New FDR Decode

reply to post by thomk

Originally posted by thomk
Scott,

I'm sorry. We seem to have a language barrier.

You appear to speak one dialect of English. I'm not sure, but I think it's "Artsy".
I speak a completely different one: "Engineer English".

There are many pilots who are quite impressed with PFT's work. I wouldn't be surprised if a few engineers were as well.

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
Just out of curiosity, what work of Balsamo's do you find deserving of respect.

A great deal of it actually. I haven't found a PFT video that I haven't been impressed with.

...
There is only one thing that impresses me: correct answers.

I think they came up with a great deal of those.

Originally posted by thomk
In all of the videos of theirs that I've watched, I see approximately zero competent epistemology, zero rigor, zero maturity and zero correct conclusions.

Well then I guess we disagree on the correctness of most if not all of their conclusions made in their videos (Rob Balsamo has since stated that he no longer believes the pentagon might have been hit by a missile like device, for 1).

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with the pilots who claim that a boring, 1.1G, 3 minute sweeping turn is a "Top Gun maneuver"?

I remember succinctly that Rob Balsamo stated that 10 gs would have had to have been exerted in order to pull up after hitting the light polls and coming in low and level as seen in the 5 frame video.

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with a bozo who tells you that someone could not possibly fly a plane into a building that is wider than 99% of the runways in the US?

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I'm guesing you're speaking of PFT's new video talking of the unlikelihood if hitting the twin towers by a non professional pilot? I haven't actually seen this new video of theirs, but from what I've heard, at the speed the planes were going at, it does look like it would have been fairly difficult.

Originally posted by thomk
(How do those pilots manage to land on the runways?)

I think the largest factor may be lower speed.

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with the due diligence and rigor of a bozo who discovers one irrelevant thing in the data (the Flight Data Door bit) one day, and two days later announces to the world that he's "proven that the hijacking was impossible"?

It seems that Rob Balsamo's getting a lot of heat for this theory of his, and not only from official story supporters. So let's make this the second conclusion he's drawn that I have serious reservations on.

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with the utter illogic, massive irony and just plain "fence post IQ" of someone who is adamantly asserting that he is using information taken off of a FDR that was pulled out of the wreckage of the Pentagon ... to prove that the plane carrying the FDR passed OVER the Pentagon??

Is he truly asserting that the FDR crashed into the pentagon, or only that it was "found" there? There is a large difference between those 2 assertions.

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
You'll have to forgive me. I'm an engineer. There's only one thing that we respect: being right.

By that criteria, I'm at a total loss to see what he's done that stands up to the slightest informed scrutiny.

I respect turbofan as well, and unlike Rob, he hasn't banned me for disagreeing with him.

I wasn't asking if Turbo was nice. Or if Robby was mean.

I am asking "what assertions of theirs have you concluded are correct"?

All of their assertions involving technical details that I'm aware of, with the exception of the 2 mentioned above, one of which Rob has already essentially retracted.

Originally posted by thomk
Please think about it for a bit, and tell me the two or three MOST COMPELLING conclusions that he has drawn that you believe are factually correct.

Off the top of my head:
1- The impossible pull up (the 10g one).
2- The evidence that the FDR data given would imply that the plane didn't follow the official story flight path.
3- His conclusion that CIT's North of Citgo flight path witnesses are correct.

reply to post by scott3x

There are many pilots who are quite impressed with PFT's work.

Well, that depends on your definition of "many", dunnnit?

Does "many" mean the baker's dozen or so that P4T claims repeatedly as their "core" membership of experts...the ones who ThomK reminds us say they can't hit a massive skyscraper like one of the former Twin Towers, in the simulator, without slowing to landing speeds??

Because, from reviewing posts over there, more often than not the people who bother to write anything at all (besides the Admins) are always gushing over how wonderful Robby is, saying things like, "I'm not a pilot, but you sure make it easy for even ME to understand!" I paraphrase, but t hat's the gist.

P4T is a joke, a fool's errand. They are a blot on the landscape.

A bug to smash.

This has been shown, over and over. The Emperor has no clothes...and I wish he'd put them on, go away and stop poisoning the well...mixed metaphors, I know.
_____________________________________________________________

. . .and:

Originally posted by scott3x
Off the top of my head:
1- The impossible pull up (the 10g one).

That is very, very old news, based on the P4T's flawed interpretation of the FDR dat csv files, the ones they acquired by dubious means, and had "decoded" by someone whom they felt was competent. However, Mr. Warren Stutt has shown himself to be far, far more competent in that matter.

The alleged "10g" pull up is horse puckey.

2- The evidence that the FDR data given would imply that the plane didn't follow the official story flight path.

That's just crazy talk. Once again, look at the magnetic heading, it tells you most of what you need to know to reassemble, backwards, the path.

What P4T does do is blather on about DME distance recorded in FDR data...but, as I've spent many electrons trying to explain, that is just another in a score (or more) of their bloviating, blustering buffoonery.

The extent of their claim you reference is related to something known as IRS (or INS) "drift". The IRS navigation devices are not designed to be, nor expected to be, as accurate as you might think. Their purpose is for gross latitude/longitude positional computation. (They have otehr functions, but for now that's enough to know). Nowadays, many many more airplanes have included GPS updating, so accuracy is getting tighter. But, not on American 77, it had no GPS update.

3- His conclusion that CIT's North of Citgo flight path witnesses are correct.

No, they are human beings. They are prone to error, and suggestion. THAT has been shown, repeatedly.

[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

There are many pilots who are quite impressed with PFT's work.

Well, that depends on your definition of "many", dunnnit?

Does "many" mean the baker's dozen or so that P4T claims repeatedly as their "core" membership of experts...the ones who ThomK reminds us say they can't hit a massive skyscraper like one of the former Twin Towers, in the simulator, without slowing to landing speeds??

Because, from reviewing posts over there, more often than not the people who bother to write anything at all (besides the Admins) are always gushing over how wonderful Robby is, saying things like, "I'm not a pilot, but you sure make it easy for even ME to understand!" I paraphrase, but t hat's the gist.

P4T is a joke, a fool's errand. They are a blot on the landscape.

A bug to smash.

This has been shown, over and over. The Emperor has no clothes...and I wish he'd put them on, go away and stop poisoning the well...mixed metaphors, I know.
_____________________________________________________________

Wow, you sure said a lot of nothing there didn't you? So you can trash P4T with baseless attacks. Can you show they deserve your derision or do you just have more crap to sell? It is bad enough you say you are a pilot and yet many many members have pointed out the many erroneous posts you have made that belie that myth. You have done nothing to prove your credentials so there goes that. So...what is wrong with p4t again? Some facts would be nice this time.

reply to weedwhacker's post #1742, Part 1

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
There are many pilots who are quite impressed with PFT's work.

Well, that depends on your definition of "many", dunnnit?

Does "many" mean the baker's dozen or so that P4T claims repeatedly as their "core" membership of experts...the ones who ThomK reminds us say they can't hit a massive skyscraper like one of the former Twin Towers, in the simulator, without slowing to landing speeds??

I believe those would be the ones, yes. Do you have any reason to believe that those pilots do not in fact support P4T's conclusions on everything but the (now discarded by PFT) missile theory and perhaps the flight deck door thing?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Because, from reviewing posts over there, more often than not the people who bother to write anything at all (besides the Admins) are always gushing over how wonderful Robby is, saying things like, "I'm not a pilot, but you sure make it easy for even ME to understand!" I paraphrase, but that's the gist.

Yes, well, no one ever accused Rob of having a high tolerance of dissenting viewpoints :-p. This doesn't mean, however, that he isn't right for the most part on the technical stuff.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
P4T is a joke, a fool's errand. They are a blot on the landscape.

A bug to smash.

This has been shown, over and over. The Emperor has no clothes...and I wish he'd put them on, go away and stop poisoning the well...mixed metaphors, I know.

Must give you points for creative and rather humerous metaphors anyway, laugh :-). I can't state that PFT is even a truther's dream come true. Despite this, however, I highly respect a lot of the work they've done and I think that you unfairly malign them.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to weedwhacker's post #1742, Part 2 (last part)

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
Off the top of my head:
1- The impossible pull up (the 10g one).

That is very, very old news, based on the P4T's flawed interpretation of the FDR dat csv files, the ones they acquired by dubious means, and had "decoded" by someone whom they felt was competent. However, Mr. Warren Stutt has shown himself to be far, far more competent in that matter.

Apparently Warren Stutt is debating a particular issue over at PFT; Rob Balsamo has admitted that he made a slight miscalculation on a particular issue but Warren now acknowledges that his math is right. Furthermore, onesliceshort, another poster over at PFT, has brought up some points for for Warren to consider:
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The alleged "10g" pull up is horse puckey.

I have yet to see any evidence that your assertion is correct.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
2- The evidence that the FDR data given would imply that the plane didn't follow the official story flight path.

That's just crazy talk. Once again, look at the magnetic heading, it tells you most of what you need to know to reassemble, backwards, the path.

I'm sorry, but I can't follow you here; I'm just not that technically knowledgeable. Perhaps turbofan or someone else who knows more on such things could comment...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What P4T does do is blather on about DME distance recorded in FDR data...but, as I've spent many electrons trying to explain, that is just another in a score (or more) of their bloviating, blustering buffoonery.

I have seen no evidence that this assertion of yours is correct.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The extent of their claim you reference is related to something known as IRS (or INS) "drift". The IRS navigation devices are not designed to be, nor expected to be, as accurate as you might think. Their purpose is for gross latitude/longitude positional computation. (They have otehr functions, but for now that's enough to know). Nowadays, many many more airplanes have included GPS updating, so accuracy is getting tighter. But, not on American 77, it had no GPS update.

The I in IRS/INS stand for Intertial? If so, I remember Rob talking about it, but this stuff is fairly technical for me...

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
3- His conclusion that CIT's North of Citgo flight path witnesses are correct.

No, they are human beings. They are prone to error, and suggestion. THAT has been shown, repeatedly.

Sure, human beings are prone to error, but for not enormous errors like which side of a gas station a plane that shouldn't be in that airspace was flying on.

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by weedwhacker
P4T is a joke, a fool's errand. They are a blot on the landscape.

A bug to smash...

Wow, you sure said a lot of nothing there didn't you? So you can trash P4T with baseless attacks. Can you show they deserve your derision or do you just have more crap to sell?

Lilly, please; I know that weedwacker also engaged in making insults of his ideological opponents, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. I suggest we stick to the evidence and not make what I view as an extremely dangerous mistake in any productive discussion: that of insulting the other side. I know that it's frequently not followed, but I think there's a very good reason that the following post was put up by a super moderator here at ATS named Majic:

In The Heat Of Battle

In it, he states:

Originally posted by Majic
Though passions are flaring over the ongoing violence in the Middle East and other hot topics, it's important to remember that mutual respect and tolerance of differing opinions is what sets us apart and makes our community so unique -- and discussion here so worthwhile.

reply to post by Lillydale


More character assassination from Lilly, an inevitable ploy about once every month or so...

Well, go ahead and ask Springer:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hate to do this, but your blathering needed to be put in its place.

[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

More character assassination from Lilly, an inevitable ploy about once every month or so...

Well, go ahead and ask Springer:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hate to do this, but your blathering needed to be put in its place.

It is like this. You sound more like a liar than a pilot when you post. That is my opinion. I am not stating a fact that I have confirmed, just what I think. When I read your posts, more and more I see someone who has read a great deal but comes across as dishonest and deals in overcompensation. I have seen other posters who claim to also be pilots question the validity of your claim and even pose questions to you that I do not recall you answering. Of course I do not know if they are truly pilots either so it is just more opinion based theory. Unfortunately, this does little to help change what I think.

I've seen his FAA documentation and vetted him in other ways also, he is exactly what he says he is.

Springer...

Other ways eh? What on earth could that mean? So the owner of a website dedicated to conspiracies, UFOs, cryptozoology(s?), etc backs you up. Why should that convince me?

reply to post by scott3x

Perhaps turbofan or someone else who knows more on such things could comment...

No offense to Tino, again....but.....

scott, I hate to say it, but you're too deep into the P4T nonsense to see it for what it is. Smoke and mirrors. Alleged by a small...very small...group who have an agenda that, frankly, escapes logic, to me.

Have you seen the animation that depicts what was reconstructed, albeit in an initial pass, from the FDR?

It shows very basic info, like the control wheel movements, the altitude, airspeed and heading info, and thrust lever positions. Along with a three-dimensional path depiction.

The "10g pullup" baloney is stuff they just pull out of any convenient orifice, and is NOT based on precise measurements...it is massaged, by them, in order to bolster their claims. It uses what is already understood to be lat/long positional data subject to a lot of margin for error, and the pressure altimeter info too....again, not nearly as exact, in a micro-second by micro-second examination.

And, in all of this bleating about the pressure altitude (they abbreviate it 'PA' for ease of typing) they completely ignore the radar altitude (aka radio altimeter data). A far more accurate measuring device, it reads directly below the airplane, using radio signals that reflect off of any surface beneath, and the resulting timing is converted into distance in feet. BUT, its accuracy can be affected by irregular terrain below. And there are limits in the time factor, as info is processed.

I'm sure that P4T don't like to talk about ANY of the data that is inconvenient to their established "story" --- they ignore it, and only present the rest. THAT is the problem with relying on them too much, as you no doubt have been as yet.
_____________________________________________________________

Oh, and the discussion over there about g-forces??? Did you see the one where Balsamo calculated over 2000 gs?!?!!!! I think THAT is what you may have read about, concerning math difficulties seen by Mr. 'extreme pilot'.

Sorry, but the wheels are coming off his bus.









[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Lillydale


Ah, hahaha!!! Rich.

Sorry, but if you (not you in particular, but the general 'you') are NOT a pilot (and I can tell) then anything that seems too technical will not make sense, I suppose. But, I challenge anyone to find, merely from searching the 'net, the sort of information I can continually provide. You won't.

So, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I can dumb it down, but then anyone can do that, so it proves nothing.

So, I write for those in the audience who ARE capable of understanding. They know who they are.

As for the others? You can lead a horse......

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
Please think about it for a bit, and tell me the two or three MOST COMPELLING conclusions that he has drawn that you believe are factually correct.

Off the top of my head:
1- The impossible pull up (the 10g one).

Rob Balsamo can't do the math and doesn't understand the
physics. First he calculated 11.2g, and then "corrected"
it to 10.14g in a DVD, but both calculations were off by
a factor of 5 or more: the correct answer for his problem
was about 1.9g, as shown in detail here:
www.ccs.neu.edu...

Now that Warren has given us the last 4 seconds of FDR
data, we know that Flight 77 did not quite achieve level
flight, and that the average vertical acceleration for
the last 2 seconds (including gravity) was 1.8g, with a
maximum of about 2.3g:
www.ccs.neu.edu...

Even after we learned those facts from Warren's decode,
Rob calculated 2223g, later "corrected" to 58g. He's
going in the wrong direction.

2- The evidence that the FDR data given would imply that the plane didn't follow the official story flight path.

There is no "official" story, but if you're just talking
about the 61.5 degree heading implied by the light poles
that were struck, that heading is confirmed by the FDR
data. As plotted by 911files, who went to considerable
trouble to correlate the various radar and video data:

zoesflight.com...
forums.randi.org...

3- His conclusion that CIT's North of Citgo flight path witnesses are correct.

Out of scores or hundreds of witnesses, CIT found 3 whose
memories of what they had seen years before were confused
enough to be led into saying what they said on camera.
Even then, those witnesses still said the plane they had
seen had hit the Pentagon or knocked down light poles, so
CIT had to discredit those comments or edit them out of
their videos. Meanwhile, there are no witnesses
to the flyover promoted by CIT, even though that maneuver
would have been within the sight lines of far more people
than witnessed the impact.

CIT's north-of-Citgo theory has been thoroughly debunked,
and is widely regarded as bunk even by advocates of MIHOP
theories. I'll let you confirm that on your own, as it
is the least technical of Rob's three conclusions that
you believe to be factually correct.

Will

reply to post by cesura


Thanks, cesura, I never have the links available off the top of my head, like that.

I write what I know. Some don't seem to feel that is sufficient. I beg to differ.

Your info helps oodles, too. And, I fear it will also be rejected, or ignored, or pooh-poohed.

sorry wrong thread

[edit on 12/17/09 by Lillydale]

Scott,

Please give me an idea of your background. Age? Education? Profession?

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
Just out of curiosity, what work of Balsamo's do you find deserving of respect.

A great deal of it actually. I haven't found a PFT video that I haven't been impressed with.

Nice generic evasion, Scott.

If you have no background in aviation, then you have no basis on which to judge whether or not is conclusions are true or are crap.

I GAVE you the tool that you could use to determine this: What do OTHER professional pilots think about his stuff.

The answer is simple: There are about 20 pilots that are members of his group.
People who never post or do anything.
There are a couple of alleged aviation mechanics over there. Who never post anything or provide any analysis.

Balsamo is the only one who produces this nonsense. And he is the only one who says that others review & agree with his conclusions.

There are several hundred professional pilots at Pprune.org. Go there yourself. Search on "9/11 conspiracy". Read for yourself what real pilots think about it.

Originally posted by scott3x
(Rob Balsamo has since stated that he no longer believes the pentagon might have been hit by a missile like device, for 1).

After stating the opposite, with absolute certainty, for how long?
After claiming that anyone who disagreed with him was a fraud & a poseur, for how long?

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with the pilots who claim that a boring, 1.1G, 3 minute sweeping turn is a "Top Gun maneuver"?

I remember succinctly that Rob Balsamo stated that 10 gs would have had to have been exerted in order to pull up after hitting the light polls and coming in low and level as seen in the 5 frame video.

You are right about Robby saying that.
He is completely, utterly, hilariously wrong.
But he did say it.

But it is utterly irrelevant to the point that I was making. The people at P4T, including Bowman, Stubblebine, Lear & Balsamo, have claimed that the whole terminal dive (from ~7000' altitude to impact) was an impossible, high G maneuver. (Not just the last pull up.)

This whole contention is utterly wrong. As proven by the FDR. As proven by the radar returns. As proven by the radius of curvature of the flight path. (If they'd pulled 6, 7 or 8 Gs, as they claimed, they would have turned in a radius that was about 1/5th, 1/6th or 1/7th the radius that they did. With JUST the flight path & air speed (readily available from the RADES radar data), you can immediately calculate that these statements are BS.

You can also look at the FDR data, which confirms it. The flight path on the FDR matches the RADES data. The airspeed on the FDR matches the RADE data. And you, as you can see for yourself, the max & min Gs that the plane undergoes 2.264 & 0.306 Gs during this descent. You subtract 1G for gravity, and you find that the pilot "pulled" 1.264 positive Gs, and pushed over to 0.7 negative Gs.

There is absolutely NOTHING about these G loadings that threatens the planes one iota. Now, you show me Stubblebine's, Bowman's or Lear's statements retracting their previous BS. It is not there.

ONLY after being beat about the head & shoulders, did Balsamo retract his statement along these lines. But he STILL has Bowman, Stubblebine's & Lear's (and many others') FALSE statements prominently displayed on his website. Complete with "confirmation" by appeals to these other fools' authority.

This is simply LYING, scott.

[End Part 1]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by thomk]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by thomk]

[Part 2]

Balsamo's 10 G claim is ALSO nonsense. He does not know how to calculate acceleration. He does not know how to set up the boundary condition to solve it.

His errors are:
1. He uses a turn & bank calculation that assumes that the plane stays level. False assumptions. Wrong equations.
2. His assumption that the plane leveled out is false. It did not. It came in at a shallow angle of around 4° until the end of the FDR data.

There is also no indication that it leveled out over the lawn. And every reason to suspect that Hanjour would NOT do that, but rather fly in at a relatively constant angle while making small corrections. Exactly as the plane did.

As soon as you remove the 2nd condition, the required IMPRESSED acceleration drop to zero. Meaning that, if Hanjour were a competent pilot, he could have accomplished the maneuver pulling & pushing no Gs (or at a nice steady 1.0G on the accelerometer). Just like flying level.

Hanjour wasn't that good, and made lots of small corrections.

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with a bozo who tells you that someone could not possibly fly a plane into a building that is wider than 99% of the runways in the US?

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I'm guesing you're speaking of PFT's new video talking of the unlikelihood if hitting the twin towers by a non professional pilot? I haven't actually seen this new video of theirs, but from what I've heard, at the speed the planes were going at, it does look like it would have been fairly difficult.

It's not a new claim. It's 8 years old. It was just as false 8 years ago as it is today.

And it was not "fairly difficult". It was trivially easy. And still, 175 almost missed the South Tower. Having to bank and pull Gs just before impact.

The speed has precisely zero to do with it.
767s performing high speed passes at air shows have zero problem putting the plane right down the middle of the runway. Plus or minus 15 feet or so. For a runway that is around 150' across for the typical small airports that they have these shows. (The main two runways at Oshkosh are 150' across, the other two are 75' across.) Compared to the 208' wide towers.

Their assertion is brain-dead dumb.

Your inability to see that is your wishful self-deception.

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
(How do those pilots manage to land on the runways?)

I think the largest factor may be lower speed.

Lower speed allows you to come to a stop. Modern planes, like 767s, do not get "uncontrollable" at the speeds that they were doing. The incontestable PROOF that they do not get controllable at those speeds is ... (wait for it) ...

... the FACT that the pilot of 175 managed to CONTROL his airplane. He was misaligned to the right of the tower, and he intentionally banked left and pulled back on the yoke. And thereby performed a CONTROLLED turn that took him into the tower. If the plane were uncontrollable, then he would not have been able to do this.

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with the due diligence and rigor of a bozo who discovers one irrelevant thing in the data (the Flight Data Door bit) one day, and two days later announces to the world that he's "proven that the hijacking was impossible"?

It seems that Rob Balsamo's getting a lot of heat for this theory of his, and not only from official story supporters. So let's make this the second conclusion he's drawn that I have serious reservations on.

It's only "the 2nd" because you don't know much of anything about aviation. If you knew about aviation, it would be the 1002nd.

[End Part 2]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by thomk]

[Part 3]

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
Are you impressed with the utter illogic, massive irony and just plain "fence post IQ" of someone who is adamantly asserting that he is using information taken off of a FDR that was pulled out of the wreckage of the Pentagon ... to prove that the plane carrying the FDR passed OVER the Pentagon??

Is he truly asserting that the FDR crashed into the pentagon, or only that it was "found" there? There is a large difference between those 2 assertions.

He is asserting that the plane flew over the Pentagon & away.

He is ignoring the 150 or so eyewitnesses. EVERY ONE of whom say the plane crashed into the Pentagon. NONE of whom say that plane over flew the Pentagon & flew away.

Some people mention seeing a SECOND plane (the infamous C130) that was flying around. But this Plane never flew anywhere physically close to the Pentagon.

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by thomk
I am asking "what assertions of theirs have you concluded are correct"?

Off the top of my head:
1- The impossible pull up (the 10g one).
2- The evidence that the FDR data given would imply that the plane didn't follow the official story flight path.
3- His conclusion that CIT's North of Citgo flight path witnesses are correct.

1. He's wrong. He doesn't know how to set up the problem or what equations to use to solve it. The hard data says he's wrong. He pulled up a max of about 1.26 impressed Gs (2.26 measured).

2. There is no FDR data that refutes the "official story". The data supports it.

3.
ALL of CIT's eyewitnesses say "the Plane flew into the Pentagon". NONE say it overflew the building.
The light poles say the NoC path is BS.
The path of the plane thru the building says the NoC path is BS.
The other 100+ eyewitnesses say "no plane over flew the Pentagon". Without another plane to knock down the light poles, the NoC path is BS.
The Mag compass in the FDR says the NoC path is BS.
___

What else have you got?

Are you starting to get the picture yet? You are impressed by his BS for only one reason: because you don't understand it. THAT is Robby's whole secret.


TomK

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
scott, I hate to say it, but you're too deep into the P4T nonsense to see it for what it is. Smoke and mirrors. Alleged by a small...very small...group who have an agenda that, frankly, escapes logic, to me.

I don't see it that way.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Have you seen the animation that depicts what was reconstructed, albeit in an initial pass, from the FDR?

It shows very basic info, like the control wheel movements, the altitude, airspeed and heading info, and thrust lever positions. Along with a three-dimensional path depiction.

I believe that Rob Balsamo commented on this in one of his videos, along with atleast one error in it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The "10g pullup" baloney is stuff they just pull out of any convenient orifice, and is NOT based on precise measurements... it is massaged, by them, in order to bolster their claims.

I can't just take your word for that weedwacker.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It uses what is already understood to be lat/long positional data subject to a lot of margin for error, and the pressure altimeter info too....again, not nearly as exact, in a micro-second by micro-second examination.

I fully admit I really don't understand the points you're making. In such a situation, I have to go with my instinct, but clearly, I can't debate you on this.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, in all of this bleating about the pressure altitude (they abbreviate it 'PA' for ease of typing) they completely ignore the radar altitude (aka radio altimeter data). A far more accurate measuring device, it reads directly below the airplane, using radio signals that reflect off of any surface beneath, and the resulting timing is converted into distance in feet. BUT, its accuracy can be affected by irregular terrain below. And there are limits in the time factor, as info is processed.

I'm sure that P4T don't like to talk about ANY of the data that is inconvenient to their established "story" --- they ignore it, and only present the rest. THAT is the problem with relying on them too much, as you no doubt have been as yet.

You -claim- that you're sure that PFT doesn't like to talk about any data that is inconvenient to their story, but I don't believe that. Not only that, but it's clear that some members, such as turbofan, will even dissent with Rob Balsamo if they don't agree. It would also seem from what I've read in this thread that JFK isn't persuaded concerning the door thing as of yet either.
_____________________________________________________________

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and the discussion over there about g-forces??? Did you see the one where Balsamo calculated over 2000 gs?!?!!!! I think THAT is what you may have read about, concerning math difficulties seen by Mr. 'extreme pilot'.

I didn't see that one, no. I know that his math has slipped atleast once- he admitted as much to Warren Stutt, as I mentioned previously in one of these posts. However, when he realizes his mistake, he corrects it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, but the wheels are coming off his bus.

I'm sure the stress of being a truther may have been part of the reason that he made certain unwise decisions, but I stand by my claim that I believe he's done a lot of good work.

Originally posted by Lillydale
It is like this. You sound more like a liar than a pilot when you post. That is my opinion. I am not stating a fact that I have confirmed, just what I think. When I read your posts, more and more I see someone who has read a great deal but comes across as dishonest and deals in overcompensation. I have seen other posters who claim to also be pilots question the validity of your claim and even pose questions to you that I do not recall you answering. Of course I do not know if they are truly pilots either so it is just more opinion based theory. Unfortunately, this does little to help change what I think.

Well, you've got a problem and not enough brainpower to figure a way thru it, apparently.

I'll tell you this: ANY pilot can immediately identify those who are, and those who are not, pilots.

It is not simply a matter of "do they agree with me".
Balsamo clearly was a pilot.
So were Stubblebine, Bowman & Lear.
Even tho they say massively stupid, massively incorrect things about flying.

Nor is the determinant, as Robby likes to imply, "if you get one question wrong, you're a fraud". Pilots get some details wrong all the time. Mostly trivial inconsequential ones. Sometimes big important ones.

(Like the Delta 767 pilots a while ago who forgot that runways are bordered in white lights and taxi ways are bordered in blue ones ... and landed on the taxi way in Atlanta. Ooops. Say "sayonara" to your job.)

Weed IS a pilot. It is obvious.

I have every confidence that you'll choose not to believe me.

Now ask me if I give a rip about your adolescent hissy fits ...

LoL.

TomK

reply to post by scott3x


ThomK has covered it very nicely, I refer back to his three-part post, as a response that you made to me.

BTW, no....I know nothing of him, other than from ATS and reading his posts. In case there were any forthcoming claims of "tag-teaming"...just wanted to clarify that. And nip anything in the bud....

The Pprune group? That's a new one to me, gonna check it out. Will you, too?

cesura also offered numerous links, good ones that demolish P4T very effectively --- and corroborate what I've been attempting (poorly, according to some) to say.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edit in, because it's too good to let languish in obscurity, this link bears a repeat performance (especially the bits about the guitar music -- did I pique your interest?):

www.ccs.neu.edu...
edit out...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of Capt. Lear (mentioned above), another of the P4T 'absentee' professional pilots....

There is no doubt about the good Captains' credentials, and experience and certificates and ratings and world records, etc...it is all public record.

But, it is interesting to remind everyone that the good Captain, when he chose to post here on ATS, was (at least in his posts --- and I always suspected he was having quite the go at us) consistent in his stated allegation that the American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, in NYC, were...holograms. Yep, you read that correctly.

Oh, and the Towers were struck by special 'super sekrit' directed energy weapons from orbiting platforms...quite possibly on one of the dozen or so 'sekrit' space stations that are hidden behind cloaking shields, so that's why the public doesn't see them...shall I go on?

Is that the sort of credibility that should be considered valid?

Remember, Capt. Lear is one of P4T's 'core members' that they vaunt so much, trotting out like trophies. Quite humorous, actually.




[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

ThomK has covered it very nicely, I refer back to his three-part post, as a response that you made to me.

I can't follow you in these arenas weedwacker. I think the only people who can do it are over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth and perhaps turbofan; he could certainly follow you better than I ever could regarding these technical issues at any rate. I decided to post again at PFT again after all. Rob Balsamo referred me to a thread over there where you apparently posted. Lots of technical stuff on both sides. I'm just plain lost with all of this stuff, and I told him so.