IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V  « < 9 10 11 12 13 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds

rob balsamo
post Jan 20 2011, 08:02 PM
Post #201



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Parrotsfor911truth @ Jan 20 2011, 06:37 PM) *
Sorry I don't get it. If the presented FDR data cannot be linked to Flt 77 then what ever scenario it apparently puts forth is irrelevant.
You cannot meaningfully use it to demonstrate that Flt 77 either did or did not hit the Pentagon.
All other evidence presented apparently confirms that a 757 did impact the Pentagon.
The important question is the actual identity of that aircraft and its previous history.


sigh....

read the post above yours on the bottom of page 10.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 20 2011, 08:33 PM
Post #202


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Pssst, Parrot. Flight 77 didn't hit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 21 2011, 10:03 AM
Post #203



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 21 2011, 01:02 AM) *
sigh....

read the post above yours on the bottom of page 10.


Do these people even read the information (never mind try to take it in) before they open their peepholes??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 24 2011, 05:09 AM
Post #204





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



I now have version 1.9 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added some new parameters that may help in identifying the aircraft and/or parts of the aircraft.

You can read further notes on the new parameters here.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 24 2011, 06:31 AM
Post #205



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Warren,

Why have you avoided my request on bottom of page 10? Your drive-by's are turning into trolling.

Have you guys figured out yet that you quoted the wrong FAR in your "paper" of which your whole "paper" is based? Not to mention the fact that the FAR you did source via wiki has it quoted wrong?

Unless you have an AC ID Field, Fleet ID field, and a box serial/part number, you're not going to be able to link that data to N644AA.

The fact that the Custom made AAL data frame layout 757-3b_1.txt, made specifically for their 757 Fleet... does not decode the data in full, is further evidence the data being provided by the NTSB is not from an American Airlines aircraft. I forgot to include this in our article.... maybe i'll write up another expanding on this fact after i get done with our presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 25 2011, 06:57 AM
Post #206





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 14 2011, 01:00 AM) *
<snip>

Warren, do you think the data is authentic/real? If so, can you please provide your evidence as the FBI and NTSB have failed thus far.

<snip>

Rob,

I do think the data is real, however I can't prove it. I do think that the FDR file we have been provided with is consistent with the crash of an aircraft in to the Pentagon. Now that I have now provided the FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER values from the FDR file, perhaps someone can now identify the aircraft.

How can I prove that the data is real when I don't even have the CSMU of the FDR from which to extract the data myself? What evidence could the NTSB and FBI provide that would be enough to convince you? Couldn't serial numbers etc. be faked?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 25 2011, 07:36 AM
Post #207





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Rob,

Some more answers to your questions.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 9 2011, 04:24 PM) *
<snip>

Let me guess, you can also hit the Pentagon with Microsoft Flight Simulator at 110-130 knots over Vmo while pulling 2-3 G's?
No idea. I don't use the Microsoft Flight Simulator.

QUOTE
<snip>

What if there isnt time to place/record the "correct error codes" due to a crash?
Then there is the risk that a bit will be changed in the data that shouldn't.

QUOTE
What I have claimed is that the data provided by the NTSB does not support an impact of a standard 757 with the Pentagon. This is a factual statement and it does not pertain to flight safety. Your additional data does not change anything (and as i said, in fact makes matter worse for the govt story), except the fact now you claim they are all "flawed". This is pertinent to flight safety if you are correct and we should expect changes. No changes have occurred, why is that Warren?
Given that the NTSB took three months to reply to my FOIA request which only involves them retrieving information they have, it wouldn't surprise me that they will take considerably longer than that to respond to my letter which requires an investigation on their part.

QUOTE
Once you claimed they were all wrong. I filled out an ASRS. Why havent you?
The NTSB probably needs more time.

Have you had a response to your ASRS report which you filed 15 months ago other than "we're looking in to it"? These things seem to take their time.

QUOTE
<snip>

Are you saying Legge's new paper will not be relevant to FDR data?

<snip>
No.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 25 2011, 08:34 AM
Post #208





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Rob,

Some more answers for you.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 9 2011, 01:11 PM) *
<snip>

I ask again Warren, does American Airlines just make up conversion formula's out of thin air, for no apparent reason? Only to output "nonsense" (as you call it).
I wouldn't say that American Airlines make conversion formulas out of thin air, however this is not the only time that American Airlines has supplied incorrect conversion formulas to the NTSB. The following is from page 6 of this Flight Data Recorder Factual Report by the NTSB.

QUOTE
During the initial readout of the FDR, it was determined that the conversion equation
supplied by American Airlines for the "Rudder Pedal Position" FDR parameter was not
correct
. Therefore, it was necessary to examine the 81.6 hours of recorded data to obtain
reference data to establish the proper EU conversion equation for the "Rudder Pedal
Position". Consequently, separate EU conversion equations for both the "Control Wheel
Position" and the "Control Column Position" were established.


QUOTE
Why would American Airlines develop a DFL which produces nonsense?
They make mistakes like everyone else perhaps?

QUOTE
<snip>

Why do you avoid my questions Warren?
I am answering them now. Perhaps you can now get Dennis Cimino to answer my questions.

QUOTE
How's that Legge paper coming? What is it, 4 months behind schedule now?
It's published now.

QUOTE
Has he corrected his CWS nonsense in his last paper yet?
Look for yourself. Your the one calling it "CWS nonsense". How can I tell what you are going to decide is "CWS nonsense"?

QUOTE
Warren, do you think CWS aids in hijacker control?
I don't know. Remember, I'm not a pilot.

QUOTE
I'll add another.

Have you seen the simulator reconstruction done by Capt Rusty Aimer on the Ventura show?

<snip>
If you mean the part where the novice sitting next to Capt Rusty Aimer tries to crash the plane in to the Pentagon, then yes.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 25 2011, 09:11 AM
Post #209





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Rob,

Some more answers to your questions.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2010, 09:04 AM) *
<snip>

Are we to assume such a sophisticated piece of software developed by industry leading Aerospace Software Engineer's were unable to detect a "bug" that only "Warren Stutt" could detect with a "program" you fabricated using Microsoft Visual C#?

Really?
I presume you mean that the RAPS software had a bug rather than unable to detect a bug. I'm sure others could have found the bug if they had the skill and were prepared to put the effort in. The programming language I used is irrelevant. Any programming language capable of reading binary files could have been used.

QUOTE
What's next, you going to try and sell the Brooklyn Bridge?
No.

QUOTE
<snip>

In other words, you are claiming American Airlines designed and developed a flawed DFL for their aircraft. Have you notified them yet?
No. The NTSB already knows that American Airlines sometimes make mistakes in their DFLs. I presume the NTSB has told them that. See my previous post.

QUOTE
<snip>

Is that like his last paper was "Peer reviewed"? Yet needed 8 revisions (with many more to go) after he had a real expert take a look at it?
I don't know.

QUOTE
<snip>

Who are yours?

Legge? A chemist?
Yes, he's a chemist.

QUOTE
Who does Legge have for "Peer Review"?
As is the usual practice for scientific journals, the authors are not told who the peer reviewers are.

QUOTE
Have they informed him that CWS doesn't aid in "hijacker control" yet?

<snip>
No. Why would they? There is no mention of CWS in this paper.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 25 2011, 09:39 AM
Post #210





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Rob,

Some more answers to your questions.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 5 2010, 03:00 PM) *
<snip>

Are you claiming we haven't attempted to get answers from the FBI, NTSB and Boeing and only waste time with you on our forum?
No.

QUOTE
If your claims/decode are so compelling to you in terms of an 'impact' and you are now satisfied, why waste any time at all on this topic?
Because Frank Legge asked me for help with the paper.

QUOTE
<snip>

It appears to me that not only are you saying that the NTSB is incompetent, but apparently so is L3 Communications and now so are American Airlines?

<snip>
I wouldn't say incompetent. But they do make some mistakes and/or oversights. You already know that the longitudes in the NTSB CSV file were about 20 minutes out. I pointed out an example of a mistake by American Airlines above.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 25 2011, 01:41 PM
Post #211



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 25 2011, 08:39 AM) *
Rob,

Some more answers to your questions.

No.

Because Frank Legge asked me for help with the paper.

I wouldn't say incompetent. But they do make some mistakes and/or oversights. You already know that the longitudes in the NTSB CSV file were about 20 minutes out. I pointed out an example of a mistake by American Airlines above.

Warren.


Warren, when the aircraft departed, the altimeter was accurate.

When the aircraft was assigned an altitude, it leveled off at that altitude, at high speed. ATC did not inquire as to why they are leveled off at a lower altitude.. .because... you guessed it... the altimeter was accurate.

When the aircraft was approaching the Pentagon, the altimeter was accurate.

The altimeter used and required for Precision instrument approaches, is accurate.

It shows too high to hit the Pentagon. It does not support an impact.

Your lat/long reference means nothing except desperate reaching because you do not understand basic aerodynamics, Air Data Computers, or RA capability.

Again Warren, if your calculations were correct, aircraft would be smashing into runways all across the globe, daily.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 26 2011, 01:32 PM
Post #212





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Warren can you answer one question for this semi-laymen.....

Does your data state that the altitude of the jet in question was too high to hit the Pentagon?

Because what I have read from you and this thread and the aviation professionals who have commented on your work, the plane WAS too high to hit the Pentagon. Again, doees your data, as receieved from the NTSB and decoded by you, support this, yes or no?

If yes, why? If no, why?

Thank you for your time.

This post has been edited by SwingDangler: Jan 26 2011, 01:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 27 2011, 10:43 AM
Post #213





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 31 2011, 06:32 PM) *
Warren can you answer one question for this semi-laymen.....

Does your data state that the altitude of the jet in question was too high to hit the Pentagon?

Because what I have read from you and this thread and the aviation professionals who have commented on your work, the plane WAS too high to hit the Pentagon. Again, doees your data, as receieved from the NTSB and decoded by you, support this, yes or no?

If yes, why? If no, why?

Thank you for your time.

Hi SwingDangler,

The data supports the Pentagon being hit as shown in the paper I co-authored.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 27 2011, 02:28 PM
Post #214



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 27 2011, 09:43 AM) *
Hi SwingDangler,

The data supports the Pentagon being hit as shown in the paper I co-authored.

Warren.


No it does not, as shown in post 5 on the first page of this thread.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 28 2011, 01:20 PM
Post #215





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 25 2011, 01:43 PM) *
Hi SwingDangler,

The data supports the Pentagon being hit as shown in the paper I co-authored.

Warren.



Warren, can you address Rob's post above and explain why it shows the plane to high to hit the Pentagon? And why you think there is something wrong with Rob's data in the graphic and post above?

Secondly, if you were to use the program above, Warren, what numbers would you input into the Altitude program and where did you obtain the data for those numbers?

Thanks!

This post has been edited by SwingDangler: Jan 28 2011, 01:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 30 2011, 02:43 AM
Post #216





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Feb 2 2011, 06:20 PM) *
Warren, can you address Rob's post above and explain why it shows the plane to high to hit the Pentagon? And why you think there is something wrong with Rob's data in the graphic and post above?

Secondly, if you were to use the program above, Warren, what numbers would you input into the Altitude program and where did you obtain the data for those numbers?

Thanks!

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.

Regards,
Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 30 2011, 06:19 AM
Post #217



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 30 2011, 01:43 AM) *
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 explained this to you before, 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 this 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 Boeing 757 and an Airbus A320.


Stop trolling Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 31 2011, 03:33 PM
Post #218





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 28 2011, 05:43 AM) *
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.

Regards,
Warren.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 31 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #219



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Was this the actual reason why Warren poopooed the PA readings???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 1 2011, 12:20 AM
Post #220



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 31 2011, 10:00 PM) *
Was this the actual reason why Warren poopooed the PA readings???


Warren thinks the PA readings are in error based on his analysis of RA. They attempted to derive a True Altitude using RA on the approaches of previous flights and compare it to the PA during the approach.

They found an "altitude divergence". They feel this "altitude divergence" is because the PA less reliable as you get closer to the ground. They make the conclusion that RA is much more accurate during an approach and that no pilot would check his primary altimeter in such a situation near the ground.

Of course any real pilot reading such absurd claims will laugh, but I went ahead and spent the time to debunk their ridiculous claims with a simple approach plate example from Dulles.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

I also explained the reason they are observing an "altitude divergence" during the approach phase on previous flights, is because the RA is not measuring from the ground. It was measuring from the tops of objects along the approach. Buildings, tree-lines.. etc.

They didnt understand, nor did their leading "Avionics Tech" and they continued to spout off that RA is much more accurate below 2500 AGL and no pilot would check his Primary altimeter. I also caught Legge editing his words trying to weasel out of his mistakes.

I attempted to explain ad nauseum regarding RA, but it appears it still falls on deaf ears.

Once again, RA cannot be used to determine your True Altitude. To any pilot or aviation professional reading this, yes it seems like a silly statement, but people like Legge, Stutt and their "Expert Avionics Tech" still dont get it.

I went further and correlated Stutts "Previous Flights" decode as close as possible with the "4 RA" as seen at the Pentagon to see if there really was an "altitude divergence" they claimed. As expected, PA was pretty damn accurate when correlating RA over a known position, the runway. Less than a 2 - 8 foot discrepancy.

The above analysis renders their whole paper/argument regarding "altitude divergence" moot and our conclusion correct that the "altitude divergence" they were seeing on the approach is because the RA was measuring from an object higher than the ground.

And as expected, Warren ignored it. Warren went on to talk about RA tracking capability.

He now speculates that the performance specs of 0-330 fps tracking could be in the vertical (not the forward speed of the aircraft). Meaning, any rise in terrain, object, whatever, more than 330 fps, and the RA will "fall behind". He equates this to another pdf he found (probably provided by Beachnut who cannot determine the difference between a 757 and an A320), which shows a "Track Rate" (not "Tracking Capability") of +/- 2000 fps. I explained to Warren the Performance specs from Rockwell do not include a negative value and asked him if he thought the Tracking Capability would only be good in one direction. Warren speculated further claiming that the negative was "implied" for a performance spec of "0-330 fps".

Well, i thought a bit more about this. The speed at which terrain will rise in relation to the aircraft, is a function of the forward speed of the aircraft.

For example, if you were flying at 330 fps (just under 200 knots) and level, any rise in terrain of more than 45 degrees will render your RA useless (if Warrens speculation were accurate), and most importantly, your GPWS.

Tan Theta = 330/330

Theta = 45 degrees

Double your speed to say 400 knots (above 10,000 feet perhaps? Where all the steep high mountains are peaking?)... and the terrain will outrun the RA on a 27 degree slope.

Tan Theta = 330/660

Theta = 26.565

If Warren's speculation were correct, Pilots would be slamming into mountains like these all day every cloudy day and never getting a GPWS warning. (or any hill with a greater than 27 degree slope, which isnt that steep for a mountain)



Add more speed and a tail wind at altitude in the high peaks, and slopes shallower than 27 degrees will outrun the RA. Again, if Warren were correct.

To figure out any slope, just use this.

Theta = atan(330/Speed of aircraft in feet per second)

That will give you the max slope of terrain at your given speed, any increase in slope angle for the given speed, and the rise in terrain will outrun the performance of the RA... again, if Warren were correct. Thank god he isnt.

Down low and slow, aircraft would be slamming into hills at less than 200 knots if the hill had more than a 45 degree incline, and never get a GPWS warning. That is, if Warren were correct. As is well known, CFIT doesnt happen that often with GPWS equipped aircraft, unless it was ignored.

Now, if the tracking capability was based on forward speed (which it is), even if you are at twice the speed, you'll get a hit at the base of the mountain, and a hit perhaps in the middle (instead of mapping all the nooks and crannys of the mountain in real time if you were within the tracking capability range), the GPWS would see a huge jump in elevation rising up to aircraft altitude, and start screaming at you to pull up!

What does this all mean? The data does not support an impact, from either the NTSB, nor Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

13 Pages V  « < 9 10 11 12 13 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th August 2019 - 01:09 AM