1
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 ?
Originally posted by 911files
Originally posted by Alfie1
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 ?
Yes, recorded in the same (final) subframe.
Subframe Counter LATERAL ACCELERATION (G's) LONGITUDINAL ACCEL (G's) RADIO HEIGHT LRRAC (FEET)
151368 0.019 0.21 4
151368 -0.007 0.014
151368 -0.18 0.118
151368 -0.564 -1.083
[edit on 18-11-2009 by 911files]
[edit on 18-11-2009 by 911files]
[edit on 18-11-2009 by 911files]
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by tomk52To that static port (if no one else has answered) are connected Air Speed, VSI & altimeter.
Wrong! The static ports are configured nothing like your Cessna.
You incorrectly assumed the 757 would be the same,
Originally posted by turbofan
... and therefore your theory about "devices accessing the port and affecting the readings" holds no water.
Originally posted by turbofan
Of course, it doesn't change one iota the hilarious farce that you bozos are arguing that the FDR taken from the rubble proves that the plane did NOT crash into the building. That's consummately hilarious.
It's called planted evidence. Still no proof to show it came from "AA77".
Originally posted by turbofan
The file creation date is still a mystery.
Originally posted by turbofan
The data doesn't support hitting the light poles.
Originally posted by turbofan
The eye witness video accounts prove the aircraft used flew nowhere near the poles.
Originally posted by turbofan
The CSV file and Animation altitudes do not relate, yet they are derived from the same .fdr file.
Originally posted by turbofan
Is there anything else you want to hang your hat of fantasy from?
Originally posted by turbofan
Maybe your MIT friend can help you out? You know, odds and probablility?
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Just stopping in to see if anyone has provided proof of the PA being in error of more than 150 feet,
Originally posted by tomk52No disrespect, but do you have a reading comprehension issue that I should know about?
Originally posted by tomk52
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
You'll have to point out my "theory" about this. I must have missed it.
Eight friggin' years, and you bozos claim to know all kinds of details of this 50,000 person conspiracy...
Sure.
1. About 120 eye-witnesses.
In probability theory and statistics, covariance is a measure of how much two variables change together. (Variance is a special case of the covariance when the two variables are identical.)
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by jthomas
Just give us the incontrovertible evidence to prove your "flyover,"' Turbofan, and stop your persistent evasions, ok?
WHen you're able to start answering questions and provide solid proof
after all this time that "AA77" hit the Pentagon, look me up.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Enjoy your night. I'll stop by in a few days and perhaps 3 more pages of rants to see if any proof has been provided for the above mentioned.
[edit on 18-11-2009 by R_Mackey]
Try getting us some indy video accounts like CIT did.
We'll stop there for now. Let me know if you think CIT's witnesses were:
1. All liars
2. Had some sort of ESP to draw and describe the same event between
several people that had never met before
3. Were coached to describe and draw a similar event
4. Telling the truth from memory
Originally posted by rhunter
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723/pg26#pid7562237]So have "Mr. Reheat" and "Mr. SPC" ever established a numerical correlation ([co]/variance) between Pressure Altitude (PA) and Radar Altitude (RA) yet on this thread, or has it only been so many "circular jerkings" and generic insults so far?
en.wikipedia.org...
In probability theory and statistics, covariance is a measure of how much two variables change together. (Variance is a special case of the covariance when the two variables are identical.)
P.S. "Mr SPC"- your "patent" on "linear" expired SEVERAL years ago...
Yes, yes... y = m*x + b ... (I believe that I/[mine] have buried a few Grand-mothers who knew that much "maths..." )
Originally posted by turbofan
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.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by jthomas
Same question to you:
Try getting us some indy video accounts like CIT did.
We'll stop there for now. Let me know if you think CIT's witnesses were:
1. All liars
2. Had some sort of ESP to draw and describe the same event between
several people that had never met before
3. Were coached to describe and draw a similar event
4. Telling the truth from memory
Master Sergeant Sepulveda, who left the building because his meeting was over, and right when he walked out, he actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon and it knocked him on the ground. He got up immediately afterwards and ran right to the explosion area. We hooked up right at the very beginning and worked side-by-side during the entire operation. His assistance was invaluable. He had experience at the Beirut bombing as well." –Lieutenant Colonel Patty Horoho
Originally posted by turbofan
Don't forget, you also listed off the incorrect devices connected to the
port. I wont quote that again; we all saw it moments ago.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by jthomas
Same question to you:
Try getting us some indy video accounts like CIT did.
We'll stop there for now. Let me know if you think CIT's witnesses were:
1. All liars
2. Had some sort of ESP to draw and describe the same event between
several people that had never met before
3. Were coached to describe and draw a similar event
4. Telling the truth from memory
I don't see how the CIT witnesses can be said to be describing the same event at all. You have, for example, Ed Paik and Terry Morin describing a southerly course pretty much over Columbia Pike and then, way to the north, you have George Aman and Darrel Stafford describing a flight path over the maintenance buildings car park.
These people are contradicting each other.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by jthomas
Same question to you:
Try getting us some indy video accounts like CIT did.
We'll stop there for now.
Let me know if you think CIT's witnesses were:
1. All liars
2. Had some sort of ESP to draw and describe the same event between
several people that had never met before
3. Were coached to describe and draw a similar event
4. Telling the truth from memory
Originally posted by waypastvne
You need to reread your source. According to your source, there is a electronic ASI VSI and ALT connected to the CAPT STATIC. There Is also a electronic ASI VSI and ALT connected to the F/O STATIC, and a mechanical ASI and ALT connected to the ALTERNATE STATIC.
So tomK52 was correct.
And you were wrong, even though you provided the information source.