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: 26
12
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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]




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

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]


Thank you 911 files.

I cannot deduce anything other than an impact with the Pentagon from that. The idea that the plane flew over the roof with a 4' margin just seems absurd to me, especially if it is trying to avoid a fireball in its wake.

Plus, I cannot see any reason for decelaration, quite the reverse.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbofan,


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,


No disrespect, but do you have a reading comprehension issue that I should know about?

I thought I made it perfectly clear with comments like: "I never claimed to fly 757s. I flew Cessna's" and "A list of those connections would be interesting. By all means, post it." that I was NOT either guessing or assuming that the ports were the same on a Cessa & a 757.

Your comment betrays inattention or a rather blatant agenda.

Let me guess ...
LoL.

BTW, after all that, you didn't even post the actual connections. Why is that? I said I'd be interested to learn what they were...


Originally posted by turbofan
... and therefore your theory about "devices accessing the port and affecting the readings" holds no water.


You'll have to point out my "theory" about this. I must have missed it.

Funny that. Usually I consider myself to something of an authority on "my opinions about things"...


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".


Suurrrrreee it is...

Eight friggin' years, and you bozos claim to know all kinds of details of this 50,000 person conspiracy...

... and yet can't prove one single thing.

If I were you, I'd stop the nonsense out of the public humiliation over such glaring incompetence.

Then again, nobody's ever accused you guys of the SLIGHTEST familiarity with the concept of "competence".


Originally posted by turbofan
The file creation date is still a mystery.


Eight years... Exactly how many more major fractions of a decade do you think it'll be before you get your FIRST answer. Instead of more "mysteries" and JAQing off with Just Asking Questions?


Originally posted by turbofan
The data doesn't support hitting the light poles.


If by "data", you mean the 50 or so people that SAW it hit the light pole, then you need to go look up the word "support".

Seriously.

If by "data", you mean the FDR, then you've shown precisely squat that contradicts the plane hitting the light pole.

You best go back to JAQing. You're much better at that.


Originally posted by turbofan
The eye witness video accounts prove the aircraft used flew nowhere near the poles.


Lame. And much, much worse: wrong.


Originally posted by turbofan
The CSV file and Animation altitudes do not relate, yet they are derived from the same .fdr file.


Of course they "relate". They relate quite well.

The are not identical. Only a DAQ neophyte would expect all the data to be dead nuts on the money. That ain't how the real world works.


Originally posted by turbofan
Is there anything else you want to hang your hat of fantasy from?


Sure.
1. About 120 eye-witnesses.

2. About 5000 FBI agents.

3. About 5000 US soldiers & civil servants that were in and around the Pentagon.

4. About 10 confessions, IN AL-JAZEERA, by the guys that did it to a bunch of news agencies in the Middle East... and NOT ONE DENIAL. Not one time, after one of these confessions were made public, has anyone from al Qaeda put out a communique that said, "Hey, THAT wasn't us! That was a phoney!"

Why?

And a small mountain of other proof...

tom



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Maybe your MIT friend can help you out? You know, odds and probablility?

At this point, a review of basic scientific method might
be more apt. Scientific method does not prove that some
hypothesis is true; instead, it provides method for
deciding which of two or more competing hypotheses is
more likely.

The four previously unknown seconds of FDR data recovered
by Warren Stutt have helped us to decide between the
following two hypotheses, which I have stated in terms
of what was known before Warren's data came to light:

Hypothesis P: Flight 77 hit the Pentagon following the
path implied by the downed light poles. For unknown
reasons, the data recovered by decompressing and decoding
the raw flight data recorder data were missing the last
4 to 8 seconds.

Hypothesis Q: The data recovered from the flight data
recorder were not missing any of the final seconds.
Based on that data, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon,
but may have flown over it.

Thanks to Warren, we know that the FDR decodes really
were missing at least 4 seconds. With the possible
exception of pressure altitude (of which I'll say more
below), all of the data recorded in those last 4 seconds
appear consistent with Hypothesis P.

The very fact that Warren was able to recover four more
seconds has demolished the first part of Hypothesis Q.
As a consequence, all PfT calculations that had assumed
the completeness of previous FDR decodes are now known
to be irrelevant. For example, PfT's calculation of the
minimal g-load required for a final approach was off by
a factor of 5; whether you want to blame that on Rob
Balsamo's lack of expertise or on his misguided belief
in the completeness of the previously available FDR data
is not terribly important. The bottom line is that all
PfT calculations for the final approach are now known to
be incorrect, and should be ignored.

In short, Warren's new data provide still more evidence
for Hypothesis P, and overwhelming evidence against Q.

Using scientific method, we conclude that Hypothesis P
is more likely than Hypothesis Q.

From reading this thread, you might get the impression
that the pressure altitudes recorded during the last 4
seconds are anomalous. I suspect there's some truth in
that, but I don't think the pressure altitudes are as
anomalous as the fake R_Mackey's interpretations have
made them sound. Here's why:

The pressure altitude was recorded only once per second,
while the vertical acceleration was recorded 8 times per
second. As it happened, the last vertical acceleration
was apparently recorded about 7/8ths of a second after
the last pressure altitude. Furthermore, the finite
differencing needed to compute vertical velocities from
pressure altitudes gives us the average vertical
velocity for the second before the last pressure
altitude was recorded. From the accelerometer data, we
know the instantaneous vertical velocity at the end
of that second was less than the average velocity for that
second; from the physics of near-constant deceleration,
we get a good estimate of how much lower: the average
vertical velocity will appear to lag the instantaneous
vertical velocity by about half a second.

Adding that half-second to the 7/8ths second, it will
look as though the pressure altimeter is lagging the
true altitude by about 1.375 seconds (with regard to
computations of vertical velocity), but this is really
just an artifact of digital sampling coupled with the
distinction between average and instantaneous velocity.

For reasons that have already been beaten to death in
this thread, I don't fully trust the pressure altitude
and won't be surprised if it is not entirely consistent
with the other instruments. For the reasons explained
above, however, I think it's too early to dismiss the
pressure altitudes as wildly anomalous.

Warren Stutt has given us four new seconds of data,
including accelerometer readings that allow us to
compare the recorded positions, altitudes, and velocities
against velocities and positions inferred by solving a
set of numerical differential equations. I sketched
that process earlier in this thread by showing how the
recorded vertical accelerations imply a delta-V of
about 53.5 ft/sec during the last two seconds.

When engineers, scientists, and mathematicians solve
numerical differential equations that matter, we use
more sophisticated predictor-corrector algorithms with
interpolation and smoothing. I will not attempt to
explain those algorithms in this thread. Suffice it
to say that those who cannot (or will not) understand
roundoff error would not understand sophomore-level
mathematics either. So the next step---the solution
of those numerical differential equations---will seem
like magic and be distrusted by some. Sorry.

Once we have numerical solutions for those equations,
and can use them to check and to interpolate between
the values that were recorded directly, we will be in
a much better position to examine any mysteries that
remain. A very few of the participants here may have
run the numbers already. I haven't, but hope to do
so by the end of this month.

Will



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tomk52
 


Tom, here's the static port connections TF is braying about.....

biggles-software.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Just stopping in to see if anyone has provided proof of the PA being in error of more than 150 feet, .70M - .72M is above Mcrit to affect the PA, proof of the object from which RA is measuring, confirmation that the data provided by Warren came from N644AA since it conflicts with NTSB Flight Path Study, positive ID that N644AA is responsible for the damage at the Pentagon, etc. As expected, 3 more pages of rants and no proof for their theory.

Will, you're getting closer to the truth regarding PA. However, you may want to correlate PA vertical velocity with the same subframe of vertical velocity derived from Vertical Accel. It's a good start when you realize the difference in sampling rate. Not so much when you cherry pick 2 seconds of data, one of which isn't recorded under PA. Remember, you have to account for more than 150 feet of error. You have not done so. The most you have accounted for is 14 feet, which as you correctly have pointed out, can be explained by sampling rate and polling interval.

Also, since some here seemed to be confused with my terminology regarding "distance from an angle", I calculated the distance above and below the line/path made by the descent, which is in fact, an angle. This was calculated based on vertical accel above and below 1G. 1G is the zero point for initial velocity. The same line can be horizontal. I can understand why some here might be confused with such a concept as not many are familiar with flight dynamics. Either that or they are familiar with the concept, but just wanted to confuse the readers.

Keep in mind everyone, the data being argued here has never been verified by anyone and conflicts with what the NTSB has provided. This is one of the many reasons arguing this topic is moot until the NTSB admits such errors in their own conclusions.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have filled out an Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) report regarding Warren's decode. You can find it here. I'm sure Pilots For 9/11 Truth will provide updates if they get a response from the ASRS. If Warren's decode is genuine, this means the NTSB software is wrong and the NTSB is drawing conclusions in Aircraft Accident Investigations based on perhaps incomplete data. This has major ramifications for flight safety. Those who make excuse for the govt story don't seem too concerned with the consequences of this topic if Warren's data is genuine. These people are. pilotsfor911truth.org...

In closing, data provided by Warren shows the aircraft still too high to impact the Pentagon and cross checks with other data. The reasons for long/lat accel final data point could be numerous as was explained earlier in this thread and ignored by most from the rant camp. For example, A rapid deceleration from 483 knots with speed brakes out in a skidding turn could cause the same effect.

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]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

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,


You did that already by showing the changes in z according to PA was 'almost' linear. Acc clearly demonstrates that changes in z were VERY non-linear. So thanks again for the 'proof'.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52No disrespect, but do you have a reading comprehension issue that I should know about?


No, but maybe you have amnesia? Back on page 15 you stated:


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 seemed to have had some sort of expertise on the system until I
caught your lie. There is no 50 foot error reading as there are NO
systems accessing, or changing the static pressure within the port.

Furthermore, your "50 foot" BS stems from your ignorance of relating
FAA requirements to manufacturer bench tests. As I've already proved
to you using RAD Alt manufacturer specs...the FAA does not regulate
how companies design their products to operate with tighter tolerances
than given in the F.A.R.'s

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.


You'll have to point out my "theory" about this. I must have missed it.


See the joke of your response quoted above.


Eight friggin' years, and you bozos claim to know all kinds of details of this 50,000 person conspiracy...


Why do some of you believe 50,000 people had to involved? No reason
for that at all.


Sure.
1. About 120 eye-witnesses.


INterenet quotes do not count Tommy. 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

[edit on 19-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 

"z," "PA," "almost," "linear," etc...

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..." )



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

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.


I have specifically asked you repeatedly to support your claim that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon," not for another one of your evasions.

As you well know, no one has to prove AA77 hit the Pentagon. It is well established, accepted, and unrefuted. Nothing will change that unless and until you all provide massive evidence to refute the evidence and conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The burden of remains entirely on your shoulders, Turbofan, where it always has been.

Now, once again, just give us the incontrovertible evidence to prove your so-called "flyover," Turbofan, and stop your persistent evasions, ok?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

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]


Your evasion is duly noted and recorded again, Rob.

We are still waiting for you to provide positive evidence for your claim that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon."

If you can't support it with evidence, why would you ever make the claim and show it in your animation?

We've been waiting for you no-planers to support your claims of a so-called "flyover" for years and you just run away whining.

Don't wait another 3 days - provide your positive evidence for a "flyover" or be a man and retract your claim.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
A quick look at the numbers (again) and what I see from the FDR data:

The final 3 altitude readings (PA) indicate an average descent rate of 75ft/sec followed in the next second by 59ft/sec, a reduction of 16ft/sec with yet another second to the end of the recording. Excluding gravity, the plane pulled an average 0.93g during the second in which it averaged 75ft/sec and only 0.73g in the final second so it's reasonable to make the reduction in vertical speed over that final second proportionally less like, let's say, 12ft/sec reduction (rough estimate) which would give us a final PA reading something like -146ft (if it had been recorded).

That -146ft would represent a true altitude of approx 125ft ASL and the aircraft still descending at over 40ft/sec.

The problem now is that there's a huge structure approx 100ft ASL (at the roof line) about 1 second directly ahead and it's something like 1200ft to the other side (by my reckoning) following the suggested flight path over the 'ground zero' area.

How could it possibly have missed even if we accept the previous declarations of absolute accuracy in PA and accelerometer readings?

IE could the plane have survived the G's required to clear the roof (all of it) from that final position?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
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



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

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..." )


So funny. I did not bring up 'linear', R_Mackey did. I just helped him with the definition and then he changed to 'almost linear'. And nope, I have not run a 'covariance' analysis. Why don't you run that for us and let us know the results.

Update:

For the sake of people who may think I'm being too dismissive with this suggestion, again I will explain myself. CoV is applicable when you have two (or more) systems measuring the same subject. PA is a measure of air pressure which is then interperted as altitude above sea level. RA is a direct measure of height above the ground (or object below). Before any attempt to find CoV, the RA would have to first be corrected to altitude, or the PA to height above the ground. With a positional uncertainty of greater than 100 feet, such a correlation would be guess work with a 2 sigma range (variance) which in the case of the Pentagon topography could equal or exceed the 2 sigma of the parameter being studied and would negate the results.

But hey, if someone wants to give it a shot.....

[edit on 19-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 19-11-2009 by 911files]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

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.

You earned a Pulitzer Prize for proving the DNA was fake? No.

You earned a Pulitzer Prize for proving the aircraft parts were fake? No.

Real evidence has to be ignored to have the delusional flyover. So without proof of your fly over 8 years of delusions will not beat real evidence you ignore and pretend was faked by thousands of people including the military, FAA, NTSB, FBI, and all the witnesses.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



Flight 77 is pulling 1.83Gs for the last 2 seconds; does vapor count as smoke? Wake turbulence from the lift created from 1.83Gs would kick up dust. But sucking up anything in the engine could cause smoke, and Flight 77 hit some lamppost you have to make up the delusion they were planted to have your over flight and impossible NoC path. The CIT witnesses are pointing at the real flight path that knocked down lampposts. Would 1.6 to 2.2 Gs create some vapor trails?



... vapor trails are possible.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by jthomas
 


Same question to you:



Try getting us some indy video accounts like CIT did.


This is not a question. However, the rational minded people would not bother wasting valuble time and or money interviewing people to confirm what is already factual.


We'll stop there for now. Let me know if you think CIT's witnesses were:

1. All liars


I don't think anyone has ever stated this.


2. Had some sort of ESP to draw and describe the same event between
several people that had never met before


Several of them have met before. Stupid question though. Strawman actually.


3. Were coached to describe and draw a similar event


We don't know. CIT has yet to torrent their videos. We don't know everything that was stated.


4. Telling the truth from memory


A memory of a traumatic even from many years ago.

How about some questions for you?

1. Can you please provide proof that the DNA collected at the Pentagon was in fact planted and or tampered with?

2. Can you please provide proof that the airplane parts that were collected by the hundreds of workers were planted?

3. Can you please provide proof that the personal belongings that were recovered from the Pentagon were planted?

4. Can you please provide proof that the FDR recovered from the Pentagon was planted? Have you or any of your buddies ever contact Arlington County Fire Capt. Scott McKay? Perhaps you should.

5. Can you please provide proof that The Pentagon Building Performance Report was in error?

6. Can you please provide proof that the DoubleTree Video was faked and or manipulated by the government?

7. Here is an easy one: Can you please provide proof that the contractors hired to renovate Wedge1 somehow missed the MIB/NWO agents planting bombs throughout that area during construction? (keep in mind that they were civilian contractors)

8. Please tell me how much the landing gear of a 757 weighs.

9. Now please tell me how it was place in an area where it was found by several people including Reginald Powell who is a radilogist.

10. Please tell me how Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached."?

11. Can you tell me why Ranke and Aldo failed to interview this amazing man?


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

thank you.







[edit on 19-11-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

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.



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.

That's FUNNY !!!

I wont quote that again; we all saw it moments ago.



[edit on 19-11-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by jthomas
 


Same question to you:

Try getting us some indy video accounts like CIT did.


CIT was unable to get any video and refused to interview any of the hundreds of people in a position to have seen a flyover. So have you. This isn't rocket science. You have completely failed to support your claims.

And to think that you still believe Ranke and Marquis are investigators!



We'll stop there for now.


Naturally. You don't have a stitch of evidence for your claims and you are dancing around faster that a ballerina doing a pirouette evading the fact that you have no evidence for your fanciful claims.

Sorry, you have not provided us any positive evidence that "any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon." Explain to us your utter failure to support your claims, Turbofan.


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


Since none of them witnessed "any jet fly over and way from the Pentagon," you're still stuck in the mud.

We went over this three years ago when I showed you had no positive evidence of any so-called "flyover." None of you do.

Tell us why you have been unable to provide us that evidence, Turbofan? Flapping your arms won't help you no matter how hard you flap.




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

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.



What's funny is that you cannot read a simple colour coded diagram.



What devices are connected to the Alternate Static port which is routed
to the PA altimeter?

HOw many independent static ports do you see?




top topics



 
12
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join