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

reply to post by turbofan


TURBO!!!

NO!!!!!!!!

Level D flight sims produce flight data.

Period. I've proven it with a call to a flight school instructor who operates and owns level D sims.

Dude!

You've posted that phone call recording!! The guy WANTED YOUR BUSINESS! (**)

And, the questions you were asking, were NOT intended to ge the proper answers...NOR did he understand your point, in asking!!

I (or any other airline pilot), on the otherhand, if I (they) HAD been in on the call, COULD have asked specific questions, and blown your fantasy all to shreds!!!

YOU heard what you wanted to hear....PERIOD!!!!

BTW...did you EVER call that same gentleman again (or any other) and .....get this....ask him this question, SPECIFICALLY:

"Can the Level-D simulator be used to "FAKE" an airplane's SSFDR?"

DID YOU??????

(I'm guessing the answer is "NO".....)

___________________________
(**)BTW....was it Air Canada? Doesn't matter what company, really...there are several to choose from.

Because, it STILL would be a good idea, if can be funded and arranged, to actually RENT A REAL B757/767 SIMULATOR, and put all...and I mean ALL of this "no pilot can do it" BS to bed, once and for all!!!! ON video, ON ATS....for ALL to see.

reply to post by turbofan

The govt. data / story is fake.

I see this nut didn't fall too far from the CIT/PFT tree!

I had forgotten how irrational you no-planers can be.

Is there any reason to believe that the data (recordings I just provided) is false other than it completely destroys your flyover fantasy?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for that excellent video " Perspective 77 ", logical and measured. I hadn't seen it before.

Btw, do you think the apparent "smoke" from AA 77 was fuel escaping ?

reply to post by Alfie1

Btw, do you think the apparent "smoke" from AA 77 was fuel escaping ?

I really have no idea.

Two hypotheses....

ONE I have seen, is the possibility of ingestion into the right engine....of some fragments from a light pole. I don't know if the engine would then exhibit a "white" smoke trail that would be so visible.

TWO is the idea of fuel "venting", from a breach, by actually breaking into the wing, where fuel is contained. (There would be some expected debris, along the trajectory of the ground path...accounting for forward momentum and gravity as the pieces fell in an arc...).

Besides the majority of the interior of the wing, acting as a "fuel tank", there also are tanks, out near the tips....they are the "surge tanks". BUT, not always containing fuel. They have one-way flapper/surge valves, from the main section of the wing that holds the fuel. They contain any "overflow", whether from lateral forces in flight, or when fueling on the ground, and the shut-offs are a bit late...resulting in a bit of "over-fill".

The "SURGE" tanks, in the tips, drain back to the CENTER fuel tank.

Cannot say for certain, not knowing the EXACT point of impact, on the poles, whether any fuel would have started to exit the airframe. So many details, like this, are almost impossible to determine.

The answers could be determined, I suppose, if some effort were put to it. Would entail a lot more than I have to hand, in terms of schematics of the wing structure details, and specifics of the path and impact points, etc......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, you just earned yourself a debate thread with me. I'm quite sick of your dodging of the proof

I'll be posting the details soon.

Good luck explaining how the SAME DAMN EXACT avionics that are used in the real aircraft
happen to work in a simulator.

I hope you have a good technical grasp on how all of these systems work to produce life like displays.

Sorry buddy, but wanting business is a BS excuse.

The parts are the SAME. They require EMULATION TO OPERATE PROPERLY.

Hope you are hard at work researching the term emulation and sim. technology.

reply to post by turbofan


You STILL aren't getting it! The emulation, and the avionics are only a PART of it. The friggin' simulator "feeds" the avionics, and they display per what they are fed.

Good luck explaining how the SAME DAMN EXACT avionics that are used in the real aircraft
happen to work in a simulator.

The simulator is programmed to mimic the type of inputs, so the avionics "understand".

I hope you have a good technical grasp on how all of these systems work to produce life like displays.

Not sure what you mean by "life like displays". Do you mean the visuals, on the CRTs to mimic the "real world"? Entirely separate...but ALL connected, and interfaced...as part of the SIMulator programming codes. In fact, I'd wager that many aspects of a modern simulator operation uses various codes and uses various languages, in their processors....BUT, what is displayed MUST interact properly with all of the other simulations, in order to make it seem cohesive.


MANY of the parts ARE the same....yes. BUT, it is not only the avionics that supply the parameters of data input to an SSFDR.....in any event, you still have allowed, and understood, that a computer can MIMIC inputs INTO the avionics, and thus display as a pilot will interpret and understand.

BUT....not the other way around. You are leaping to such a false conclusion to think that the SSFDR can also be "back-programmed" (if that is a proper term....likely not, but that is what is implied, in layman's terms). There are just TOO MANY other parameters it is responsible for to record....parameters that have NOTHING TO DO WITH A SIMULATOR!!! It measures the REAL world things that happen on the airplane. Things that do NOT have to be "simulated", for the purposes of what a Level-D sim is designed to exhibit.


AND! The SSFDR retrieved from the crash scene at the Pentagon, and positively IDENTIFIED as having been installed on the same airframe that was dispatched to fly as "American flight 77"?

It ALSO contained the data from that same airframe's PREVIOUS flights!!!! Almost 30 hours' worth!! This is all corroborated.

The ONLY way for your fantasy to succeed is if the entire staff of the NTSB were so incredibly incompetent that THEY would not have "caught on" to this "grand deception"?? These people know their fields of expertise, are specialized and NONE of them see anything other than a valid, confirmed FDR from American 77.

Your fantasy of "faked" FDR is completely without merit. It is a white elephant, a hopeless, useless venture......

No, you're still not getting it.

I've started a separate thread with your name in the title. We can discuss specifics there.

You should start by reviewing my theory about faking data - you currently have it wrong.

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, this paper has been out a little while now and no-one on here has seriously challenged it. You did argue that the radio heights in the data could have been inaccurate because AA 77 was travelling considerably faster than the flight data recorder manufacturers specs.

You were aware that the Avionics Engineer John Bursill didn't agree with you and you were going to debate with him.

You haven't come back on that and I have now seen the following debate on JREF :-

forums.randi.org...

You will note that John Farmer, 6th post down, argues that high speed could have 2 effects :

(a) rip the antenna off ( for which there is no evidence )

(b) your point, the antenna would outpace the radio wave being bounced off the ground.

However, he concludes " This is not likely to happen at speeds attainable by commercial aircraft. "

He goes on to give calculations to illustrate.

Have you given up on proving the radio heights to be unreliable or do you have any response to John Bursill and now John Farmer.

reply to post by Alfie1


The antenna wont outpace the signal reflecting; the aircraft will outpace the processing speed of the system
to interpret the information.

I've already proven by contacting the manufacturer that my knowledge of this subject is correct.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87a6540178e5.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d406d5c549e2.jpg[/atsimg]

John Bursill and Farmer have zero experience with RADAR systems, or how they function.

I was mysteriously blocked from 911blogger when I confronted Bursill about this. He is not responding
to my PM at 911oz.com.

I'm not going to waste my time running after someone who clearly does not want to reply.

Any day of the week, send Farmer or Bursill here to talk electronics and RADAR systems.
I have 17+ years in the field, employment records to prove it and a response from the manufacturer to ice the cake.

EDIT: The link for the last photo is here to show the time and entire screen shot.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, you read it from me first. Any reports outside of the date stamp on the previous page have been
copied from this forum.

reply to post by turbofan


Thank you for sight of your response from the radio altimeter manufacturer.

They have really only said what I would expect a manufacturer to say; i.e. they wont guarantee performance beyond specs ( and why should they ?) But they do confirm the altimeter will continue to function beyond 330 fps.

The response does not really back up your earlier claims that beyond 330 fps " the results are garbage " nor that such a speed is " beyond the maximum processing speed of the altimeter system ".

reply to post by Alfie1



Form a question as you want me to ask it. I'll e-mail it and take a screen shot.

This is really getting lame.

Maybe I should ask them if it will work at more than twice the design limit?

Think I'd get the same answer Alfie? Are you sure you think it will work, and give an accurate output?

Why don't you put up the very first question so we can put this to rest.

reply to post by turbofan


OK, the question I would really like to see them answer rests on your claim.

If the aircraft is going faster than 330 fps is that beyond the maximum processing speed of the altimeter system ?

Originally posted by turbofan

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d406d5c549e2.jpg[/atsimg]

John Bursill and Farmer have zero experience with RADAR systems, or how they function.

I was mysteriously blocked from 911blogger when I confronted Bursill about this. He is not responding
to my PM at 911oz.com.

I'm not going to waste my time running after someone who clearly does not want to reply.

Any day of the week, send Farmer or Bursill here to talk electronics and RADAR systems.
I have 17+ years in the field, employment records to prove it and a response from the manufacturer to ice the cake.

A response from the manufacturer that simply says "we cannot guarantee" certain results? Are you calling that an admission that it will not operate beyond a certain speed?

That does take the cake. So utterly Trutherish - take a "we can't guarantee results" as a clam that a specific piece of equipment will not work.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by turbofan

 

OK, the question I would really like to see them answer rests on your claim.

If the aircraft is going faster than 330 fps is that beyond the maximum processing speed of the altimeter system ?

No kidding.....

A system that takes readings at say, 2 per second will be overwhelmed by the aircraft's speed?

I could understand the claim if the system was configured to take measurements every "x" feet, cuz it would depend on the plane's speed to determine how often readings are taken. But if it's configured for time, it shouldn't matter how fast the plane is traveling. The sample rate will be the same.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Form a question as you want me to ask it. I'll e-mail it and take a screen shot.

This is really getting lame.

Maybe I should ask them if it will work at more than twice the design limit?

Think I'd get the same answer Alfie? Are you sure you think it will work, and give an accurate output?

Why don't you put up the very first question so we can put this to rest.

Tino ~

Can you send him the information to Warren's website? Have him give it a look and see what he says?

(just askin!)

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, I don't know whether you will put my question above to the radio altimeter manufacturer but the more I consider your proposition that the radio altimeter will malfunction over 200 knots the less credible I think it is.

I cannot really see why a device which works at the speed of light ( 186,000 miles per second ) should be phased by an aircraft upping its relative snail's pace by a couple of hundred knots but perhaps you can explain it to me.

I've also noticed that an aircrafts Ground Proximity Warning System receives it's height information from the radio altimeter. Are you saying that this warning system is unreliable over 200 knots ? If so, isn't that very dangerous ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by turbofan

 

turbo, I don't know whether you will put my question above to the radio altimeter manufacturer but the more I consider your proposition that the radio altimeter will malfunction over 200 knots the less credible I think it is.

I cannot really see why a device which works at the speed of light ( 186,000 miles per second ) should be phased by an aircraft upping its relative snail's pace by a couple of hundred knots but perhaps you can explain it to me.

I've also noticed that an aircrafts Ground Proximity Warning System receives it's height information from the radio altimeter. Are you saying that this warning system is unreliable over 200 knots ? If so, isn't that very dangerous ?

That claim that a radar altimeter will not operate correctly at speeds over 200 knts is one of the more ridiculous things I have ever heard in this whole Truther deal. I've been well over 200 knots at below 100 feet with a perfectly operating radalt many times. Perhaps military radalts and the associated computer processors are different and more powerful/capable than civilian airliner radalts, but with the level of technology existing in aviation today, I can't believe that.

I've been reading on several sites about tihs 'speed of light BS' and it makes me laugh as an RF Technologist
and someone who has worked with RADAR systems.

The speed of the RADAR return, or the speed of signal travel through air has absolutely nothing to do with how the system operates.

Do you people really think that bouncing a radio signal off the ground is all it takes to produce a sense
of height over ground?

Just a send, and a return and "presto", you know the height above ground?

(BTW: it's a continuous mode system, not pulsed but the same issues apply).

No multi-sampling; no conversion; no averaging; no processing logic?

I'll compile your questions and send the company your concerns. I doubt very much they will take the time
to read Warren's site; nor will they likely understand the computer code. What is the point of showing them
Warren's site? Is there an alternative question we can ask?