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: 92
12
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

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.



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


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]


Lillydale

Do you actually look at sources people refer you to ?

The first 3 on the list you disparage :-

Gary Bauer " it veered to the right into the Pentagon ". You even quote it yourself "into the Pentagon".

Richard Benedetto "The jet knocked over several light poles before it smashed into the Pentagon."

Donald Bouchoux "impacted the side of the building "

So what do you suppose "into the Pentagon", "smashed into the Pentagon", impacted the side" means ?




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lillydale

Do you actually look at sources people refer you to ?

The first 3 on the list you disparage :-

Gary Bauer " it veered to the right into the Pentagon ". You even quote it yourself "into the Pentagon".

Richard Benedetto "The jet knocked over several light poles before it smashed into the Pentagon."

Donald Bouchoux "impacted the side of the building "

So what do you suppose "into the Pentagon", "smashed into the Pentagon", impacted the side" means ?


Cherry picking sentences is a good way to pretend they claim to have seen the impact. Please try reading again. They all said that it crashed into the Pentagon for one reason or another but they do not say that they SAW IT HAPPEN. Flying toward the Pentagon and then hearing an explosion is not SEEING IT HIT THE PENTAGON. Do not cherry pick and take the entire context.

You insist that it hit the Pentagon but you did not see it happen either so...

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

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.


Okay, I see now. You are not really wanting a rational conversation...my bad. That is why I don't bother for the most part responding to such silliness. Bauer's statement is very 'implicit', Boger's very 'explicit'. And yes, I could have put a 'can' in the quoted Boger sentence, but most reasonable minds caught the meaning.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Yeah, you're right. Why bother?

Why isn't this whole derail getting nuked or moved anyways? It has nothing to do with the Flight Data Recorder.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Okay, I see now. You are not really wanting a rational conversation...my bad. That is why I don't bother for the most part responding to such silliness. Bauer's statement is very 'implicit', Boger's very 'explicit'. And yes, I could have put a 'can' in the quoted Boger sentence, but most reasonable minds caught the meaning.


I have no clue what it is you are trying to say.

I cannot get any more simple than this.

OSERS claim SCORES of people WITNESSED the IMPACT.

I asked for a list of these people. Do you know how many 1 score is? I will give you a hint. 1 score of people is not one witness and one person who was nearby. I am not sure what it is you think I am asking for or why you are so confused. It is a nice touch to try and say I am not looking for rational discussion because an entire TEAM of you has jumped on me about this and NOT ONE OF YOU has been able to just post this list.

SCORES of witnesses to the actual IMPACT. This is the claim being made. Either back it up or back away from it but quit trying to tell me I do not want rational conversation just because I reject people who did NOT witness the impact as witnesses TO THE IMPACT.

I cannot believe this many pages and this many posters cannot do something this simple.

Post this list of scores of people that witnessed the IMPACT. That is all. If you cannot come up with the list, *Snip*

Removed Personal Attack and Warned

[edit on 12/20/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Yeah, you're right. Why bother?

Why isn't this whole derail getting nuked or moved anyways? It has nothing to do with the Flight Data Recorder.


You are right, why bother backing up an OS claim? That would be stupid. Spending pages trying to weasel out of it and being rude gets us somewhere right? Move it to an appropriate place. I am not the one that came into this thread and made this false claim about allllll these people that witnessed impact. I could care less what thread it is being discussed in and would be more than happy to let this one be just about the FDR. Amazing how when one of you makes some unrelated claim, that is ok but when someone disputes it, suddenly it is off topic.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



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


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by scott3x


... The FDR shows 2.2 maximum G force and if you calculate the G force required using reality and physics you get about 1.7 Gs needed. And the last few seconds average out to 1.6 to 1.7 G. Real science beats Balsamo's waving hands make up numbers. Even the DNA proves p4t math is a complete failure.


does the flight path confirms the numbers given? I mean do the 1.7 Gs corresponds with the flight path recorded on the FDR ?


Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by scott3x
(...) Gee, you have to ignore all the physical evidence to even start to believe the moronic delusion of a flyover or NoC.


were the plane parts found near Pentagon ever officially identified as flight 77 parts?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This FDR question is providing great and enjoyable humor with PfT's attention to it.

PfT has claimed, unequivocally and without reservation, that because the FDR data "shows" (their claim) that the cockpit door was never opened, the hijacking never took place. This unequivocal and without reservation claim is in PfT's "press release" titled "9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT" posted on the main page of their homepage.

PfT has also claimed, unequivocally and without reservation, that a conclusion using FDR data cannot be drawn without a "...positive ID from which the data was produced/recorded? Again, even if we get an American Airlines MX page dated prior to 9/11 for N644AA, it is moot until we prove the data came from N644AA."

So, on the one hand PfT is claiming the hijacking never happened because of FDR data and that the FDR data cannot be trusted unless and until it is confirmed to be from N644AA.

PfT's entire shtick is built of nothing but these logical contradictions. Great entertainment.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Tino,


Originally posted by turbofan
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.


You disagree with #2?

Tino, here are the flight profiles.




This may be a little hard to read. The 4 charts are, top to bottom:
1. Pressure altitude
2. Calibrated airspeed
3. Mach Number
4. Heading.

The pronounced ramp in the heading chart is the turnaround from 270° back to 090°, heading back to the Pentagon. The hijacking happened just before this turn around.

Look at the parameters pre & post hijacking. Before, each change from one state (altitude, airspeed or heading) is precise, deliberate, controlled, rock solid. In other words, "professional".

Look at the traces after the hijacking. The pilot could not hold an altitude, an air speed or a heading, unless the plane was on autopilot.

You are not a pilot. You probably don't know about "coordinated turns", about rolling into & out of turns onto your final heading, etc. When you watch Hanjour's 330° turn, it is COMPLETELY amateurish. He porpoises the plane with overcorrections. The turn is uncoordinated, he shows poor rudder control, his nose wanders all over the sky, and he rolls into & out of the turns very sloppily. All of these are the hallmarks of an amateur pilot.

You may not be convinced. P4T may not want to believe it. But the traces are as different as a professional Formula 1 driver versus a 16 year old student driver.

[End Part 1]

[edit on 20-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
[Part 2]

Originally posted by turbofan
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.


You're right. Not Bernoulli. Not with open, free stream air. Lazy phraseology on my part.

But rather due to the different flowstreams patterns that the air takes at different speeds as it curves around the body of the fuselage.

Look at this diagram:




This shows the variation in the static pressure along that line. From the static pressure distribution, you can see that, at any given speed, the static pressure can read too high, too low or just right.This is exactly the reason that they place the static port at a point where the static pressure adjacent to the body of the plane is equal to the freestream static pressure. (i.e., delta(p)/qc = 0).


If it happens that the curvature of the flowstream at the static pressure port is zero, then the static pressure will read accurately. If the curvature (perpendicular to the body of the plane) is convex (curving away from from the plane) then the pressure will read high. And if it is concave (curving towards the plane) then the pressure will read low.

We can see from photos (like this one below) that the position of the static port on the 757 is approximately at position 3 on the chart above. But it is displaced downward, level with the wing roots. Clearly, at this elevation on this plane, point 3 has moved somewhat forward.



A second consideration is that this profile is technically correct for ONLY ONE airspeed and attitude. Clearly, the airspeed & attitude to which it will be calibrated is cruise configuration. Obviously, with ADCs they could apply corrections to the reading for different velocities & AoAs. I don't know if they choose to do that with either the data presented in the cockpit, or with the data sent to the FDR, or with both.

But from the PA data alone from the takeoff roll, it seems evident that, either:

1. they do not correct for airspeed and AoA,
or
2. those corrections are not accurate at takeoff speeds.

If the corrections were applied AND accurate, then the PA reading would have matched the elevation rise of the runway during the takeoff roll and would have risen slightly during rotation.

Clearly, they did neither.


Originally posted by turbofan
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]


The left & right ports are going to effectively average the static pressure reading from the two sides of the plane, eliminating shielding of one port due to yaw.

Nonetheless, the divergence of the static pressure profile curve from its cruise shape could, and I believe does, explain the divergence of the PA from expected values during the takeoff roll.


Tom

[edit on 20-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I will just remove this one before the mods have to bother with it. I am getting sick of checking my U2U box.

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I know this has been addressed from both sides but nothing definitive that I have seen so far. I am really confused by one thing. Does the FDR show that the door was never opened or just during that flight? I am a little concerned as to how the pilots, no matter who they were, got into the cockpit to begin with. I am sure this is a stupid question but I have seen too many answers to know which is supposed to be the real one. I mean the FDR has one set of data right? So is it supposed to be showing it was NEVER opened or just not on the flight?


After umpteen posts in this thread clearly and perhaps deliberately derailing it, you ask a question that is still off topic. The topic is NEW FDR DECODE.

The new decode includes 4 seconds of data previously suspected, but unknown. The Flight Deck Door parameter *IS NOT* new. That has been in the data since the original FOIA material was released. It has been nothing but an attempt by p4t and minions to derail the topic very simply because the new data shows that AA 77 impacted the Pentagon. This new data reinforces the mountain of other physical evidence that shows (with no reasonable doubt) that the aircraft impacted the building.

It has been clearly shown that the aircraft was very low level in the final seconds via the Radar Altimeter. The heading of the aircraft aligns precisely with the known damage path. The accelerometer data shows a significant impact with a substantial object in the last frame recorded. This is quite likely the large commercial generator about 120' from the actual Pentagon wall. The actual impact with the wall would not be recorded simply due to the lack of time for the data to be stored in protected memory.

Since you know *NOTHING* about the subject, I suggest you read the thread as all of the answers to your question are covered in detail

*Snip*

Edited out the Uncivil Banter and Warned

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##


Thank-You

[edit on 12/20/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michal

does the flight path confirms the numbers given? I mean do the 1.7 Gs corresponds with the flight path recorded on the FDR ?


Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by scott3x
(...) Gee, you have to ignore all the physical evidence to even start to believe the moronic delusion of a flyover or NoC.


were the plane parts found near Pentagon ever officially identified as flight 77 parts?

The final heading stored in the FDR, a true track heading of 61.5 degrees matches the path of damage. The G force in the FDR matches a model for descending from the VDOT tower to the Pentagon Impact; using physics you can replicate and see the real value of G stored in the FDR are close to a reality model. The FDR speed matches the energy damage by a 757 done to the Pentagon studied by experts; there is a paper. Google Pentagon Performance where experts studied the damage to the Pentagon made by flight 77. The paper could be used to prove 77 impacted the Pentagon, but the experts who studied the damage already knew that over 8 years ago.

The parts of aircraft at the Pentagon along with the DNA from Passengers are from Flight 77. The FDR of Flight 77 suffered impact and fire damage was found in the Pentagon. The data in the FDR reveals something like 40 hours of flight made by the exact aircraft, matching the history of the aircraft airport by airport. All the parts are from Flight 77; not a single person has proved otherwise.

The FDR shows the RADALT was reading 4 feet about 800 to 900 feet from the Pentagon. The damage to the Pentagon is from a 757 going 483 KIAS, no bomb, no missile. (4 feet would be the height above the ground when the landing gear is down, 0 feet is read when the aircraft touches down; landing gear down; taxi out reads -6 feet)

This is purely an academic pursuit, discussing the FDR, since Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon in the real world.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu

Originally posted by Michal

does the flight path confirms the numbers given? I mean do the 1.7 Gs corresponds with the flight path recorded on the FDR ?


Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by scott3x
(...) Gee, you have to ignore all the physical evidence to even start to believe the moronic delusion of a flyover or NoC.


were the plane parts found near Pentagon ever officially identified as flight 77 parts?

The final heading stored in the FDR, a true track heading of 61.5 degrees matches the path of damage. The G force in the FDR matches a model for descending from the VDOT tower to the Pentagon Impact; using physics you can replicate and see the real value of G stored in the FDR are close to a reality model. The FDR speed matches the energy damage by a 757 done to the Pentagon studied by experts; there is a paper. Google Pentagon Performance where experts studied the damage to the Pentagon made by flight 77. The paper could be used to prove 77 impacted the Pentagon, but the experts who studied the damage already knew that over 8 years ago.

The parts of aircraft at the Pentagon along with the DNA from Passengers are from Flight 77. The FDR of Flight 77 suffered impact and fire damage was found in the Pentagon. The data in the FDR reveals something like 40 hours of flight made by the exact aircraft, matching the history of the aircraft airport by airport. All the parts are from Flight 77; not a single person has proved otherwise.

The FDR shows the RADALT was reading 4 feet about 800 to 900 feet from the Pentagon. The damage to the Pentagon is from a 757 going 483 KIAS, no bomb, no missile. (4 feet would be the height above the ground when the landing gear is down, 0 feet is read when the aircraft touches down; landing gear down; taxi out reads -6 feet)

This is purely an academic pursuit, discussing the FDR, since Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon in the real world.


iST,

Excellent summary.

One thing that I'll point out is that the radar altimeter is calibrated to read "0 feet" as the landing gear touches down on landing. With the landing gear extended, this puts the "0" reference point about 12' below the belly of the plane.

So, with the gear up, the altitude of the plane at that last reading (4') was really about 16' above whatever surface was reflecting the radar signal.

Tom



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join