Another Question For Warren Stutt, concerning altitude Options

[rob balsamo]

Thanks Warren, but I was basing it on an initial velocity of zero for simplicity.

I also made a small error in the above, i forgot to divide the final acceleration by 32 for G loading.

So we have 200/.09 = 2222 ft/sec^2

2222/32 = 69 G

Plus 1 for earth - 70 G.

Still impossible for anything on earth.

Using your formula

s - ut = 100 - 60(.3) = 82

2(82)/.09 = 1822 ft/sec^2

1822/32 = 57 G

58 G with earth.

Again, impossible, even based on your data.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Thanks Warren, but I was basing it on an initial velocity of zero for simplicity.

I also made a small error in the above, i forgot to divide the final acceleration by 32 for G loading.

So we have 200/.09 = 2222 ft/sec^2

2222/32 = 69 G

Plus 1 for earth - 70 G.

Still impossible for anything on earth.

Using your formula

s - ut = 100 - 60(.3) = 82

2(82)/.09 = 1822 ft/sec^2

1822/32 = 57 G

58 G with earth.

Again, impossible, even based on your data.

OK, the math looks good to me now. I'll alert J.R.E.F. that you have fixed the math. I still need to research pressure altitude to true altitude conversions before coming to any conclusions.

Warren.

[JFK]

I'll alert J.R.E.F. that you have fixed the math.

Aren't you glad you did that ?

( I just finished trying to decipher beachnut's incoherent rant. ) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif)

[onesliceshort]

Hi OSS,

Nobody prompted me to ask this question. I'll look in to this after I get the program updated and get the new program out for the raw 12-bit words.

Warren.

Hi Warren,
No I didn´t mean that somebody ´prompted´ you to ask this question. I meant that you may have heard
somebody come up with calculations that countered Rob´s.
I believe it was Beachnut judging by JFK´s post (?). But no matter.
Rob has explained how he came to his conclusions so that even laymen like me can understand it.

A radar altimeter presents no lag, 273 is a hard number above the ground.
Now we will disregard when it was recorded and use the argument side that there could be 'up to' 2 seconds missing (ie. the 273' was recorded 2 seconds prior to the pentagon wall).

The ground elevation at this point is ~60 feet above sea level. Add that to 273 and you get 333 feet above sea level. (this figure does not match True altitude at this point because we are using the govt loyalist hypothetical that 273 was recorded 'up to' 2 seconds out from the pentagon.. we are using their argument of the largest margin for error).

The elevation of the 'hole' in the pentagon is 33 (ground elevation of pentagon, established) plus 12' (center of hole) = 45 feet above sea level.

When we subtract 333 from 45, we get a number of 288 feet above the 'impact hole' at a spot 2 seconds away from impact.

Divide 288 by 2(seconds) and this aircraft would need a steady linear descent rate of 8,640 feet per minute to impact the hole in the pentagon (remember, this is using the argument that 273 was recorded up to 2 seconds prior to impact). This is in direct conflict with the DoD video showing an object level across the lawn.

I´ve just yet to see detractors counter this argument.

Peace
OSS

[wstutt]

Hi OSS,

<snip>

A radar altimeter presents no lag, 273 is a hard number above the ground.
Now we will disregard when it was recorded and use the argument side that there could be 'up to' 2 seconds missing (ie. the 273' was recorded 2 seconds prior to the pentagon wall).

The ground elevation at this point is ~60 feet above sea level. Add that to 273 and you get 333 feet above sea level. (this figure does not match True altitude at this point because we are using the govt loyalist hypothetical that 273 was recorded 'up to' 2 seconds out from the pentagon.. we are using their argument of the largest margin for error).

The elevation of the 'hole' in the pentagon is 33 (ground elevation of pentagon, established) plus 12' (center of hole) = 45 feet above sea level.

When we subtract 333 from 45, we get a number of 288 feet above the 'impact hole' at a spot 2 seconds away from impact.

Divide 288 by 2(seconds) and this aircraft would need a steady linear descent rate of 8,640 feet per minute to impact the hole in the pentagon (remember, this is using the argument that 273 was recorded up to 2 seconds prior to impact). This is in direct conflict with the DoD video showing an object level across the lawn.

I´ve just yet to see detractors counter this argument.

Peace
OSS

I suspect that argument was from before I had done my decode. My decode has more than 4 seconds of data past the point where the radio height of 273 seconds was recorded, rather than 2 seconds. This could well change the calculated steady linear descent rate.

Warren.

This post has been edited by wstutt: Dec 14 2009, 07:01 AM

[onesliceshort]

Hi Warren,
Yes I saw that IF there were indeed 4 seconds of extra data, Rob had explained that
the plane would have still missed the lightpoles and the Pentagon here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239

Rob explained it in detail.

The only counterargument that detractors have come up with as far as I can see is that
there may be ´lag´ or the recording was not accurate.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163

According to the many FDR Companies we (P4T) called (including the manufacturer of the FDR and Aircraft Accident Investigators in our organization at pilotsfor911truth.org...), they adamantly refer to DME as the most accurate in terms of location/position. However, they also offered this during our interview...

¨If you know where the airplane departed, we can truly determine where the airplane was by pure physics. We have some very sophisticated equipment. If you know where the airplane took off, we know the airplane turned left, right, up down, speed... We can precisley determine last position based purely on physics. But if you have DME, that is the most accurate...¨

Was Rob right in saying that the plane was still too high to cause the damage even given the alleged extra 4 seconds?

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

What do you think of the following claim:

In the last seconds we have pressure altitude of plane well above certification speed, descending at 3600 feet per minute, in a 2 g pull-up and we are discussing a value which can be about 75 feet off in static conditions? The final seconds of Flight 77 are outside the envelope for using the pressure altitude for anything useful.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Hi Rob,

What do you think of the following claim:

Warren.

I think its not proof of PA being more than 120+ in error. We covered this here...


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778360

The 757 is rated for .86M, .70-.72M as displayed in the data is well below the certified limits of the pitot-static system.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

I think its not proof of PA being more than 120+ in error. We covered this here...


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778360

The 757 is rated for .86M, .70-.72M as displayed in the data is well below the certified limits of the pitot-static system.

Isn't there more to the certified limits than mach numbers? Are there combinations of altitudes and airspeeds as well? Is information on the certified limits of the pitot-static system used by 757's publicly available?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Hi Warren,

The limitations which are publicly available are the Federal Aviation Regulations.

This requires an altimeter to be within +/-75 of error or the airplane is grounded until repaired or a new altimeter installed.

Comparing Radar Altitude to True altitude during departure, the altimeter is within 30 feet and within one - two feet of vertical climb, PA vs RA. During departure we can be certain the Radar Altimeter is measuring from the ground. During the approach to the pentagon, we have no way to positively identify from what type of object the Radar Altimeter is measuring.

Those who make excuse for the govt story need to prove the Pressure altitude was in error in excess of 120 feet. An altimeter does not "drift" such an amount of error in one flight.

For more on airspeed calibration and measurement and how pneumatic and other errors are minimized or eliminated from a specific airframe when performing type certificate testing at high and low speeds, high and low altitudes, please see here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=103

Keep in mind, this whole discussion is predicated on the assumption that your decode is accurate. As you have already pointed out, you have two sets of PA data based on which conversion factor used from either the Boeing Generic Data Frame Layout or the Custom American Airlines data frame layout. I wont get into too many details now, but there is a reason the American Airlines layout has a different conversion factor.

If your decode is inaccurate, this whole discussion is moot. And is why our research remains unchanged with respect to wanting answers from the NTSB/FBI based on the data/information they have provided. Our core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

<snip>

Comparing Radar Altitude to True altitude during departure, the altimeter is within 30 feet and within one - two feet of vertical climb, PA vs RA. During departure we can be certain the Radar Altimeter is measuring from the ground. During the approach to the pentagon, we have no way to positively identify from what type of object the Radar Altimeter is measuring.

If you have a look at row 606 of ReadOut2, the ALT is 74 and the ALTRad is 8186 and in row 611 of ReadOut2, the ALT is 48 and the ALTRad is 8191.
In these 5 seconds, ALT has decreased by 26, while ALTRad has increased by 5. This means the total difference between ALT and ALTRad is 31 feet and this error has occurred under normal flight conditions.

<snip>

For more on airspeed calibration and measurement and how pneumatic and other errors are minimized or eliminated from a specific airframe when performing type certificate testing at high and low speeds, high and low altitudes, please see here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=103

<snip>

I looked at the NASA document linked to on that page. It says "The calibrations must be performed under various flight conditions of airspeeds and altitude as well as aircraft attitudes and configurations (combinations of flaps, gear, and external stores).". Do you know whether the flight conditions that 757's are calibrated for include the combination of high speed and low altitude?

Keep in mind, this whole discussion is predicated on the assumption that your decode is accurate. As you have already pointed out, you have two sets of PA data based on which conversion factor used from either the Boeing Generic Data Frame Layout or the Custom American Airlines data frame layout. I wont get into too many details now, but there is a reason the American Airlines layout has a different conversion factor.

<snip>

I'm interested in the reason for the different conversion factor.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Hi Rob,

If you have a look at row 606 of ReadOut2, the ALT is 74 and the ALTRad is 8186 and in row 611 of ReadOut2, the ALT is 48 and the ALTRad is 8191.
In these 5 seconds, ALT has decreased by 26, while ALTRad has increased by 5. This means the total difference between ALT and ALTRad is 31 feet and this error has occurred under normal flight conditions.

The aircraft was still on the ground at those above rows and it has not been defined what "81xx" means in the RadAlt. Try starting to read/analyze at row 612 and then compare, for intellectual honesty. They are near equivalent in terms of vertical climb.

I was also comparing PA in your output file which appears to have more decode of the Radar Altitude.

I looked at the NASA document linked to on that page. It says "The calibrations must be performed under various flight conditions of airspeeds and altitude as well as aircraft attitudes and configurations (combinations of flaps, gear, and external stores).". Do you know whether the flight conditions that 757's are calibrated for include the combination of high speed and low altitude?

The document clearly states Mach (read: "subsonic") as limiting factor for Static pressure due to compressibility. This is why Mackey attempted to imply the Mcrit for a 757 is at or near .70 - .72M.

Please review these quotes again. Note the bold.

"Static pressure can be measured with a pitot-static tube or a flush-mounted port on the
fuselage. Figure 3 shows a typical subsonic static pressure distribution on an aircraft fuselage
(ref. 2). The measured minus true static pressure, , normalized to compressible dynamic
pressure, , is plotted as a function of fuselage position. Zero static pressure error on the
fuselage exists at locations 2 through 5."

"Even with the selection of the best static port position, some pressure errors will remain, and
these errors must be determined in flight. The difference between the locally measured static
pressure and the ambient static pressure, which is dependent upon angle of attack, airspeed, and
aircraft configuration, is called
position error. (Ed note: notice altitude is not a factor for position error)

"....These quantities generally need to
be measured and then calibrated to remove errors...."

Again, those who make excuse for the govt story need to provide proof the PA is in error in excess of 120 feet AND that .70 - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757 to hold onto their theory.

[tnemelckram]

Hi Warren and Rob!

I posted my reading of the Manual here on Rob's other thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780697

The situation that was specifically mentioned as bad for pressure altitude lag was high altitude/high speed. They also said that the main cause was variations in altitude which I read as up, down, up down, not a steady descent. I take high altitude to mean 30,000 feet or more where most flight time takes place and high speed means the 425 (or greater) knot cruising speed at that altitude. Hani made a pretty steady (undisturbed) descent on a smooth circular course at around 275 knots average according to the government. Although you ask a valid question because high speed/low altitude would not be a likely flight condition, I don't think Hani's alleged path fits into either of the criteria that were specifically mentioned as causes of or conditions for PA lag in the first place.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

The aircraft was still on the ground at those above rows and it has not been defined what "81xx" means in the RadAlt. Try starting to read/analyze at row 612 and then compare, for intellectual honesty. They are near equivalent in terms of vertical climb.

I was also comparing PA in your output file which appears to have more decode of the Radar Altitude.

If you subtract 8192 from the 81xx ALTRad values in ReadOut2 you should get the same values as Radio Height in my decode. Even without considering the ALTRad values, there is still an ALT value of 74 on row 606 and an ALT value of 48 on row 611 which is 5 seconds later and a decrease of 26 feet while the aircraft is supposedly on the verge of lifting off the runway. The ALT values do appear to me to be smoother than the ALTRad values from row 612 though.

The document clearly states Mach (read: "subsonic") as limiting factor for Static pressure due to compressibility. This is why Mackey attempted to imply the Mcrit for a 757 is at or near .70 - .72M.

I see the document also says:
"Compressibility effects become important above approximately Mach number 0.3."
Isn't Mcrit substantially higher than 0.3?

If you look at cell IV12046 (EST 8:44:04) in the NTSB CSV file you see MACH ENGA when the MACH in column IU on the same row is 0.82. column IV reverts back to ENGA NOT at row 12782 (EST 8:45:36) well before the end of the flight. The MACH in column IU at the end of the NTSB CSV file is at a lower value of 0.70. Would MACH ENGA mean the aircraft was flying faster than Mmo or Mcrit or something else?

Please review these quotes again. Note the bold.

"Static pressure can be measured with a pitot-static tube or a flush-mounted port on the
fuselage. Figure 3 shows a typical subsonic static pressure distribution on an aircraft fuselage
(ref. 2). The measured minus true static pressure, , normalized to compressible dynamic
pressure, , is plotted as a function of fuselage position. Zero static pressure error on the
fuselage exists at locations 2 through 5."

A little further on the document also says:
"This pressure distribution changes with flight condition, so a calibration over the flight envelope may still be necessary."
Doesn't that imply that the points of zero static pressure change with flight condition?

"Even with the selection of the best static port position, some pressure errors will remain, and
these errors must be determined in flight. The difference between the locally measured static
pressure and the ambient static pressure, which is dependent upon angle of attack, airspeed, and
aircraft configuration, is called
position error. (Ed note: notice altitude is not a factor for position error)

Altitude is not specifically mentioned but static pressure is. Isn't pressure altitude calculated from the locally measured static pressure which is dependent on the combination of ambient static pressure and the airspeed?

"....These quantities generally need to
be measured and then calibrated to remove errors...."

That make sense to me.

I see that the total pressure (which I realise is not static pressure because it also depends on airspeed) increases to 1400mB in the NTSB CSV file towards the end of the flight. Using my decoder, I see that the total pressure never rises above 1058mB in any of the other flights in the FDR file.

Was the pressure altitude reading on the aircraft calibrated to correctly remove errors at such high total pressures? I don't know.

Again, those who make excuse for the govt story need to provide proof the PA is in error in excess of 120 feet AND that .70 - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757 to hold onto their theory.

Are you saying that pressure altitude reading is calibrated up to Mcrit?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Warren, we're going in circles.... Please read the following quotes from the paper more thoroughly.

"This pressure distribution changes with flight condition, so a calibration over the flight envelope may still be necessary."

".These quantities generally need to
be measured and then calibrated to remove errors...."

"The techniques and procedures have been only
briefly described here; numerous references should be studied if airdata values are to be measured and calibrated."

Every type of aircraft goes through a rigorous type certification process. The "Flight envelope" of the 757 is .86M and is tested above those speeds. The Static system is tested to such speeds and calibrated to remove such errors.

Compressibility depends on airframe. Sure, some airframes can encounter Compressibility problems at much lower Mach speeds. To understand the definition of Compressibility, I'll let Mackey explain...

"When air approaches the speed of sound, however, "compressibility" sets in. What it means is that under the right conditions, we can no longer assume density is constant, and thus neither can we assume static pressure is constant. Applied to an aircraft, this can happen even at aircraft speeds below Mach 1 -- hence there is no clean distinction between subsonic and supersonic when aircraft are involved. We call this overlap the "transonic" regime. But why does it happen?

Why is because the aircraft shape accelerates the flow. If the aircraft is traveling at the critical Mach number, which can be as low as about 0.6, this means that at some point, probably flowing over the wings, the airflow is accelerated to the point that it becomes supersonic. When that happens, we can no longer treat the air as constant pressure, or constant density."

In other words, those who make excuse for PA error need to prove .70-.72M is above Mcrit for the 757.

The Airdata document provided above is a generic document for the layman to understand that there are inherent errors when dealing with a Static System and that those errors are removed during type certification and flight testing. The document is not 757 specific.

By the way, the 757 Radar Altitude reads 0 on the ground. the "81xx" is undefined. To use the 81xx quantities for anything is intellectually dishonest.

Also, anyone who attempts to equate possible PA errors during rotation on take off, low speeds, high angle of attack, while the aircraft is still on the ground, as compared to being 100-200 feet in the air in steady state flight, is exposing the one of the most blatant displays of intellectual dishonesty. "Ground effect" is most prominent during rotation on take-off and landing, i would expect to see such a PA "dip" upon rotation. It makes sense. As you see the aircraft lift off (as noted by RA), PA is steady because the airflow is free streaming, ie. not disturbed by the ground. You see this starting after 3 feet RA.

[Jefferson]

Thanks Warren, but I was basing it on an initial velocity of zero for simplicity.

I also made a small error in the above, i forgot to divide the final acceleration by 32 for G loading.

So we have 200/.09 = 2222 ft/sec^2

2222/32 = 69 G

Plus 1 for earth - 70 G.

Still impossible for anything on earth.

Using your formula

s - ut = 100 - 60(.3) = 82

2(82)/.09 = 1822 ft/sec^2

1822/32 = 57 G

58 G with earth.

Again, impossible, even based on your data.

Hi, sorry I am confused by different calculations.
What is meaning to be calculated?
I know it's acceleration but what are knowns?

[rob balsamo]

Hi, sorry I am confused by different calculations.
What is meaning to be calculated?
I know it's acceleration but what are knowns?

Hi Jefferson,

The above calculations were due to a question asked by Warren on the first page. Here is a direct link.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780090

Warren,

I finally had some time to browse around the internet to read through some of the arguments by those who obviously had more time to spend behind their computer screen during the holidays.

I found some information which may clear up some confusion for you.

First we will discuss the static system calibrations and removal of "position errors" which are calibrated with respect to Mach number (not knots) in which the ADC removes such errors.

The following quotes from a self-proclaimed avionics tech who blindly supports the govt story.

"...the ADC starts looking at AoA at Mach 0.55 and higher.... "

What this means is that the Air Data Computer starts to make adjustments to the Pitot-Static system at .55M and above to remove errors from the system. This was calibrated during type certification we discussed above.

.55M is 369 knots at sea level using 23 deg C as reported by KDCA ATIS on the morning of 9/11/01. This is already 19 knots over Vmo in which the ADC then starts to adjust for any possible errors encountered by the Pitot-Static System. So the claim that the aircraft was "operating outside it's envelope" with respect to the Static system and ADC correction is clear BS. The ADC doesnt even start to recognize "errors" and start adjusting for such errors until .55M. Hence the reason stated in above posts that the "Flight Envelope" is tested to .86M and beyond. Mach, and the effects of Mach which would effect the Static System (Compressibility), is only a function of temperature, not altitude.

The Angle of Attack at end of data (EOD), is roughly -1.6 degrees from level with a -1.2 deg pitch angle. These cancel out each other and means the aircraft was practically level at EOD. Therefore the ADC does not need to do any adjustment for any error due to effects of possible changing pressure around the aircraft due to angle of attack. (Our pilots are still getting a kick out of Will Clinger using FD pitch angles to determine aircraft atitude...lol... too funny).

The argument of "Lag".

Those who make this argument of "lag" claim that since the aircraft was descending at roughly 3500 fpm at EOD, that the altimeter was "lagging" behind the actual aircraft altitude.

Well first. as described above, the aircraft was already leveling and in level flight at EOD. Keep in mind the Pitch and AOA angles update more frequently than PA. This is the reason we dont see the "level out" in the PA. This makes the "lag" argument moot from the start...

but...

For arguments sake, lets assume the aircraft was still descending at 3500 fpm at time of impact. 120+ feet of "lag" needs to be accounted for in order for those to hold onto their "impact" theory who blindly support the govt story. How much "lag" is this in terms of time?

3500/60 = 58 f/sec

120/58 = 2 sec.

Those who claim the altimeter was "lagging", claim the altimeter was lagging behind the aircraft by more than 2 seconds in a 3500 fpm descent.

Now for a quote from "crapathoid", the Govt Loyalist extraordinaire regarding "lag" he observed in a greater descent rate.

"I know there is lag on the 757 because I've seen it when doing my pitot-static tests. I use a rate of about 5000' per minute when changing test altitudes and every single time I pass an altitude at 5000 fpm, I notice the altimeter is a bit behind my test set remotes reading(which represents the atmosphere around the pitot and static ports). Maybe its only a 1/2 second or so, but its there."

crapathoid claims he observes a 0.5 second delay in a 5000 fpm descent on the 757.

5000/60 = 83 f/sec

83 * 0.5 = 41.5 feet "lag".

Using the same "lag" rate for a higher descent rate, lets see how much "lag" would be in a 3500 fpm descent.

3500/5000 = 70%

41.5 * .7 = 29.5 feet of "lag" as the upper limit.

The above interpolation is the UPPER limit of lag if in fact such lag existed at 3500 fpm descent based on lag claim to be observed in a 5000 fpm descent for the 757.

This brings the total to roughly 90 feet still unaccounted for.

The above analysis gives every possible advantage to those who make excuse for the govt story, and still it does not add up to impact.

The above analysis and claims are also not reality in that the pitch shows level (no lag), 3500 fpm descent could NEVER have 4 times more lag than observed in a 5000 fpm descent rate, and that Vmo is the not upper limit of the "Flight Envelope" with respect to the static system.

Conclusion - Removing any possible "errors" from PA lines up more with a flyover. The height of the Pentagon is roughly 100 feet with a 4 RA bouncing off the top of the roof.



Hope this helps.

[Jefferson]

"Hi Jefferson,

The above calculations were due to a question asked by Warren on the first page. Here is a direct link.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...=10780090"

Thankyou. I did read that before but it needs more data.

What is the descent at start of time period and what is the descent from the light pole to the hole in the wall?

Can Warren Stutt give more accurate time than 0.3s? I mean can the data show how much was written over old data on last frame? I know that if possible then still not perfect.

It is maybe not important except for better accuracy but I don't like varying results for the above calculations that should be same.

[Jefferson]

I have a thought about altitude. It could be useful or not.

I know that radar on water is not good with angle but the plane was over water before final turn to pentagon and maybe flat surface of water is distinctive in radar altitude data and water has known altitude.

It is maybe not any use but thought I should say anyway.

[rob balsamo]

"Hi Jefferson,

The above calculations were due to a question asked by Warren on the first page. Here is a direct link.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...=10780090"

Thankyou. I did read that before but it needs more data.

What is the descent at start of time period and what is the descent from the light pole to the hole in the wall?

Altitude reading at End of data is -99 Pressure Altitude. To convert that to True Altitude please see here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778240

Can Warren Stutt give more accurate time than 0.3s? I mean can the data show how much was written over old data on last frame? I know that if possible then still not perfect.

Warren didnt calculate the 0.3 seconds. I did. Please read this again.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780090

Here, i'll copy/paste it for you again.

Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1,

It is maybe not important except for better accuracy but I don't like varying results for the above calculations that should be same.

The "varying" results are due to the excuses made by those who blindly support the govt story. They love to cloud the issue with spin and throwing anything against the wall they can to see if it will stick. They dont have to win the argument, all they have to do is drag the argument down into endless debate. This is the mission of Bloggers hired by the Pentagon.

Even using the arguments/excuses made by those who blindly support the govt story, it still does not add up to impact. This is what we're showing above in the "varying" calculations.

If we look at the data from a straight forward perspective, and interpret the data the way it was meant to be interpreted and as provided by the NTSB, the altitude is too high, the descent rate too great, the Flight Deck Door closed. The data does not support the govt story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

Read more here on a summary of the findings.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html