New FDR Decode, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 07:22 PM by trebor451

Originally posted by jthomas

This is how your spin works: we are supposed to accept your proposition that - magically - there was all of a sudden no traffic on the freeways, no people in the parking lots, no traffic on the bridges. How do you expect any rational person to accept that spin of yours, wholetruth?

That is the whole foundation of their argument, J, wouldn't you say? They *have* to claim that there was nobody in the parking lot, nobody on the roads, nobody up by the annex, nobody in Crystal City, nobody anywhere who saw the impact. The numbers of people who *could* have seen it are legion. Fervent and constant denial is CiT and PfT's only recourse.

They want to make everyone believe that the only people who saw what happened are the people *they* talked to. Anyone else? They are lying or holding back "da trooth" because they are either paid government shills or have had their hamster threatened at home.

Absolutely insane.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by trebor451]

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:02 PM by Reheat

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 01:39 AM by 911files

reply to post by Pilgrum

The time in the CSV was adjusted by the NTSB to a standard. This standard is reflected by the IAD tracon radar, SEADS, and the majority of the FAA ARSR's. DCA is running a sweep ahead (4.7 seconds) of IAD and the FDR clock was running 4 seconds slower than the standard.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 01:47 AM by 911files

reply to post by Reheat

Reheat, I would suggest that the work done by Tom Lusch with the radar data and ZID sort boxes, along with Warren's decode, pretty much wraps up everything there is to know about AAL77. Anyone wanting to argue anything beyond it hitting the Pentagon is either seriously uninformed or in need of serious meds.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 10:38 AM by Reheat

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 25-10-2009 @ 02:08 AM by Pilgrum

This decode displays almost 4 extra seconds of data beyond what was released in the original NTSB .csv file, the final 4 seconds apparently discarded by their software because it's incomplete (only 1007 words written out of 1020). I'd now like to know what the processing lag actually is due to data collection, sorting, collation, compression and finally writing to the eeprom as that could easily account for another second, maybe more, of flight time beyond what's actually been recorded before the recorder's processing section was virtually destroyed in the impact leaving only the protected memory housing intact. Some data would have been held in the buffer ram of the processor prior to writing and consequently lost forever.

Just 1 extra unrecorded second would place the end of the data prior to the location of the notorious light poles for instance at the final airspeed now shown to be 483.5+ knots (895 km/h, 556mph, 249m/s or 816ft/s)

10+g pullups are also notably absent

[edit on 25/10/2009 by Pilgrum]

reply posted on 25-10-2009 @ 06:43 AM by 911files

reply to post by Pilgrum

Well, it was 15 feet off the ground at the last radar altitude measurement, so that don't leave a lot left to go. At Dulles the at the gate radar alt is -6.

reply posted on 25-10-2009 @ 07:53 AM by Pilgrum

reply to post by 911files

Just looking at a means of reconciling the observation of the eyewitnesses with the data and that last second of flight covers the distance from the road crossing to the building which is described as being near level flight, at least almost parallel to the surface of the lawn. As the plane was still pulling about 2g in the last recording, that level portion of the flight path hadn't been achieved and the last second indicates a descent rate still around 60'/sec. Which is why I suspect the final second or so wasn't recorded.

There's absolutely no indication of a pullup to clear the building for those who subscribe to that idea. The 59'/sec final descent rate gives us downward pitch of about 4 degrees which could look fairly level'ish' in the time it took to cover the lawn which is about 1 second or less.

All these pieces need to fit to solve the puzzle but we're getting closer all the time

[edit on 25/10/2009 by Pilgrum]

reply posted on 25-10-2009 @ 05:35 PM by 911files

reply posted on 25-10-2009 @ 07:12 PM by ImAPepper

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 08:10 AM by trebor451

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 06:27 AM by turbofan

reply to post by Reheat

I see I've been asked to comment on this topic.

Some may not know that the Pressure Alt. shows too high and that RAD ALT. system may be reading reflections off of roof tops, trees, etc.

This has already been discussed at P4T along with Warren's input.

Sorry to say, the OP jumped the gun (again) and has probably not shown
up since.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 06:28 AM by turbofan

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by Pilgrum

Well, it was 15 feet off the ground at the last radar altitude measurement, so that don't leave a lot left to go. At Dulles the at the gate radar alt is -6.

Once again, PA is too high. RAD ALT. may bounce off of taller objects.

You will need to explain how Pressure Altitude is still too high to hit light poles and buildings if you go by your assumptions.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 07:01 AM by 911files

reply to post by turbofan

Sorry Turbo, but PA is highly inaccurate. Radio altimeter readings are used for landing and there are 11 other flights in the FDR to assess the reliability of that system. It works great! There is absolutely no indication in the positional, radio altimeter, or acceleratometer readings to support either a NoC or fly-over.

Now some may wish to hold to that theory anyways, but at least be honest enough not to attempt to use the FDR to support it, because it does not.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 08:25 AM by turbofan

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by turbofan

Sorry Turbo, but PA is highly inaccurate. Radio altimeter readings are used for landing and there are 11 other flights in the FDR to assess the reliability of that system. It works great! There is absolutely no indication in the positional, radio altimeter, or acceleratometer readings to support either a NoC or fly-over.

Now some may wish to hold to that theory anyways, but at least be honest enough not to attempt to use the FDR to support it, because it does not.

Highly inaccurate?

Care to quantify your assumption John? How inaccurate are they?

Maybe you can check the FAA requirements and manufacturer spec for
these so called, "HIGHLY INACCURATE" pressure altimeters.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 10:20 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by turbofan

Sorry Turbo, but PA is highly inaccurate. Radio altimeter readings are used for landing and there are 11 other flights in the FDR to assess the reliability of that system. It works great! There is absolutely no indication in the positional, radio altimeter, or acceleratometer readings to support either a NoC or fly-over.

Now some may wish to hold to that theory anyways, but at least be honest enough not to attempt to use the FDR to support it, because it does not.

Highly inaccurate?

Care to quantify your assumption John? How inaccurate are they?

Maybe you can check the FAA requirements and manufacturer spec for
these so called, "HIGHLY INACCURATE" pressure altimeters.

For the purpose, yes. Apparently you believe radio altimeters are superfluous.

It's now just as impossible for you, Rob Balsamo, and Craig Ranke to hide behind the "missing data" excuse as it was for you to claim "a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon."

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 12:17 PM by 911files

reply to post by turbofan

Yes Turbo, highly inaccurate for landing purposes. I don't base my statements on something googleinvestigated on the internet. I base that on data from 11 other flights recorded by the fdr and actual performance. And yes, I will clarify it soon enough, but in your case you may have to wait for the book.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 01:16 PM by turbofan

reply to post by 911files

Answer the question John. What is the tolerance +/- at, or below 1000 feet for a commercial category Pressure Altimeter?

I've already done the research and I'll be sure to link everyone here
if you don't...because we really can't continue this discussion based
on your assumptions.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:46 PM by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
Answer the question John. What is the tolerance +/- at, or below 1000 feet for a commercial category Pressure Altimeter?

I've already done the research and I'll be sure to link everyone here
if you don't...because we really can't continue this discussion based
on your assumptions.

Really. Is your "research" of the same caliber and quality as your "research" into the lamp poles? Into the Camp Springs 1 departure? Into the NOTAMS dissimination system? Into the Gopher 06 departure? Into flight restrictions around P-56? Into "morning rush hour" into KDCA? Into "SAM" Missile stand-down at the Pentagon? Into bogus BS lawsuits? Into how a wing will RIIIIIP off a Boeing aircraft at 450 knots?

Research? PfT research???

I don't think anyone of sound mind on this discussion board has any questions regarding who's research they would trust, and it sure as heck ain't PfTs.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by trebor451]

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:50 PM by turbofan

reply to post by trebor451

What does it take for you guys to put up a real debate and answer questions?

What is the tolerance of commercial category pressure altimeters?

John stated they are "highly inaccurate".

Do you agree?

Please backup your reply with FAA and manufacturer data. I'll await
either reply and then post the real data for the readers to view.