Another Question For Warren Stutt, concerning altitude Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Warren Stutt,

You must be aware that people are referencing you to suggest that your findings contradict the statements by P4T that the last reported altitude in the NTSB data shows a value too high to hit the light poles and the building.

Are you willing to set the record straight here and at j.ref by publicly agreeing that your findings in the data concerning altitude CONFIRM the findings of P4T that it shows the plane too high to hit the light poles and the building?

[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.