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: 27
12
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I see Alfie has trouble interpreting video testimony.

When Paik says the aircraft almost hit the roof of his shop, how does that
translate to South approach on the south side of the road?

Jthomas, please pick an option...it's not a trick question. Pretty simple
stuff.




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I see Alfie has trouble interpreting video testimony.

When Paik says the aircraft almost hit the roof of his shop, how does that
translate to South approach on the south side of the road?

Jthomas, please pick an option...it's not a trick question. Pretty simple
stuff.


When Paik says it bent the antenna across the street from his shop, how does that translate to North approach on the north side of the road?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



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


What's funnier is that you can't read the text that goes along with the pretty pictures.



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


A mechanical ASI. You do understand that this is not the primary ASI / ALT but just a mechanical back up in case of a power failure.


HOw many independent static ports do you see?


I see a total of 6 independent static ports-

3 I have already named

1 for the cabin differential pressure

And 2 more for the elevator feel computer.



Now go back and re read your source. This is the page you are looking for.

I've circled the important parts of the pretty picture in red.





posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by turbofan
I see Alfie has trouble interpreting video testimony.

When Paik says the aircraft almost hit the roof of his shop, how does that
translate to South approach on the south side of the road?

Jthomas, please pick an option...it's not a trick question. Pretty simple
stuff.


When Paik says it bent the antenna across the street from his shop, how does that translate to North approach on the north side of the road?


Paik also draw a SOC diagram. Also notice how he changed his mind drawing it.

i164.photobucket.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Yup, I sure do. Those would be called, "Peanut" gyro/, or Peanut Instruments.

I guess if you hung around and talked to pilots you would know this.

Now, back to your incorrect understanding of the static system.

Please tell me how many devices are connected to the PA altimeter
static port.

HInt: You named it in one of your previous replies.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I don't recall Paik stating anything about the antenna.

He drew a line over the Annex, closer to his shop.

BTW Pepper, Paik couldn't see the flight path beyond the roof of the Annex.
If you are taking his path as gospel, then you must concede the FDR
heading data is fake.

Either that, or you will have to find the parameter that show the aircraft
lining up with all five poles from the Paik's final position.

The whole point of Paik's testimony is that it places the aircraft on the North
side of the road.

Keep trying though...eventually, we will weed out all of your illogic and
you will see the errors you have made.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by iSunTzu
 


Vapour trails are possible from a wing 20 feet off the ground, in level
flight on a fairly warm day?

I...see...


Even then, vapour trails look nothing like the vast smoke trail in the video.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


I don't recall Paik stating anything about the antenna.


Ask your buddies at CIT. There were there at the interview with The Loose Change crew when he said it.




BTW Pepper, Paik couldn't see the flight path beyond the roof of the Annex.


THANK YOU!




If you are taking his path as gospel, then you must concede the FDR
heading data is fake.


No, I am not.




The whole point of Paik's testimony is that it places the aircraft on the North
side of the road.


Yet, he thought the plane hit the antenna across the street from his shop. Pretty interesting.


Keep trying though...eventually, we will weed out all of your illogic and
you will see the errors you have made.




Cute. You and Balsamo have been a laughing stock of this thread. The smartest thing Rob did? No use his real name!



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


I'll check into this "antenna" claim as I've never heard it. Kinda tough
for the plane to do both when he stated it nearly hit his roof, and also
drew a path to reflect.

As for the laughing stock of this thread, you may want to read back
a few pages and look up the crap about, "air bleed-off effecting accelerometers", "devices accessing static ports",
and "vapour trails"...and the lack of impact data for the poles.

None of you are ready to admit the DoD video does not match the
data, nor are either of you ready to front a theory about the origin of
the white smoke.

So, let me ask you:

Are the CIT witnesses all liars? Where they coached to say and draw what
they did? Was it a stroke of a miracle that all of these people described
a similar event that never happened? How about they all told their side
of the story based on their memory recall?

Take your pick.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


I'll check into this "antenna" claim as I've never heard it. Kinda tough
for the plane to do both when he stated it nearly hit his roof, and also
drew a path to reflect.


Yep, his brother at A-One Auto even drew me a picture of the antennna all bent over 90 degrees and explained to me how they replaced it the next day. I'm not so sure the plane hit the antenna, but both Paik brothers sure thought that it did.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

So, let me ask you:

Are the CIT witnesses all liars? Where they coached to say and draw what
they did? Was it a stroke of a miracle that all of these people described
a similar event that never happened? How about they all told their side
of the story based on their memory recall?

Take your pick.



These questions were all answered on the previous page. I also posted several questions for you. I highly doubt you will be able to answer any of them....



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
So, let me ask you:

Are the CIT witnesses all liars? Where they coached to say and draw what
they did? Was it a stroke of a miracle that all of these people described
a similar event that never happened? How about they all told their side
of the story based on their memory recall?

Take your pick.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by turbofan]

The most obvious similarity between what the CIT witnesses say is that all those in a postion to see insist the plane smacked into the Pentagon. Not one reports a flyover. Are they lying about that ?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1


The most obvious similarity between what the CIT witnesses say is that all those in a postion to see insist the plane smacked into the Pentagon. Not one reports a flyover. Are they lying about that ?


NO silly.... the 757 Wonder Woman jet turned invisible and flew through the massive,bomb induced explosion. Come on Alfie!



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


If they're right about the North position and right about hitting the Pentagon,
who staged the light poles?

Remember - big picture.

Use it when forming your theory.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Alfie1
 


If they're right about the North position and right about hitting the Pentagon,
who staged the light poles?

Remember - big picture.


BIG picture: NOC never happened.

BIGGER picture: You. CIT, and P4T know that.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


TF,


Originally posted by turbofan

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

[edit on 19-11-2009 by turbofan]


This is simply a stunningly idiotic back & forth.

Reheat said that the ERROR in the reading went up.
You replied that the "the reading went up".
I noted to you the difference between "the READING" and "the ERROR in the reading".

The answer to this is trivial. There are large errors that result from all kinds of sources related to the INSTALLATION of the static port. Several of those have been identified.

We've seen the calibration requirements by BOTH the FAA & the manufacturers that requires the ALTIMETER ALONE to be accurate to ±20' (at all the low altitudes, slightly larger error for Denver and other high airports).

We've seen the FAA rules that say that if the altimeter, when Kollsman-corrected for actual baro pressure, is wrong by more than 75', then it should be serviced & recalibrated in order for the plane to be brought back to "airworthy status".


Originally posted by turbofan
You seemed to have had some sort of expertise on the system until I
caught your lie.
[edit on 19-11-2009 by turbofan]


You toss around the word "lie" like any petulant child.

And I've already dealt with more than my share of petulant children in my life. I voluntarily signed up for those. Not for petulant internet trolls.

You're on your own. Off to the little "time out room" called "ignore" for you.

Tom

PS.


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


Why don't you list all the components of your imagined conspiracy. Then the minimum number of people that would have been REASONABLY required to pull it off.

SOMEONE might find that interesting. \
Not me.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
You're on your own. Off to the little "time out room" called "ignore" for you.


That's a good move Tom. No one should have to put up his ridiculous nonsense.

Not only is he misquoting you he's still pretending that I said something about "air" bleed off affecting the accelerometers to imply that I don't know how accelerometers operate. I said airspeed bleed-off (deceleration) would and even elaborated further in a subsequent post.

I don't believe it's a reading comprehension problem at all, it's intentional. Since he has nothing of substance to post, he's inventing strawmen in an attempt to discredit those who disagree with his ignorance and bluster.

Perhaps it's even an attempt to reduce those who reply to his posts as he knows the tactic is frustrating nonsense.

I won't put him on ignore, but will ignore most of his posts to include his silly questions to "test" your knowledge of a particular system.

He has proven over and over again that he has virtually no knowledge of aeronautics or it's system except for what he googles or gains by asking those in his cult. Just like his Messiah, he is a poseur.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Yup, I sure do. Those would be called, "Peanut" gyro/, or Peanut Instruments.


Nope, those are the primary instruments. It's easy to tell those are the primary instruments because they are on a page labeled;

Flight Instruments - Primary

The "Peanut" gyro/, or Peanut Instruments. also known as standby instruments would be on the page labeled;

Flight Instruments - Standby

I guess if you had read your own source you would know this.

Now, back to your incorrect understanding of the static system. You seem to think the pressure altitude information recorded on the FDR came from the standby ALT connected to the alternate static port. It did not. If you check the FDR read out you will find this:



ADC L/R stands for air data computer left or right and the FDR will record from which ever computer is active at the time. Normally the left ADC is active and that is connected to the port marked CAPT STATIC. According to your source two other pressure instruments are also connected to this port a ASI and a VSI.




Please tell me how many devices are connected to the PA altimeter
static port.

HInt: You named it in one of your previous replies.


There are three different static systems with altimeters connected to them they are CAPT STATIC, F/O STATIC and ALTERNATE STATIC you need to be specific



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52

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


Why don't you list all the components of your imagined conspiracy. Then the minimum number of people that would have been REASONABLY required to pull it off.

SOMEONE might find that interesting.
Not me.


I dunno.....50,000 people who have to be in on it might be a tad high, but it would definitely have to be in the tens of thousands.

Let's start with the Pentagon. Since PfT submitted that affidavit in support of April Gallop's ludicrous lawsuit, they have to believe that there were SAM missiles that were "stood down" at the Pentagon. 25,000 (round number) work inside the building, so let's just take half that number who know, for a fact, no if's, and's or but's about it, that there were no and have never been any SAM missile batteries at the Pentagon in its existence. That's 12,500 people right there who would have to be "keeping the secret" about SAMs. The remaining 12,500, for arguments sake, either don't care or are not interested in that sort of data point.

Let's add in the entire Washington Center air traffic control organization as well as Andrews (KADW), Dulles (KIAD), Reagan (KDCA), BWI (KBWI), Ft Belvoir (KDAA), and whatever other airport facility in the region who had an operating radar on that day. PfT claims the C-130, Gopher 06, did not depart on a standard Camp Springs 1 departure (the recorded clearance given to teh aircraft must have been faked) but instead was vectored north and then west to fly along the very southern edge of Prohibited Area 56 - an event that nobody in DC noticed. That should account for at least another couple of thousand.

Add in Cap't Bob's claim of the 757 dropping a "MOAB"-type weapon, flying over south parking (check with Roosevelt Roberts about what direction it was going), heading out over the Potomac and then taking off North. Another 750 or 1000 or whatever number of people on the 14th Street Bridge complex and along the eastern bank of the Potomac didn't see any of that.

Yeah, there would have to be well over 15,000 people in on the whole thing - just in the Pentagon event alone - keeping secrets, staying mum because they "fear for their jobs", not caring about this mass murder event because they are content to live off the earnings of the Caymen Island investments from the pay-outs/hush money given to them.

And CIT/PfT has.....what was it? 5 people? 14? 2? Who claim they saw the aircraft fly north of the Annex or come in from over Arlington or from directly over the Annex or from wherever (take your pick), ending up over lane 1 of south parkign at "50 to less than 100 feet", headed southwest, then turn around and drop a MOAB on the building before heading up the Potomac.

And how many people saw all this?

You guys rock, is all I can say!



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


No, they are NOT primary instruments!

You guys have still not answered which "DEVICE" is connected to the
PA static port. If you knew why instrument was used for primary
pressure altitude measurement, you wouldn't have asked me to be
more specific. You guys are a friggin' joke, and so is your "error"
theory. I will prove it once someone answers the question.

HintL: The aneroid type altiemter you called "standby" is
not even the instrument used to measure Pressure Altitude that we are
debating in this thread.

Now if you, TomK, Reheat, or any other of you ignorant kids can tell me
what device is connected to the PA static port, I'll show everyone in this
thread how little these "internet pilots" know about B757-200's.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 22-11-2009 by turbofan]




top topics



 
12
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join