It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LaBTop
By now it is also clear that a 3000 + feet dis-alignment in the FDR certainly did not show up on the cockpit instruments as an alert.
That would have triggered (real-time connected) safety programs to flash red warnings in that cockpit.
Like the EICAS message "UNABLE RNP" that would have been flashed on the cockpit instrument panel, warning the pilots that alignment was out of its allowed wide boundaries (its value expressed in nautical miles ).
ACTUAL navigation performance (ANP) should not exceed RNP (REQUIRED navigation performance).
The FMC triggers the EICAS message UNABLE RNP to alert the flight crew if ANP exceeds RNP.
REQUIRED navigation performance (RNP) values have been created and published for certain areas of operation and procedures. The RNP, expressed in nautical miles, defines the accuracy of the navigation equipment required to fly the route or procedure for which it is published.
ACTUAL navigation performance is also expressed in nautical miles. It represents the radius of a circle centered at the FMC position which defines the limit of the potential error in that position. The smaller the ANP the more accurate the FMC position.
You can find yourself, all of this in Boeing's flight crew training manuals.
In the same thread linked to above, at page 14 (worth reading it all), ATS member "reheat" posted this very logical explanation :
He (Balsamo) obviously believes by showing what appears to be a large position error on the ground at Dulles IAP and then a more accurate position during flight that the IRU was realigned during flight. The equipment in Airline use are not capable of alignment during flight. Some military type units are. Therefore, he's implying there was a substitute aircraft (aircraft swap) at Dulles. It is all poppycock, pure and simple.
I will address the military units as I have considerable experience with them. Weedwhacker will address the Airline units. There is no such thing as auto-align during flight. Military unit capable of alignment in-flight take hours, not minutes to align. Even then they will be miles in error after a long MANAGED alignment procedure. They need very precise updates during this process usually provided by high resolution Attack Radar. It takes considerable time to do this and the results are not very accurate if it will even complete successfully.
AA 77 automatically updated the IRU during flight as it's designed to do becoming more accurate as the flight progressed. By the time the aircraft reached the Pentagon it was in the vicinity of some 200' in error. There is NO WAY in hell that unit was aligned in flight, period. Those in use by the Airlines are not capable and those high quality units in use by the military would not be capable during that period of time and they would not be even close to 200' to the actual position at the end. I hope this helps.
Followed by another "reheat" explanation in another post on the same page :
You still are not understanding an ALIGNMENT versus UPDATES. They are two different things altogether. An alignment occurs on the ground and initializes the unit to a location/position on the surface of the earth. Then accelerometers and gyros detect movement and display that as a position from the original aligned position.
After airborne the units UPDATE their position automatically with either VOR/DME or DME/DME (look up these via google) to control drift and refine the position already present in the units. In other words, the UPDATES cause them to be more precise over time.
Read this: en.wikipedia.org...
If you can recall GPS was not in wide use in 2001. I believe only B-1's and B-2's did have GPS in the aircraft for use in programming precision guided GPS type bombs. I do know of any other aircraft who had GPS at that time. Selective Availability (SA) was removed in 2000, but to my knowledge no airline had GPS in use by 2001. Also, there were no WAAS satellites at that time, so it was not practical for the airlines to spend the huge cost in implementing GPS until WAAS was turned on in 2003.
Read about SA here: en.wikipedia.org...
Read about WAAS here: en.wikipedia.org...
Don't despair. If you still don't understand after this and after reading those articles we'll try again. As Weedwhacker said it's difficult to "dumb down" this stuff for the layman.
The Boeing 757-200/300 Flight Crew Training Manual - RNP and RNAV Operations, provides this explanation nowadays for positional drift and how to correct it :
The Biggles software represent the policy of a particular airline (Monarch, in the UK).
The FMC uses its calculated present position to generate lateral steering commands along the active leg to the active waypoint. The FMC requires position data from at least one IRS. All other position sources are validated against the IRS position and increase the accuracy of the FMC position.
FMC Position Update (Basic FMC)
On the ground, the FMC position is based on the IRS position.
Since inertial systems accumulate position errors as a function of time, the position information being used by the FMC is slowly accumulating errors. These position errors can be detected by observing the position of the airplane on the HSI map.
If an extended ground delay occurs and a significant map error is noticed the IRS should be realigned and present position re-entered.
When the autothrottle is engaged for takeoff, the FMC position is automatically updated to the takeoff runway position displayed on the TAKEOFF REF page.
In flight, the FMC position is continually updated from the navigation radios.
It seems to me, that these procedures were also in use on 9/11, except the GPS possibilities, which were not present in the 9/11 commercially flown planes. And were used after 2003, when the non-military used GPS satellite system was at last in place and operating.
(**)ProudBird : In fact, if you note....the Pentagon Memorial is pictured in that current photo. If you get a chance to visit, you will see that there are lines drawn in the ground, that represent the course of the airplane as it passed directly over that spot. In addition, the width of the Memorial is exactly 124 feet, 10 inches...to represent the wingspan of the Boeing 757.
The G-forces if it attempted even a small bank, would have shattered its pieces all over the place.
Originally posted by ProudBird
But, the jet never flew "north" of the "citgo", so all the rest is just spinning of wheels useless.
At the 1:21:30 mark in this full Flight 77 NTSB video (13:37:05 EDT) the speed is 302 KTS, altitude is 2268 FT and the heading meter in the right bottom starts slowly counting up from 59 to 60 and then in the next 30 seconds moves up to 70, then stays steadily on 70 up till the end of the animation.
The rudder position stays steadily in the zero position, all that time.
I also see that the plane is drifting, since I see it is projected on the flight path its white line with its nose positioned to the left of that flight path, and its tail to the right of it.
The two thrust indicators in the left bottom show the 50% thrust position, but not exactly the same, the Left thrust seems a tiny bit lower, which probably is an indication of a tad bit more thrust on the right jet engine, thus compensating for the NNW winds on 9/11, and thus the drifted position on the white flight path line. At 13:37:09 the thrust levers are shifted towards the 100% thrust position in the next 7 seconds (up to 13:37:16).
I thought the official heading was 60.25°, all the way from along the SOUTH side of the then eight Navy Annex buildings up to the point of impact.
And an awfull lot of witnesses talked about a 20 to 30° right bank flown by the plane.
Forget alternate planes, I just proved to myself, that against everything I believed up till this day, there was simply the same plane as ever that took off from Dulles at its normal departure time.
Flight 77, spotted by ground personnel at it's usual Gate D26.
At last we can say that the FDR handed over by the NTSB depicts at least the right departure gate.
We still have all the NoC witnesses, and according to P49/11T, that same FDR does not depict a NoC flight path.
"Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity
Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77
Digital Flight Data Recorder Information"
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by ProudBird :
But, the jet never flew "north" of the "citgo", so all the rest is just spinning of wheels useless.
LaBTop : Until the moment any one of you provide us with recorded evidence from a retraction by William Lagasse and his colleague, who both persist till this day in their own CIT recorded interviewed words that they know more than 100% sure that the plane flew north of the CITGO canopy, most readers will keep having ultra-strong doubts when reading all your extensive arguments for the official south of the CITGO canopy flying plane.
When you also can audio record Christine Peterson, saying that her car stood within a few meters of the overpass bridge over the last part of Columbia Pike leading to the South Pentagon Parking lot, INSTEAD of very near of the two trees in front of the Pentagon Helipad, where the plane flew right over the roof of her car, as she stated in several published newspaper interviews, then we may start to doubt the CIT interviews.
The same goes for a recorded new audio interview with Penny Elgas, who stated also in many interviews, that she stood only a few cars back from where the plane crossed over Route 27 (Washington Boulevard)
And then I offered several more witnesses, who's positions can easily be compared to those of Christine and Penny. If they all will explain exactly where they stood when the plane crossed Route 27, we can at last put the whole Pentagon controversy to rest.
I however now predict a near zero percent chance that any official flight path follower can and will and want to ever come up with such evidence.
Of course it didn't. There is an abundance of evidence for the flight path and subsequent impact with the building.. Hard evidence, not someones perception of what happened.
1) Three different radars and the 84 RADES data show the returns to just about the east side of the Navy Annex. (It would be impossible aerodynamically to go North of the service station from there.
LaBTop : To just a few meters southwest from the Navy Annex, that's the last radar return as shown in extensive discussions on the PfT forums I have seen there. From that point on, the terrain features in the Pentagon basin blocked any radar returns. The extra 4 seconds found in the NTSB provided FDR data show even further positions based on FDR recorded radio and pressure heights and headings, which lead to a north of CITGO position. The NTSB animation shows an even further north plane position much earlier on already, see my screen-shot in one of my last above posts.
2) Truthers are always harping about the lack of video, but the Tribby Video vividly shows the C-130, which followed AA 77's path on it's approach. Because of the position of the C-130 and the plume of smoke there is NO DOUBT at all of it's position.
LaBTop : No problem with his position when photographed, but you avoid to explain the C-130 pilot O'Brien's own words when interviewed, that he could not see the impact, only the resulting smoke column, because he was trailing so far behind the attack plane, that the only way he could get an indication where the smoke came from, from the reflection on the water of the Potomac River, just behind the Pentagon. But he still could not see the Pentagon itself clearly, from that distance he was still away from it.
For the record and for the umpteenth time, I, LaBTop, am convinced that a plane did impact the Pentagon, at the spot in the west wall of it, photographed within a minute by Steve Riskus, and later by several others.
3) Lamp posts, damaged tree, and a damaged camera pole agree with the known path...
LaBTop : Any lawyer will bring up that they can be staged, I showed two photos with a yellow flatbed trailer in them, which were left very near two of the downed light poles, and were always used to transport exactly such light poles. One behind the heap of fresh dirt along Route 27, one on the left side and a few meters away from the underpass of Columbia Pike under Route 27. Damaged tree is never photographed from nearby, let ever analyzed for burned top foliage. It also doesn't look as if it was burned, or showed any broken leafs and branches. Damaged camera pole dent can be from earlier damage and events, or can be also staged.
If you accept a NoC path, then all these things must have been staged at forehand. To fit a planned flight path, which planning failed obviously during the last few seconds, and thus came up with a north of the CITGO canopy flying plane, and a nearly head on impact instead of a 60.25 true north impact path. Which was not planned for. But the light poles must have been downed already then, to fit the in advance placed internal explosive charges. See for that the second photo of Steve Riskus, or from one of the other photographers, which shows a sudden huge white hot explosive fireball spitting out of the center damage in the west wall. At least a minute after the impact, since Steve had to park his car first at the west side of Route 27, get his camera and exit his car and start to walk towards the center of the scene. His parked car was about 50 meters north of that center scene point.
4) FDR found in the building supports all of the above.
LaBTop : No, it does not. At least according to the NTSB, the leading institute regarding air disasters. They never reacted on, nor retracted their FOIA released animation of their released FDR data.We may expect that the heading in the last seconds, and the pressure altitudes combined with the radio altitudes will show the same path north of the Annex, as the NTSB must have been plotting based on their FDR data.
If not, your government should immediately sack the top brass of this influential institute.
And excuse publicly for their misrepresentation of known facts.
5) Building Performance report agrees with all of the above evidence.
LaBTop : As stated before, their researchers were only allowed in the building after it was totally cleaned from inside debris. They had no chance at all to witness plane debris on the original spots, and the collapsed area where most of it could have been found by them, was already cleansed. In the same report can the testimony of Frank Probst be found, and from his words can be concluded where he stood when the plane flew just over him. In front of the Helipad, and not 60 meters more to the south, where the 60.25° would predict him to have stood. But he stood just a few meters south of the two trees.
Their report shows an abundance of photos from damaged pillars in a cleansed area. And some of the photos taken by Pentagon allowed photographers, military men and women, from debris heaps. These were not taken by any Building Performance Report persons.
6) Testimony of the recovery efforts of first responders and the clean up crew outlined in "Firefight to save the Pentagon" agrees with the above.
LaBTop : A cover-up would not need to address that, since a plane with crew and passengers left from Gate D26 at Dulles, the usual gate where Flight 77 departed from for several years already. Thus we may expect victims from inside the plane, just as from outside, the Pentagon workers.
7) Recovered DNA and personal affects of passengers and crew found inside the building.
LaBTop : see point 6) , and again, I agree with an impact.
I probably left something out, but this is enough to prove where the aircraft flew and where it ended up. To argue otherwise without proving *all* of the above either untrue or fraudulent is an exercise in futility. It is not simply stupid to argue otherwise, it is stupid in the extreme...
This is an overall aerial picture with the 60.25° true north track blue line....
Originally posted by LaBTop
GoodOlDave, I'm not claiming anything.
Rob himself is perfectly able to show his feathers all the time, especially when he meets resistance in his own community.
Whether or not such events at his home plate have anything to do with what you asked, I doubt it.
He's just a stubborn type, easily leaning to foul-mouthing when you touch his ego.
He never flew anything real big like a 757, as he himself told us so, and has to lean on the knowledge of the ones who did fly in such planes. Then he asks them questions he does not clearly explain, and interprets the answers he gets then, to fit in his own perception of rules and habits in the one class smaller planes he flew himself.
When AA pilots have acceptable positional fault margins at hand, before departures at larger airports, of one to ten miles, regarding the need, urge and prescribed settings of their cockpit positional instruments just before departure, they will always opt for the fast method, the Fast Align Procedure.
Only when the boundaries have been reached of the accumulated fault margins at specific airports with perhaps a lot smaller margin on their Jeppesen charts, must the pilot realign according the rules.
When the accumulated faults over many trips has reached such a margin, then its time to perform a Full Align Procedure after APU and/or engines start, and before departure.