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.

 

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

page: 12
83
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
on clicking on the source for "in flight align" on the P4T website story, you get the following picture. Can someone please explain how this picture indicates an inflight alignment? Thanks!



Same question for this data... I'm not familiar with the format and information so it's taking quite a while; does it show in the data from the NTSB site that there was an airborne auto-alignment and a GPS.

www.ntsb.gov...




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
PILOTS (or people good at pretending to be pilots) I need your help!



Does this IRS data show an inflight align?
if so, what do the numbers and designations mean?

~ please



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
one more thing... (besides my wife wants her husband back from the 9/11 monster
)

I accidentally came across this piece of hardware while searching for GPS/IRS/ILS stuff. It has been available to attach to aircraft since 1997, including the Boeing 757, and I'm wondering how (precisely) we know there was no GPS on N644AA. If the NTSB data shows GPS "OPER" and something like this Honeywell hardware was available, are we assuming N644AA didn't have GPS or do we KNOW.

Honeywell AH-2100 Super AHRS


I hope this thread keeps going - this in-flight align is CRUCIAL evidence. If the NTSB data shows flight AA 77 did an airborne auto-align but we can prove it wasn't on N644AA that IS the smoking gun.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
NTSB data right from the source... gotta love it. Someday we will have absolute proof.

The airplane indicated in this data dove at a consistent rate of about 35 feet per second (35 f/s) for the last 4 minutes of the flight from 8,000 ft to 0 ft [black line], but the airspeed stayed at about 300 knots [green] until the very last few seconds when it jumped to about 450 knots (based on the graph) in about one minute.





edit on 6-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ROBthaBANK
 



It's simply impossible.


Another lie, this time (apparently) passed on directly from the "head honcho" of PfffT himself.

I wrote up a step-by-step explanation in THIS post.

See, "ROB", (or, "RtB"...or, just "RB")....I could sit you down and teach you how in just a little bit of time...in a classroom, with the proper illustrations, pictures....better yet, with an FTD, or even in the simulator (though, rather expensive to chew up the rental time just sitting there)....heck, I bet I could even teach Rob Balsamo!! I hear he's not totally incapable of understanding....only when it comes to some things......


...adding a "Reply to" for nexus:

reply to post by nexusferox
 


So YOU, nexus, can LEARN instead of mocking, and embarrassing yourself.....
edit on 5 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



ok Weed, studied that post of yours and thanks for replying. what I have a problem with is that hani hanjour would even have been able to read the information you so comprehensively displayed, let alone operate said devices correctly. I won't go into how easily a 1st-time airliner pilot pulled off the famous 270 degree descent/turn to align with the pentagon though. I also have a problem with how you as a professional pilot dont have a problem with that manouevre and pilot combination.
edit on 6-3-2011 by nexusferox because: spelling

edit on 6-3-2011 by nexusferox because: more spelling



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Seems like the usual OS believer crowd are ignoring this thread like the plague.

Wonder why,,??
Actually, no I don't..
It's the questions they can't answer..



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Seems like the usual OS believer crowd are ignoring this thread like the plague.

Wonder why,,??
Actually, no I don't..
It's the questions they can't answer..


Since you're so freaking smart and knowledgeable about this subject, please post the ECAS parameter ERROR MESSAGE from the FDR data that shows that the IRU was not aligned prior to Take-Off.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



Since you're so freaking smart and knowledgeable about this subject, please post the ECAS parameter ERROR MESSAGE from the FDR data that shows that the IRU was not aligned prior to Take-Off.

Thanks


Mate, there is not ONE person on either side of this debate that does not agree the reading at the start/gate was off by 3600'..

So what the hell are you talking about.??



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Mate, there is not ONE person on either side of this debate that does not agree the reading at the start/gate was off by 3600'..

So what the hell are you talking about.??


Oh, I see there is no more BIG TALK, only questions now! lol:

Sooooooo, it was not very accurate ON THE GROUND, was it? Does this mean it wasn't aligned as B00b Balsamo has told you via one of his dozens of socks?

I'll answer no further questions until you post the FDR data that shows the system was not aligned. It's entirely OK if you don't want to provide that. Then you'll be all alone again to continue with your BIG TALK.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



Sooooooo, it was not very accurate ON THE GROUND, was it? Does this mean it wasn't aligned as B00b Balsamo has told you via one of his dozens of socks?

I'll answer no further questions until you post the FDR data that shows the system was not aligned. It's entirely OK if you don't want to provide that. Then you'll be all alone again to continue with your BIG TALK.


I've been to sites where they bag P4T and even Warren what's his name posts there..
They agree the plane could not accurately re-align in flight..
They agree it was an early line plane that was not fitted with GPS..

So any error at the start would be reasonably constant..

Tell me different, I'm all ears...



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
 



Sooooooo, it was not very accurate ON THE GROUND, was it? Does this mean it wasn't aligned as B00b Balsamo has told you via one of his dozens of socks?

I'll answer no further questions until you post the FDR data that shows the system was not aligned. It's entirely OK if you don't want to provide that. Then you'll be all alone again to continue with your BIG TALK.


I've been to sites where they bag P4T and even Warren what's his name posts there..
They agree the plane could not accurately re-align in flight..
They agree it was an early line plane that was not fitted with GPS..

So any error at the start would be reasonably constant..

Tell me different, I'm all ears...


You are wrong on several counts. The Warren "what's his name" is Warren Stutt and he does NOT agree that the system was not aligned. No one does except B00b Balsamo and his fradulent band of sycophants at pffft.

What they are not telling you is that the IRU and related system, not only provides Navigation, but also, attitude and heading information to the pilots. The computers do not know the weather conditions and that stuff is crucial to safety of flight. If the system was not aligned and out of tolerance there would be an ECAS message that would also be recorded in the FDR. Where is it?

B00b and his merry band of frauds want you to believe it realigned in-flight and that it was a military aircraft.
Even military aircraft take a considerable amount of time to realigned if they are capable. (not all are)

The graph displayed earlier at the top of this page shows the system was virtually aligned with the radar plots by the top of the climb. That is known as UPDATES (not alignment). It must update via either VOR/DME, DME/DME, or in the case of later aircraft GPS. The system became more accurate starting at the beginning of the take-off roll and as it continued to receive updates during flight. The data indicates it was receiving updates properly, not that it initiated a realignment.

I will entertain polite and respectful questions. I will not entertain insults from "know nothings". Your call.

ETA: This perhaps explains the system operation in written format...

www.biggles-software.com...
edit on 6-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



I will entertain polite and respectful questions. I will not entertain insults from "know nothings". Your call.


So this statement from Weedwhacker,

But, simply operating in a normal terminal, or en-route environment, the IRS accuracy...as long as it didn't get REALLY, REALLY off, would vary up to two miles, and still be "acceptable".


Do you disagree with him that a 2 mile variation, even "en-route" is normal and acceptable.??



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
 



I will entertain polite and respectful questions. I will not entertain insults from "know nothings". Your call.


So this statement from Weedwhacker,

But, simply operating in a normal terminal, or en-route environment, the IRS accuracy...as long as it didn't get REALLY, REALLY off, would vary up to two miles, and still be "acceptable".


Do you disagree with him that a 2 mile variation, even "en-route" is normal and acceptable.??


Why do you not trust what Weedwhacker said? He is a retired Airline Pilot after many years of flying and has flown both B-767's and 757's. Is it because he doesn't say what you want to hear? The Jet Routes have no specified width, however Low Altitude Airways are 9 miles wide at most points and wider over NavAids. Does 2 nm on a 9 mile wide highway seem like too much?


The system indicates an ERROR MESSAGE via ECAS when it's out of tolerance for the intended operation. If you had read the link I posted you'd already know that.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Weedwhacker takes a lot of abuse here. I wouldn't blame him if he never came back at all. I read Weedwhacker's posts consistently and yes, he is verbose, but I have never ever seen him post incorrect or misleading information.

The person you should be abusing is B00b Balsamo who comes here under one of his dozens of socks to spread his misleading and frequently fraudulent BS. For example, this thread.....



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



Does 2 nm on a 9 mile wide highway seem like too much?


No, but have you read all my posts??
I'm not really disagreeing with the inaccuracy of the planes position...

Here's another post of mine..
Care to answer it??


reply to post by weedwhacker

Weed's words.....
But, simply operating in a normal terminal, or en-route environment, the IRS accuracy...as long as it didn't get REALLY, REALLY off, would vary up to two miles, and still be "acceptable".



And yet in another thread were you not arguing that this same FDR data was so accurate as to show the PRECISE position of flight 77 prior to impacting the Pentagon.?
It was SO accurate that it clearly showed how the plane impacted the light poles..
It was SO accurate that it disproved the other flight path stated by many witnesses..

Flight 77 did not have a GPS system so what suddenly gave the data that accuracy you now say may be off by up to two miles.????



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



The person you should be abusing is B00b Balsamo who comes here under one of his dozens of socks to spread his misleading and frequently fraudulent BS. For example, this thread.....


Well Bob has to come here because Weed certainly doesn't want to argue on the P4T site..
Shame really..
I'd love to see the debate..



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Weedwhacker takes a lot of abuse here. I wouldn't blame him if he never came back at all. I read Weedwhacker's posts consistently and yes, he is verbose, but I have never ever seen him post incorrect or misleading information.

The person you should be abusing is B00b Balsamo who comes here under one of his dozens of socks to spread his misleading and frequently fraudulent BS. For example, this thread.....



Happily following the discussion until I got to your 'dozens of socks' . Could you explain and also does BS mean bull# or am I 'lost in translation'? (quite new to the board and still learning) Thanks



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
 



Does 2 nm on a 9 mile wide highway seem like too much?


No, but have you read all my posts??
I'm not really disagreeing with the inaccuracy of the planes position...

Here's another post of mine..
Care to answer it??


reply to post by weedwhacker

Weed's words.....
But, simply operating in a normal terminal, or en-route environment, the IRS accuracy...as long as it didn't get REALLY, REALLY off, would vary up to two miles, and still be "acceptable".



And yet in another thread were you not arguing that this same FDR data was so accurate as to show the PRECISE position of flight 77 prior to impacting the Pentagon.?
It was SO accurate that it clearly showed how the plane impacted the light poles..
It was SO accurate that it disproved the other flight path stated by many witnesses..

Flight 77 did not have a GPS system so what suddenly gave the data that accuracy you now say may be off by up to two miles.????


Notice that weedwhacker did not say 2 nm was normal. He said that was acceptable.

Who and when did weedwhacker or anyone else say the FDR data showed the PRECISE position of AA 77 just prior to the obstacles near the Pentagon. If you insist on this, I want to see the QUOTE. It doesn't show a precise position (it does show a position reasonably close) and I don't know of anyone with credibility who has ever said that it was precise at any time. What the FDR does show is a pretty precise track along the exact track noted in the Building Performance Report that indicated the damage pattern to the Pentagon. That track is very reliable over a short distance because the IRU does not have time to drift. Over long distances it might be off a little, but over short distance it is reliable.

What does show a reasonably accurate position are several Radars. They are not necessarily precise, but they are about as accurate as radar gets.

When one plots the FDR track along with the track of several radars it is intuitively obvious that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. That does not even consider all of the other evidence that conclusively shows a large aircraft impacted the building killing all souls on board and over a hundred people inside the Pentagon.

ETA: The FDR was much more accurate by the time the aircraft reached the pentagon simply because the IRU had been receiving updates (as indicated) in the article I linked for the entire flight. Those updates are automatic and not related to pilot input.
edit on 6-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
What they are not telling you is that the IRU and related system, not only provides Navigation, but also, attitude and heading information to the pilots. The computers do not know the weather conditions and that stuff is crucial to safety of flight. If the system was not aligned and out of tolerance there would be an ECAS message that would also be recorded in the FDR. Where is it?

B00b and his merry band of frauds want you to believe it realigned in-flight and that it was a military aircraft.
Even military aircraft take a considerable amount of time to realigned if they are capable. (not all are)

The graph displayed earlier at the top of this page shows the system was virtually aligned with the radar plots by the top of the climb. That is known as UPDATES (not alignment). It must update via either VOR/DME, DME/DME, or in the case of later aircraft GPS. The system became more accurate starting at the beginning of the take-off roll and as it continued to receive updates during flight. The data indicates it was receiving updates properly, not that it initiated a realignment.



this thread started out with 6 pages of circus animal OS thread-crashing, then as soon as we started talking about FACTS from the NTSB data the OSers disappeared - that's a BIG warning light to me.

I'm a novice at reading this stuff (which sorta drives me crazy because I have to trust people on the internet for answers
) so I'd love it if someone could point out specific details of why I should or shouldn't trust P4T's read on this specific NTSB data set. Is there really nothing out of the ordinary with this data?

To me, even the 8,000 foot 35 f/s dive to sea level seems out of line with what we've been told, but I'd really like to see meanings of the NTSB flight data and if anyone thinks this was NOT a Boeing 757.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Here's their report..
www.journalof911studies.com...

Now, even they note that radar is NOT very accurate, especially at low altitudes..
Yet, given the inaccuracy most seem to agree with, they still manage to make it seem like the official flight path IS accurate right down to the light poles being hit..

I just don't see how they can say that with any conviction.......
edit on 6-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join