New FDR Decode

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


Sorry I posted about asking someone else to explain what lies they are referring to in some videos they claimed to have done all their research with. I was simply explaining that I did my research with official reports, witness accounts, and stuff. My little friend bought some videos he did not like and says they are full of lies. I want to know what lies before I bother to waste my money on them. Instead I get called lazy and told to go do my nails and my post is removed?

OK, now that the high school histrionics are (hopefully) over, back to the topic.

Info that destroys Balsamo's "the PA must be precise" mantra.

Look at the take off roll data for AA77.

Runway 30 is 288 feet and the same runway at the other end is Runway 12 at 310 feet. Assume continuous linear slope. Close enough.

This gives about a 20' elevation rise from start to end of take off roll. (Assume he used most, not all, of runway.)

And yet, from the start of the roll until the START of rotation, the PA continuously increases in reading from 40 to 74 ft. This is a 34 foot increase, with only a 20' actual rise in the runway. (Yeah, I know there might be a hump in the middle of the runway, but the plane is going to be close to one end or the other at start & departure.)

The extra 14 feet is easily explained by the increase in speed & Bernoulli's effect. The faster you go, the lower the static pressure reading. In this case, 0 to 132 kts produced an static pressure decrease that was equivalent to a 14' increase in altitude reading.

During the rotation, but before liftoff, you can see the effects of the AoA on the PA reading.

During rotation, the pitch angle rises from 0° to about 8°, which increases the static pressure port elevation by about 50'(sin 8°) = 7', and yet the PA reading decreases by 25' (74' @ subframe 146712 to 49' @ subframe 146717). Obviously due to changes in air flow direction over the fuselage & past the static port.

There are two possible interpretation of the above. Either one of which reinforce that there are errors in the PA instrumentation. (And also destroys Balsamo's idiotic "we have to believe that the PA is infallible")

Option 1: The data recorded in the FDR is uncorrected for the various effects (airspeed and AoA) that introduce errors. (I think this is unlikely.)

Option 2: The corrections are made for the normal portions of the flight envelope, and once you are significantly outside of that regime, your corrections are no longer valid.

Either way, if there are these errors at normal takeoff speeds, then at 480 kts & 50' MSL, Balsamo's "the PA must be considered to be exact" is a load of hooey.

BTW, any slight wrinkle that may have been put into the skin of AA77 could easily throw off the PA by hundreds of feet.

Tom

Turbo, you have never replied to the comments that I've made about the big picture.

Namely, that:
1. we knew professional pilots were at the controls when the plane took off.
2. we know that a poor pilot was at the controls from midway thru the flight.
3. we know that they had to open the door to swap pilots
4. we know that the FDR does not record the FD door opening
5. ergo: the FD door was not recorded in the FDR.

Care to stop avoiding & address this?
Any other truther care to step up?


[edit on 19-12-2009 by thomk]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
GENTLE REMINDER:

Please discuss the topic and not each other!!!!
Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling

GENTLE REMINDER

originally posted by Trebor -

A fool and his money are soon parted, so I would fully expect you to buy them.

Or you could go back to doing your nails...

I've EARNED the right to call out both men & women for being lazy.

I'd advise member to check out the link above, in case they're not sure what the standard for posting should be.

Thanks

I would advise the mod to do less cherry picking.

Hopefully the fact that you still have not realized, after being informed, that "trebor" and "ThomK" are two different people is not a refletion of the quality of your "research".

LoL.

Tom

[edit on 19-12-2009 by thomk]

Originally posted by thomk
Hopefully the fact that you still have not realized, after being informed, that "trebor" and "ThomK" are two different people is not a refletion of the quality of your "research".

LoL.

Tom

Actually, it is pretty obvious that you are not. I decided I no longer needed to use both your screen names because you both spent all this time saying the same things, whining about the same crap, using the same personal attacks, and spinning the same baseless argument.

I guess you seem to think that your ATS SN as opposed to someone else who says all the same crap's ATS SN is every bit as important as the death of 3000 people. It is not. You are both the same here. Sorry.

Then again, perhaps you do deserve your proper credit. For my saying I do not want to buy videos and asking you both to tell me what the lies in them are ...I got called a fool and told to go do my nails. Which one was you again? Please stand up and take a bow for your particularly ignorant and pointless attack?

[edit on 12/19/09 by Lillydale]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Back at the Pilots For Truth treehouse, Rob is confused about what he believes to be true regarding the door.

Warren Stutt @ Pft

The above reasoning leaves me fairly confident that the state of the flight deck door as known by the EICAS was being recorded by the FDR, however I have not yet seen circuits or other information that leads me to being certain that the flight deck door state was being received by the EICAS, so at this time I am not certain one way or the other whether or not the flight deck door state was being correctly recorded by the FDR.

Rob Balsamo @ Pft

I completely agree. However, even if we obtain the Maintenance Manual from American, we must first determine the data is from an American Airlines aircraft, N644AA. This is why i have repeatedly stated this data is not "proof" of anything.

I don't recall him ever saying that....that's what we've been saying. That was very nearly a startling revelation..... but the cognitive dissonance kicks in in the next paragraph..

Rob Balsamo continues....

The data shows the door closed, the NTSB claims the data is from N644AA (keyword = "claims"), this makes it impossible for a hijack to take place. This is cut and dry and undisputed.

Undisputed? You just disputed it yourself in the previous sentence, you imbecile! So basically, even though he agrees that its not known whether or not the flight deck door was connected to EICAS....it doesn't matter anyways. All roads lead to "inside job".

Warren calls Rob on his bull****.

Warren Stutt angers Der Fuhrer

In my opinion, if we can't show that the flight deck door status was received by the EICAS on N644AA, then the FDR file could be from N644AA and the flight deck door could have been opened with the file showing it as closed.

Rob retaliates by telling Warren that he is commiting a logical fallacy(irony overload) and then spams his pathetic 'List O' Lies' that Tino posted upthread and then accuses all of us of being spooks..

Rob Balsamo takes his ball and goes back to the funny farm.

To date, there hasnt been one person who has made excuse for the govt story of 9/11, able to provide proof for any of their above claims/excuses. Most of these people are anonymous or cannot be verified. Most use libel or personally attack us as their debate style in an obvious unhealthy daily obsession with our work and organization. Most probably work for the Pentagon. Every single one of them refuses to debate civilly in a recorded venue using their real name.

These are the facts. They are undisputed.

Boy, alleged First Officer Robby(thats his new name after revisiting some old threads) sure has strange definitions of 'fact' and 'undisputed'.

Dude, you're losing it.



[edit on 19-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Oh and whatever happened with the comparator 'smoking gun'? Bobby seems to have gone silent on that particular issue, perhaps realizing that he's in over his head....again.

On the PA issue, only a fraud with snakeoil to sell will insist that an altimetry system is more accurate than a radar altimeter.

Robby/JFK/or any other PFT fanboy, why are radar altimeters required for CAT I,II,III approaches? Why isn't "pressure altitude" good enough?

Robby/JFK/or any other PFT fanboy, why do modern airliners, even ones equipped with Air Data Computers, need to have IVSI's installed? There would be no need for an Instantaneous VSI, if there was no lag in the static system, right?

I'm just asking questions.

reply to post by thomk


Sorry Tom, I didn't realize you addressed me specifically on those
points, and I thought my position on FLT DECK DOOR was quite clear.

However for sake of clarity on my position, I will address the following:

Turbo, you have never replied to the comments that I've made about the big picture.

Namely, that:
1. we knew professional pilots were at the controls when the plane took off.
2. we know that a poor pilot was at the controls from midway thru the flight.
3. we know that they had to open the door to swap pilots
4. we know that the FDR does not record the FD door opening
5. ergo: the FD door was not recorded in the FDR.

Care to stop avoiding & address this?

1. I agree
2. Cannot agree
3. Agree if pilots were swapped
4. I agree based on trends and documentation
5. Agree based on trends and documentation.

On your point about Bernoulli's principle; I cannot support that fully for
the reason that the static port for the ADC extends from the port side, to
starboard side of the aircraft thereby reducing significant changes in static
readings.

I've seen other real world examples where this sort of configuration
stops/slows the flow of fluids/gas, such as crankshaft cross drilling.
High RPM engines do not cross drink oiling holes in the crankshaft
because equal pressure on both ends of the path slows/stops the
flow of oil.

In the case of the static port, I don't believe there is enough pressure
differential (especially at runway speeds) to produce such a change
in pressure altitude.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by thomk


Meaningful to say? Are you upset because I am not making ludicrous claims I cannot back up? Is it because I am asking people to provide a source for their ludicrous claims? Is it because I do not like being called a fool or told to do my nails? Like I said before, if you are so worried about your separate identity, please stand up and repeat to the class which amazing contribution you made to the thread. Calling me a fool or telling me to do my nails? Let me know when you are man enough to take the blows you like to toss around. Yes I did mean to do that because you both posted the same nonsense.

You both claimed that many many many people witnessed the impact. That is a lie. I asked you both to back that claim up because it is a lie and I was called a lazy fool. Yes, your contributions so far are amazing. A lie and a string of insults. I asked someone to back up some crazy claim and got attacked. So sorry you feel victimized. I feel bad for you like a repentant rapist.

It is really quite simple. You and others keep making this fairy tale claim that scores or hundreds of people witnessed the impact. I would like to see some proof of that because I believe it is a blatant lie.

Instead of just proving me wrong with 'the truth' you ganged up on me to personally attack me. That says a lot about the validity of your claim. Why come to a conspiracy site and go to a thread about 9/11 to tell a lie if you cannot even try to prove it is true?

[edit on 12/19/09 by Lillydale]

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


There's been a new thread posted in the 9/11 forum.
Please take the time to read it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Lillydale

(snipped)

It is really quite simple. You and others keep making this fairy tale claim that scores or hundreds of people witnessed the impact. I would like to see some proof of that because I believe it is a blatant lie.

[edit on 12/19/09 by Lillydale]

I haven't seen someone so confidently posit this ludicrous claim since 2006. Did you ever think to google "pentagon eyewitnesses" or do you just plug your fingers in your ears and hope for the best?

Pentagon eyewitness, sourced accounts.

Another list

And another....truther site version

Witnesses describing jet fuel

Some video accounts..



Maybe no one posted these because its akin to posting a list of Holocaust victims for a Holocaust Denier; it gives credibility to an insane claim.



[edit on 19-12-2009 by 767doctor]

reply to post by 767doctor


You forgot the CIT eyewitness set. They claim that the plane hit the Pentagon too..."independently verified"

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


Thank you.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by 767doctor
I haven't seen someone so confidently posit this ludicrous claim since 2006. Did you ever think to google "pentagon eyewitnesses" or do you just plug your fingers in your ears and hope for the best?

Pentagon eyewitness, sourced accounts.

Another list

And another....truther site version

Witnesses describing jet fuel

Some video accounts..



Maybe no one posted these because its akin to posting a list of Holocaust victims for a Holocaust Denier; it gives credibility to an insane claim.

You seem to be missing something important here. You OS pushers keep claiming that this OS is true. One thing you wave around as proof your precious OS is true, is that there are sooooooo many people that witnessed AA77 hit the Pentagon. Well, if you all want to keep making that claim, then why should it be too much to ask for proof? Maybe if you were running around insisting that you had a list of holocaust victims that half the people in the country doubted, you might have a comparison. You do not.

People here (like you) keep insisting there is this huge list of people that saw the impact and yet just asking for that list has gotten me nothing but insults and then people like you that have CLUE what it is you are trying to argue. A list of people that saw a plane, heard a boom, and then assumed things are not the same as people that witnessed the impact,

# Fred Gaskins recounted "(The jet) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target," he said , who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA TODAY near the Pentagon when the jet passed about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."[8]

So he says it was flying smoothly and calmly and yet he KNEW it was targeting the Pentagon? He did not see it hit the Pentagon, he just knew this smoothly flying plane was going to hit it. Interesting since from your same list, apparently it was flying really low and hitting light poles. Does that sound "smoothly and calmly?" I guess the plane he saw was doing something different. Thank god he was psychic though since he DID NOT WITNESS THE IMPACT. So no, this is nothing like a list of holocaust victims. Since when are witnesses victims? Did these people die from this crash they later reported?

OR....it could be these lists have been posted over and over again and the are NOT LISTS OF WITNESSES TO THE IMPACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is cute how you decided to try and be so rude with your response but since I have said IMPACT about 50 times in just a couple pages, you should really check your reading comprehension skills before you decide to get obnoxious.

Maybe you should google "IMPACT."

Number one off your first list - Gary Bauer

And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

He saw a plane and felt an explosion. I never once said there was no witness to a plane flying by. I also never said that no one reported an explosion. I asked for a list of people that ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW THE ACTUAL IMPACT. impact. IMPACT. IMPACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you will get it right next time.

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale
Number one off your first list - Gary Bauer

And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

You are being silly now. Bauer does not use the word 'impact', but he does say 'right into the Pentagon'.

Originally posted by Lillydale
I asked for a list of people that ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW THE ACTUAL IMPACT. impact. IMPACT. IMPACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You put Sean Boger down as very explicit 'impact' witness.

Originally posted by 911files


You are being silly now. Bauer does not use the word 'impact', but he does say 'right into the Pentagon'.

He does not claim to have seen that happen though. He assumed where it went because he saw a plane and then heard an explosion. Apparently he is reporting he heard it fly into the Pentagon. How would he know if he heard that as opposed to an explosion of any other sort since HE DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE IT.

Originally posted by Lillydale
You put Sean Boger down as very explicit 'impact' witness.

I did? I put him down as an explicit impact witness? Do any of you read what you respond to? Please tell me again what it is that I said to put him down. After you fail, I can explain to you why that statement is either a lie or stupid. You can pick.