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.

 

Flight AA77 on 9/11: Real FDR Analysis: Frank Legge / Warren Stutt

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Boy,

it'd sure be nice to see some footage of the plane to corroborate the findings this new paper puts out.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by impressme
How was I deceitful?


Fact: your hearsay information does not stand up to the damaged done to the Pentagon.



Ok, that answers it.

If you're not being purposely deceitful then you obviously don't know what hearsay even means.

Maybe check that out before saying things are "facts", hmm?


Explain: how is hearsay facts?
Science used properly are the facts and have proved many hearsay accounts false. Are you going to deny that to?

I don’t trust our government because; it has been proven they lie, for what ever reason.
Only ignorant persons who depends on television for their information and has blind faith and trust in our government. (Believes our government cannot do any wrong and dares anyone to question their actions.)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo:


Someone might want to tell Stutt, Legge and the pilot organization that RADAR ALT.'s are not accurate above 400 Knots. That's why you have to consider pressure altitude, and otheer systems.



You may wish to re-check the meaning of "accurate" and in what context it is intended, in regards to Radar Altimeters on a typical commercial airliner installation. They are designed for specific purpose, and accuracy tolerances are defined within those parameters.

BUT, as a corroborating indication, in this instance, those standards are not applicable in terms of the "accuracy" claims....THAT is a red herring distraction.

BTW....you do know that there are versions, variations of this technology, in use for military applications? "Terrain Following Radar" (or similar terms) has been in use for a long time. Airliners, of course, have no need for that specific feature.....as the missions are very different.



This technology is primarily used by military strike aircraft, to enable flight at very low altitudes (sometimes below 100 feet (30 meters)) and high speeds, avoiding detection by enemy radars and interception by anti-aircraft systems. This allows the pilot to focus on other aspects of the flight besides the extremely intensive task of low flying itself.
en.wikipedia.org...


(Of course, it goes without saying that the autopilot is tied into the military version, as well. For altitude control. No such feature is present on commercial airliners. Exception being the "Flare" programming for full CAT III auto-landings....in that procedure, the RA info is referenced by the autopilot, in order to conduct the landing).


True, though....the combination of ALL measurements that were recorded can be compiled to further refine the picture of the path of American 77. This is to INCLUDE, of course, the physical evidence on the ground....further corroborating the path. Not only the eyewitnesses (which can be notoriously inconsistent and subject to interpretation, of course...but on aggregate, they are useful) but also the ground swath up to impact.

The MOST definitive ground evidence is within the Pentagon structure itself, and is readily available in the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" which is available by Search Engine on the Internet, in a PDF format....I downloaded a copy to my hard drive, to review as needed.

Also, there is the ATC radar info that people keep forgetting to mention.....


...back to Radar Altimeters. Three on the Boeing 757, you know. Independent of each other, so even if one or the other was in-between its pulse of signal acquisition, or encountered a transient object to give a momentary false reading, each data point from all three can still be averaged.

The "speed" issue only applies, in these airliner designs, because the units are tailored for precision over smooth, level surfaces...like runways and runway overrun paving. For all intents and purposes the RA is only "critical" to an airline pilot in certain low visibility landing procedures...specifically the Category II ILS and the Category III ILS to Auto-land.

The RA signals are also tied in to the GPWS, partly for annunciations for those instrument procedures, and also for other GPWS-specific functions, such as aircraft performance near the ground, and proper configurations --- I.E., landing gear and flap settings, for landing.


edit on 9 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The triple RAD ALT can only sample land points up to 330 feet per second while averaging.

If the aircraft is moving faster, the system cannot properly calculate the average of a ground within the time frame
of the output processor.

Plain and simple.

You guys cried about pressure alt. being out of spec because the aircraft speed was too high...well, you can
apply the same fact to RAD Alt.

The only difference here is:

RAD Alt has a maximum spec. because of the output processing speed to average ground points.

Pressure altitude doesn't change with forward acceleration.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Just to make an ass of myself, or not;

Here-say is a common term used by judges hearing cases. The plaintiff said that her witness (who is not present) said that the defendant did such and such.

Without that witness being present, the testimony is then deemed "here-say."

But when the plaintiff shows video evidence to corroborate what her witness claims, the witness no longer has any need to be present at the proceedings, because the video evidence proves beyond a shadow of doubt that what the plaintiff is alleging, and attested to by her witness is in fact; the defendant is guilty of said whatever is alleged against them.

ETA...Without corroborating evidence, here-say is inadmissible.

Case closed.
edit on (1/9/1111 by loveguy because: Am I an ass?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I read the whole report..
They rightly mention margins for error are quite high when you consider the flight path they then conclude is based on accuracy almost to a few feet..

The report makes many ASSUMPTIONS is getting to a preset conclusion..

It's NOT written how it should be..
It should state the facts as they see it, THEN decide if it matches the supposed flight path..
They start with the conclusion they desire and work backwards...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


???

Turbo, are you an airline pilot? Ever ridden in the cockpit of an airliner??


The triple RAD ALT can only sample land points up to 330 feet per second while averaging.


I know you get all of this "factual information" from reading...but, absent practical experience, all of the facts in the world are worthless.

Do the math...330 feet/second = ~196 knots. (330 times 60 times 60 = 1,188,000 feet per hour, yes? Divide by the feet in one nautical mile: 6,076 feet. I got 195.523371, which rounds up to ~196. What did you get??)


196 Kts. Guess what? The "range" of the typical airliner RA is 2,500 feet. ABOVE 196 knots, and below 2,500 AGL? Yes, it STILL WORKS!!! I have seen the RA "blip" as an airplane happened to pass directly underneath, opposite direction...combined speeds of almost 1,000 knots. As it momentarily registers the existence of the airplane passing underneath us!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW...note, again, the accuracy range in terms of feet/second converted to a more useful and usable unit of velocity (for pilots)...Knots.

You may wish to re-read the specs on the units, and again...their INTENDED use and need for accuracy. They DO NOT need to be accurate at speeds about ~200 knots, or so...since they are only utilized when near the ground, in the takeoff or landing phase. Where speeds are generally not exceeding 200 knots. THAT is the "standard" they are designed to...and guaranteed to. I think you're looking at it backwards.

Obviously, the military has different needs, in that regard....as the WIki article (and any other article on terrain following) will tell you....


edit on 9 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Explain: how is hearsay facts?




LOL!

Wow, you make no sense at all.

Tell you what, when you look back and figure out what it is we are talking about here, and understand that firsthand accounts are NOT hearsay, come back and join us, mmkay?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



You may wish to re-read the specs on the units, and again...their INTENDED use and need for accuracy. They DO NOT need to be accurate at speeds about ~200 knots, or so...since they are only utilized when near the ground, in the takeoff or landing phase. Where speeds are generally not exceeding 200 knots. THAT is the "standard" they are designed to...and guaranteed to. I think you're looking at it backwards.


So just how accurate could we expect them to be at over 400 knots.?
ie: how many feet off could they be.?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



You may wish to re-check the meaning of "accurate" and in what context it is intended, in regards to Radar Altimeters on a typical commercial airliner installation. They are designed for specific purpose, and accuracy tolerances are defined within those parameters.


Speaking of "accurate" interesting to see some people are ignorant, or blinded to the fact that all governments lie.


Pentagon Building Performance Report


Another unproven report done by and for the government into supporting their OS proven lies, based on their assumptions and opinions that does not measure up to what the real flight instruments can do and cannot do much less the airplanes maneuvers. Just because the government wrote it, it doesn’t mean it’s true especially when there enough circumstantial evidence supporting a false flag. The report you talk about is nothing more than hearsay information on what the government wants you to believe in.

You can push the gov.org websites as your holy truth, but don’t expect to many followers with an open mind to believe in everything they read and hear from the governments websites especially, when they feel they are not accountable for anything these days much less investigating themselves.


The "speed" issue only applies, in these airliner designs, because the units are tailored for precision over smooth, level surfaces...like runways and runway overrun paving. For all intents and purposes the RA is only "critical" to an airline pilot in certain low visibility landing procedures...specifically the Category II ILS and the Category III ILS to Auto-land.


Excuses, most of us already know that the Boeing 757 cannot do the maneuver that the governments’ claims and what’s in their report plain and simple, these passenger planes are not designed to fly like an F18 you can make every excuse you want in defending our government, however the proof is in the Boeings’ 757 designs. It is impossible for a commercial aircraft to fly only a few feet off the ground at that rate of speed and you know it. We all know it! That is a fact you cannot hide. You are trying to prove something that cannot scientifically happen. Trying to fool people to believe in impossibilities.

It appears the “truth” has become an enemy to our government and has become unpatriotic to question it.

edit on 9-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



ie: how many feet off could they be.?


It will depend on the nature of the terrain underneath.....as I said, they are certified to be accurate (per what turbofan has researched, so we'll go with that) UP TO 300 fps or ~196 knots ground-speed.

However, irrespective of those specifications, IF the ground is very irregular, then they will NOT be "accurate" even at 135 knots. I can think of at least one excellent airport example....Seattle. Landing on Runway 16R.

Just north of the end of the overrun (for the other direction, Runway 34L) is a cliff. So, on final, until you cross over the Airport boundary, the RA is reading radically, and erroneously for the most part, due to the shape of the land underneath. (You may access Google Maps, to see).

So....whilst procedurally we have "call outs" to make, even on VFR landings, as a crew working together. Varies, by company....but my procedure was to call "1,000" and "500" "400" ...then, for normal ILS approaches, the '300' point is "approaching minimums" (200 is typical for Category I)....and, before the automated GPWS that uses the RA, we called (from the RA) 100, 50, 30, 20, and 10. Now of course, recorded voice does it, and is an option as to exactly which altitudes, per customer preference.

These calls done by the "pilot monitoring" (not flying) just to keep everyone aware and "in the loop" at the critical phase of landing.

Generally, "calls" are from the Baro altimeter, but as a habit are cross-checked by the Radar Alt. So, the "oddness" at Seattle can be disconcerting, if you're not familiar and prepared for it. (These are the sorts of topics covered in a good "Approach Briefing" that is conducted at some point roughly 18,000 feet altitude, or so, on the arrival descent...).



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Sorry....you were ranting??? Here, this is what popped out, and is totally wrong (although the rest might be too....I'll go back and check it later, if I have the time):


Excuses, most of us already know that the Boeing 757 cannot do the maneuver that the governments’ claims and what’s in their report plain and simple, these passenger planes are not designed to fly like an F18 you can make every excuse you want ...


Typical erroneous hyperbole crap.

NOTHING in the way that American 77 was flown was "like" an F-18....as I infer you were going for some sort of fighter-type maneuvers, since you specified that jet. Of course, in reality, an F-18 (or a 767, or an F-16, or a 737) can fly the same flight profile as American 77 is known to have. The F-18 and F-16 CAN go much faster, pull more Gs, and out-maneuver the commercial jets, of course. BUT, the AAL 77 flight profile would not require any of that. It was very tame, actually....maybe not for a typical white-knuckle type airline passenger of course.

But speeds, and aircraft pitch and roll attitudes, all within normal capabilities. Sorry, but you really do NOT know anything about flying, this has been evident for some time now, in your posts.

As I said....to a non-pilot along for the ride (besides the obvious terror at the circumstances --- the hijacking itself) the manner of the flying, the "roughness" of his handling of the controls, that would have been noticed, perhaps. However, to the layperson, could have been little different than turbulence, from their perspective.

I do feel for that off-duty Captain non-revving in the back...HE might have figured out, probably too late, what their intent was. But, like all of us at the time, the "common strategy" had been drilled in in training. AND< he may not have been aware of just WHO was actually flying....otherwise, I think he would have acted. Perhaps he did, nearing the end...we'll never know.....



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, are you trying to tell me that the manufacturer puts limits on their equipment because they are stupid?

Are you also trying to tell me a computer limited by output processor speed is going to magically calculate
altitude PROPERLY when the system is out of range?

Sorry to break it to you, but computers can only do math so fast...and that's all you get.

Therefore if the aircraft is moving faster than the maximum processing speed of the altimeter system, it is averaging
points outside of the sample window.

That means, the results are garbage.

RAD ALT was intended for use upon landing, low altitude and a max speed of 330 feet per second.

The manufacturer designed it that way.

The manufacturer spec'd it that way.

The processor only calculates data as fast as the processor speed.

You can't have it any other way.

The RAD ALT system cannot begin to average a bunch of numbers faster than it was designed to...just because
YOU said so!


You get accurate readings for a 330 foot section of ground every second.

Going faster, you cannot get an accurate reading because the system thinks it's reading 330 feet of ground when it's actually averaging over 400, or 450, or whatever.
edit on 9-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 



ie: how many feet off could they be.?


It will depend on the nature of the terrain underneath.....as I said, they are certified to be accurate (per what turbofan has researched, so we'll go with that) UP TO 300 fps or ~196 knots ground-speed.

However, irrespective of those specifications, IF the ground is very irregular, then they will NOT be "accurate" even at 135 knots. I can think of at least one excellent airport example....Seattle. Landing on Runway 16R.

Just north of the end of the overrun (for the other direction, Runway 34L) is a cliff. So, on final, until you cross over the Airport boundary, the RA is reading radically, and erroneously for the most part, due to the shape of the land underneath. (You may access Google Maps, to see).

So....whilst procedurally we have "call outs" to make, even on VFR landings, as a crew working together. Varies, by company....but my procedure was to call "1,000" and "500" "400" ...then, for normal ILS approaches, the '300' point is "approaching minimums" (200 is typical for Category I)....and, before the automated GPWS that uses the RA, we called (from the RA) 100, 50, 30, 20, and 10. Now of course, recorded voice does it, and is an option as to exactly which altitudes, per customer preference.

These calls done by the "pilot monitoring" (not flying) just to keep everyone aware and "in the loop" at the critical phase of landing.

Generally, "calls" are from the Baro altimeter, but as a habit are cross-checked by the Radar Alt. So, the "oddness" at Seattle can be disconcerting, if you're not familiar and prepared for it. (These are the sorts of topics covered in a good "Approach Briefing" that is conducted at some point roughly 18,000 feet altitude, or so, on the arrival descent...).


Seen as how you didn't actually give an answer,
a simple, I don't know, would have been better...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

www.washingtonpost.com...

There’s’ the proof folks, If the pentagon lied to the 911 commission about the alleged airplanes and FAA information then, why should we believe in anything they have to say or write in their reports, until the Pentagon can clear up this matter to the 911 commission and the American people.

If the pentagon didn’t want the 911 commission to know the truth they surly don’t want you to know the truth.


Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.



Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

www.washingtonpost.com...

I found this questionable, considering when a commercial aircraft veers off its given flight path. In every case NORAD responds immediately especially if there is no contact from said aircraft. Yet, the Pentagon will never tell us to why they thought flight 77 was not a hijacked plane? The fact is, before and after 911 NORAD never took any chances in deciding what was going on with any airplane that deliberately changed its given flight path without permission from tower control. If any plane changed it flight path without permission, NORAD was on it’s tail with in minuets and these are facts.
Pentagon excuse is, we did not know until it was too late? No one is buying that lie.
I will note: that the FAA destroyed their taps and data of most of their transmissions' to these alleged planes and their FAA activities in their protocols of handling planes flying off their given courses.
The fact is many of us believe the pentagon order FAA to destroy their recordings and transmissions to these alleged aircraft because I and many people believe it will prove that NORAD did little to nothing on 911. Their silence says enough to us. Do we have the proof that NORAD stood down, no. However NORAD and the pentagons actions speak very clearly that something is terribly wrong.
edit on 9-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Typical erroneous hyperbole crap.


Yet you cannot disprove anything that I presented but only give your ego a stroke and spew nothing but your opinions and making claims that your opinions are the true facts without posting a single credible source to back up your nonsense. And you want to call my presentation, “erroneous hyperbole crap.” You should take a few steps back and take a good long look at your opinions because most real pilots will not agree with you.

You may know or understand technical information concerning flight instruments however, I will contend you do not understand what commercial aircraft as the Boeing 757 can and cannot do under incredible stress. You have only given your opinions based on, Aero Spaceweb.org nonsense.
www.aerospaceweb.org...

After reading Aero Spacer government report in supporting the OS, it is based on “assumptions and opinions”. I would only expect this one sided report written by an agency that has many government contracts. You think they are going to write the truth for impossibilities that cannot happen and most likely never happened in the first place.
Do you think for one minute Aero Spaceweb are going to jeopardize millions, if not billion of dollars in government contracts, I don’t think so.
I don’t believe any commercial airliner pilot will agree with this nonsense and many of your opinions.




edit on 10-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



NOTHING in the way that American 77 was flown was "like" an F-18....as I infer you were going for some sort of fighter-type maneuvers, since you specified that jet. Of course, in reality, an F-18 (or a 767, or an F-16, or a 737) can fly the same flight profile as American 77 is known to have. The F-18 and F-16 CAN go much faster, pull more Gs, and out-maneuver the commercial jets, of course. BUT, the AAL 77 flight profile would not require any of that. It was very tame, actually....maybe not for a typical white-knuckle type airline passenger of course.


In realty a Boeing 757 “cannot” pull maneuvers and Gs forces, without ripping apart in mid air and you know that. Boeing 757 didn’t design their commercial airliners to perform like a military fighter jet, and that is why they put restrictions on everything after performing their stress tests. Yet you want ignorant people to believe that a bunch of unidentified hijackers using stolen identities who couldn’t take off or land a Cessna 172 much less pass a writing exam, and just jumped into a Boring 757 for the first time and understood the massive layout and all the instruments in this enormous cockpit, and was able to perform maneuver that top gun pilots claims that are impossible in a commercial jetliner? All the excuses you can make cannot justify the impossibilities.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

Oh for the love of FSM... Talk about blowing things out of proportion.

The Pentagon claimed they had been tracking all the flights from start to finish and were ready to intercept if UA93 ever came close to Washington.

The 9/11 Commission thought the story stunk, kept digging, and found that in reality none of the flights was ever found, and that an intercept would have been extremely unlikely barring blind luck.

And if NORAD was able to get on the tail of an aircraft minutes after they deviate from the flightpath, how come it took them over an hour to reach Payne Stewarts jet? And in that case, the transponder was even left on the whole way!
edit on 10-1-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by impressme
 

Oh for the love of FSM... Talk about blowing things out of proportion.
The Pentagon claimed they had been tracking all the flights from start to finish and were ready to intercept if UA93 ever came close to Washington.
The 9/11 Commission thought the story stunk, kept digging, and found that in reality none of the flights was ever found, and that an intercept would have been extremely unlikely barring blind luck.
And if NORAD was able to get on the tail of an aircraft minutes after they deviate from the flightpath, how come it took them over an hour to reach Payne Stewarts jet? And in that case, the transponder was even left on the whole way!
edit on 10-1-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)


Yes, this new trend was tipped by me and a few others a while back..
To satisfy the public once it is proven the OS contained lies it would move onto,
"yes we lied, but it was only to hide our incompetence"



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


The Pentagon claimed they had been tracking all the flights from start to finish and were ready to intercept if UA93 ever came close to Washington.


Really? Then why didn’t they intercept the planes? Perhaps, the Pentagon is lying?
If there is any truth to your allegation, then in my opinion, it certainly appears the Pentagon is complicit in these attacks and that might explain to why FAA had to destroy all accounts of that day from the control towers.


The 9/11 Commission thought the story stunk, kept digging, and found that in reality none of the flights was ever found, and that an intercept would have been extremely unlikely barring blind luck.


The 911 commission didn’t write about their thoughts, and you do not know what the commissioners were thinking unless you read minds.


And if NORAD was able to get on the tail of an aircraft minutes after they deviate from the flightpath, how come it took them over an hour to reach Payne Stewarts jet? And in that case, the transponder was even left on the whole way!


NORAD never had any problem intersecting any aircraft before and after 911, so why did they fail and not on one airplane but apparently four aircraft on the same day. This is completely unheard of and these lame excuses some of you debunkers dream up with, to why NORAD didn’t intercept those planes are hogwash.

The question you should be asking is, why wasn’t the proper protocols followed from NORAD and FAA on 911?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join