IPB




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

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

 
Closed TopicStart new topic
Flight Data Recorder Research Team Presents..., our first report...

rob balsamo
post Aug 20 2006, 04:36 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
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.



The FDR Research Team
salute.gif

Feel free to ask questions and i'll do my best to answer them, barring any speculation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2006, 08:42 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Its one second.. 780ft/sec.

780 feet represents distance from the imapct hole.. directly over the highway...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2006, 08:43 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
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...

salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2006, 08:44 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
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)



note the cvs file is showing 17976 (because the cvs file is showing pressure altitude)


note the cvs file is showing 18015 (because the cvs file is showing pressure altitude)


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
driver
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
driver
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
driver
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
driver
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
driver
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 2 2006, 05:10 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 5 2006, 11:14 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Sep 5 2006, 11:50 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 6 2006, 12:59 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 6 2006, 06:06 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Closed 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: 30th October 2014 - 02:09 PM