Flight Data Recorder Research Team Presents..., our first report... |

![]() ![]() |
Aug 20 2006, 04:36 PM
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircaft to have struck down the light poles.
We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. I have sat through the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time. The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepency is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet according to Google Earth. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. (IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/44.jpg) The FDR Research Team (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) Feel free to ask questions and i'll do my best to answer them, barring any speculation. |
|
|
|
Aug 25 2006, 08:42 PM
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
Its one second.. 780ft/sec.
780 feet represents distance from the imapct hole.. directly over the highway... (IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/approachtimesaltfpmpaint.jpg) |
|
|
|
Aug 25 2006, 08:43 PM
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
The csv shows pressure alt throughout
IAD Depature csv file 08:19:01 41 feet animation 08:19:01 300 feet <~~~ field elevation Climb through FL180 csv file. No change in trend. Pressure alt is reported in cvs file. 08:28:00 AM 18015 30.21 08:28:01 AM 18056 08:28:02 AM 18093 30.21 08:28:03 AM 18132 08:28:04 AM 18170 29.91 08:28:05 AM 18210 08:28:06 AM 18247 29.94 08:28:07 AM 18288 08:28:08 AM 18324 29.91 08:28:09 AM 18364 08:28:10 AM 18402 29.92 Animation. 08:28:00 18300 08:28:01 18056 <~~~ set to 29.92 change in trend. Animation alt matches csv file from here till 09:37:44. 08:28:02 18093 08:28:03 18132 08:28:04 18170 ("snap-back" easily seen on animation file) Descent csv file 09:24:14 AM 18126 29.92 09:24:15 AM 18088 09:24:16 AM 18049 30.23 09:24:17 AM 18011 09:24:18 AM 17972 30.01 09:24:19 AM 17932 09:24:20 AM 17895 30.23 09:24:21 AM 17855 09:24:22 AM 17815 30.07 09:24:23 AM 17775 09:24:24 AM 17734 30.23 09:24:25 AM 17694 09:24:26 AM 17653 30.29 <~~~ no change in trend. (pressure alt reported) 09:24:27 AM 17612 09:24:28 AM 17569 30.20 09:24:29 AM 17526 09:24:30 AM 17482 29.97 09:24:31 AM 17439 09:24:32 AM 17396 30.23 09:24:33 AM 17354 09:24:34 AM 17308 29.99 09:24:35 AM 17264 09:24:36 AM 17221 30.23 09:24:37 AM 17178 09:24:38 AM 17134 30.06 09:24:39 AM 17089 09:24:40 AM 17047 30.23 09:24:41 AM 17002 09:24:42 AM 16958 30.22 09:24:43 AM 16917 09:24:44 AM 16872 30.23 09:24:45 AM 16830 09:24:46 AM 16787 30.24 09:24:47 AM 16745 09:24:48 AM 16703 30.23 09:24:49 AM 16662 09:24:50 AM 16620 30.24 Animation. (no change in trend as was on the climb. Alt was NOT set on the way down in the animation. Im thinking they didnt want to show it set, because it would show 480MSL at 09:37:44) 09:24:14 AM 18126 09:24:15 AM 18088 09:24:16 AM 18049 09:24:17 AM 18011 09:24:18 AM 17972 09:24:19 AM 17932 09:24:20 AM 17895 09:24:21 AM 17855 09:24:22 AM 17815 09:24:23 AM 17775 09:24:24 AM 17734 09:24:25 AM 17694 09:24:26 AM 17653<~~~ no change in trend. (alt still set to 29.92) 09:24:27 AM 17612 09:24:28 AM 17569 09:24:29 AM 17526 09:24:30 AM 17482 09:37:44 csv file 173' animation 180' (discrepancy in feet due to recordings in fractions of a second) Not that it matters.. but either altitude (pressure or true) could not have hit the light poles... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) |
|
|
|
Aug 25 2006, 08:44 PM
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
And just so there is no confusion about the animation...
Compare these with the cvs file and time stamps. On runway 30 at IAD. note the cvs file shows 61 feet (because its reporting pressure alt) (IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/81959.jpg) note the cvs file is showing 17976 (because the cvs file is showing pressure altitude) (IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/082759.jpg) note the cvs file is showing 18015 (because the cvs file is showing pressure altitude) (IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/screens/082800.jpg) note that the cvs file now matches.. .because the animation altimeter was set to 29.92.. and remained that way through the rest of the animation (IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/screens/082801.jpg) |
|
|
|
Aug 31 2006, 09:58 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 127 Joined: 29-August 06 Member No.: 29 |
We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircaft to have struck down the light poles.
That is a very significant conclusion. Essentially, there are three possibilities here. 1.An equipment malfunction resulted in inaccurate information being recorded or transfered. 2. Someone intentionally provided you with inaccurate or bogus data. 3. Flight 77 did not strike down the light poles. The easiest one for you to help us with is to explain with as much detail as possible the complete "chain of custody" of the Flight Data Recorder Information you used to make this conclusion. Any documentation including letters from the NTSB that accompanied the data would be appreciated. A specific named source at the NTSB that provided the data would be helpful as well. In addition, any links to sources to support the claim that the data analyzed was data from Flight 77 provided by the NTSB would also help. This post has been edited by driver: Aug 31 2006, 10:39 AM |
|
|
|
Aug 31 2006, 10:10 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 127 Joined: 29-August 06 Member No.: 29 |
We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircaft to have struck down the light poles.
There is more information,including photos, of the light poles in question at the link below. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...hp?showtopic=58 |
|
|
|
Sep 1 2006, 06:31 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 127 Joined: 29-August 06 Member No.: 29 |
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf87/248624_web.pdf
Digital Flight Data Recorder Requirements The FAA requires DFDRs to record specific parameters within specfic tolerances. Parameter number 26 is Radio Altitude. The radio altimeter is a distance measuring instrument that measures the distance from the bottom of the fuselage to the surface below the aircraft in feet. It is completely independent of any altimeter setting. The FAA requires the DFDR to record the radio altitude with an accuracy of plus or minus two feet when the aircraft is below 500 feet. The required sampling interval is once every second. The equipment on board AA Flight 77 would have met these specifications from Appendix M. The complete data from the DFDR on board Flight 77 would include the radio altitude information. |
|
|
|
Sep 1 2006, 12:47 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 127 Joined: 29-August 06 Member No.: 29 |
What really matters concerning this topic is if someone told you they were giving you the data from the Digital Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77 and the data did not include
parameter 26- radio altitude information or an explanation, then someone is playing games with you. It is an FAA requirement for the DFDR to record the radio altimeter information. |
|
|
|
Sep 1 2006, 02:19 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 127 Joined: 29-August 06 Member No.: 29 |
mod edit: driver put a pop up site here.. see 4 posts below for correct source
Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications |
|
|
|
Sep 2 2006, 05:10 AM
Post
#10
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
QUOTE (driver @ Aug 31 2006, 09:58 AM) The easiest one for you to help us with is to explain with as much detail as possible the complete "chain of custody" of the Flight Data Recorder Information you used to make this conclusion. Any documentation including letters from the NTSB that accompanied the data would be appreciated. A specific named source at the NTSB that provided the data would be helpful as well. In addition, any links to sources to support the claim that the data analyzed was data from Flight 77 provided by the NTSB would also help. Please contact UnderTow and SnowyGrouch for this information. |
|
|
|
Sep 5 2006, 11:14 PM
Post
#11
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
The Radar Altimeter was ommitted from the csv file... im thinking because they were hoping we wouldnt figure out the pressure/true altitude discrepancy without the radar altimeter. They were wrong.
|
|
|
|
Sep 5 2006, 11:50 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Group: Valued Member Posts: 1,421 Joined: 28-August 06 From: Virginia, USA Member No.: 19 |
QUOTE (driver @ Aug 31 2006, 09:58 AM) The easiest one for you to help us with is to explain with as much detail as possible the complete "chain of custody" of the Flight Data Recorder Information you used to make this conclusion. Any documentation including letters from the NTSB that accompanied the data would be appreciated. A specific named source at the NTSB that provided the data would be helpful as well. In addition, any links to sources to support the claim that the data analyzed was data from Flight 77 provided by the NTSB would also help. Just wondering who "us" is to you? You know, I did submit a successful FOIA request to the NTSB. But I did have to figure some stuff out myself. |
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 12:59 AM
Post
#13
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
QUOTE (driver @ Sep 1 2006, 02:19 PM) mod edit: pop up site Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications Dude.. if you're going to quote the FAR's... go to the source.. will ya? We dont need to go to some site with pop-up's. §121.344 Digital flight data recorders for transport category airplanes. Appendix M |
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 06:06 PM
Post
#14
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
All debates on pressure altitude please take to the debate forum.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...hp?showtopic=67 Please review the FAA Flight Training Hanbook quoted and the proper formulas for calculating pressure altimeter changes below 5000MSL (ie. 1.006 per 1000 feet). |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 03:03 PM |