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.

 

Legge Disgraces Truth Movement

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
First of all, I'm not here to discuss the FDR data, or errors in Legge's paper. Most of you know the reasons
why I do not support a certain pilot organazation any longer, however something must be said about Legge.

Last year I had a discussion with Legge on 911Blogger to correct his assumptions that data was erased,
and or a couple of parameters were altered. Legge at one point assumed that altitude was manipulated
while leaving all other parameters untouched. This is impossible because there are several other systems
and sensors on the aircraft that measure vertical speed, altitude and g forces (IE: acceleration).

My response to him at the time was:


For one, manipulating the data would take exceptional care and human input beyond comprehension. Aside from altitude, you would have to match the accelerometer data, yoke inputs, pitch angle, etc. Something that strikes me as odd, is that you agree that there is government involvment, however you have not taken all of the information into consideration. If the aircraft struck the Pentagon, the last stored data would show a lower altitude, with a distance ending much closer to the impact point. A flight data recorder MUST store information every 500 milliseconds (typical period), with data retention beyond anything a plane crash could produce. Look at the function of EEPROM and what must happen in order to erase data (IE: enable bit lines, voltage bias, duration of stable power, etc.) Look at the integrity specifications of the shell (rated at thousands of g's). There is no reasonable explanation for flight information to be void from the recorder unless it was stripped away. If you agree that the data is manipulated, you shuold look into the function of the system and how all the sensors relate. YOu cannot simply change one parameter without exposing others. It would be foolish to assume a human typed in millions of data points just to alter the height of the aircraft. it would be foolish to suggest data was wiped out during impact. This is not how an electrical, solid state storage device operates/behaves. If you want to learn more about this, we can discuss as adults under scientific terms. There are several errors in your analogy and unfortunately, they do not support your theory. if you believe the aircraft hit the Pentagon, please do not use the excuses of data alteration, and/or missing data from impact to make your case. Once again, there are several factors you are not considering, nor understand about the system and I would be happy to explain them and unite this push for the truth.


Still in this paper, he overlooks these important points. We all know that all of the theories that people
propagated about data erasure were proven false even though I fought (along with others) that modern day
flight data recorders cannot erase data in the fashion these anonymous people suggested.

This was later proven by Mr. Stutt who decoded the remainder of the file using C# software code on the original
NTSB file.

We knew the data was there, and it was obvious the NTSB did not want to address this fact.

Now Legge who is not a crash invesitgator, and also knows nothing about avionics, or electronics has issued
a statement overstepping those more qualified to study the data (IE: Flight Data techs, Crash investigators, etc.).

I will never forgive Balsamo for what he did, however it must be stated that Legge has no business debating
those more qualified and experienced to handle this sort of task. Namely Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, Dennis Cimino,
and Ross Aimer to name a few.

The professionals should stick to their field of expertise and not overstep their boundaries. You don't see
pilots trying to twist the work of AE911, and you don't see Architects twisting the work of Scientists like Harrit and
Jones.

In summary, that paper of Legge's is full of errors aside from the few I've already mentioned. He still talks
about data lag, and system errors to justify damage path evidence. The data does not support the damage path,
yet Legge dismisses this issue and makes excuses to fit his thoughts.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Why have you started a new thread when there is already one " Flight AA77 on 9/11 ; Real FDR Analysis : Frank Legge / Warren Stutt ?

You say " I'm not here to discuss the FDR data or errors in Legge's paper " but you then go on to do precisely that.

Surely, for neatness and comprehension it should all be on the earlier thread ?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I will never forgive Balsamo for what he did

Balsamo does and has done many things that are unforgivable. The only thing one can do is educate others in the flaws of his research, and the research of others he's connected to, i.e. CIT and John Lear, for example.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Not really Alfie. This thread is more about Legge and why/how he should have final word on FDR data over
more qualified, experienced people.

Neither Legge, or Stutt have anything to do with aviation, crash investigation, or FDR data recovery/technology.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You are doing it again. You are commenting on Legge/Stutt and the FDR on a new thread of your devising.

This is just making it difficult for people to follow if they have to go from one to the other.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Why do you care, Alfie?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Not really Alfie. This thread is more about Legge and why/how he should have final word on FDR data over
more qualified, experienced people.

Neither Legge, or Stutt have anything to do with aviation, crash investigation, or FDR data recovery/technology.


There is no discussion of FDR data within that quote. I am discussing the qualifications of Legge and his
apparent errors understanding the systems.

I really do not wish to argue with you. I'm not here to start a fight with you. I just find it very frustrating that
a non-aviation type is writing a paper on FDR data...which contradicts those who have been in the field several
years and know what they're doing.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Why do you care, Alfie?


Because I think this Legge/Stutt paper is very important and it doesn't seem to me to be helping the pursuit of truth by splitting the debate over two threads which can only serve to divert and confuse.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
One thing I don't understand about all the Flight Data Recorder analysis is that if they were planted, as at least half in the TM believe no plane hit the Pentagon, why give them any credence at all?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Because I think this Legge/Stutt paper is very important

Because it helps prove a plane hit the Pentagon?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo, I'm not seeking a fight with you but I am pointing out that your comments about Legge/ Stutt and the FDR are pertinent to an earlier thread.

I shan't mention it again but I hope the Mods close this one.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Alfie1

Because I think this Legge/Stutt paper is very important

Because it helps prove a plane hit the Pentagon?


How about discussing it on the earlier thread ?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

How about discussing it on the earlier thread ?

Answering it here will be fine.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


If I wanted to discuss the data, and the errors in the paper I would have addressed those points in the thread.

In order to prevent off topic discussion in that particular thread, I started this one.

I'd like to know why people are going to believe Legge over aviation pros?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Who is Legge and what does he claim?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by turbofan
I will never forgive Balsamo for what he did

Balsamo does and has done many things that are unforgivable. The only thing one can do is educate others in the flaws of his research, and the research of others he's connected to, i.e. CIT and John Lear, for example.






who is this geeza and whats he done thats unforgivable if you dont mind me asking?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82
who is this geeza

Captain Rob Balsamo is the co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.



Originally posted by kaya82
and whats he done thats unforgivable

I won't go into other specifics, but keeping John Lear in the membership at PFT just for Lear's name and credentials, regardless of his nutty, whacky disinformation theories, says alot about Balsamo's character and agenda.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Just thought I'd let Alfie know I took some time to talk technical avionics in the other thread.

However, due to the endless posts and off-topic discussions going on, I'd like to copy some important
information about the RAD ALT system that Legge overlooked.

You could say, this is the nail in the coffin for Legge's understanding of the electronics and therefore makes
RAD ALT values inadmissable:

The manufacturer specs the RADAR Altimeter to average ground points over sections of 330 feet every second:


Tracking Capability: Up to 100.5 meters per sec., or 330 feet per sec.

Boeing 747, 757, 767, 777, 737x



FL77 was moving much faster than that, by approximately two times (*allegedly).

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.

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.

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.

These facts alone render Legge's paper useless. Remember kids, you read it here first!

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



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join