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 )

A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"

KP50
post Jan 25 2011, 05:07 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



This has been released by Frank Legge recently.

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal

QUOTE
As the paper on the data file from the Flight Data Recorder by Warren Stutt and myself has been attacked severely we have prepared a rebuttal to the issues raised in these attacks.

A Response to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Frank Legge and Warren Stutt

January 2011.

Introduction

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group which has supported the work of many other groups and individual researchers who present evidence that the destruction of the three buildings at the World Trade Centre on 11 September, 2001, was brought about by controlled demolition,[1] and not by fire and impact damage, as asserted in official reports.

One of the useful and important actions of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT) was to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to call for release of the data files from the Flight Data Recorders (FDR) of the planes involved in the attack. In the case of the flight which hit the Pentagon, reportedly American Airlines flight 77 (AA77), the data was released in two forms. One was a comma separated values (CSV) file, easily read. The other appeared to be a raw file copied direct from the original file from the FDR, which needed special software, and data frame layout information, in order to reveal its contents. The CSV file showed the flight terminating at a point far higher than the Pentagon. Eventually the raw file was decoded and again it appeared to show the flight finished too high.

Some of the people who studied this file compared the course shown with the course as shown by radar reports and concluded that the data had been truncated. One researcher, John Farmer, concluded that 4 to 8 seconds of data was missing.[2] In this view there was no reason to doubt that the plane could have descended safely, during those missing seconds, and hit the Pentagon in the manner described by the many eyewitnesses. Unfortunately PFT carried out an incorrect calculation which purported to show that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon, as the wing loading in pulling out of the dive would have been too great. They calculated the force to be 10.14g, far above the plane’s legal limit of 2.5g and well above any reasonable safety margin. Their calculation was shown to be incorrect by several researchers who found various paths were possible, with forces ranging from 1.6g to about 2g, depending on factors such as the assumed height the plane passed above the VDOT antenna tower.[3]

It appears PFT has become attached to this notion that the plane could not have survived the approach and has not, to this day, admitted that its calculation is incorrect. They continue to maintain that the topography would prevent the observed approach. They further assert that the FDR data proves the official account of the path of the plane false. This argument has had the unfortunate effect of giving support to those who say the plane could not have hit the Pentagon on the basis of an improperly conducted survey of eyewitnesses who say the plane approached from a more northerly angle. If true, the plane could not have done the observed long line of damage outside and inside the Pentagon and therefore must have flown over, the damage being done by other means. There are good reasons to believe the reported northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail which preceded a traumatic observation, as all these witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon,[4] as have many other people.[5]

The FDR file has now been fully decoded by Warren Stutt who has shown it contains 4 seconds more data than previously believed and that it records a path that fully corresponds with the official account of the flight.[6] This proves the PFT claim that the data proves the official account false is unfounded. To maintain their position that the flight could not have hit the Pentagon, apparently unwilling to admit their calculation error, they now must resort to various strategies to denigrate the new decoding and to attempt to undermine the many researchers who contradict them. Their strategies are dealt with below.

Complaints and responses

1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine. This is an illogical claim as it is the only FDR file available. It is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false?

2. The data file is missing crucial information (aircraft ID). Is this true and does it matter? Warren Stutt has files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID in the preamble. Apparently it is not crucial and does not matter.

3. Radio height marked “not working or unconfirmed”. Apparently it was working perfectly well. The file contains data from all four radio height systems, which are in agreement with one another. Furthermore, the Ground Proximity Warning and Pull Up signal were both recorded in the file. How can that be explained if the radio height system was not working? We note that PFT was perfectly happy to use the radio height to confirm the “too high to hit the Pentagon” theory when it appeared to do so, while the last five readings were still missing. Quoting PFT: “A radar altimeter presents no lag. The 273 feet you see above is a hard number above the ground.”[7]

4. There hasn’t been any reply confirming a “bug”. Warren had found that the FDR file had not previously been fully decoded because there was a deficiency in the decoding software. Its error checking system was not able to handle a particular type of missing information. He succeeded initially in decoding the final frame by using his own software without this error checking function. Then he inserted the missing information into the file and found the standard software was able to decode the final frame. He has thereby achieved the final decoding in two distinctly different ways, getting the same result. As the radio heights match the observed impact damage it is hard to see how his results could be wrong. It is true that the NTSB has been informed of this software problem and has not yet replied. Does that prove there is no problem with the software they used or that Warren’s decode is flawed?

5. The Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level. Think about this for a moment. The only object near the last radio height recording was the Pentagon itself, 77 feet high. The last height measured was 4 feet. If the plane, descending rapidly, passed close over the Pentagon, where would it have been one second earlier? According to the pressure altimeter, which PFT trusts, it was 59 feet higher. We would therefore expect the radio height there to be 77 + 4 + 59 = 140 feet. It was 57 feet. Was there a building there which was 140 – 57 = 83 feet high? There was no building there at all. How about two seconds earlier? At this point, near the Citgo service station, it was 134 feet higher by the altimeter, 77 + 4 + 134 = 215 feet. It was 89 feet. Was the service station 215 – 89 = 126 feet high? It looks about 12 feet high. This is proof that the final reading is not from the top of the Pentagon.

6. The plane was travelling too fast for the capability of the Radio Height system. Certainly it was travelling faster than the manufacturer’s certified operating speed but to say it was outside the capability of the device is an unfounded assertion. What proof is there of that? It certainly appeared to be operating satisfactorily. In the specific case of the flights which landed normally, the data shows that the pressure altimeter was diverging from the altitude calculated from radio height and ground elevation. This is proof that the pressure altimeter in this plane was giving misleading information even at normal landing speed. Clearly we should not trust the altimeter but there is no evidence to suggest the radio height was flawed.

7. The NTSB data in fact does not support an impact. There may be a grain of logic in the claim the data cannot be relied upon because the supplier cannot be trusted, but there is no logic whatsoever in the claim the data does not support an impact. The pressure altimeter is proven untrustworthy in that particular aircraft and radio height leads inevitably to impact at the level observed, close to the ground. Note, we only say that a divergence is found between radio height and altimeter in the particular aircraft which produced the file. It is indisputable that there is a divergence.

8. Exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757. This is the “shifting the goal posts” argument. Worried that people might be waking up to the fact that the PFT calculation of g-force is grossly wrong, they search for another means to discredit those who say the plane hit the Pentagon. That is a lot of people they set out to discredit. The first falsity in their argument is the assertion that there is no safety margin in the published maximum safe speed data. This is absurd. Can you imagine the scandal that would arise if a pilot inadvertently strayed one or two knots above the stipulated maximum speed and the plane was destroyed! The second falsity is the assumption that the destruction of the plane would be virtually instantaneous. Excessive speed will produce fluttering. Fluttering will cause excessive loads to be imposed in a pulsating manner. This will cause fatigue. Fatigue can cause failure, but it takes time. From the time the plane reached its maximum operating speed until impact was 14 or 15 seconds. Even if there was no safety margin, could the plane be destroyed by fatigue in 15 seconds? The FDR file gives a hint that fluttering occurred but it did not commence until about 4 seconds from impact, suggesting a safety margin exists. We have no way of knowing what was fluttering. There is no proof here that the plane could not have withstood the observed and recorded flight path for the brief period involved.

9. It is littered with speculation and gross errors. Certainly there is some speculation in the paper, as is usual when discussing an intriguing subject. Such speculation is clearly identifiable by context. I do not think the keen student of the 9/11 event would want it removed. There may well be minor errors which we would appreciate having drawn to our attention. The charge of gross errors is another matter. So far I have seen only snide comments, trivial complaints and false assertions, as demonstrated above. I have seen no willingness to engage in civilized debate, as would be appropriate for this very serious matter. There is a complete failure to address their own gross error in calculation of the g-force involved in the final seconds of flight.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: http://stj911.org/

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The Science of 9/11: http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

[2] Farmer, J. Direct links are no longer available. Some people have tried to discredit Farmer’s work because he presented a theory that 2 planes were involved. There appears to be no doubt however that he believed a plane came up Columbia Pike, did the observed damage to the light poles and hit the Pentagon : “The FDR file positional data ends 6 ± 2 seconds prior to the reported impact location.” Quoted in a study by W. Clinger: http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sep...ml#finalseconds

[3] Legge, F. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...nDrLeggeAug.pdf

[4] Sarns, C. http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/

[5] Eye witnesses. One estimate is that there are about 89 published reports of witnesses who state that they saw something hit the Pentagon, many stating that it was a plane.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html. Here is another with 104 saying they saw a plane hit the Pentagon: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentago...evidencesummary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk&feature=fvw

[6] Legge F. and W. Stutt, Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...ltimeter_92.pdf

[7] http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4801
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
IslandPilot
post Jan 25 2011, 08:15 AM
Post #2





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



Consider the Following:

With no identifying information, or "chain of custody" for the "alledged" FDR "data files" recovered "alledgedly" from the scene of the Pentagon "incident", to tie it to ANY "specific" arcraft within the FAA Registration database...

AND:
Without ANY WAY to explain how THOUSANDS of INDESTRUCTABLE airplane parts, many having traceable, SERIAL NUMBER MARKINGS... weighing OVER 200,000 POUNDS, appear to be "missing" from the Pentagon "incident" scene...

AND FURTHER:
Since NONE of the "alledged" aircraft parts, (weighing less than a Piper Cub maybe), that we DO have; (which were not evident on the Pentagon "golf course" lawn, immediately after the "incident"), were never verified as having been installed on, or linked to, ANY specific FAA Registered CIVIL Aircraft...

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE "Alledged FDR DATA" indicates!

IT IS TRASH!!

IT'S THE MOST OUTRAEGOUS NONSENSE IMAGINABLE; and EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to EVERY LICENSED AVAITION MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL working throughout the WORLD.

If we did our JOBS in the same "UNFORGIVEABLE, CRIMINAL, and IRRESPONSIBLE" manner as this "INVESTIGATION" has been conducted... There'd be MAJOR AIRPLANE CRASHES EVERY WEEK!...


and We'd all be rotting in JAILS, after the LICENSES we dedicated our CAREERS to ACHIEVING... were taken AWAY... FOR GOOD!!

WE LIVE BY a "saying" in the AVIATION MAINTENANCE PROFESSION:

"When the WEIGHT of the PAPERWORK EQUALS the WEIGHT of the AIRPLANE, it's in an "AIRWORTHY CONDITION" and "SAFE FOR FLIGHT"...

We are REQUIRED BY LAW to MAKE SURE EVERY SINGLE NUT, BOLT, RIVET, or ANY OTHER PART we install on an FAA CERTIFIED CIVIL AIRCRAFT,...
is an "FAA APPROVED" PART (with a "Birth Certificate or other documentation),...
that it "BELONGS" on that particular AIRCRAFT, ...
and that we have USED FAA APPROVED PROCEDURES and CALIBRATED TOOLS to INSTALL IT,
and then to TEST IT, (if appropriate), to "ensure ITS PROPER OPERATION.....

BEFORE we make MAINTENANCE RECORD ENTRIES, explaining WHAT WE DID,
HOW WE DID IT, What part we took off, and what part we installed,...
including all the Part Numbers, and Serial Numbers....

BEFORE WE SIGN OUR NAMES AND LICENSE NUMBERS to any DOCUMENT...
That allows ANY CIVIL AIRCRAFT to be FLOWN.


NO ONE in the PROFESSIONAL CIVIL AVAITION COMMUNITY: (PILOTS, Mechanics, or Air Traffic Controllers, etc.) takes these RESPONSIBILITIES LIGHTLY!! EVER!

I lived in Wisconsin when I learned to FLY, and all I can say is;

THIS SURE SMELLS LIKE THE SAME STUFF.....

THAT COMES OUT OF THE "SOUTH END"...

OF A "NORTHBOUND" BULL!!
thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 25 2011, 08:27 AM
Post #3





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Well said!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 25 2011, 09:13 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I'll not go into the finer points and leave it to the professionals, but two quotes immediately stood out to me.

QUOTE
The CSV file showed the flight terminating at a point far higher than the Pentagon. Eventually the raw file was decoded and again it appeared to show the flight finished too high.


There's no "appeared" about it. Rob showed that Wstutt's data was still too high and Warren agreed.

QUOTE
Their calculation was shown to be incorrect by several researchers who found various paths were possible..


No,the calculations are sound. They are based on the officially released NTSB data. the Randi kids' "calculations" are based on Stutt's data and "data" that is nowhere to be found on either the FDR or Stutt's unverified program. Recently discussed here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778892

Let's get one thing straight. The directional damage path isn't "variable" or solely based on "data" that they claim has a "margin of error". It's based also on physics and aerodynamics. The alleged damage from lightpoles 1 and 2 through to C Ring is defined at so many levels.

My personal thread on this issue has always had JREFers and alleged OCT supporting "truthers" sticking their fingers in their ears..

The Variable SOC Path Myth

Warren, why not look at the last thread linked to, pass it onto Frank and tell me how you think any "variable path" is physically possible or witness compatible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 25 2011, 09:31 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
[5] Eye witnesses. One estimate is that there are about 89 published reports of witnesses who state that they saw something hit the Pentagon, many stating that it was a plane.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html. Here is another with 104 saying they saw a plane hit the Pentagon:


Suffering sweet Jesus.

Frank? You are officially a disinfo merchant.

Nobody contradicts the NOC path. Nobody supports the SOC path.

Witness List broken down

From Frank's link above...

QUOTE
at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.


How many witnesses are on record as saying they saw lightpoles being "struck"? A debunk of Arabesque's claims.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 25 2011, 09:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 25 2011, 11:21 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Yawn....

At least Warren has the guts to come here and debate the information. Cant say as much for Legge.

I sent this email to Legge, Jones and Ryan last night after being informed of the above "rebuttal".

QUOTE
From: Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:16:44 -0800 (PST)
To: Frank Legge; Steven Jones; Kevin Ryan
ReplyTo: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Subject: Ready for revision 1 yet?

Legge,

I have just been sent your latest BS "rebuttal". Whats the matter, dont want to take me on directly?

Its no surprise you still have yet to sign a real and verified aviation expert to your claims.

Here is the information for your first revision.

FAR Part 23 is for planes like a Cessna 172, an Extra 300, a Beech 1900, not a 757.

It is also not for the full speed range of the aircraft as Wiki has erroneously quoted.

You need to fix your footnote for "Altimeter errors" before you look more a fool.

Then we will teach you about FAR part 25 (Transport Category Aircraft), and Air Data Computers.

Good luck!

Rob

BCC: Core members


What was once their whole foundation for their paper, now Warren claims to be "trivial".

Wow.

So, they've been corrected on CWS for their last paper. They leave it in thinking it's "trivial".

Now they have been corrected on the FAR in their latest paper. If they leave in it, it is further confirmation they are pushing disinformation.

Guys, if this information is so "trivial", why is it in your "Scientific" paper? Why did you source an FAR written for a static system in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172 if your paper is claimed to be "peer-reviewed"?

I'll tell you why, because when you first put it in, you thought it pertinent. Now that you have been corrected by an actual real life pilot, you don't want to look like a fool coming out with revisions. Too late, you look like a fool either way, to any real pilot reading your BS.

Anyone else find it odd that Legge, Ryan, and Steven Jones source Mark Roberts and Mackey when arguing the Pentagon, but fail to source such individuals when arguing the WTC collapse?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 25 2011, 04:44 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Now that I have a bit more time to address this....

QUOTE
1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine. This is an illogical claim as it is the only FDR file available. It is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false?


We have never made such a claim. Matter of fact, i have repeatedly stated on interviews, right here on this forum, and elsewhere that the FDR files are not "proof" of anything. I have told this to Legge each time he has brought up such a strawman. Clearly Legge prefers Tactics Of Truth Suppression.

What we do claim, is that the data provided by the NTSB does not support an impact. This is a factual statement, for either the NTSB decode, or Stutt's "additional" data.

(by the way Legge, there are 3 sets of data released, not 2. A CSV File, an animation reconstruction, and a raw file. You would know this had you read our latest article or did any research whatsoever).

QUOTE
2. The data file is missing crucial information (aircraft ID). Is this true and does it matter? Warren Stutt has files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID in the preamble. Apparently it is not crucial and does not matter.


And Warren has refused to provide such files to anyone. He has been asked numerous times. He wont even tell us which flights they are from. He avoids it at all costs.

More here from an FDR Expert.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793749

QUOTE
3. Radio height marked “not working or unconfirmed”. Apparently it was working perfectly well. The file contains data from all four radio height systems, which are in agreement with one another. Furthermore, the Ground Proximity Warning and Pull Up signal were both recorded in the file. How can that be explained if the radio height system was not working? We note that PFT was perfectly happy to use the radio height to confirm the “too high to hit the Pentagon” theory when it appeared to do so, while the last five readings were still missing. Quoting PFT: “A radar altimeter presents no lag. The 273 feet you see above is a hard number above the ground.”[7]


You will notice we never posted such analysis front page or in any alleged "peer-reviewed" Journal. Due to the fact it is listed as "Not working and Unconfirmed" and operating way outside it's tracking capability. Which is why it is most likely listed as "Not working and unconfirmed".


QUOTE
4. There hasn’t been any reply confirming a “bug”. Warren had found that the FDR file had not previously been fully decoded because there was a deficiency in the decoding software. Its error checking system was not able to handle a particular type of missing information. He succeeded initially in decoding the final frame by using his own software without this error checking function. Then he inserted the missing information into the file and found the standard software was able to decode the final frame. He has thereby achieved the final decoding in two distinctly different ways, getting the same result. As the radio heights match the observed impact damage it is hard to see how his results could be wrong. It is true that the NTSB has been informed of this software problem and has not yet replied. Does that prove there is no problem with the software they used or that Warren’s decode is flawed?


And yet Legge, nor Jones, nor Ryan have ever verified the data being provided by Warren Stutt.

More here from a confirmed FDR Expert.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10792933


QUOTE
5. The Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level. Think about this for a moment. The only object near the last radio height recording was the Pentagon itself, 77 feet high. The last height measured was 4 feet. If the plane, descending rapidly, passed close over the Pentagon, where would it have been one second earlier? According to the pressure altimeter, which PFT trusts, it was 59 feet higher. We would therefore expect the radio height there to be 77 + 4 + 59 = 140 feet. It was 57 feet. Was there a building there which was 140 – 57 = 83 feet high? There was no building there at all. How about two seconds earlier? At this point, near the Citgo service station, it was 134 feet higher by the altimeter, 77 + 4 + 134 = 215 feet. It was 89 feet. Was the service station 215 – 89 = 126 feet high? It looks about 12 feet high. This is proof that the final reading is not from the top of the Pentagon.


Tracking capability of the Radio Altimeter is 330 fps. The data shows more than twice that speed (which is also far beyond the capability of a 757). The processor can in no way determine an accurate figure along those points. Light poles, Rolling terrain, numerous buildings of varying heights, Trees (very tall trees between Annex and Citgo matter of fact), all are along the approach to the Pentagon.

See more here with respect to Tracking Capability.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793650

And an FDR Expert...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793757

If the aircraft flew over the Pentagon, what is offered in the Stutt data is exactly what one would expect to see. A True Altitude higher than RA.. with the RA bouncing off the roof.

Also, the 57 foot RA is too high for poles 1, 2 and 3. All within 1.3 seconds of the Pentagon based on speed.

QUOTE
6. The plane was travelling too fast for the capability of the Radio Height system. Certainly it was travelling faster than the manufacturer’s certified operating speed but to say it was outside the capability of the device is an unfounded assertion. What proof is there of that? It certainly appeared to be operating satisfactorily. In the specific case of the flights which landed normally, the data shows that the pressure altimeter was diverging from the altitude calculated from radio height and ground elevation. This is proof that the pressure altimeter in this plane was giving misleading information even at normal landing speed. Clearly we should not trust the altimeter but there is no evidence to suggest the radio height was flawed.


The "altitude divergence" calculated shows a 50-80' error along the approaches of previous flights. This is about the height of a tree-line and buildings along the approach. Also, Legge and Stutt admit to using an average of their RA data. Did they choose an average of all the highest points? Furthermore, their equation for calculating True Altitude is in question and Stutt refuses to explain their formula used.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793815

Stutt and Legge have yet to provide an output file of the previous flights as well.


QUOTE
7. The NTSB data in fact does not support an impact. There may be a grain of logic in the claim the data cannot be relied upon because the supplier cannot be trusted, but there is no logic whatsoever in the claim the data does not support an impact. The pressure altimeter is proven untrustworthy in that particular aircraft and radio height leads inevitably to impact at the level observed, close to the ground. Note, we only say that a divergence is found between radio height and altimeter in the particular aircraft which produced the file. It is indisputable that there is a divergence.


The major mistake Legge and Stutt make in their paper is that they continually assume the RA is measuring from the ground. This is a major flaw in their theory. RA does not guarantee your height above the ground, this is why it is not required for Instrument flight, Non-Precision and Precision Cat I and Cat II approaches, while a Primary Altimeter is...

If such a "divergence" was observed by pilots on previous flights (and they would NOT miss a 50, 80, or 120' error while on the Glide Slope or VASI), they would have written up the aircraft and the aircraft would have been grounded until fixed. Again, if Legge and Stutt calculations were correct, the aircraft would be slamming into the runway when the pilots thought they were at Decision Height.

See more analysis here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

QUOTE
8. Exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757. This is the “shifting the goal posts” argument. Worried that people might be waking up to the fact that the PFT calculation of g-force is grossly wrong, they search for another means to discredit those who say the plane hit the Pentagon. That is a lot of people they set out to discredit. The first falsity in their argument is the assertion that there is no safety margin in the published maximum safe speed data. This is absurd. Can you imagine the scandal that would arise if a pilot inadvertently strayed one or two knots above the stipulated maximum speed and the plane was destroyed! The second falsity is the assumption that the destruction of the plane would be virtually instantaneous. Excessive speed will produce fluttering. Fluttering will cause excessive loads to be imposed in a pulsating manner. This will cause fatigue. Fatigue can cause failure, but it takes time. From the time the plane reached its maximum operating speed until impact was 14 or 15 seconds. Even if there was no safety margin, could the plane be destroyed by fatigue in 15 seconds? The FDR file gives a hint that fluttering occurred but it did not commence until about 4 seconds from impact, suggesting a safety margin exists. We have no way of knowing what was fluttering. There is no proof here that the plane could not have withstood the observed and recorded flight path for the brief period involved.


Once again the favored argument from ignorance is used. There is no proof Santa Claus doesnt exist either, I suppose Legge still beleives in Santa.

However, there is a lot of evidence that an aircraft cannot achieve such excessive speeds above it's Max operating, remain stable/controllable, or hold together. This is based on precedent, data and numerous verified experts. Legge has yet to provide one shred of evidence for his argument aside from "There is no evidence it is false.. .therefore it must be true".

See more here regarding our evidence.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20969
(By the way Legge, the "Safety Margin" is that yellow caution zone between Vmo and Vd)

Just like there has never been a steel skyscraper to collapse from fire prior to or after 9/11, there has never been an aircraft to exceed it's Vmo by more than 110-150 knots, remain stable or controllable, and/or held together. Let us know when you find one Legge.

QUOTE
9. It is littered with speculation and gross errors. Certainly there is some speculation in the paper, as is usual when discussing an intriguing subject. Such speculation is clearly identifiable by context. I do not think the keen student of the 9/11 event would want it removed. There may well be minor errors which we would appreciate having drawn to our attention. The charge of gross errors is another matter. So far I have seen only snide comments, trivial complaints and false assertions, as demonstrated above. I have seen no willingness to engage in civilized debate, as would be appropriate for this very serious matter. There is a complete failure to address their own gross error in calculation of the g-force involved in the final seconds of flight.


Their whole paper is based on a premise that the Primary Altimeter fed by an Air Data Computer is in error and they source a Federal Aviation Regulation written for a Cessna 172 as their proof that it could happen and is expected.

Unfortunately for Legge, a 757 certified and calibrated with an Air Data Computer removes all position errors. That is why the Airspeed Indicator is not an Indicated Airspeed, but a Calibrated Airspeed on modern jets, and why the VSI is an IVSI. This is also why most modern jets have an AOA Vane as well. I gave these terms to Legge in hopes he would do his research and understand the difference, clearly he hasnt and doesnt.

Hope this clears up any confusion offered by an alleged Chemist.

One must ask themselves, why havent Legge and Stutt been able to get one verified pilot to sign their name to their paper? And if their paper was truly "peer-reviewed", why are they sourcing Federal Aviation Regulations written for a Cessna 172 to support their argument?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 25 2011, 06:11 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE
Unfortunately PFT carried out an incorrect calculation which purported to show that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon, as the wing loading in pulling out of the dive would have been too great. They calculated the force to be 10.14g, far above the plane’s legal limit of 2.5g and well above any reasonable safety margin. Their calculation was shown to be incorrect by several researchers who found various paths were possible, with forces ranging from 1.6g to about 2g, depending on factors such as the assumed height the plane passed above the VDOT antenna tower.[3]

Mr. Legge clearly cites back to himself, although in his text there no g forces calculation is made - he should cite the primary source(s) for his claim - otherwise no real peer-review would allow his claim, especially not in the case it is a "rebuttal" claim. I don't find the P4T calculations incorrect and I would of course like to see if someone soundly proved otherwise. Mr. Legge and Stutt, please provide primary sources, otherwise there is no review of what you actually mean possible and so also no reason for P4T to retract the claim or for others like me, mostly laymans like you, to believe you.

QUOTE
1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine. This is an illogical claim as it is the only FDR file available. It is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false?

How? A contrario. If the FDR file is not genuine, then the official account is false, because i.a. it claims the FDR file IS genuine (although actually not supported by any direct proof, which would be easy to provide e.g. by crosschecking the FDR's serial number with the maintenance books of N644AA).

QUOTE
2. The data file is missing crucial information (aircraft ID). Is this true and does it matter? Warren Stutt has files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID in the preamble. Apparently it is not crucial and does not matter.

Mr. Stutt provide please the "files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID".

QUOTE
3. Radio height marked “not working or unconfirmed”. Apparently it was working perfectly well. The file contains data from all four radio height systems, which are in agreement with one another. Furthermore, the Ground Proximity Warning and Pull Up signal were both recorded in the file.

This is tautology. If the radio height instrument would work uncorrectly due to the speed too high, way above the certified speed range of the instrument, it would most probably activate GPW, but it doesn't actually say nothing about whether the indicated radio height corresponded to reality or not. And it is highly dubious it would do correspond -given the slopy terrain and the "forest" of obstacles the plane was flying above between VDOT and 5gon, way above the Vne. So the "unconfirmed" status is pertinent, because the instrument was confirmingly way outside its certified operation envelope.

QUOTE
How can that be explained if the radio height system was not working?

The question is not whether it was working or not (a strawman), but whether it worked correctly or not. Clearly, we can doubt it.

QUOTE
5. The Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level. Think about this for a moment. The only object near the last radio height recording was the Pentagon itself, 77 feet high. The last height measured was 4 feet. If the plane, descending rapidly, passed close over the Pentagon, where would it have been one second earlier? According to the pressure altimeter, which PFT trusts, it was 59 feet higher. We would therefore expect the radio height there to be 77 + 4 + 59 = 140 feet. It was 57 feet. Was there a building there which was 140 – 57 = 83 feet high?

Why a building? Why not a fireball, a smoke plume, radio height instrument measuring bad outside its operation envelope... Who knows? dunno.gif

QUOTE
There was no building there at all. How about two seconds earlier? At this point, near the Citgo service station, it was 134 feet higher by the altimeter, 77 + 4 + 134 = 215 feet. It was 89 feet. Was the service station 215 – 89 = 126 feet high? It looks about 12 feet high. This is proof that the final reading is not from the top of the Pentagon.

What is the proof it was measured exactly above the Citgo at your given moment? Can you somehow provide such a positioning proof from the FDR? Or is it a pure speculation given the sloping terrain all the way up to the NAVY ANNEX?

QUOTE
It certainly appeared to be operating satisfactorily. In the specific case of the flights which landed normally, the data shows that the pressure altimeter was diverging from the altitude calculated from radio height and ground elevation. This is proof that the pressure altimeter in this plane was giving misleading information even at normal landing speed. Clearly we should not trust the altimeter but there is no evidence to suggest the radio height was flawed.

Logical fallacy. Was the plane in the previous flights landing at the speeds well above Vne? (to be sure even then the radio height worked well?)

QUOTE
Worried that people might be waking up to the fact that the PFT calculation of g-force is grossly wrong, they search for another means to discredit those who say the plane hit the Pentagon.

Again, please provide the primary source(s), where it is soundly proven P4T calculation of g-force is "grossly wrong".

QUOTE
That is a lot of people they set out to discredit. The first falsity in their argument is the assertion that there is no safety margin in the published maximum safe speed data. This is absurd. Can you imagine the scandal that would arise if a pilot inadvertently strayed one or two knots above the stipulated maximum speed and the plane was destroyed! The second falsity is the assumption that the destruction of the plane would be virtually instantaneous. Excessive speed will produce fluttering. Fluttering will cause excessive loads to be imposed in a pulsating manner. This will cause fatigue. Fatigue can cause failure, but it takes time.

Mr. Legge and Stutt switching to mingle two questions together. Indeed, the g-force calculated by P4T for the alleged leveling (also seen in the DoD videos and supported by the knocked down lightpoles - which suprisingly nobody actually have seen to happen according to CIT - if I understand them well) would most probably lead to instantaneous destruction of the plane's airframe (of any commercial B757, not speaking the 10.14g you cite would inevitably lead to unconsciousness of anybody onboard - so who would pull up the precise leveling? - even if it would be possible with a B757, which even remotely isn't, so it never happened...) and it would have rather nothing to do with a flutter.

QUOTE
There is a complete failure to address their own gross error in calculation of the g-force involved in the final seconds of flight.

Why to address it when you don't provide any primary souces for your claim of "gross error in calculation of the g-force"? Mr. Legge and Stutt, please, what exactly you want to be addressed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 25 2011, 06:35 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 25 2011, 06:11 PM) *
Again, please provide the primary source(s), where it is soundly proven P4T calculation of g-force is "grossly wrong".


Legge's claims our calculations are wrong based on his admitted use of 10th grade physics and math.

If the aircraft was a baseball, a car.. .whatever.. Legge would be correct that our calculations are wrong.

But we take into consideration Angle of Attack which changes the radius of the pull-up in order to be level across the lawn (which it must be because there is no foundation damage).

Neither of our calculations are "precise", but ours is closer to "reality" as we take into consideration Aerodynamics. Legge does not.


Legge, Clinger, Mackey and others of the same type, also use a claim that we refuse to acknowledge a possible path. Once again, they use a strawman.

Of course, all this was explained to Legge numerous times in the past, but he ignores it and just keeps regurgitating his garbage.

I also explained to Legge anyone can tweak the G Force calculations to their bias, but what remains is actual limits set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing.



Reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Legge thinks this is "moving the goal posts". It's not. It's called looking at the big picture and the bottom line.

The bottom line is that there has never been an aircraft to exceed it's Vmo by such a wide margin and remain controllable/stable and/or held together.

Now Legge thinks there is a "Safety Margin" above Vd. Well, no, there isnt. It is a hard limit and corroborated by precedent.

The Safety Margin is the Yellow Caution Zone between Vmo and Vd.

Pilots are not taught Vd on Jets (for the most part), nor are they given it's limits because they shouldnt be anywhere near it. There is no "double" safety margin as Legge is attempting to make others believe.


Also, Legge has another problem. Va.

Va is Maneuvering speed. Any speed below this limit and abrupt control surface deflection will not cause any damage or failure. and will only cause at the most, a stall. Anything above Va, and you can cause structural failure with abrupt control surface movement.

An excellent example of this is American Airlines Flight 587.



According to reports, it lost it's vertical stabilizer because of abrupt movement of the control surface (the rudder) by the pilot trying to re-stabilize the aircraft after a wake turbulence upset... and this was at departure speeds well below Vmo.

Va/Vra for the 757 is around 280 knots depending on weight.

And then we have this type of control surface movement at more than 150 knots above Va/Vra.

(From Legge's paper)



There is just no way that airplane should have held together if it were a standard 757.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 25 2011, 07:40 PM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 25 2011, 12:35 PM) *
Legge's claims our calculations are wrong based on his admitted use of 10th grade physics and math.

If the aircraft was a baseball, a car.. .whatever.. Legge would be correct that our calculations are wrong.

But we take into consideration Angle of Attack which changes the radius of the pull-up in order to be level across the lawn (which it must be because there is no foundation damage).

Neither of our calculations are "precise", but ours is closer to "reality" as we take into consideration Aerodynamics. Legge does not.

Yeah, I understand a calculation of the g-loads for something like B757, not a ball in a vacuum, is quite untrivial, although quite decisive for question whether the maneuvre was or wasn't possible. (that's why I thought it would be good to make the calculation also for the "UA175", which was flying even faster and violently banking and leveling too, clearly not fitting anywhere into the B767 V-G Diagram - even if it would not do any abrupt maneuvers at all - that's why I first wanted the trajectory 3D simulation from the achimspok - to asses the g-loads like in the case of "AA77")

QUOTE
The bottom line is that there has never been an aircraft to exceed it's Vmo by such a wide margin and remain controllable/stable and/or held together.

Now Legge thinks there is a "Safety Margin" above Vd. Well, no, there isnt. It is a hard limit and corroborated by precedent.

This his assumption of the safety margin way above Vd is quite funny - and he accuses others they speculate and have gross errors... rolleyes.gif
QUOTE
Va is Maneuvering speed. Any speed below this limit and abrupt control surface deflection will not cause any damage or failure. and will only cause at the most, a stall. Anything above Va, and you can cause structural failure with abrupt control surface movement.
...
Va/Vra for the 757 is around 280 knots depending on weight.

And then we have this type of control surface movement at more than 150 knots above Va/Vra.

So it shows also the diagram and shows to me quite clearly that abrupt maneuvers (as the leveling would be) at 150 kt above Va is not even in the diagram.
What was the speed estimation of the "AA77" just before the alleged precise leveling derived from FDR again? I remember I was trying to calculate the speeds once from 84Rades and it somehow "grossly" didn't correspond with the way above Vd high speeds, but I'm not much sure about it, because I'm not very sure about the distances measured in GE.
QUOTE
There is just no way that airplane should have held together if it were a standard 757.

Looks very much like that to me too.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 25 2011, 07:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 25 2011, 08:08 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 25 2011, 07:40 PM) *
Yeah, I understand a calculation of the g-loads for something like B757, not a ball in a vacuum, is quite untrivial, although quite decisive for question whether the maneuvre was or wasn't possible. (that's why I thought it would be good to make the calculation also for the "UA175", which was flying even faster and violently banking and leveling too, clearly not fitting anywhere into the B767 V-G Diagram - even if it would not do any abrupt maneuvers at all - that's why I first wanted the trajectory 3D simulation from the achimspok - to asses the g-loads like in the case of "AA77")


I actually made these calculations for "9/11: World Trade Center Attack", but cut them from the film as it was already technical enough. I have them on the forum somewhere, but it's been awhile so dont remember where they are.. search if you like,, i think they are here in the debate section. If i recall correctly, the G loads were somewhere around 2.5-3 G for the aircraft which impacted the South Tower coming out of the 10,000 foot dive into the turn to line up with the South Tower.... according to radar.

This also presents a Human Factor issue as A-LOC onset can become a problem. A-LOC (greyout) can occur at 2-3 G's for someone not experienced in maneuvering at G loads or Anti-G Straining Maneuvers (AGSM). An uncle of a good friend lost it due to A-LOC in a Raptor at Mach 2 according to reports... (although there is some controversy there as well).

Rolling on G's also presents a MAJOR problem as the G load limits of the airframe are dramatically reduced while rolling (banking) on G's.


QUOTE
This his assumption of the safety margin way above Vd is quite funny


Yeah, Legge doesnt have a clue regarding anything aviation related. And yet they call their paper "peer-reviewed". By who? Another Chemist?

QUOTE
What was the speed estimation of the "AA77" just before the alleged precise leveling derived from FDR again?


Around 450-470 knots depending on which source you use, NTSB or Warren.

There's just no way a standard 757 could perform or survive at such excessive speeds while rolling on G's with abrupt control wheel deflection well outside its flight envelope.

If Legge wants to believe an aircraft hit the Pentagon.. fine.. but he will never get any pilot to believe (or put their name to it).. after reviewing all the data.... that it was a standard 757 controlled by a "Hijacker" (aided by a govt re-installation of CWS rolleyes.gif ), who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 25 2011, 10:41 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 25 2011, 02:08 PM) *
I actually made these calculations for "9/11: World Trade Center Attack", but cut them from the film as it was already technical enough. I have them on the forum somewhere, but it's been awhile so dont remember where they are.. search if you like,, i think they are here in the debate section. If i recall correctly, the G loads were somewhere around 2.5-3 G.

I hope I'll find it.
QUOTE
This also presents a Human Factor issue as A-LOC onset can become a problem. A-LOC (greyout) can occur at 2-3 G's for someone not experienced in maneuvering at G loads or Anti-G Straining Maneuvers (AGSM). An uncle of a good friend lost it due to A-LOC in a Raptor at Mach 2 according to reports... (although there is some controversy there as well).

I think also it could be a problem, not just for rookie pilots flying a jet for the first time.
QUOTE
Rolling on G's also presents a MAJOR problem as the G load limits of the airframe are dramatically reduced while rolling (banking) on G's.

Yes, I can imagine it quite well - even I don't write the "peer-reviewed" "rebuttal" articles aimed against aviation professionals about special aviation problems, being a chemist rolleyes.gif (or whatever).
QUOTE
There's just no way a standard 757 could perform or survive at such excessive speeds while rolling on G's with abrupt control wheel deflection well outside its flight envelope.

If Legge wants to believe an aircraft hit the Pentagon.. fine.. but he will never get any pilot to believe (or put their name to it).. after reviewing all the data.... that it was a standard 757 controlled by a "Hijacker" (aided by a govt re-installation of CWS rolleyes.gif ), who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots.

I don't know if an aircraft hit the Pentagon, I wasn't there to observe, but I still can't imagine how the allegedly by arabs hijacked N644AA would get there to hit at the "4ft"above ground - given the limitations of B757, given the US airdefense, given the alleged pilot skills, given the alleged surprising circling before the hit, given the intricate terrain between VDOT and 5gon, given the CIT witnesses accounts, given the alleged knocked down lightpoles (many people take it like a proof the plane hit the 5gon - but what would happen to a B757 flying way above Vd, just trying to abruptly level up when encountering 5 lightpoles in the way?), given the alleged vector and extent of 5gon dammage, and taking into account the size of the fireball&duration of fires&the alleged amount of jetfuel, the udisclosed FDR serial and chain of custody&undisclosed serials of any of the plane parts and where they are&allegedly destroyed CVR, the impossibility to distinguish a B757 in the DoD videos or to find all the engines and the landing gears in the exhibits....... dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 25 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I dont know what happened at the Pentagon either, that is what we're trying to find out.

What we do know is that there is a mountain of evidence which conflicts with the govt story. Evidence which is all admissible in a court of law, if a Judge would be willing to review it.

Some want to ignore it.

Some are claiming "nothing to see here folks... move along.. come see our theories.. ours is better...".

Some attack it, viciously like a rabid dog.

We want answers. That is why our core member list grows with real and verified pilots after reviewing all the data.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 8 2011, 09:12 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Just consolidating further rebuttals to the Legge/Stutt "paper". I have also changed the title of the thread to better reflect what is posted here.

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159

Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793061

Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793501
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 19 2011, 09:36 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



i've been getting a few inquiries with respect to the above so i decided to bump and pin this thread to make it easier for those needing the information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 22 2011, 08:40 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 25 2011, 05:44 PM) *
QUOTE (Frank Legge)
1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine. This is an illogical claim as it is the only FDR file available. It is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false?


We have never made such a claim. Matter of fact, i have repeatedly stated on interviews, right here on this forum, and elsewhere that the FDR files are not "proof" of anything. I have told this to Legge each time he has brought up such a strawman. Clearly Legge prefers Tactics Of Truth Suppression.

What we do claim, is that the data provided by the NTSB does not support an impact. This is a factual statement, for either the NTSB decode, or Stutt's "additional" data.



I have been informed Frank Legge is attempting to use his above strawman argument repeatedly, so I went ahead to search for some sources to support my statement above for easier reference.

Dec 2006
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...t&p=6733591

Dec 2009
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780888

And of course we also published articles to supplement the above statements.

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

Aircraft Departure Gate Positional Data Conflicts With Government Story
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/aa77-gate-position.html

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

Our statement remains the same today as it did in 2006.

The FDR data does not support the govt story in many significant ways including but not limited to "AA77" impact with the Pentagon, nor is there any evidence linking the data to "AA77", N644AA. When contacted, the NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

Bottom line, we can be called to the stand in a REAL court of law when the time comes as we can be sworn in as expert witnesses on this topic. Legge, et al will be laughed off the stand.

Seems Legge is spending quite a considerable amount of time attempting to prove the govt story, attacking our work with strawmans and misleading statements, while attempting to influence "Leaders" of the "Movement". It's not working Legge. You only further diminish your own credibility in the eyes of real and verified aviation professionals and others who take the time to consult with us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 14 2011, 02:37 PM
Post #17





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 19 2011, 08:09 AM) *
<snip>
Warren, when are you going to address the numerous errors in your paper and answer the questions I put forth to you? Why do you avoid this?

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

My calculations give higher true altitudes than the ones you posted. Here are the true altitudes as I calculate them:


Unfortunately, I can't check your true altitudes because you did not state what altimeter settings and temperatures you used.

QUOTE
If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490
In my opinion, the true altitudes I calculated are not necessarily the ones displayed to the pilots and this is why I found an altitude divergence while pilots do not experience this problem. In my opinion the pressure altitudes are raw data which is corrected by the Flight Data Computer using not only the altimeter setting and temperature, but other factors as well. Therefore where you calculate a true altitude of 174 feet at the end of the flight in this post, the altitude displayed to the pilot would be less than that, since that true altitude calculation has been corrected only for altimeter setting and temperature and not the other factors that the Flight Data Computer also corrects for.

QUOTE
Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159
OK, I agree a radio altitude system that only looks down from the aircraft is useless in detecting that the aircraft is about to fly in to a vertical cliff. According to Wikipedia there is now EGPWS/TAWS systems that resolve this issue:

Traditional GPWS does have a blind spot. Since it can only gather data from directly below the aircraft, it must predict future terrain features. If there is a dramatic change in terrain, such as a steep slope, GPWS will not detect the aircraft closure rate until it is too late for evasive action.

In the late 1990s improvements were made and the system was renamed "Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System" (EGPWS/TAWS). The system was now combined with a worldwide digital terrain database and relies on Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. On-board computers compared its current location with a database of the Earth's terrain. The Terrain Display now gave pilots a visual orientation to high and low points nearby the aircraft.

EGPWS software improvements were focused on solving two common problems; no warning at all, and late or improper response.

QUOTE
Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793061

<snip>
OK, so the NTSB Impact time was 09:37:45 not 09:37:44 as stated in the paper. This does not affect the paper's conclusions.

I have now addressed all your points so we can return to discussing ACARS.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 15 2011, 01:48 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Well well well... it only took you what, nearly a year and being forced to answer, that you now are able to come up with something? Congrats Warren! Thanks for taking the time to address these issues. Now lets see why it took you so long....

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 14 2011, 02:37 PM) *
My calculations give higher true altitudes than the ones you posted. Here are the true altitudes as I calculate them:

<snip>

Unfortunately, I can't check your true altitudes because you did not state what altimeter settings and temperatures you used.


I used the Baro Cor column altimeter settings you provided and this...
http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.aspx

Your calculations are wrong.

However, for arguments sake... lets say your calculations are accurate... .even your own calculations do not merit the 50-120+ foot "altitude divergence" "...increasing as the plane descends" claimed in your paper.

Your own calculations are 10-20 foot difference when compared to TDZE+RA.

Are you willing to concede that the "altitude divergence"... "Thus even at normal speeds a significant error, increasing as the plane descends, is consistently found." claimed in your paper is...

1. Wrong

and ...

2. due to the fact that the RA is measuring from an object higher than the ground during the approach?



QUOTE
In my opinion, the true altitudes I calculated are not necessarily the ones displayed to the pilots and this is why I found an altitude divergence while pilots do not experience this problem. In my opinion the pressure altitudes are raw data which is corrected by the Flight Data Computer using not only the altimeter setting and temperature, but other factors as well. Therefore where you calculate a true altitude of 174 feet at the end of the flight in this post, the altitude displayed to the pilot would be less than that, since that true altitude calculation has been corrected only for altimeter setting and temperature and not the other factors that the Flight Data Computer also corrects for.


"Other factors"? What other factors Warren? Why do you just make stuff up?

The altitude read by pilots on the altimeter is the height above sea level when adjusted for local pressure using the Kollsman window. This is known as True Altitude. Period. If the local pressure is 29.92, True Altitude equals Pressure altitude. Period.

The only benefit the pilots have when advancing to a more sophisticated jet, is that the Air Data Computer (ADC... there is no such thing as a "Flight Data Computer") removes any possible lag and error found in smaller cockpits such as a 172. Unfortunately for you, this doesn't help your theory as the FDR gets it's data from the ADC, just like the pilots. The FDR doesn't have it's own separate static system...lol. Although some have tried to use the "lag" excuse... but failed miserably.

Just like the pilots have to adjust their altimeters to local pressure to get a True Altitude readout, we have to adjust the FDR Data to determine the same True Altitude.

Adjusting Pressure altitude to determine True altitude is straight forward, unambiguous and taught to every student pilot on this planet.

Click and learn.

Not only does your opinion mean nothing, especially considering the fact that you admit you have no experience whatsoever in aviation. but your opinion is wrong. Stop making shit up to suit your theories.

QUOTE
OK, I agree a radio altitude system that only looks down from the aircraft is useless in detecting that the aircraft is about to fly in to a vertical cliff.


"Vertical cliff"? Did I calculate 90 degrees based on your theory? No Warren, I didn't. There isn't a GPWS in this world which will warn you if you are about to hit a 90 degree brick wall from level flight. EGPWS does have a terrain database, yes, but it doesn't map buildings and obstacles in front of the flight path.

According to your theory regarding Radio Altimeter Tracking capability, the terrain will 'outrun' the Radio Altimeter capabilities on a mere 27 degree slope. This is far less than a "vertical cliff".

Considering all the buildings and obstacles on the approach to the Pentagon, and the 90 degree sides of those obstacles, if your theory were correct, the RA would be FAR behind the airplane. Your theory weakens your argument.

"Vertical cliff"? Why are you so intellectually dishonest? Are you able to concede that your theory is wrong? This is where practical experience trumps your admitted amateur "opinion".

QUOTE
OK, so the NTSB Impact time was 09:37:45 not 09:37:44 as stated in the paper. This does not affect the paper's conclusions.


It demonstrates your lack of attention to detail.

So, now that you have conceded you have two inaccurate issues within your 'paper', the NTSB impact time, and the incorrect FAR, when are you going to fix them? It's been nearly a year Warren that you've known and admitted these inaccuracies reside in your 'paper' while you have failed to correct. This is, by definition, disinformation. You are pushing disinformation Warren.

I know, you hand waive such disinformation as "trivial". Well, in my opinion, your whole 'paper' is trivial as it is mostly wrong.


QUOTE
I have now addressed all your points....


No you haven't Warren. You have much more work to do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 15 2011, 04:22 AM
Post #19





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 20 2011, 07:48 AM) *
<snip>

No you haven't Warren. You have much more work to do.
Rob,

We could go on and on and on like this. Just as I suspected, this was just a delaying and diversion tactic in discussing ACARS.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 15 2011, 04:33 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 15 2011, 04:22 AM) *
Rob,

We could go on and on and on like this. Just as I suspected, this was just a delaying and diversion tactic in discussing ACARS.

Warren.


Warren, discussing ACARS is your diversion tactic to not correct the confirmed disinformation in your 'paper'.

Why should I let you spread more?

Answer the questions Warren.

Then we will discuss your inaccurate points on ACARS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this 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: 21st December 2014 - 04:37 PM