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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AntiSophist
 


How you figure that " the last 4 seconds is exactly what one would expect to see if in fact the plane flew over the Pentagon " is beyond me.

The final radio altimeter height is 4 feet. According to Avionics Engineer John Bursill the radio altimeter is the best device for measuring altitude below 2,500 feet.

In any event, you are totally ignoring the fact that the final altitude reading was at the same moment as the greatest decelaration the FDR was capable of recording. That obviously makes no sense in relation to a supposed miraculously unwitnessed flyover but plenty of sense in relation to an impact with the Pentagon.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by AntiSophist
 


How you figure that " the last 4 seconds is exactly what one would expect to see if in fact the plane flew over the Pentagon " is beyond me.

The final radio altimeter height is 4 feet. According to Avionics Engineer John Bursill the radio altimeter is the best device for measuring altitude below 2,500 feet.

In any event, you are totally ignoring the fact that the final altitude reading was at the same moment as the greatest decelaration the FDR was capable of recording. That obviously makes no sense in relation to a supposed miraculously unwitnessed flyover but plenty of sense in relation to an impact with the Pentagon.



Hmm, Is that according to version 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, or 8 of this peer reviewed report?
Lets the clear about facts here as it IS important..

Though version 2 seems to have dissappeared...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by AntiSophist
 


How you figure that " the last 4 seconds is exactly what one would expect to see if in fact the plane flew over the Pentagon " is beyond me.

The final radio altimeter height is 4 feet. According to Avionics Engineer John Bursill the radio altimeter is the best device for measuring altitude below 2,500 feet.

In any event, you are totally ignoring the fact that the final altitude reading was at the same moment as the greatest decelaration the FDR was capable of recording. That obviously makes no sense in relation to a supposed miraculously unwitnessed flyover but plenty of sense in relation to an impact with the Pentagon.



Hmm, Is that according to version 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, or 8 of this peer reviewed report?
Lets the clear about facts here as it IS important..

Though version 2 seems to have dissappeared...


P4t are confusing you; not surprisingly. Please show me where this paper, published this month, has gone through 8 revisions.

Have you given up debating the content ?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



P4t are confusing you; not surprisingly. Please show me where this paper, published this month, has gone through 8 revisions.

Have you given up debating the content ?


What, are you saying this is the ORIGINAL version??
If not, which version do YOU say we are up to.??
Get that question out of the way and then we will go back to content, OK.??



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I am saying this is the original paper first published earlier this month in the Journal of 9/11 studies.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
 


I am saying this is the original paper first published earlier this month in the Journal of 9/11 studies.



Really??
I heard it was first published much earlier..
If I find proof of that will you forever be a truther.???

Yes or no, if you are so sure



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
 


I am saying this is the original paper first published earlier this month in the Journal of 9/11 studies.



Hmm, you got a star for that? Amazing..
Well here's a link to P4T discussing THAT paper that you say was released this month, back in November last year..!!!

Maybe those guys see the future.


pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
 


I am saying this is the original paper first published earlier this month in the Journal of 9/11 studies.



Hmm, you got a star for that? Amazing..
Well here's a link to P4T discussing THAT paper that you say was released this month, back in November last year..!!!

Maybe those guys see the future.


pilotsfor911truth.org...


Your link specifically says " A paper on this is is under review ". The paper is dated January 2011. On 4 January Warren Stutt made a post on the New FDR decode thread saying it was going to be published soon :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What you are seeing at P4t from last November is them getting twitchy because they had a pretty good idea of what was coming.

But really, is this the most important thing ? What about the content ?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



But really, is this the most important thing ? What about the content ?


The content has already been discussed..
Their case has been shot down because they assume too much and alter data to suit a pre set outcome..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



But really, is this the most important thing ? What about the content ?


The content has already been discussed..
Their case has been shot down because they assume too much and alter data to suit a pre set outcome..



Please point out to me where the authors have altered the data to suit a pre set outcome ?

And, while you are at it, have you any observations as to why a truther like Frank Legge would be interested in doing that.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Please point out to me where the authors have altered the data to suit a pre set outcome ?

And, while you are at it, have you any observations as to why a truther like Frank Legge would be interested in doing that.


The altering point has already been shown in this thread..
Go back and read it..

As for your assumption that Legge is a truther, well I guess you'd have to ask him about that, not me..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I haven't seen any evidence of altered data; why can't you be specific ?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The final radio altimeter height is 4 feet. According to Avionics Engineer John Bursill the radio altimeter is the best device for measuring altitude below 2,500 feet.



If that is the case, why are Baro Altimeter the primary Altimeter for shooting Category I Instrument Approaches and a Radio altimeter is not even required?

Example -
ILS RWY 01R - Dulles

Ask weedy, he seems to avoid this question. He avoids it because he knows that Bursill, Legge and Stutt claims are wrong and weedy doesnt want to rock their boat with the truth. Hint - You can be flying an aircraft at 31,000 feet, and see a Radio Altitude of 1,00o Feet. Hint 2 - Radio Altitude does not guarantee your height above the ground. It measures from the object you are above (Building, Treeline, another airplane below you... ). You have to look at the Primary altimeter to determine your actual height. This is why the Baro altimeter is required equipment on all aircraft, and a radio altimeter is not.

If Legge, Sttut, Bursill, were correct, Pilots would be calling "minimums" at almost 50 below ground level all over the world.

See here if you wish to learn more on this subject from real and verified aviation professionals.

Finally, Radar Altitude is listed under "Not working or Unconfirmed" in the AA77 NTSB pdf. Pressure altitude is listed as Working and Confirmed.
edit on 16-1-2011 by GregFocker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GregFocker
 


Greetings, ROB....(or rob's sock...)


If that is the case, why are Baro Altimeter the primary Altimeter for shooting Category I Instrument Approaches and a Radio altimeter is not even required?

As weedy, he seems to avoid this question.


Sigh.....no, I never avoid that question.

WHY is the RA not required for Cat I?? Because, my dear, the area directly under the airplne at a DH of 200' isn't always suitable for the precision readings of RA. Unlike a CAT II or III runway, were the approach area and vicinity of DH area are "clean" per TERPS standards. AND, DH (or DA) of 100' feet (CAT III) or 50' (CAT II) are guaranteed accurate and un-blemished.


Nice try, though, at yet again claiming something about ME that is a lie. AND deflecting into areas that just further obfuscate the scene, since you seem to think that is "impressive" for non-pilots and laypersons.....


No, the AAL 77 SSFDR is correct.....the only part in question was the last few final moments....that have been teased out....dind't need the NTSB do do it, as they no doubt didn't see the need....as we KINOW what happened to the airplane.

It is because of folks like YOU and Craig Ranke, et al, that some other intrepid researchers took it upon themselves...just to shut your types up!!!

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

More eyeroll....


Hint - You can be flying an aircraft at 31,000 feet, and see a Radio Altitude of 1,00o Feet.


Yes. THAT is what I tried to tell turbofan earlier, with his "330 fps" claims. Whether the airplen below you is parallel and about the same speed (which is WELL within the design parameters...RA doesn't know WHAT is down there, just measures the radio return reflection). But, even if approaching head-on traffic below, and your combined speeds are over, oh...800-900 knots.....if perfecty aligned and (lucky) timing, will see an RA "hit" briefly....on occasion.


Hint 2 - Radio Altitude does not guarantee your height above the ground. It measures from the object you are above (Building, Treeline, another airplane below you...


Oh....yeah, didn't you realize this before? I thought everyone has moved beyond that, and understood it already. Glad you could catch up....
edit on 16 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, the AAL 77 SSFDR is correct.....the only part in question was the last few final moments....that have been teased out....dind't need the NTSB do do it, as they no doubt didn't see the need....as we KINOW what happened to the airplane.


Weedy,

Is the Pentagon approach similar to a Cat II or III? Are you guaranteed the same "clearway" as on a Cat II or III?

Again weedy, read the paper. Legge and Stutt claim the approaches to LAX and ORD on previous flights were showing an "altitude divergence" at approach speeds and that PA becomes more unreliable as you get below 2500 feet AGL. They claim the Primary Altimeter was reading 80-150' too high. If you combine this "altitude divergence" with the +/- 75 feet allowed. You are calling Minimums at or below ground level.

Do you agree with them?

Legge's paper is garbage. You know it, I know it, and so does every other aviation professional. Their "altitude divergence" is due to the fact that the Radio Altimeter was bouncing off objects higher than ground level.

This is why they do not have one aviation professional signing their name to such garbage.
edit on 16-1-2011 by GregFocker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, even if approaching head-on traffic below, and your combined speeds are over, oh...800-900 knots.....if perfecty aligned and (lucky) timing, will see an RA "hit" briefly....on occasion.



Wrong. This NEVER happens "head-on". It only happens when an aircraft below you is overtaking you. Relative speed is less than perhaps 10-50 knots. Well within RA design parameters.

The RA processor can only measure at such a given speed based on Tracking Capability. And the specs are 330 fps.

www.rockwellcollins.com...

Above that, it is sampling an average of buildings, trees, or any other object traveled over 660-800 feet in one second. In other words, it is NOT accurate, and it certainly is NOT giving you AGL readings, not on the approach to the Pentagon along Columbia Pike with dozens of buildings and objects of varying heights.
edit on 16-1-2011 by GregFocker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerYes. THAT is what I tried to tell turbofan earlier, with his "330 fps" claims. Whether the airplen below you is parallel and about the same speed (which is WELL within the design parameters...RA doesn't know WHAT is down there, just measures the radio return reflection). But, even if approaching head-on traffic below, and your combined speeds are over, oh...800-900 knots.....if perfecty aligned and (lucky) timing, will see an RA "hit" briefly....on occasion.


Myself having tuned and studied RADAR systems and being in the RF field and KNOWING how constant
pulse RF transmissions function, can you please tell me what the combined speeds of two aircraft have to
do with the processing speed of a triple radio altimeter?

Can you also please tell me why the system is spec'd to 330 FPS, and not infinity? Why do the manufacturers
even bother putting a value for this parameter? Hmmm..geeee...I really wonder!

I will be holding you to both of these answers, Weed. I can't wait to hear what a pilot has to say about
electronics and RF!!!!!!


P.S. Mr. Focker, the system will continue to receive RF inputs. Your statement is not entirely correct.
edit on 17-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GregFocker
 


I realise that a radio altimeter may bounce it's signal off an object below other than the ground but I don't see how that makes any material difference in the Pentagon situation.

We know that the aircraft was crossing the Pentagon lawn in its last moments and the only ground objects it was going to encounter were some cable spools, a low retaining wall and a generator trailer. The tallest object was the trailer but you can see in this pic ( where it is on the right with the spools in the middle ) how low it is in relation to the Pentagon :-

www.rense.com...

So, even if the lowest altitude reading of 4 ' was bounced off the trailer there is still a long way to go to clear the Pentagon.

In addition, and no-one is addressing this, how do you explain the massive final deceleration, greater than the FDR could record, if you are still trying to maintain there was a flyover ?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Your post was to weedwhacker but if I could just butt in and make an observation. You ask " why the system is spec'd to 330 fps and not infinity ? "

Well no manufacturer will guarantee any product to infinity will they ? Are not manufacturers saying with specs that we are satisfied our device should work well and trouble-free within these parameters, which we have tested extensively, which should accord with normal usage, and wont generate lots of claims against us.

For example, my watch is specified to be waterproof to 50 metres depth . However, I really don't suppose it would suddenly flood if I went beyond that. We have all seen dramatic war films where the U-boat commander orders his boat ever deeper to avoid the depth charges. The depth gauge goes to the end of the red and sticks there while the sub creaks and everybody sweats. I know I am referring to film but it actually happened; U-boats were taken way beyond their specs.

You seem to be suggesting that there is some sort of brick wall at the upper end of the spec beyond which the device wont work but the Avionics Engineer John Bursill, who fits and repairs radio altimeters, doesn't seem to agree with you.

I am confused about your approach to this paper because you still seem to want to discuss alleged inaccuracy of the radio altitude data due to speed but, when I asked you about explaining the final massive decelaration, you came back with saying the data is fake. I would have thought that debating the accuracy of one element of the data and holding that it is all fake are pretty much mutually exclusive.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1... manufacturers saying with specs that we are satisfied our device should work well and trouble-free within these parameters, which we have tested extensively, which should accord with normal usage


That's it right there you nailed it.

Also because, there is a processing speed associated with the device. YOu can't ask a machine with a
specific processor to calcuate things faster. It just can't.

It's like asking a 386 computer with 8 MB of RAM and a CPU of 400 MHz to process information as fast as
a brand new, Quad Core i7 with 8 GB RAM, etc.

It's like thinking a cheap old camera with a slow shutter speed can take photos of a race car moving 200 MPH
without motion blur while you are driving 50 MPH in the opposite direction.

I'll be taking care of John Bursill. I'm just waiting for a response from an avionics MFG. John just changes
parts, he knows nothing about the inner function of an altimeter, or RADAR/RF in general.

take for instance the fact that radio altitude was supporting pressure altitude all of these years...then all of a sudden,
Warren decodes more data and right at that point... Bursill and Legge decide that the pressure altitude is no
longer accurate?


Not a very smart thing to say. You read it here first.


I am confused about your approach to this paper because you still seem to want to discuss alleged inaccuracy of the radio altitude data due to speed but, when I asked you about explaining the final massive decelaration, you came back with saying the data is fake. I would have thought that debating the accuracy of one element of the data and holding that it is all fake are pretty much mutually exclusive.



The data is fake. We don't need to get into all the reasons why again (plane can't fit in the hole; tail section
left no damage to windows it would have smashed...yet it's nowhere to be found
; Rosie Roberts a Pentagon
officer saw the plane fly off...no 757 could level at 4 feet off the ground at unheard of speed like 460+ knots).

If I were to study this data (which I wont...but if I do, it will be annouced as an indepedent study), I'm pretty
sure the last two seconds of decode would show the impossibilty of ground terrain in front of the Pentagon
allowing the 757 to be level for 1200 plus feet (618 feet per second).

That's a 1/4 mile from the wall to the highway. I'm pretty damn sure the lawn is sloped coming down from
the highway, and Pentagon sits in a valley.

That fact and the 757 moving at 460+ knots would require some time and distance to level off. That puts the
position well beyond the highway with at least another 600 feet.

Just sayin' again...you read it here first. You know others will be reading this.


edit on 17-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join