New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think? Options

[Decalagon]

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010...ltimeter_92.pdf

I'm reading the document and I am still very doubtful about what it says. Someone can give me some information about that?
Thank you.

[wstutt]

Part 2

This image relating to the RADAR was linked to by Frank Legge in the paper:

http://i27.tinypic.com/1zgrimq.png

Given his assertion that the radar and FDR are "strikingly similar", what does he say about the last reported timeframe in the same image?

(IMG:http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/84RadesAA77lastblipsml.JPG)

I don't know why you're asking this, since you later acknowledged that the radar has problems at low altitudes.

Now, Frank ha claimed later in the paper the "clock on the plane may be wrong", but how likely is this given the official "impact time" claimed by the NTSB?

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/jimritter.jpg)

The NTSB used other sources to obtain the time. See Section II - Time Correlation of this document

Does the timeframe of the anomalous two last points correlate with the data?

I don't know what those two last points are. The purpose of including the image was to show that the radar path was similar to the one in the FDR.

I know that this RADAR system has inherent problems at low altitude when there are many objects interfering with the signal but given the separate datapoints within the Pentagon basin, do you believe that this data is conclusive of anything? Especially considering that one of them was recorded NOC?

The last two points appear to be inconclusive. I don't know enough about the RADAR system to say why.

(FTR I would not use this data to prove anything regarding NOC) Apparently you both have no problem accepting that this RADAR is directly affected by interference in this system at low altitude, yet refuse to acknowledge the documented limitations of the RA at low altitude (330fps) on the aircraft, from which Frank Legge has based many assertions on in your paper. You don't see this as contradictory?

I have not seen satisfactory evidence that the tracking capability of 330 fps is the speed of the aircraft and not the rate of change of distance between the aircraft and the ground. I can see that the Doppler effect could potentially be an issue with a rapid change in distance between the aircraft and the ground. If the aircraft is flying level over a level surface, why would it matter how fast the aircraft is moving?

Tell Frank that the directional damage through the lightpoles is very specific. 61.5º.

Why not tell him yourself? He can be contacted through his website

You claim that the original course has been altered to correlate with the aircraft's position on the runway before take-off. Could you draw the revised plotted path accordingly as per the data from the Annex through to the Pentagon?

The course was actually altered to correlate with the impact as described in the paper. I may be able to provide a drawing.

Was there a change in the data regarding the Pressure Altitude altered or affected in any way around Route 27?

It doesn't appear so. The pressure altitude is plotted in Figure 13 in the paper.

Given the claims by Frank (and okayed presumably by you Warren) that the data now extends to the Pentagon facade, it's not just the lat/long that has been changed but also the entire dataset for each second that has been moved?

I don't know what you're getting at here. The purpose of adjusting the lat/long was to get the correct elevations.

Ignoring the unfounded speculation by Frank on the fate of the wing, is the claim that the "4ft RADALT reading" was recorded at "impact"?

The paper says it was recorded 0.758 seconds before impact

I understood it that the course of the aircraft was recorded minus 0.7 seconds.

(IMG:http://i49.tinypic.com/2hcnaqo.jpg)

It was recorded about 0.7 seconds before end of data. The longitudinal deceleration indicating impact was recorded about 0.07 seconds before end of data.

That the right bank data was found to level out at the point shown in your image:

(IMG:http://i46.tinypic.com/nd7ihi.jpg)

Did you find "more seconds" or were the recorded datasets moved forward?

The roll angle would have gone to 0 about the time of impact.

I have not decoded any more data than what I use to create those images. Although subframes are recorded once per second, different data within the subframe is recorded at different times throughout that second.

Does that mean that the Pressure Altitude recorded an even higher value at the lightpoles? The Pentagon facade?

The pressure altitude is recorded once per second but at a different time than any other parameter since only one parameter can be recorded at a time. My decode shows the pressure altitude that was recorded in the FDR file for each subframe.

Cheers

OSS

ETA: Please remember that many of us are laymen on this subject, so linking to a set of data isn't going to answer anything Warren. That's why I've asked questions on layman's terms.

Regards,
Warren.