Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Debate _ German Invasion

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 12:16 PM


[mod edit: this thread split from "Debunking FDR Debunking" here.... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22364]



Hi Rob

For the beginning, i am faceing some questions about...

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

for me, i believe this CV is correct, but some people in an german forum said, tis doesnt match at all, since pilots are only to be able to fly till the age of 60. so therefor this pilot must have get his licence in the age between 13 or 18.
is it correct that pilots are only allowed to fly up to age of 60? or did this person made a calculation error? (i bet, something is wrong with the guy dont trusting that CV :-) )

further, i was facing discussuions about wether GPS was installed on 757 at AA installed or not, at 2001.
as far as i was told (and linked to boeing) boeing was able to install GPS with their FANC programm, at about 1995. for me this is not an evidence, that AA had installed GPS in their 757, but it would made it possible of course.
(althougt GPS at that time still had SA, so i dont think, civil aviation would relay on that)

so my question....did Ralph Kolstad really mentioned, that NO 757 at AA about 2001 was equiped with GPS? or was he saying, that HE was not flying with an 757 with GPS on board?

and finally, could it be, that the GPS value within the CSV file is only, because the FDR was configured to handle this value in the future? and just writing default value?
short explanation from my side...as a former programmer (5 languages) and DB admin, i can imagine, that you write default values to log files (which an FDR basically is) when a value is not present.
but for sure...i wouldnt write the value OPER !
this would mislead any investigation...instead i would expect IONOPER.....NOT SET.....NOT ACTIVE.....and so on.....

so again in short....

-does the CV of Ralph is corret in order of his experiences and years of duty?
-Ralph Kolstad really mentioned, that NO 757 at AA about 2001 was equiped with GPS? or was he saying, that HE was not flying with an 757 with GPS on board?
-could it be, that the GPS value within the CSV file is only, because the FDR was configured to handle this value in the future? and just writing default value?

thanks a lot for some clearification of this.
it would help me a lot to go back to my german forum to discuss further.....

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2013, 12:34 PM

Hi vienna... welcome to the forum.

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 8 2013, 01:16 PM) *
-does the CV of Ralph is corret in order of his experiences and years of duty?


Many pilots remain on reserve status with the military while flying for the airlines. For example, our airline alone had many pilots called back to active status during the Iraq and Afghan wars after 9/11. So, Capt Kolstad's years in service and years at the airlines overlap. They are not consecutive. The years are concurrent.

QUOTE
-Ralph Kolstad really mentioned, that NO 757 at AA about 2001 was equiped with GPS? or was he saying, that HE was not flying with an 757 with GPS on board?


Correct. 757's at American were not equipped with GPS in 2001. They used Inertial Reference Systems as their primary use for navigation.

QUOTE
-could it be, that the GPS value within the CSV file is only, because the FDR was configured to handle this value in the future? and just writing default value?


We do not speculate. The fact of the matter is that the data contains GPS as OPERational. American 757's were not equipped with GPS. All others are free to speculate as to their bias. But the facts remain.

Bottom line, there is http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html. And in fact the data does not support an impact with the Pentagon.


Hope this helps.

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 12:54 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 8 2013, 01:34 PM) *
Hi vienna... welcome to the forum.



Many pilots remain on reserve status with the military while flying for the airlines. For example, our airline alone had many pilots called back to active status during the Iraq and Afghan wars after 9/11. So, Capt Kolstad's years in service and years at the airlines overlap. They are not consecutive. The years are concurrent.



Correct. 757's at American were not equipped with GPS in 2001. They used Inertial Reference Systems as their primary use for navigation.



We do not speculate. The fact of the matter is that the data contains GPS as OPERational. American 757's were not equipped with GPS. All others are free to speculate as to their bias. But the facts remain.

Bottom line, there is http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html. And in fact the data does not support an impact with the Pentagon.


Hope this helps.



thanks a lot.....this helps me believing on the fact....something was not investigated correctly.

regards
ienna

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 01:10 PM

We do not speculate. The fact of the matter is that the data contains GPS as OPERational. American 757's were not equipped with GPS. All others are free to speculate as to their bias. But the facts remain.

sorry, i dont want to speculate also.....but for me, as a former programmer, if i would write a value to a system, not present/installed currently, with value OPER, my former teacher would throw my diplom out of the window :-)

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2013, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 8 2013, 02:10 PM) *
sorry, i dont want to speculate also.....but for me, as a former programmer, if i would write a value to a system, not present/installed currently, with value OPER, my former teacher would throw my diplom out of the window :-)


Exactly... smile.gif

I went over to the German forum you are discussing (I saw the link in our hit referrals).... some people are in serious denial over there. Dont waste too much of your time.... there are just some people you cannot reach. They will make every possible excuse they can to hold onto their beliefs despite any amount of evidence. It's called Cognitive Dissonance.

Good luck!

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 01:55 PM

sorry for bringing trouble on this forum...but its in a way really important to me, to find out if Ralph is a lier (thats what they used to say in the german forum) or not.
basically i tend to trust people, exposing themself with names and history...so i salute to him....and hope this here is not the end.

regards
vienna

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 02:20 PM

what do you say to this statemant?

DME is only accurate itself to 0.1 nautical miles (185 meters).According to the wiki article on VOR"The predictable accuracy of the VOR system is ±1.4°. However, test data indicate that 99.94% of the time a VOR system has less than ±0.35° of error."Yes, since even consumer grade GPS will be accurate to within a few meters it would be more accurate.I could easily see a pilot correcting his INS once at crusing altitude and all major course changes are done but only if its gone out by significantly more than the DME/VOR accuracy itself, if he is using that system to recalibrate the INS. If he had his own personal GPS(there were none installed on the a/c) he could use it but I would think that would be a no-no. Doesn't it have to be an approved instrument before a pilot is allowed to use it, especially on a commercial passenger flight?Didn't PfT make a lot of noise previously about the DME data on the plane saying that it showed the plane was not where the 'official story' put it? I seem to recall them touting DME accuracy until being schooled about it here.If Dulles has a VOR/DME located on the airfield or within a mile or so then its possible that an accurate VOR/DME reading would be possible(to within the accuracy of that system) while the a/c is taxing.However some VOR/DMEs are several miles from the nearest airfeilds and since VHF is line of sight they would not be picked up on the ground

i got from an expert? or not?
its not my word, staement...its someone obviously copied from another source

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2013, 02:29 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 8 2013, 02:55 PM) *
sorry for bringing trouble on this forum...but its in a way really important to me, to find out if Ralph is a lier (thats what they used to say in the german forum) or not.
basically i tend to trust people, exposing themself with names and history...so i salute to him....and hope this here is not the end.

regards
vienna



I had a feeling that was coming...lol.

Here are Capt Kolstad's credentials from the FAA.



Anyone can look it up at faa.gov.

As far as the GPS.

N644AA was manufactured in 1991. GPS was not operational till 1994 mainly for Military use. A signal suitable for Civilian use wasn't established until May 1, 2000 and even then it wasn't all that accurate until 2004. This can all be verified on the web.

American Airlines did not install GPS's in their entire fleet nor train all their pilots to use GPS within a little over a year, May 1, 2000 - Sept 11, 2001. Think of the expense and logistical nightmare, not to mention it wasn't even approved for use of navigation by the FAA. Why would any airline waste so much money? They wouldn't. They didn't, they had perfectly good and working Inertial Reference Systems.

American 757's were not GPS equipped in 2001. Anyone who doubts this can call American Airlines themselves. But they won't, because then their whole world will come crumbling down. Again, some people you just can't reach. They fear the truth.

Some people claim "it is not proven there wasn't a GPS, so that means there must be a GPS!!!111!!". A classic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance.

There isn't a list that exists which will show what an airplane is NOT equipped with. The Equipment list shows what an aircraft has installed on board. And there is no way such an equipment list will be published on the web, not only for proprietary reasons, but also for safety and security.

So, if they think Ralph is lying (and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html#Johnson... he is also an American Airlines pilot in our organization), tell them to get the equipment list and prove that N644AA had a GPS installed while showing evidence that the data is linked to N644AA.

As it stands now, there is no evidence linking the data to N644AA and in fact a http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html.

Those who feel a GPS must have been installed just because there isn't an official document from American Airlines stating there wasn't one installed, must also believe in Santa Claus since there is no evidence showing he doesn't exist and that NORAD tracks him each year.... smile.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2013, 02:56 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 8 2013, 03:20 PM) *
i got from an expert? or not?


He is asking questions and quoting from wiki, so clearly not an expert... .nor even a pilot.

Also, an INS/IRS cannot be "re-calibrated" in flight. It has to be done while stationary, on the ground, with http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/IAD_Gate_Lat-Long.jpg.... just another indication that the quote you are looking at is from someone who hasn't the first clue about aviation.

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 03:31 PM

Also, an INS/IRS cannot be "re-calibrated" in flight. It has to be done while stationary, on the ground, with known lat/long coordinates of your Gate position.... just another indication that the quote you are looking at is from someone who hasn't the first clue about aviation.

exactley as i have to do in xplane :-)
entering the coordinates into IRS after align is finished.(depends on the plane...sone takes it via FMS while writing the route...some take it after align)
just to be sure, its near real life :-)

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 03:39 PM

Warum steht in dem editierbaren File der Wahrheitspiloten dann OPER und im nicht editierbaren amtlichen Bericht nicht?

Wo sind die Daten der Wahrheitspiloten verifiziert? Wo sind die Rohdaten?

this means....the guy is asking why in your report (csv) the value OPER for GPS is there, and in the official report this value is not there?
he dont know actually if its in there or not...i assime its in the raw data.... isnt it?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2013, 03:45 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 8 2013, 04:39 PM) *
this means....the guy is asking why in your report (csv) the value OPER for GPS is there, and in the official report this value is not there?
he dont know actually if its in there or not...i assime its in the raw data.... isnt it?



Official report? Does he mean the pdf documents? pdf documents are different than the csv files. In order to get the csv files you can download them from us or you can get your own from the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act. The contact info is in the first post of this thread, but here it is again...

4. Claim - The Information that P4T has analyzed may not be from the NTSB (P4T may have fabricated the information and claims it came from the NTSB)

csv file download and cover letters provided by Undertow
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=64

Raw data decode provided by Undertow
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4574

Animation cover letters/envelope provided by Snowgrouch
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=375

Animation cover letters provided by Mick Harrison
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=6205

Animation provided by Third party on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405&q=AA77+Animation

George Washington University NTSB Data
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

NTSB FOIA Website
http://www.ntsb.gov/foia/foia_requests.html

NTSB FOIA Contact - Melba D. Moye
202-314-6000

NTSB FOIA Request form -
http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.aspx

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 04:33 PM

ji

the company at the german forum is claiming about the rew file.....although i think they might cant read it at all. they asking, if your csv file ist the correct export of this raw file, provided by the NTSB :-)

Posted by: vienna Jul 8 2013, 04:40 PM

somebody claims the AAL77_tabular.csv looks different (without GPS) as some other csv provided here in the forum. which one is authentic?

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2013, 04:47 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 8 2013, 05:33 PM) *
ji

the company at the german forum is claiming about the rew file.....although i think they might cant read it at all. they asking, if your csv file ist the correct export of this raw file, provided by the NTSB :-)



We received 3 sets of data from the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act.

- A raw file.

- A csv file.

- An animation reconstruction based on the above data.

All of the above can be obtained from the NTSB by anyone in the world. All they have to do is fill out an FOIA request form in the links I provided above.

Also, I noticed you are talking about lat/long on the other forum.

The Lat/Long coordinates are recorded from the FMS (not GPS nor IRS). The FMS gets its information from a variety of sources - IRS, VORDME, DMEDME, VORVOR.. .etc.... and GPS if installed. The data shows a GPS as operational. N644AA was not GPS equipped, but many military aircraft were... in 2001.

Again, there is no evidence linking the data to N644AA and the data provided shows evidence to the contrary....

Keep in mind, the Flight Deck Door parameter has only been verified for one flight. The data for all other flights claiming the door closed for all flights was not decoded by the NTSB. It was decoded by some guy in Australia using a program he created with freeware downloaded from the net, while also claiming the industry leading software used by the NTSB has some sort of "bug". None of which is confirmed by the NTSB.

It is funny to watch those who blindly support the govt story, blindly accept data decoded by some guy in Australia which supports their confirmation bias, yet they question us as to where we got our data.

All they have to do is fill out the FOIA form and they will get their own directly from the NTSB matching our data which we obtained from the NTSB.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2013, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 8 2013, 05:40 PM) *
somebody claims the AAL77_tabular.csv looks different (without GPS) as some other csv provided here in the forum. which one is authentic?

regards
vienna


We have 2 csv files... 2 readouts.

This is the csv file as sent directly from the NTSB. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/AAL77_tabular.zip

This is the raw file as sent directly from the NTSB - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/AA77_Raw.zip

This is the raw file decoded so it can be read in csv format. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/a77.2_complete.csv

You will notice many more parameters listed in the raw csv file.

Many parameters were omitted in the NTSB tabular csv file, such as Radar Altitude. We were able to decode more parameters from the raw file sent from the NTSB.

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 05:31 AM

hi again... i have a short question...

Bei Flug AA77 handelte es sich um eine Boeing B757-2. Diese hatte KEINEN SENSOR für die Tür verbaut.
Selbst der Flugschreiber war nicht für eine derartige Aufzeichnung ausgestattet.
Zum 18.08 2001 mussten die FLUGSCHREIBER umgerüstet werden jedoch nicht die Tür !
Erst beim Modell B757-3 kam beides zum Einsatz!

that means....
flight AA77 was a boeing 757/200. these planes DOD NOT HAVE SENSORS for the cockpit door installed.
Even the FDR was not configured to record this kind of data.
Until august, 18th, 2001, the FDR must be reprogrammed/adjusted, but not the doors themself.
Only from the model 757/300 this functionality was installed completly.


ist this correct int this way?

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 05:51 AM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 06:31 AM) *
Only from the model 757/300 this functionality was installed completly.


ist this correct int this way?

regards
vienna




Those who make this claim are confusing the Data Frame Layout (DFL) number with Aircraft Type. 757-3b is the proper Data Frame Layout required for N644AA as listed here in the NTSB pdf for N644AA.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf
(bottom of page 2)

United 93 was also a 757-200 aircraft, but used 757-4 Data Frame Layout.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/UAL93FDR.pdf
(also bottom of page 2)

DFL 757-3b (AA77, a 757-200) has the FLT DECK DOOR parameter which is why you see it listed under the parameters in the NTSB pdf and recorded in the data.

DFL 757-4 (UA93, a 757-200) does not list a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, which is why it is not listed in the NTSB pdf nor recorded.

Data Frame Layout (DFL) number does not correspond to specific aircraft type and are not interchangeable. The -2, -3b, -4 suffix are just revision numbers of the generic Data Frame Layout from Boeing. -3b is a specific revision for American Airlines and then was modified and custom made by American Airlines into 757-3b_1.txt specifically tailored for their 757-200 aircraft and needs specific to American Airlines. 757-4 is a revision number made for United Airlines specifically for their 757-200 Aircraft. United Airlines then custom made their own DFL from the generic Boeing 757-4 DFL into 757UALmap.xls, specifically tailor made for their 757-200 aircraft.

People who make the argument that the 757-2 DFL belongs to a 757-200 series aircraft are using a leap in logic just because they see a 2 after each number designation. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Using the same logic, DFL 757-4 should belong to a 757-400 aircraft... but such an aircraft does not exist. DFL 757-4 was made for United Airlines 757-200 series aircraft.


The Regs required only 18 parameter groups to be recorded on the FDR in 2001. This was a minimum requirement. Airliners record many more parameters specific to their needs.

American Airlines has 1100 parameters specified in their custom made data frame layout. Flight Deck Door is one of them.. See Attached below....

Read more here on common arguments with regard to the Flight Deck Door...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18428&view=findpost&p=10779630

Keep in mind that many parameters are listed as "not working or unconfirmed" by the NTSB, yet they are recorded. A good example of this is the Radio Altitude when the raw file was decoded. The NTSB omitted these parameters from their csv file. But these parameters are in the raw file sent by the NTSB. They were recorded. See more here with regard to Radio Altitude.... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4801

Also, I emailed Ralph yesterday asking him to check this thread after your questions... this was his response....

1. I soloed at age 14, the day after Pres Kennedy was shot.

2. I served active duty for approx. 6+ years. I completed the rest of the 20 years in the Naval Reserve.

3. I was able to fly for the airlines and serve in the Reserves during my days off with the airline. MANY pilots so the same.

4. The age 65 rule went into affect prior to my reaching age 60, so the age 60 rule does not apply.

5. In 2001, NONE of AA’s 757’s were equipped with GPS. We only used IRS (Inertial Reference System) navigation.




Here are the admitted qualifications of the guy in Australia in which those who support the govt story blindly accept "Flight Deck Door closed for all flights".

"Some people have queried my credentials for investigating Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") data and any relevant affiliations I may have.

I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents....

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary.

I was born in New Zealand and I have joint New Zealand and Irish citizenship. I lived in New Zealand up until June 2008 and since then have lived in Brisbane, Australia." - Warren Stutt



Hope this helps...

 757_3b_1.TXT ( 640.98K ) : 341
 

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 09:03 AM

this guys at the german forum are tuff.

Weiß Kolstad mit Sicherheit, dass in den 757, die er für AA geflogen ist, der FDR definitiv nicht "GPS OPER" notiert hat?
does kolstad knows, if the parameter GPS (OPER) was written to FDR or not at 2001 in 757?

although i dont know i a pilot really have to know this all....maybe he would clear this out?

regards
vienna

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 09:25 AM

i assume, if AA would have mentioned to upgrade their 757 with GPS...they would have contacted and informed the pilots for training also.
so i think kolstad would have known, when there weere gps installed on 757.

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 11:07 AM

hi rob

a chatter on the forum found a document.....this tells, as he said, the 757 200 does not have a parameter FLT DECK DOOR.

Laut Boeing nicht. Die 757-200 hat keinen Parameter FLT DECK DOOR. Siehe Appendix B (Parameter für die 757-200):
http://www.911myths.com/documents/D226A101-3G.pdf

so does the AA 757 have one or not?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 12:07 PM) *
hi rob

a chatter on the forum found a document.....this tells, as he said, the 757 200 does not have a parameter FLT DECK DOOR.

Laut Boeing nicht. Die 757-200 hat keinen Parameter FLT DECK DOOR. Siehe Appendix B (Parameter für die 757-200):
http://www.911myths.com/documents/D226A101-3G.pdf

so does the AA 757 have one or not?


D226A101-3G.pdf is the generic Boeing document. As I explained http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10809184 the suffix ("-2") is a revision number for the document itself. It has nothing to do with the Aircraft type. For example look at Appendix F, "757-4". There is no such aircraft "757-400". 757-4 was used for UA93, which is also a 757-200, and does not include FLT DECK DOOR.


American Airlines developed their own Data Frame Layout specific to their aircraft fleet based on the 757-3b Data Frame Layout (D226A101-3G.pdf, Appendix E). The file attached below is the Data Frame Layout from American Airlines according to the NTSB for "AAL77" as listed in the NTSB pdf on page 2 ( http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf ). 757_3b_1.TXT is the proper document according to the NTSB. It includes FLT DECK DOOR.

 757_3b_1.TXT ( 640.98K ) : 86
 

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 10:25 AM) *
i assume, if AA would have mentioned to upgrade their 757 with GPS...they would have contacted and informed the pilots for training also.
so i think kolstad would have known, when there weere gps installed on 757.



GPS was not suitable for civilian use until May 1, 2000. American Airlines did not retrofit their entire fleet with GPS and train all their pilots to use GPS within 1 year when they already had perfectly good and working IRS systems.

This is very simple. Anyone who wants to know if American Airlines 757's had GPS in 2001 can call American Airlines themselves. Those that refuse to do so and rather argue on the internet, are not interested in the truth.

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 01:56 PM

hi rob...nce to read you...

listen...what max G could a 757 handle? i know it depends on some factors...but what is the most likley max?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 02:06 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 02:56 PM) *
hi rob...nce to read you...

listen...what max G could a 757 handle? i know it depends on some factors...but what is the most likley max?


As you said, it depends on many factors. However, based on the manufacture limits, precedent and numerous experts, this is the flight envelope for the 767. Reduce speeds by 10 knots for the 757.



See more here....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 02:37 PM

OMG...now a pilot (he saiys) is entering the debate....LOL...will se what it takes to debunk him....not that i need it...but i hate fakers.

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 02:42 PM

wat about this guy?
does he calculate right?

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?postid=2000894#post200089

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 03:04 PM

That is very old information. Much more information has been gathered since, such as the raw file.

I also see you are discussing time at the other forum. This is from the NTSB.



Official "impact time" is 09:37:45 Eastern Time... according to the NTSB.

This is how the time was calculated....



But as we know now according to the FDR data, the altitude was too high at 09:37:45 (end of recording) for an "impact".

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 03:40 PM

hi rob

its getting silent now....cause its late :-)
but thanks for the info u gave!
tell ralph, i appreciate his support!

keep on going.....and i really hope, the questions will be answered once.

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 03:41 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 04:40 PM) *
hi rob

its getting silent now....cause its late :-)
but thanks for the info u gave!
tell ralph, i appreciate his support!

keep on going.....and i really hope, the questions will be answered once.

regards
vienna


You're welcome vienna.

Stop by anytime you have questions... that goes for anyone on your German forum as well. We are happy to answer.

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 03:52 PM

you guys nuked me with the RADalt parameter and the reults out of this.
i even offered 100% more time delay (another 2 sec) and with 4 G and a rookie pilot it seems very impossible to accomplish this mission.
btw.....the G load would also excide 4 G or more, and since this was never recorded....even with 4 sec delay, the data dont work.

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 04:52 PM) *
you guys nuked me with the RADalt parameter and the reults out of this.
i even offered 100% more time delay (another 2 sec) and with 4 G and a rookie pilot it seems very impossible to accomplish this mission.
btw.....the G load would also excide 4 G or more, and since this was never recorded....even with 4 sec delay, the data dont work.

regards
vienna



Here is a scene from our presentation "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store.html#attack_on_the_pentagon" analyzing G-Forces based on the data provided by the NTSB.



Enjoy...

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 04:23 PM

abolutley stunning!
who can resist this logic??

thx for share.....

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 05:58 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 05:23 PM) *
abolutley stunning!
who can resist this logic??

thx for share.....



I signed up to your German forum and made a post. Now Brandy is asking me a question -

"My question is: what's the FDR getting if a device is not connected?"


I tried to answer him at the forum, but it will no longer allow me to sign in. Am I banned already? lol

Anyway, to answer his (her?) question, if the device was not connected, the NTSB would be using the Data Frame Layout 757-2 or 757-4 which do not include the FLT DECK DOOR. As done with "United 93" (757-4).


Again, just let them know they are free to sign up here if they have questions.

Posted by: vienna Jul 9 2013, 10:51 PM

hi rob

dont know why you cant get in anymore....maybe it would help, if you would post the message, you get, while loggin in.
i was kicked several times already, and i it looks to me, sometimes its just luck.
however...wasnt there yet, so maybe i am also kicked or even banned again.

back to your aswer...
if the device was not connected, the NTSB would be using the Data Frame Layout 757-2 or 757-4 which do not include the FLT DECK DOOR. As done with "United 93" (757-4).


do i understand this correctly? the inverstigators ALWAYS read out all data existing, not values from systems not installed and therefor set with default vlaues?

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 9 2013, 11:51 PM) *
do i understand this correctly? the inverstigators ALWAYS read out all data existing, not values from systems not installed and therefor set with default vlaues?

regards
vienna


I'll answer your question with your own answer....


"....but for me, as a former programmer, if i would write a value to a system, not present/installed currently, with value OPER, my former teacher would throw my diplom[a] out of the window :-) " - Source, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10809158


The data provided by the NTSB shows a FLT DECK DOOR recorded, GPS recorded, and RADALT recorded in the raw file. Some people claim these parameters are "not working or unconfirmed". But the fact remains, these parameters were recorded. Anyone who looks at the raw file will readily see that these parameters were in fact recorded, in contradiction to what the NTSB has stated.

AA 757's did not have GPS installed in 2001. Anyone who wants to learn the truth can call American Airlines themselves.

AA 757's did have FLT DECK DOOR sensors in 2001. Anyone who wants to learn the truth can call American Airlines themselves.

UA 757's did not have FLT DECK DOOR sensors, this is why it is not found in the 757-4 Data Frame Layout used for "United 93".


Again, bottom line, there is no evidence linking the data to N644AA, yet there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the data could not come from an American Airlines aircraft. See more here - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.htm

Those who argue with you on the German forum, and continue to ask me questions when I can no longer sign in to your German Forum, while refusing to come here and ask their questions.... are clearly not interested in the truth.

We welcome anyone who has questions.

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 9 2013, 11:35 PM

Hi Rob,

yesterday i read a very plausible explanation concerning FDR Data.
What if the FDR records a 0 for unreliable or damaged systems and a 1 for properly working systems or systems that are not installed in the aircraft.
Lets say 0 is decoded with INOPER and 1 is decoded OPER.
Since you know wether a system ist installed in an aircraft or not it is easy to say why it is still recording a 1 and therefore getting an OPER description in the.cvs file.

If that is the case ALL arguments work perfectly together.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 9 2013, 11:39 PM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 10 2013, 12:35 AM) *
Hi Rob,

yesterday i read a very plausible explanation concerning FDR GPS Data.
What if the FDR records a 0 for unreliable or damaged systems and a 1 for properly working systems or systems that are not installed in the aircraft.
Lets say 0 is decoded with INOPER and 1 is decoded OPER.
Since you know wether a system ist installed in an aircraft or not it is easy to say why it is still recording a 1 and therefore getting an OPER description in the.cvs file.

If that is the case ALL arguments work perfectly together.



Hi McMurdo. Welcome to the forum and thank you for asking, it is a great question.

Here is the decode protocol for GPS according to Data Frame Layout 757-3b_1.txt used by the NTSB. Note the bold.

Uid: GPS
Abbrev: GPS
Name: GPS
Units:
Minimum Value: 0
Maximum Value: 1
Digits Displayed: 0
Signed Value: No
Parameter Type: Discretes
Bitval 0 Output: INOPER
Bitval 1 Output: OPER

Sampling Freq.(hz): 0.25
Number of bits: 1
Locations/value: 1
Frame(s) Subframe(s) Word Start Bit End Bit
ALL 2 254 5 5
Number of Tests: 0

You can download 757-3b_1.txt here.. (for the third time posted on this thread...)

 757_3b_1.TXT ( 640.98K ) : 75
 

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 01:37 AM

Hi Rob

i think we might would see a bit more clearly when we know something of the fdr row-data from the 757 of flight UA93.

my questions....
was the FDR found?
was the FDR analyzed and read out?
was a parameter found which is telling something about the flight-deck door status?

since you told us that B757 UA93 didnt had a sensor at the flight-deck-door, it would be interesting which parameter (if) was written to the FDR.


thanks in advance and regards
vienna

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 01:55 AM

mcmurdo:
yesterday i read a very plausible explanation concerning FDR GPS Data.
What if the FDR records a 0 for unreliable or damaged systems and a 1 for properly working systems or systems that are not installed in the aircraft.


for me....more plausible information would be..
0 = unreliable, failure, not working, not installed.
1 = working, and therfore also installed.

everything else, doesnt make sense to me...from a perspective of a former programmer and IT expert.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 02:01 AM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 10 2013, 02:37 AM) *
my questions....
was the FDR found?


Yes... (obviously).

Read here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

and here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2

The question remains, was it the FDR from N644AA?

QUOTE
was the FDR analyzed and read out?


Of course... read here again....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10809177

We would not have those files if the NTSB did not provide them....

The question remains, was it the FDR from N644AA?


QUOTE
....was a parameter found which is telling something about the flight-deck door status?


Yes.

Read here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html

here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18428

and here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

QUOTE
since you told us that B757 UA93 didnt had a sensor at the flight-deck-door, it would be interesting which parameter (if) was written to the FDR.


Nothing was written to the FDR regarding the FLT DECK DOOR on United 93. It does not exist in the "UA93" data. This is because United Airlines did not have a FLT DECK DOOR sensor installed.


QUOTE
thanks in advance and regards
vienna


You're welcome... hope this helps...

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 06:02 AM

hi rob

i have another statement, maybe you could help out....

ich zweifle mittlerweile sehr stark an deren Kompetenz und das sie wirklich solche Experten sind wie sie sich darstellen. Sonst hätten sie die NTSB längst verklagt.Sie sollen erstmal beweisen, dass ihre CSV Daten tatsächlich von der NTSB stammten und dass die NTSB dafür eine Garantie abgegeben hat dass die Werte stimmen.

in english:
i doubt, in meanwhile, on the competency P4T have. If they would have this competency, the NTSB would bring them to court (for telling such nonsens?)
they (p4T) should first show evidence, that the csv file, they claimed it is originally from NTSB, actually is really originally from NTSB officials and further approved by the NTSB.
(and additionally i think, he believes that the files are corrupted (manipulated) by somebody :-) maybe you? )


hope you understand this statement....

regards
vienna

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 06:43 AM

sorry wrong translation

i doubt, in meanwhile, on the competency P4T have. If they would have this competency, the NTSB would bring them to court (for telling such nonsens?)

should be like that:
i doubt, in meanwhile, on the competency P4T have. If they would have this competency, they (P4T) would go to court against NTSB

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 08:34 AM

hi rob....

what is the story behind this one??

Hmmm was sagen denn die P4T Anhänger dazu, das ihr Anführer offensichtlich Dinge verändert damit er keine Fehler eingestehen muss?


Balsamo took 767 speeds and placed them in an educational Vg diagram, removing the real speeds. Look at the T-37 graph. And then below at the T-38 diagram. Then see Balsamo's fake 767 Vg diagram and he/she admits it, but implies it is valid.

regards
vienna

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 10 2013, 09:33 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 05:39 AM) *
Hi McMurdo. Welcome to the forum and thank you for asking, it is a great question.

Here is the decode protocol for GPS according to Data Frame Layout 757-3b_1.txt used by the NTSB. Note the bold.
...
Bitval 0 Output: INOPER
Bitval 1 Output: OPER

...


Hi Rob,
so far so good but the question remains.
What data does the FDR record if there is no system installed on the aircraft but the FDR/DLF has a parameter to be recorded.
Have you checked that with AA, NTSB or the FDR manufacturer?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 10:14 AM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 10 2013, 07:43 AM) *
should be like that:
i doubt, in meanwhile, on the competency P4T have. If they would have this competency, they (P4T) would go to court against NTSB


We cannot take the NTSB to court as we are not a victim nor does the NTSB have jurisdiction. Their work product was on behalf of the FBI (see video below). But we did sign an affidavit for a victim. Anyone competent in their research would already know this....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html

Keep in mind, the above case was thrown out before the evidence was even evaluated by the Judges. One of the Judges being a cousin of George Bush.


Call to the NTSB here...







QUOTE
Balsamo took 767 speeds and placed them in an educational Vg diagram, removing the real speeds. Look at the T-37 graph. And then below at the T-38 diagram. Then see Balsamo's fake 767 Vg diagram and he/she admits it, but implies it is valid.


Duhbunkers Unable To Plot Vg Diagram With Data, VG Diagram by P4T is Fake?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21888

In short, if you know the V-speeds of an aircraft, and the G loading limits, you can plot your own V-G diagram for any aircraft. http://www.pprune.org/5894870-post2.html. Those who claim we "faked" the V-G diagram clearly know nothing about aviation.


QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 10 2013, 10:33 AM) *
What data does the FDR record if there is no system installed on the aircraft but the FDR/DLF has a parameter to be recorded.



They would be using a different Data Frame Layout which does not have equipment listed... such as Data Frame Layout 757-4 for "UA93" which did not have a FLT DECK DOOR sensor installed, nor is it in the Data Frame Layout.

Can you please provide evidence which shows the FLT DECK DOOR open to facilitate a "hijack"?

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 10 2013, 11:17 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 04:14 PM) *
They would be using a different Data Frame Layout which does not have equipment listed... such as Data Frame Layout 757-4 for "UA93" which did not have a FLT DECK DOOR sensor installed, nor is it in the Data Frame Layout.

Can you please provide evidence which shows the FLT DECK DOOR open to facilitate a "hijack"?

Obviously they used a Data Frame Layout which did have FLT DECK DOOR Port and which did have a GPS Port.
The question is what would you read out of a FDR (0 or 1) if you use such Data Frame Layouts even if an aircraft doesn´t have these systems onboard? Can you answer that question?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 10 2013, 12:17 PM) *
Obviously they used a Data Frame Layout which did have FLT DECK DOOR Port and which did have a GPS Port.
The question is what would you read out of a FDR (0 or 1) if you use such Data Frame Layouts even if an aircraft doesn´t have these systems onboard? Can you answer that question?



Why would anyone use a document to analyze something that does not exist? They would use 757-4 if the FLT DECK DOOR sensor was not installed as they did with "UA93". In other words, if the FLT DECK DOOR sensor was not installed, you would see nothing at all with regard to "FLT DECK DOOR". As is the case with "UA93"

I have answered your question 3 times now....

Can you answer my question?

Can you please provide evidence which shows the FLT DECK DOOR open to facilitate a "hijack"?


And for those having a hard time reading Kolstad's FAA credentials.... click here...



or click the attached thumbnail below...

Note the 757 and 767 type ratings.

 

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 10 2013, 11:55 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 05:24 PM) *
Why would anyone use a document to analyze something that does not exist? They would use 757-4 if the FLT DECK DOOR senor was not installed as they did with "UA93". In other words, if the FLT DECK DOOR sensor was not installed, you would see nothing at all with regard to "FLT DECK DOOR". As is the case with "UA93"

I have answered your question 3 times now....

Is that your answer to a question which has only two possible answers (0 or 1)?


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 05:24 PM) *
Can you answer my question?

Can you please provide evidence which shows the FLT DECK DOOR open to facilitate a "hijack"?

Unfortunately to answer this question you first need to answer the question above since we don´t know what a FDR records when a given system is not installed.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 10 2013, 12:55 PM) *
Is that your answer to a question which has only two possible answers (0 or 1)?


Wrong. There is a 3rd answer. If a FLT DECK DOOR sensor is not installed, use a Data Frame Layout which does not include the FLT DECK DOOR. Such as DFL 757-4 in the case of "UA93".



QUOTE
Unfortunately to answer this question you first need to answer the question above since we don´t know what a FDR records when a given system is not installed.


In other words you cannot provide any evidence showing the FLT DECK DOOR open for a 'hijack' to occur. The only data we have shows the FLT DECK DOOR closed which makes it impossible for a "hijack".

Do you agree that if the data is accurate, then there is a serious problem with the official story?

And for those reading censura.net from the German forum, see here....

William D. Clinger - Physics Of Conspiracy - Debunked, Flight Path, Virgina DOT,
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18336&view=findpost&p=10778894

Hope this helps....

by the way, i still cannot log in to the German forum.... when I try to login, it reverts back to the Forum index and says at the top -
"Werde jetzt kostenlos Mitglied um Diskussionen zu beobachten und Beiträge zu verfassen (Konto erstellen)."

Translation - "Become a free member now to observe discussions and draft posts (create account)."

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 01:16 PM

Werde jetzt kostenlos Mitglied um Diskussionen zu beobachten und Beiträge zu verfassen (Konto erstellen)."

Translation - "Become a free member now to observe discussions and draft posts (create account)."

as you mentioned...create account.....possibly you should klick on this link...but i dont think its a good timinng now to join.
your reputation is in a bad shape....currently you wopuld face a lot questiuons about Will Clincers pages, discussing your theories and calculations for the G forces....

i am currently tying to analyze this all....since people which offending others by person are mostly the case of problems...i hope, i will figure out, who is causing problems in searching for the truth.

regrads
vienna

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 10 2013, 01:18 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 06:04 PM) *
Wrong. There is a 3rd answer. If a FLT DECK DOOR sensor is not installed, use a Data Frame Layout which does not include the FLT DECK DOOR. Such as DFL 757-4 in the case of "UA93".

Wrong, the 3rd answer would be: I don´t know.

Do you agree that there is no GPS installed on AA77?
Do you agree that there is GPS data recorded on the FDR?
Do you agree that DFL 757-3b (757-3b_1)was used to decode the Data for this FDR?

What about all the other parameters listet under "not working" or "unconfirmed". Do they exist in this specific aircraft or does this abnomaly (system not installed but FDR readout) only occur for GPS and FLIGHT DECK DOOR?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 06:04 PM) *
In other words you cannot provide any evidence showing the FLT DECK DOOR open for a 'hijack' to occur. The only data we have shows the FLT DECK DOOR closed which makes it impossible for a "hijack".

Do you agree that if the data is accurate, then there is a serious problem with the official story?

Since the data is listet under parameters "Not working" or "Unconfirmed" you cannot tell wether these data tells the truth or not, can you?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 06:04 PM) *
by the way, i still cannot log in to the German forum.... when I try to login, it reverts back to the Forum index and says at the top -
"Werde jetzt kostenlos Mitglied um Diskussionen zu beobachten und Beiträge zu verfassen (Konto erstellen)."

Translation - "Become a free member now to observe discussions and draft posts (create account)."

I do have problems too loging on into this forum when i´m online with a mobile phone.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 01:35 PM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 10 2013, 02:18 PM) *
Wrong, the 3rd answer would be: I don´t know.


You may not know. But we do, and I have tried to explain it to you. Apparently you just don't understand.

QUOTE
Do you agree that there is no GPS installed on AA77?


According to several American Airlines pilots I have spoken to, American 757's did not have GPS installed in 2001.

QUOTE
Do you agree that there is GPS data recorded on the FDR?


Yes. It is also apparent a GPS was in the aircraft due to the in flight alignment of the IRS system. In-flight alignment is impossible for an aircraft which does not have a GPS. Since American 757's did not have a GPS installed, yet the data shows it was installed and working, this is evidence that the data did not come from an American Airlines jet.

See more here...

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html


QUOTE
Do you agree that DFL 757-3b (757-3b_1)was used to decode the Data for this FDR?


According to the NTSB, yes. However it was unable to decode some of the parameters. More evidence demonstrating that the data was not from an American Airlines 757. See link above.



QUOTE
Since the data is listet under parameters "Not working" or "Unconfirmed" you cannot tell wether these data tells the truth or not, can you?


Yes I can. Especially due to the fact the data shows an in-flight alignment of the IRS. See more in link provided above....

Radio Height is also listed under "Not working and unconfirmed", but when one decodes the raw file, it is working AND confirmed/cross checked.



Radar Altitude Confirms True Altitude, Too high to hit light poles/pentagon

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4801

Keep in mind Pressure Altitude is confirmed and working and listed as a validated parameter by the NTSB. Only one problem, the altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon even in the data provided by Warren Stutt.





QUOTE
I do have problems too loging on into this forum when i´m online with a mobile phone.


I am not on mobile phone. I am on the same computer I used to create the account and made my first post at your German forum. I can no longer login.


Do you agree that if the data is accurate, then there is a serious problem with the official story?

Why do you evade my questions?

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 10 2013, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 07:35 PM) *
You may not know. But we do, and I have tried to explain it to you. Apparently you just don't understand.

Ok lets go.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 07:35 PM) *
According to several American Airlines pilots I have spoken to, American 757's did not have GPS installed in 2001.

I agree.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 07:35 PM) *
Yes.

I agree
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 07:35 PM) *
According to the NTSB, yes.

I agree.

So what do we have. We have a FDR, we have systems not installed on that aircraft and we have a Data Frame Layout which recorded data even from non existing systems.
Assuming all this is true first logical question would be: what data does this FDR record for non existing Systems when you use this DFL? If you cannot answer this question all your conclusions concerning open doors etc. are useless.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 07:35 PM) *
Do you agree that if the data is accurate, then there is a serious problem with the official story?

No, what would be the alternative scenario?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 10 2013, 03:05 PM) *
So what do we have. We have a FDR, we have systems not installed on that aircraft and we have a Data Frame Layout which recorded data even from non existing systems.


I know English is your second language. But your above statement doesnt make much sense. The Data Frame Layout is a document, a database. It does not record anything.

QUOTE
Assuming all this is true first logical question would be: what data does this FDR record for non existing Systems when you use this DFL? If you cannot answer this question all your conclusions concerning open doors etc. are useless.


The data will not be able to be decoded. The result is non-sensical. It is further evidence that the data is not from an American Airlines 757. Again, please see the link I provided to you above.

QUOTE
No, what would be the alternative scenario?


No? So if the altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon and the altitude is accurate (and validated according to the NTSB)... then there isn't a problem with the govt story in your opinion? Really?

Well a long and growing list of Aviation professionals disagree with you.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

How much flight time do you have?

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 02:20 PM

rob...hi

i wanna go thru the points...step by step.....


first and in my opinion a very big indicator is.....do we have an identification of which aircraft this FDR data was taken from???

because i agree....an FDR MUST have identification, since when 2 similar plane crash, you have to know which data belongs to which plane....

so....do we have an identification in the FDR data?

if not....why not? ist ther possible scenario, that can tell, the id would dissapear or deleted?


regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 02:30 PM

Hi vienna...

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 10 2013, 03:20 PM) *
first and in my opinion a very big indicator is.....do we have an identification of which aircraft this FDR data was taken from???


No....

See more here...

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

here...

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

and here....

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11066



QUOTE
because i agree....an FDR MUST have identification, since when 2 similar plane crash, you have to know which data belongs to which plane....


agreed.



QUOTE
so....do we have an identification in the FDR data?


No... see links above.


QUOTE
if not....why not? ist ther possible scenario, that can tell, the id would dissapear or deleted?


If I had the answer to that question... we would not be here. smile.gif

The data does not support the govt story, nor is there any evidence linking the data to N644AA... and in fact the data provides evidence it could not have come from N644AA.

This is one of the many reasons why we have a growing list of aviation professionals calling for a new investigation.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core


.... others make excuses as to their bias.

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 02:45 PM

okay thx for clearification.


next clear question....does the DFL for 757/200 which should be used to read out data for 757 at that time (2001) containing GPS data?

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 10 2013, 03:45 PM) *
okay thx for clearification.


next clear question....does the DFL for 757/200 which should be used to read out data for 757 at that time (2001) containing GPS data?

regards
vienna


According to the NTSB... yes. That is the DFL they used to decode the file. However, according to several American Airlines pilots, American 757's did not have a GPS in 2001. But anyone who looks at the data can see the GPS as OPERational... and see it actually working when it aligns the IRS in flight.

Again.... this is further evidence that the data did not come from an American Airlines 757.

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 02:56 PM

was the DFL used by AA which had obviously problems to read the data, the same as the NTSB had used???

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 10 2013, 03:56 PM) *
was the DFL used by AA which had obviously problems to read the data, the same as the NTSB had used???

regards
vienna



According to the NTSB, they received the DFL from American Airlines, but some of the parameters could not be decoded using the American Airline DFL.

Again... further evidence the data is not from an American Airlines 757.

This is all covered in the links I provided.

Be sure to read through the source links at the bottom of this article.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

Posted by: vienna Jul 10 2013, 03:07 PM

okay so far.....
but dont missunderstand.....

you tell, that AA provided a DFL where GPS could be read out.
this means AA expect (at that time or further in time) to read out GPS state values.
so for now, the only fact left is, that a pilot (dont want to state any judgements on them) is telling that N644AA does not had GPS at that given time, although, the possibility to read such data would be given in the DFL.

is this correct?

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 10 2013, 03:23 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 10 2013, 04:07 PM) *
you tell, that AA provided a DFL


I didnt say that. The NTSB did. smile.gif


QUOTE
where GPS could be read out. this means AA expect (at that time or further in time) to read out GPS state values.


If in fact the DFL did indeed come from American Airlines.... and if it did, why was it unable to decode other parameters?

QUOTE
so for now, the only fact left is, that a pilot (dont want to state any judgements on them) is telling that N644AA does not had GPS at that given time, although, the possibility to read such data would be given in the DFL.

is this correct?

regards
vienna


Not just one pilot.. but many. Capt Doug Johnson is another... and a few more I spoke to who would rather remain nameless for obvious reason. People seem to prefer character assassination instead of discussing the facts as you have seen.


American Airlines did not train their entire Pilot list, install GPS and get FAA approval in roughly a year... May 1, 2000 - Sept 11, 2001.

Such a process takes several years.


Initially, the highest quality signal was reserved for military use, and the signal available for civilian use was intentionally degraded (Selective Availability). This changed with President Bill Clinton ordering Selective Availability to be turned off at midnight May 1, 2000, improving the precision of civilian GPS from 100 meters (330 ft) to 20 meters (66 ft). - Source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Development


For example... in 2001 i was flying a Jet which did have GPS installed. It was a brand new jet and came from the manufacturer with GPS installed. But we were not trained on it nor was it FAA approved. It's a very long process. We were approved by 2004. And only a handful of pilots and aircraft were approved. Not all.

N644AA was built in 1991. It did not have GPS installed, nor were the pilots trained on it, nor was it FAA approved in such a short time as May 1, 2000 to Sept 11, 2001.


Again, this is real simple... if people wish to learn the truth, all they have to do is call American Airlines and ask.

Posted by: vienna Jul 11 2013, 05:30 AM

hi rob

as you are an confirmed expert in case of airmen ship, i would like have some valuation on my statements.

this all is coming currently from my mind only, since i am sitting in the office and no docments are available at my desk.
the statements i do below should be seen as raw and brief overview, for how i expect some units to be working in a 757 and procedures to be done.
this might have more detailed steps, also depending on airline policies.

over all, i would appreciate to confirm or state which is not correct....



Part 1 definition:

APU is the aux unit of a plane, which provides electrical and air power.
GPU (Ground Power Unit) is used while the aircraft is stationary, to provide the plane with electrical power.
Main Bat (Main Battery Power) is used to provide minimal power up capacity and is not ment to provide power to all systems (just for a view).


Part 2 Procedures & Functionalities:

FDR (Flight Data Recorder) is rebooting (initializing & starting recording) on every engine-startup

Starting up from C&D, the Main Bat is switched on to start up essential systems.
After this, either a GPU has to be connected or the APU has to be started.

after several checks......

the plane is at the gate with GPU connected.
before P/B the GPU has to be disconnected. therefor the APU will be started. after confirm APU running and system connected to it, GPU can be disconnected.

coming to P/B:
pilot announces to Apron/ground:
"Ready for push and start"
this says...the plane/crew is ready to push back from gate and start the engines.
while running on APU power the plane will be pushed back and the assigned pilot will start the enigines. within the starting sequence of the
engines....parameter of those will be monitored, to confirm succesfull start. this all can be done while being pushed back.

after all complete and engines running, it is possible to switch off APU, although some policies says, leaving it running after a chechlist say so afterwards.

-----------------------------------------------------
my conclusion and point of discussion:

there is no need to start the engines BEFORE pushback starts.(except planes which doesnt have APU, i.e. concorde)
common radio anouncement before departing from gate: pilot to ground/apron (i.e.): "American77 ready to push and start" this tells....push us back, and we will start engines.
while pushed back the APU is running....and procedure for engines start will be executed.(for planes which have APU)
planes with APU running usually dont start engines, BEFORE push back from gate is executed.
----------------------------------------------------

again...i am sitting in my office and dont have docs here to review....all is memory out of my mind.

now i would request a valuation of the above statements.

thank you in advance.

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 11 2013, 06:39 AM

Good morning vienna... (well... good afternoon to you in your part of the world... )

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 11 2013, 06:30 AM) *
now i would request a valuation of the above statements.

thank you in advance.

regards
vienna


It depends on airline policy, airport policy, and equipment on aircraft.

Most starts for jet aircraft are done during or after push using the APU so you don't suck anything in at the gate (also known as FOD). If APU is INOP or the aircraft is not equipped with an APU, sometimes one engine will start at the gate with an air-start cart (different from a GPU).

Also, check your messages at Facebook. I replied. We did not manipulate or fake anything, and those who make such a claim clearly do not know anything about aviation. All we did is plot the V-speeds to the corresponding section on a typical VG diagram. If the V-speeds and G-load limits are known (which they are according to the http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf), you can plot your own VG diagram. I can't count how many times I have plotted VG diagrams over the years as a Flight Instructor teaching students for both Turbine aircraft and props. It is quite simple to do.

See a demonstration here.... (just a quick search I did... but it's accurate)



And a detailed explanation here with regard to our specific VG diagram....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20969&st=0&p=10793146&#entry10793146

more here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21888&view=findpost&p=10803788


Someone may also want to tell "Brandy" that Warren Stutt has not proven anything and in fact relies on RADIO HEIGHT for his conclusions when the NTSB shows the RADIO HEIGHT as "not working and unconfirmed" (not to mention the fact that the Radio altimeter was calculating way outside it's design limits). Warren ignores and makes absurd excuses for the Pressure Altitude recorded from a Sensitive Electric Altimeter which is listed under the validated parameters by the NTSB. He does this because it shows too high to hit the Pentagon, clearly against his bias.

Here is much more regarding the gross errors and admitted deception on the part of Warren Stutt and his cohorts.

Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10778240

Vertical and Lateral Acceleration do not show signs of "impact", proving Longitudinal Deceleration was not due to "impact" as speculated by Legge/Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10794146

Warren Stutt's admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21131&view=findpost&p=10799563

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s&showtopic=20999&view=findpost&p=10794074

If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793490

Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10794159

More confirmation supporting RA Tracking Capability referenced is in fact a longitudinal velocity, and not the vertical velocity as speculated by Legge/Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10803407

Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793061

Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793501

A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025

Warren Stutt Refuses to Address the tough questions
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21025&view=findpost&p=10803075

Legge/Stutt Admit to Leaving Erroneous References in their paper as a "Honey Pot" trap for readers
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21569&view=findpost&p=10803456

More statements from FDR Expert Dennis Ciminio
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10803408
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10803429


The above is also posted on the first page of this thread. Many common arguments are addressed.

Hope this helps...

Posted by: vienna Jul 11 2013, 07:34 AM

thanks for this one rob....
but would you be so kind and just give a short valuation, mosty wirth ....yes or no, correct or incorrect, ...or this is mostly handled like that...or this is mostly NOT handled like that.
just to mak sure i dont think of something that is absolut nonsense.


my conclusion and point of discussion:

1.here is no need to start the engines BEFORE pushback starts.(except planes which doesnt have APU, i.e. concorde)
2.common radio anouncement before departing from gate: pilot to ground/apron (i.e.): "American77 ready to push and start" this tells....push us back, and we will start engines.
3.while pushed back the APU is running....and procedure for engines start will be executed.(for planes which have APU)
4.planes with APU running usually dont start engines, BEFORE push back from gate is executed.


regards
vienna

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 11 2013, 07:36 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 10 2013, 08:14 PM) *
I know English is your second language. But your above statement doesnt make much sense. The Data Frame Layout is a document, a database. It does not record anything.

You are right. Sorry for that but i think you know what i mean.
QUOTE
No? So if the altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon and the altitude is accurate (and validated according to the NTSB)... then there isn't a problem with the govt story in your opinion? Really?

Yes, because even if no data at all could have been decoded we would know AA77 hit the Pentagon.
Also there is evidence supporting the official flight path.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 11 2013, 07:47 AM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 11 2013, 08:34 AM) *
thanks for this one rob....
but would you be so kind and just give a short valuation, mosty wirth ....yes or no, correct or incorrect, ...or this is mostly handled like that...or this is mostly NOT handled like that.
just to mak sure i dont think of something that is absolut nonsense.


my conclusion and point of discussion:

1.here is no need to start the engines BEFORE pushback starts.(except planes which doesnt have APU, i.e. concorde)
2.common radio anouncement before departing from gate: pilot to ground/apron (i.e.): "American77 ready to push and start" this tells....push us back, and we will start engines.
3.while pushed back the APU is running....and procedure for engines start will be executed.(for planes which have APU)
4.planes with APU running usually dont start engines, BEFORE push back from gate is executed.


regards
vienna


It's impossible to answer as ultimate authority is up to the Capt. If the Capt wants to start at the gate for any reason... he can do so and the ramp personnel will make provisions. If he wants to start during push... he will do so.... regardless of policy.

What exactly are you trying to determine or conclude? Show me the research you are doing and perhaps I can give you a more specific answer. If you wish, you can PM it to me...

Also, your questions seem a bit off topic. If it is not about the FDR, please start a new thread in the research section. Others may be able to help you as well.

Be sure to explain to the German forum that we did not manipulate or fake anything as well. Thanks!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 11 2013, 07:52 AM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 11 2013, 08:36 AM) *
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf


Now find us a paper written by Aviation Experts and not a chemist and Computer tech who both admit they have no expertise in aviation.


Also be sure to click the links above to review the numerous gross errors made by Legge and Stutt analyzed by real Aviation experts.

Are you aware that Legge and Stutt were begging for "peer-reviewers" to review that "paper" and not one pilot or aviation professional would sign their name?

Check it out... it's an entertaining read. smile.gif

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21569


So how much flight time do you have? You forgot to answer that question (or evaded it).

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 11 2013, 09:06 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 11 2013, 01:52 PM) *
Now find us a paper written by Aviation Experts and not a chemist and Computer tech who both admit they have no expertise in aviation.

I was hoping to find such a paper here.

QUOTE
So how much flight time do you have? You forgot to answer that question (or evaded it).

Some hundred hours. If that lets you sleep well. :-)

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 11 2013, 09:10 AM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 11 2013, 10:06 AM) *
I was hoping to find such a paper here.


We have several on our website as well as many presentations. You should check them out. All with a growing list of verified Aviation Experts.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Keep an eye on it as I haven't updated it in a while and have a few hundred more to add.

Heres a paper at the same Journal you linked above to get you started. But unlike the paper you linked... this paper has actual verified aviation experts signed.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Pilotsfor911TruthChallengePentagonHitStory.pdf

Do you agree with this paper from Frank Legge?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

How about this paper which has Frank Legge listed...
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Do you agree with that?


QUOTE
Some hundred hours. If that lets you sleep well. :-)


Cool, what types?

Are you able to plot your own VG diagram if you know the V-speeds and G loads? Do you think we "faked" or "manipulated" anything?

Posted by: vienna Jul 11 2013, 10:04 AM

sorry...u are right rob.

this is off topic.
its was just because i was told as dump and totally fake teller, when i was telling that
the sentece: ready for push and start
means....the plane is ready to be pushed back out of gate, and want to start engines.

i know, it dosnt have to do with the topic....but since i thought you might have requested hundreds or even thousends of times push & start....you would agree what that means.

thanks for the explaination anyway.

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 11 2013, 10:20 AM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 11 2013, 11:04 AM) *
sorry...u are right rob.

this is off topic.
its was just because i was told as dump and totally fake teller, when i was telling that
the sentece: ready for push and start
means....the plane is ready to be pushed back out of gate, and want to start engines.


That is correct. But that doesnt mean the Capt will wait for the push then start. He could start engines at the gate and then get the push. It's all coordinated with Ramp personnel through the tug driver on headsets linked to the cockpit.

and... you are much smarter and open minded than some of the posts from others I've read at your German forum. You ask good questions too... keep it up!

thumbsup.gif

But yeah... if it's not related to the topic...feel free to start a new thread in the proper forum section. Others here can help you out as well. I just so happen to have some time on my hands this week. smile.gif

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 11 2013, 12:09 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 11 2013, 03:10 PM) *
We have several on our website as well as many presentations. You should check them out. All with a growing list of verified Aviation Experts.

I was looking for something more like "your own" FDR analysis, just like in the link i gave you.

QUOTE
Heres a paper at the same Journal you linked above to get you started. But unlike the paper you linked... this paper has actual verified aviation experts signed.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Pilotsfor911TruthChallengePentagonHitStory.pdf

As i said, i´m looking for something more like "your own" FDR analysis, not just a petition what might be wrong with the official report. See the difference?
QUOTE
Do you agree with this paper from Frank Legge?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

I don´t believe in explosives. :-)
QUOTE
How about this paper which has Frank Legge listed...
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Do you agree with that?

I don´t believe in explosives. :-)

QUOTE
Cool, what types?

Are you able to plot your own VG diagram if you know the V-speeds and G loads? Do you think we "faked" or "manipulated" anything?

PA-28
Beechcraft Bonanza
Cessna 152
Bell Jet Ranger
Bell OH-58
Bell UH-1D

Posted by: vienna Jul 11 2013, 12:44 PM

hi rob

is it possible to get an answer to this issue below direct from mr. kolstad?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------statement from mr. kolstad?-----------------------------------

[T]he 'air phones,' as they were called, were ... deactivated in early or mid 2001. They had been deactivated for quite some time prior to Sep 2001." In response to a question about this statement, Kolstad added: "I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational.

http://books.google.at/books?id=i1UneDRu8_AC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127

this statement is proven flase. AA put theit airphones out of order on march 31. 2002.
Diese Angabe ist nachweislich falsch. American Airlines stellte den Airphone-Dienst am 31. März 2002 ein: http://news.cnet.com/Airline-grounds-in-flight-phone-service/2100-1033_3-831093.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is this possible? cant mr. kolstad remember anymore?

thanks for clearification

regards
vienna

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 11 2013, 01:38 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 11 2013, 03:10 PM) *
Are you able to plot your own VG diagram if you know the V-speeds and G loads? Do you think we "faked" or "manipulated" anything?

Sorry forget to answer this one.
As far as i remember i didn´t plot any diagrams myself. Only thing i did, i used existing diagrams to know what my limitations are.

Posted by: vienna Jul 11 2013, 04:48 PM

hi rob

the raw data file from the FDR from AA77 (n644AA), provided by the NTSB (FOIA)...how many flights, or how many hours of data has this file containing?

regards
vienna

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 11 2013, 04:48 PM

QUOTE
"I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational.


From the link provided

QUOTE
Southwest Airlines started removing AT&T phones from its planes Aug. 1 last year.


QUOTE
Burke would not say when the decision was reached, only that AT&T and American jointly decided to halt the service recently.


QUOTE
American will stop the service by March 31 and then take steps to remove the phones from its airplanes.


That "report" is about as clear as pea soup.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html



QUOTE
Update 09/18/07: A new document has emerged on the internet through an anonymous source which orders the phones deactivated dated March 2002. This new document is not referenced in the above 757 AMM page as the deactivation order. The document contradicts American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad Kinder, American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 and of course the above 757 AMM page. We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 11 2013, 05:15 PM

Please McMurdo, read the following conversation linked to between Rob and Warren. It is fatal to Warren's entire approach to the alleged FDR data

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10794041

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 11 2013, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 11 2013, 01:09 PM) *
I was looking for something more like "your own" FDR analysis, just like in the link i gave you.


You haven't seen any of our work regarding FDR analysis? Really? You may want to actually read our website first and review our presentations before attempting to argue against it perhaps?


QUOTE
As i said, i´m looking for something more like "your own" FDR analysis, not just a petition what might be wrong with the official report. See the difference?


As I said, our analysis is all over our website and throughout presentations analyzed and supported by numerous Aviation Experts. But I suppose you prefer to listen to a chemist and computer tech when it comes to Aeronautical knowledge.

QUOTE
I don´t believe in explosives. :-)

I don´t believe in explosives. :-)


"Beliefs" are for religions. Do you "believe" in the official story?

So you agree with a chemist with regard to a paper on aviation littered with errors fatal to his argument, but disagree with him in his area of expertise?

Or.... is it that you just agree with what you want to hear and which supports your bias and "beliefs" regardless of the facts.

Click this link..... and read it... really... check it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


QUOTE
PA-28
Beechcraft Bonanza
Cessna 152
Bell Jet Ranger
Bell OH-58
Bell UH-1D


Very nice. I have many hours in the fixed wing aircraft you list... have several hundred in the Be36 flying for East Hampton Airlines. Taught many students in the above aircraft coming through the ranks. Also have some time in the Bell 206 and an AS355. Good to know you have some background so I dont have to speak in lay-terms when discussing aeronautical knowledge with you...


QUOTE
Sorry forget to answer this one.
As far as i remember i didn´t plot any diagrams myself. Only thing i did, i used existing diagrams to know what my limitations are.


Are you not able to determine/know your limitations if the manufacturer does not provide a VG diagram for you?

Are you aware that many manufacturers do not include VG diagrams in their FOM/POH/AFM due to the very fact that the VG diagram can be plotted if the V-speeds and G Loads are known? Do you know how to plot your own VG diagram if such data is known?

You also forgot to answer this question...
Do you think we manipulated or faked anything on our VG diagram?

and I add more...

Does our VG diagram not represent the data/limitations given in the Boeing Type Certificate Data Sheet? If not, which plot/limitation is inaccurate? Va? Vmo? Vd? G Loads?


Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 11 2013, 06:06 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 11 2013, 05:48 PM) *
hi rob

the raw data file from the FDR from AA77 (n644AA),


First one must prove the data came from N644AA....

Where is the evidence positively identifying and linking the data to N644AA?


I remind you...


Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

here...

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

and here....

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11066

and here...
OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html

However,, to answer your questions...

Read here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779484

here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10780134

and here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18428&view=findpost&p=10779630


Have you yet explained to your German forum that we did not manipulate or "fake" anything?

Have you informed "Brandy" at your German forum that Warren Stutts decode does not prove anything and in fact shows the aircraft too high to hit the Pentagon based on Pressure Altitude parameter validated by the NTSB?



More here for specifics...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10778240

In short...

While some are arguing data "not working or unconfirmed" such as GPS, FLT DECK DOOR and RADIO HEIGHT.... it is a fact that the PRESSURE ALTITUDE does not support an impact with the Pentagon in the NTSB validated data.. nor the data decoded by Warren Stutt.

This is fatal to Warren Stutt conclusions... and also fatal to the Govt story. It is another reason why so many Aviation Experts are joining our roster.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

... and why some prefer to use character assassination from behind their anonymous screenames on the net based on what they "believe".

Have you figured out why your German Forum banned me after my first post? Are the Nazi's now taking over Germany again? Does a relative of Joseph Goebbels run that forum? Ha!

If it helps... I do have some German blood in me.... but I'm mostly Italian.... and all American! smile.gif

In other words... i know our Constitution and why our Founding Fathers fought for our Freedom.. including those Americans who came after and fought and died for your freedom... due to the fact the German people once blindly believed anything their govt told them... and allowed their govt to become too strong and powerful, dictating policy. Anyone who questions such a govt was ridiculed, banished or worse... killed.... until the Allies came in and said "No more...".


"You get the govt you deserve." is a famous quote.... I would expect the German people would know such a travesty.... and many do... I have many friends in Berlin and surrounding areas. It is most puzzling how some people on your German forum blindly accept policy dictated by the US Govt at this point in time given the history of Germany..... based on the 9/11 Commission Report in which the Chairman himself admits the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail"....

I have certainly learned from history.. I am not alone....

"You probably heard we ain't in the prisoner-takin' business; we in the killin' Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin'. - Lt. Aldo Raine: "Inglourious Basterds"

pilotfly.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 01:36 AM

To you - "nexuspp"...
(for those confused... I am addressing a screename "nexuspp" from a German forum who is reading this thread/forum, yet clearly will not confront us directly....)

Your source link on your German forum is not showing. Clearly the people running your German forum are following the protocols of Joseph Goebbels.

Good luck!


vienna, why have you not corrected the people on your German forum regarding the VG diagram?

I know you have read this question several times over the past few posts/pages... why do you evade?

Are you interested in the truth? Or are you interested in people on your German forum believing lies?

We did not fake nor manipulate anything.. it has been proven in this thread and you agreed. Please explain this to your people at your German forum.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 02:23 AM

So... allow me to describe how I came in contact with "vienna".

"vienna" initially contacted me on Facebook this past Monday.... wondering why he could not post here. His (her?) UserID on Facebook is "Attila the Hun" (he/she does not use his real name). When I signed onto Facebook and read his message... i approved his status to post here and told him (her?) so....

He (she) does not have any mutual friends with me on Facebook. Nor is he a member of the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Facebook page....

I find it very odd that he (her?) has http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10809222 my "reputation is in bad shape" at their German forum based on erroneous claims of "faking" a VG diagram.... and has since refused to correct those at his (her?) German forum.


In summary... I am losing quite a bit of faith in "Vienna" and now thinking he (she?) is only interested in an agenda other than the truth.

I have all of the above saved for source... but I am interested in what "vienna" has to say first.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 04:02 AM

To "curve warrior". (at the German Forum)

If you contact me directly, I will give you my login name (PilotsForTruth) and my password for you to try at the German Forum yourself... (the same I used for my first post on your German forum).

You will see I was banned after my first post.

Feel free to sign up here. We do not follow the protocols of Goebbels. It takes quite a bit to get banned from this forum unlike your German Forum.

In fact... we Americans crushed the protocol of Goebbels many years ago... and liberated your country. You're welcome...

cheers.gif

Posted by: McMurdo Jul 12 2013, 04:27 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 12 2013, 12:02 AM) *
You haven't seen any of our work regarding FDR analysis? Really? You may want to actually read our website first and review our presentations before attempting to argue against it perhaps?

I have seen your work but W. Stutt was obviously able to decode the whole data of the FDR (incl. previous flights and some extra seconds at the end). He also tries to give explanation for the data found and tried to correct it for errors. I´m not saying all this errors or conclusions must be correct, since he is not familiar with the aviation business but since there are a lot aviation experts here at P4T i assumed you would have done the same thing to verify there are no errors in the data or whatsoever.
QUOTE
"Beliefs" are for religions. Do you "believe" in the official story?

Yes i do. Although i admit that the inteligence agencys probably knew more than they are willing to admit
QUOTE
So you agree with a chemist with regard to a paper on aviation littered with errors fatal to his argument, but disagree with him in his area of expertise?

I´m not saying all his conclusion on the FDR data must be correct.
QUOTE
Or.... is it that you just agree with what you want to hear and which supports your bias and "beliefs" regardless of the facts.

Funny question. Why do you rely on W. Stutt when it comes to Data Frame Layouts that are not able to decode data but don´t rely on him on the data he actually found?
QUOTE
Click this link..... and read it... really... check it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Good advice, that i can only give back to you. ;-)
QUOTE
Are you not able to determine/know your limitations if the manufacturer does not provide a VG diagram for you?

Are you aware that many manufacturers do not include VG diagrams in their FOM/POH/AFM due to the very fact that the VG diagram can be plotted if the V-speeds and G Loads are known? Do you know how to plot your own VG diagram if such data is known?

As i said, as far as i remember i didn´t plot ANY diagrams myself.
QUOTE
You also forgot to answer this question...
Do you think we manipulated or faked anything on our VG diagram?

I never said that.
QUOTE
Where is the evidence positively identifying and linking the data to N644AA?

The flight path data corresponds with the recorded Radar Data, doesn´t it? The FDR was found at the Pentagon. DNA from passengers of AA77 was found at the Pentagon. People saw a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Posted by: vienna Jul 12 2013, 04:31 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 12 2013, 03:23 AM) *
So... allow me to describe how I came in contact with "vienna".

"vienna" initially contacted me on Facebook this past Monday.... wondering why he could not post here. His (her?) UserID on Facebook is "Attila the Hun" (he/she does not use his real name). When I signed onto Facebook and read his message... i approved his status to post here and told him (her?) so....

He (she) does not have any mutual friends with me on Facebook. Nor is he a member of the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Facebook page....

I find it very odd that he (her?) has http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10809222 my "reputation is in bad shape" at their German forum based on erroneous claims of "faking" a VG diagram.... and has since refused to correct those at his (her?) German forum.


In summary... I am losing quite a bit of faith in "Vienna" and now thinking he (she?) is only interested in an agenda other than the truth.

I have all of the above saved for source... but I am interested in what "vienna" has to say first.

good attitude, to hear what i would say first.

i contacted you, because i could post nor replay to any post here, even though i was registered.

the reason to post here was, that i was tierd of all that guessings in the german forum, about statements, given here form P4T and similar organisations, like enegieneers 9/11 and other truther sites.
I was faced with tons of questions about ...why P4T say this, why they say that....they are ignorants, they dont know what they talking about, they fake documents,they fake their CV's, ...basically they are not experts att all.
finally i decided to find out by myself, what level of truth, all the statments i read, were.

so i subscribed here, to get answers of all the accusations coming from allmystery. listening to only one source is just, simply said, bad practice and indicates low attitude.

personally i think, i made big progress, from my point of view, in a lot of topics......

the one you, rob, mentioned, with the fake plotting, is a topic i dont understand well, since i am not into this at all. mcmurdo, as he said he is PPL (maybe even more) certificated, shouldnt have problems to analyze your comments on this. so i have to go deeper inside this, before i will make a statement. thats the reason why i didnt answered to that topic.

coming to my statement of...you have currently bad reputation within the german forum.
this i made, because you intend to enter and participate the thread, and i want you to know, what kind of mind you will/would face. and i can still tell you, this doesnt changed at all.
all persons here in this forum (except the opposit minded ones) are flaged as liers, fakers.....to only tell the nice words.
so, after all of this, i only want you to know, that an appereance at allmystery would causing personal accusations too, and with the fact in my mind, that your german is not so good, and our english is also
not perfect....misunderstanding is programmed.

again....bad reputation in the eyes of my opponents in allmystery, not in my mind!
you see how simply wrong some statements can go, when 2 persons communicate, with 2 different mother languages. okay, basically it has to be blamed on me, cause i am sure, my english is the problem.

to say it clear again, the questions i made here, where all coming up in allmystery thread, by the other users!
they want me to tell the answers on that all, instead of coming here and questioning by them selfs (except of mcmurdo).

the qeustion i made about the start procedure of a plane was off topic here for sure. but, as you couldnt know, it was in conjunction by attacking my reputation and knowledge (experinces) in the german forum.
okay, i am sure, i wont go into such conversation anymore....but at that time the question was open. the guy "1234proximus" was telling everybody, i am an idiot and telling sense without knowing anything.
i said, that a normal (common, which in my means is, .....seen daily, not abnormal, regular, ....) procedure for a departing plane from a gate is.......getting connected to the push truck, and starting the engines while pushed back. i am no pilot, but on the airport near by, which i visit from time to time, i can tell what i see.....and its simply normal that....the push truck comes, will be connected, and while the plane is pushed back, the pilots start the engines. i personally had seen only once a start with external airsource, direct at gate. And i havent seen ANY regular start (APU on) of the engines, while standing parked at the gate before push was executed. so i consider an engine start at the gate,is way less executed then during P/B. (okay, if you say that 100+ hours of spotting isnt comparable, than i believe you)
mr. expert "1234proximus" said this is absolut nonsense, this is absolut not true. He further more say that external airsource engine starts are more common than while P/B. so i decided to get an answer from an expert.....thats the simple story. not to qeustioning anything in particular in here.
it was simply to defend myself from an obvioulsy not correct statement, putting my reputation down.

next....
mr. kolstad was accused badly, by telling his a lier and/or forgetful (not to mentioning real bad words) by telling there were no airphones working anymore at AA at that time.
i was faced with an article, were mr. kolstad said this, and then with a link, saying AA shut down the phones march 2002.
so i couldnt answer this, i came here and hoped tio get an answer on that.
you think this was a bad approach?

so if you have further question about my intentions, let me know.
for some reason i find myself attacked from both sides....strange. but i think it comes naturally out of the fact, that we dont speak the same mother language. (its even hard also in the same languge, when on german forum happy.gif )

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 04:59 AM

QUOTE (McMurdo @ Jul 12 2013, 05:27 AM) *
I have seen your work ....


And yet you claim...

"I was looking for something more like "your own" FDR analysis"


Do you have a habit of contradicting yourself?




QUOTE
....but W. Stutt was obviously able to decode the whole data of the FDR (incl. previous flights and some extra seconds at the end).


The above is according to "Warren Stutt". Do you "believe" him? Have you verified his work? Why was not the NTSB able to decode such data with industry leading software?

Do you feel "Warren Stutt" is more competent than the NTSB?

Here is Warren Stutt.



Are you aware that "Warren Stutt" feels that the NTSB decoding software has some sort of a "bug". Do you agree with him?


QUOTE
Funny question. Why do you rely on W. Stutt when it comes to Data Frame Layouts that are not able to decode data but don´t rely on him on the data he actually found?


We have verified Warren Stutts conclusions with regard to the DFL and the first flight as been described numerous times throughout this website.

Have you verified anything from Warren Stutt? Or do you just "believe" his statements based on your confirmation bias?

Are you aware that Stutts data shows too high to hit the Pentagon?


QUOTE
As i said, as far as i remember i didn´t plot ANY diagrams myself.


That did not answer my question. Clearly you have never plotted any diagram yourself...

....but do you feel it is impossible to plot a diagram when the data is known?

QUOTE
I never said that.


So you agree that we did not "manipulate" or fake anything? Great!

Why have you not corrected those who accuse us of "faking" on your German forum?

Selective ignorance I suppose?



QUOTE
The flight path data corresponds with the recorded Radar Data, doesn´t it?


No... it doesn't. Have you viewed any of our presentations/analysis? If not, why not? If so... which ones?


QUOTE
The FDR was found at the Pentagon.


At what time?

Are you aware that the FDR file has a date and time recorded before the "FDR" was found in the Pentagon?

Have you read these article/analysis?

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2



QUOTE
DNA from passengers of AA77 was found at the Pentagon


Really? Who... when and where? Do you have a document that was independently verified?

Or perhaps you have a report from the Medical Examiner at Dover Air Force Base?

Did your ancestors also trust the Gastapo with their reports? How about the SS?

Are you familiar with this?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fake+dna+data

QUOTE
People saw a plane hitting the Pentagon.



I suppose that is up to interpretation.... have you seen this presentation interviewing witnesses in Arlington? Including Pentagon Police Officers?





In closing... it is good to know that you never said we "faked" or "manipulated" anything. You may want to inform those at your German forum before they make themselves look more a fool.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 05:04 AM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 12 2013, 05:31 AM) *
good attitude, to hear what i would say first.


I didnt see anything in there explaining the fact that we did not manipulate or fake anything.

Why would you write such a long post here when even McMurdo agrees we did not fake nor manipulate anything?

When are you going to explain it to the people on your German forum?

Clearly you thought this was an important topic as you messaged me privately on Facebook about it... but now you don't correct those on your German forum?


By the way... registration here requires admin approval after email activation due to the many spambots we get.... you would know this had you read through the registration process.


You have been the only one who has contacted me in perhaps the past 1000 members to this forum wondering why you cannot post.

lol

Why do you not use your real name on Facebook?

Posted by: kurvenkrieger Jul 12 2013, 06:23 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 12 2013, 10:02 AM) *
To "curve warrior". (at the German Forum)

If you contact me directly, I will give you my login name (PilotsForTruth) and my password for you to try at the German Forum yourself... (the same I used for my first post on your German forum).

You will see I was banned after my first post.

Feel free to sign up here. We do not follow the protocols of Goebbels. It takes quite a bit to get banned from this forum unlike your German Forum.

In fact... we Americans crushed the protocol of Goebbels many years ago... and liberated your country. You're welcome...

cheers.gif


WOOT?!?einseinself

Fist of all: hello everybody!

I´m somehow sorry to see how this is going to develop.

But before I´m going straight to opinions, witch are mostly interchangeable with each other these days, I would like to verify your accusation:
as long as I can see, you haven`t been banned from our forums after all. Not even a single day, please try again to log in - this must have been a mistake!

Maybe we should all just calm down now and read some dadaistic poems before we go into open warfare about something curvy like this...

whistle.gif

cheers!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 06:34 AM

QUOTE (kurvenkrieger @ Jul 12 2013, 07:23 AM) *
WOOT?!?einseinself

Fist of all: hello everybody!

I´m somehow sorry to see how this is going to develop.

But before I´m going straight to opinions, witch are mostly interchangeable with each other these days, I would like to verify your accusation:
as long as I can see, you haven`t been banned from our forums after all. Not even a single day, please try again to log in - this must have been a mistake!

Maybe we should all just calm down now and read some dadaistic poems before we go into open warfare about something curvy like this...

whistle.gif

cheers!



I just tried to login again. In fact, I use Firefox which saved my login and password when I made my first post on your German forum.

I can no longer log in to your forum with the same Username and password. When I click to login and reply to a post.. it kicks back to the Forum index and asks me to login again.

Clearly I have been banned and the owners of your forum wish to control information.

Not to mention the fact that vienna has been warned to no longer post the credentials of Warren Stutt in which Stutt admits he does not have any experience in aviation.

This is classic and textbook control of information under the teachings of Goebbels.

And you as Germans should be able to recognize it....


Do you know who the world blamed for the rise of the Third Reich?

I'll give you a hint... it wasn't Hitler... nor his henchmen...

Posted by: vienna Jul 12 2013, 06:56 AM

[Why do you not use your real name on Facebook?]

exactly because of situations like this.
there is a situation, clearly a misconception, and my full name would be released, just like that.

its not because of me for sure. i am not affraid of anything, but in hindsight of my family members, relatives and friends , i prefer to keep my full name hidden, until a basic trust is developed.


[I didnt see anything in there explaining the fact that we did not manipulate or fake anything.]

i think i told you my attitude and charakter.
Basically when 2 sides telling something, i tend to figure out, the correct result by myself. the issue with the diagram plot is an issue i have to read all of it and understand the point of the argument.
then i will give my statment to this, either i will agree oder disagree, or....at least i will say, i dont know about this, so i cant judge the particular case.
so if you are sure your explainations are correct, i dont see any problem. i will agree, sooner or later.
but keep me pushing to state some conclusions to something i dont understand (yet) is not fair.
specially as you should see that i was und still be under hard attack from the german forum....
can you, btw. , tell why this is so?

and also....you think i hide answers/explainations/results from your site to the german forum?
i was the one yesterday night(around 11:00 UTC) which informed the users there about the new statement on mr. kolstad's airphone interview.

but i see, you cant see the posts there, even as a normal user, not subscribed, otherwise you wouldnt write to me in this way, for sure.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 07:02 AM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 12 2013, 07:56 AM) *
[Why do you not use your real name on Facebook?]

exactly because of situations like this.
there is a situation, clearly a misconception, and my full name would be released, just like that.


So you allow others to attack those who use their real name... you claim my "reputation is bad" on your German forum... but when given the facts... you stall and rather discuss pushback procedures?

Really?

"vienna"... you are relatively smart compared to most on your German forum.... but you sir (or lady).... are a coward. I have lost all respect for you when you allow others to "believe" we "faked" a VG diagram... when you in fact know the truth.


If you wish to have more instruction on aeronautical knowledge.... go to your local flight school and pay for it like everyone else. My services are no longer available to you.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 12 2013, 07:07 AM

QUOTE (vienna)
mr. kolstad was accused badly, by telling his a lier and/or forgetful (not to mentioning real bad words) by telling there were no airphones working anymore at AA at that time.
i was faced with an article, were mr. kolstad said this, and then with a link, saying AA shut down the phones march 2002.
so i couldnt answer this, i came here and hoped tio get an answer on that.


Maybe you missed this?


QUOTE
"I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational.


Excerpts rom the link (you) provided

QUOTE
Southwest Airlines started removing AT&T phones from its planes Aug. 1 last year.


QUOTE
Burke would not say when the decision was reached, only that AT&T and American jointly decided to halt the service recently.


QUOTE
American will stop the service by March 31 and then take steps to remove the phones from its airplanes.


That "report" is about as clear as pea soup.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html



QUOTE
Update 09/18/07: A new document has emerged on the internet through an anonymous source which orders the phones deactivated dated March 2002. This new document is not referenced in the above 757 AMM page as the deactivation order. The document contradicts American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad Kinder, American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 and of course the above 757 AMM page. We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 07:20 AM

mods/admin... if you get some free time.. .feel free to split everything starting from "viennas" first post in this thread.. .and move it to the debate forum... title it the "German Invasion".

If you guys are busy... i'll take care of it in the next few days...

Thanks!

This was a colossal waste of time.... clearly none of them are interested in the truth. But it was fun.... dont ban or delete anything...

Posted by: vienna Jul 12 2013, 07:22 AM

Maybe you missed this?


QUOTE
"I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational."

i told you, i was in discussion in the german forum, was confrontated with an article about kolstad's statement and got a link, which shows AA press release about swithing off, at march 2002.
so what do you think i had in my mind at that moment??

i was defending P4T, trying to find evidences against some statement of the german forum, and now i am attacked from P4T also?

this is absolutly weird.
i am a person, which try to understand all of the facts presented by you. i was willing to go into confrontation, with contravers thinking users on other forum.
Maybe my biggest fault was, that i expected help and explainations here, rather then, ....dont say anything until you read the whole forum here, to build up the picture.
sure, that could be a way....but again....in this case it was my fault.


so i think i will take a break now, this is simply to weird for me.....be attacked from both sides. cant believe that.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 12 2013, 07:24 AM

This is for you both. Maybe you missed my other post? Instead of linking to it, I'll bring it over here.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 30 2011, 11:19 AM) *
QUOTE (WarrenStutt)
How then can a plane taking off from the runway, before it starts to pitch upwards, have a true altitude of 349 feet?


Because of change in AOA in a 'dirty' configuration while the aircraft is on the ground. I http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20999&view=findpost&p=10793744, but it seems to either have gone in one ear and out the other, or you are just intellectually dishonest.

Now lets see what happens a few seconds later when the aircraft breaks ground and is truly at a "low altitude" (roughly 10 feet above the runway according to RA).



Hmmm, 320 feet? Runway departure end is at 309 feet? 309+10 = 319... Pretty damn accurate.

(by the way, IAD was calling 30.21. Check the Baro Cor column)

You may also want to take http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793876 over to the Romper Room. It seems they are confused as to why GPWS still works outside the Tracking Capability of the RA.

Not surprising since they arent able to tell the difference between a http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20979&view=findpost&p=10793515.


Stop trolling Warren.






http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10794041

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 31 2011, 08:33 PM) *
QUOTE (WarrenStutt)
Hi SwingDangler,

Here's a screenshot of the same program with the figures I would use:



I changed the left hand altimeter setting to more closely match the standard atmosphere model of 29.9213 inHg pressure at sea level.

I used a temperature of 22.9107 which I obtained from a straight line interpolation between METAR readings from Reagan National Airport and corrected for the airport's height above sea level. Since the standard atmosphere model is 15 degrees C at sea level this gives a delta C of 22.9107 - 15 = 7.9107 degrees C.

The right hand altimeter setting was obtained from a straight line interpolation between METAR readings from Reagan National Airport.

As you can see, that gives a very similar result to Rob's.

However, now let's try to use the program to calculate the true altitude just before the plane starts pitching upward during takeoff from Dulles. This is at subframe counter 146711 in my decode or 8:20:11 EDT in the NTSB decode. Obtaining the figures the same way I did above but now using the METAR readings from Dulles gives:



According to AirNav, the end of the runway from which the plane started the takeoff (Runway 30) has an altitude of 287.8 ft. The other end of the runway (Runway 12) has an altitude of 309.8 feet.

How then can a plane taking off from the runway, before it starts to pitch upwards, have a true altitude of 349 feet? Just as in this example, I usually find when the true altitude is calculated this way when the plane is at low altitudes, that the result is higher than it should be.


As it appears now, your data virtually matches Rob's data regarding the true altitude of the plane. If that is the case, does your True Altitude data as posted above with only 1 foot difference (174&173) from Rob's True Altitude support an impact with the Pentagon or does the data show that the plane was too high to strike the Pentagon?

If the answer is yes, could you please explain why?

If the answer is no, could you please explain why? Thanks again for your time and explanations.


Warren dismissed the PA readings and relied on RA readings (which is also contradicted by documentary evidence as to its limitations) based on a fatally flawed approach!.

It's there in black and white, straight from the horse's mouth.

Posted by: kurvenkrieger Jul 12 2013, 07:28 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 12 2013, 12:34 PM) *
I just tried to login again. In fact, I use Firefox which saved my login and password when I made my first post on your German forum.

I can no longer log in to your forum with the same Username and password. When I click to login and reply to a post.. it kicks back to the Forum index and asks me to login again.

Clearly I have been banned and the owners of your forum wish to control information.

Not to mention the fact that vienna has been warned to no longer post the credentials of Warren Stutt in which Stutt admits he does not have any experience in aviation.

This is classic and textbook control of information under the teachings of Goebbels.


Well, ok. Our moderation is very strict from time to time, but we already discussed the credebility of W.S. and mentioned his experience.
Maybe vienne got a pm-warning from our forums-moderation for spamming?
But if there would have been new aspects to discuss, they won`t bother to stop us doing so.

I put my hand into the fire for our staff, as I do for our admin dns. Seriously.

Try to get a new passport for your account, there must be some sort of mistake.
If you really would have been banned, your profile in our forums would tell us so, witch it doesn`t:

So please, dude - just chill out and give it a try.

We are just people like you folks, even if there would be different opinions.
As we are one mankind under the radar of NSA...
salute.gif
Please don`t make the mistake, to let anybody devide et impera all of us in this...

Cheers!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 12 2013, 06:47 PM

Updated original thread to include the govt loyalist claim of "faked" VG Diagram. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22364

10. Claim - P4T produced a "fake" VG Diagram.

Many manufacturers do not include aircraft VG diagrams in their aircraft flight manuals due to the fact you can plot your own if the limitations are known. The VG diagram we plotted is not "fake" nor "manipulated". It represents the limitations of the Boeing 767 according to the Boeing Type Certificate Data Sheet including weights and altitude. A typical VG diagram was used with the 767 limitations inserted into their respective positions in the diagram. It is an accurate depiction of the relevant Boeing 767 limitations for the purpose of 9/11 research.

More details here....

Original VG Diagram
http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/Load_factors.html
(scroll down to Figure 4)

VG Diagram depicting Boeing 767 Limitations using typical VG Diagram above.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg

Boeing 767 Diagram created using VG Diagram from Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Boeing_767_VG_Diagram.jpg

Duhbunkers Unable To Plot Vg Diagram With Data
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21888&view=findpost&p=10803788
(includes a short 3rd party instructional video of how to plot your own VG diagram if the data/limitations are known)

Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20969&st=0&p=10793146&#entry10793146

Evidence Strengthens To Support WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

Posted by: vienna Jul 17 2013, 09:57 AM

Dennis Cimino is a very important expert to me. hes speech about analyzing the FDR of AA77, in 2012, was very interesting.

but now i face some heavy wind in a forum, where members saying Dennis Cimino is a lier, they dont believe him anything, and he's not an expert,
because he stated once, that he was working on a GPS system in the 1970's. but this is not possible since in th 70's there was no GPS at all.

so my question now, is Dennis Cimino an FDR expert and does his CV is correct?


btw. , some of you my think i am trolling, but if you wish to have a detailed record of my discussions in the german forum, let me know.
then you'll see on which side i am.

regards
vienna

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 17 2013, 01:19 PM

QUOTE (vienna @ Jul 17 2013, 10:57 AM) *
Dennis Cimino is a very important expert to me. hes speech about analyzing the FDR of AA77, in 2012, was very interesting.

but now i face some heavy wind in a forum, where members saying Dennis Cimino is a lier, they dont believe him anything, and he's not an expert,
because he stated once, that he was working on a GPS system in the 1970's. but this is not possible since in th 70's there was no GPS at all.

so my question now, is Dennis Cimino an FDR expert and does his CV is correct?


btw. , some of you my think i am trolling, but if you wish to have a detailed record of my discussions in the german forum, let me know.
then you'll see on which side i am.

regards
vienna


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Development

Try google once in a while.... smile.gif

Posted by: vienna Jul 17 2013, 05:39 PM

thanks for the hint.

Posted by: vienna Jul 27 2013, 09:03 AM

i believe the timeline also doesnt match anyway with the oficial story.
i saw a video about a speech with barbara honegger, which timelined all the events on the pentagon on 9/11.

although barbara honegger was so called a non insider and denounced as a lier by the "germans" :-) i belive she knows what she is talking about.

this is a great analyze of this day.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk&feature=youtu.be

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)