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 )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11gate, "AA77" FDR numerology

tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 24 2011, 02:37 AM
Post #1





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



I was looking into the "AA77" FDR record to find out how the Lat/Lon coordinates were shifted by Mr. Stutt and Legge to get the plane on the runway. So I've chosen the map closest to 2001 and I've plotted the last "AA77" landing, taxiing in, standing at the gate, taxiing out and the last takeoff:


(The numbers are numbers of subframes in the FDR and they can also serve as a timing, because their step is one second. So for example when you've frame number 145840 and frame number 145860 it means they're 20 seconds from each other. Only point when it is interrupted is when the plane stands, then the FDR is not recording - in our case at the subframe count 146180. The needed data were provided to me by Mr. Warren Stutt)

Everybody sees at the situation picture that the coordinates taken from the FDR are off.
How much off they are?
I was looking what a reference I can find for landing and I've found the point where the plane sharply turned from the runway to the taxi circuit.

From the logic of the landing, the overal visible shift and the trajectory pattern is absolutely clear where it was:


Then I've got a strange idea and I've decided to measure the distance and angle to the position where the plane quite clearly parked to and departed from the gate:


From the distance number is clear that we keep up with the perps at least numerologically... rolleyes.gif

Let's have a break and have a look what number had the gate where the "AA77" was boarded and departed. We easily find it in the Wikipedia:

"The flight boarded through Gate D26, in Midfueld Concourse D at Dulles."


or here:

"In 2001, American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, left gate D26 at Dulles en route to Los Angeles International Airport, but it was hijacked and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon as part of the September 11 attacks."


Let's yet have look into govt. documents...yep, it is there (page 29):

"Flight 77 pushed back from Dulles Gate D-26 at 8:09 A.M."


Boring. Let's go back to our little petty plots.

Now we need to measure the same distance and the same angle from the point where the plane sharply turned to the taxi circuit:


And where the line ends?
Here:


Lets look what number the gate has:

SOURCE

It's not completely clear what a number the gate has - we have there two gates:
9 and 11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 24 2011, 04:03 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



Hmmm... interesting.

Must be a "magnetic declination" error. /sarcasm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 24 2011, 06:45 AM
Post #3





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 23 2011, 09:03 PM) *
Hmmm... interesting.

Must be a "magnetic declination" error. /sarcasm

rolleyes.gif

What is I think very important is that according to FDR the plane departed from the gate 9/11 at ~12:12:29UTC (FDR timestamp, which we now know it should be quite exact) -not at 8:09EDT as is stated in the official records about "AA77".

I wonder what happened to the passengers who boarded the plane at D26.
There is IAD radar which should see D26 very well. So I think I should look into it around the 8:09 to range around 0.82 and true azimut 148 and find out where the plane taxies and where it takes off and then track it in the 84Rades where it goes -if it is there, because the grounding order was almost 2 hours later, so the plane most probably could very well be already out of range somewhere far west if it was bound to LAX.
A bit problem is I have the IAD data only beginning 8:10, so it could be a bit drag.
As I briefly look into the IAD data I see there unsquawking plane taxiing on the southwards taxi way (range 0.88 DEG 166) as our FDR plane did, but already at 12:10:02.965UTC (when our FDR plane was still at the gate) and later, but I have no means to find out if it really departed from D26.
Maybe Mr. Farmer has earlier data? dunno.gif
I need just a minute or two of the earlier data, otherwise it would be quite a guess job.
In 84Rades I indeed see a plane taking off from our runway just before our plane at ~12:16-17UTC which is westbound M3 7020, after flying shortly southwards, it returns northwards and appears to fly westwards in the same corridor as our FDR plane just in front of it and then turns a bit southwards before it disappears from the radar. From the speed and altitude it is most probably a commercial jet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



Nice sleuthing Jan!

I don't know if this is any help but there were a collection of FBI interviews done with staff at Dulles Airport and Gate D26 is referenced several times.


2 people who were at the gate (presumably D26) Villaseñor and Wendy Lnu (flight attendant collecting boarding passes for "Flight 77" passengers.

http://i56.tinypic.com/efurb.jpg

One alleged passenger checked in but didn't arrive at gate?

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...aa1c970/000.jpg

D26

- Flight 77 was not rechecked (normal procedure preflight) due to an "accident" with one of the trailers that ususally pushes aircraft out from gate.

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...a92b5d0/000.jpg

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...6a07647/000.jpg

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...c89ca58/000.jpg

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...91aabaf/000.jpg


"Squawk" ACARS message (weird)

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...76edd21/000.jpg

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...288c8bc/000.jpg

"Flight 77" pilot fired engines up too quickly (before ground crew were at a safe distance) and noted how the pilot didn't acknowledge or "wave" as was the "norm"

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...e5050ec/000.jpg


Apparently "Flight 77" left from Gate D26 but there was no pre-flight check due to a "coincidental accident" involving the truck that pulls aircraft from the gates, no communication with ground staff, late boarding and a "passenger" who missed the flight.

Hope it's of some use mate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trimble
post Feb 24 2011, 12:19 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



911 weirdness and "coincidence" (quite aside from the contradiction you highlight with the official account) seems to be everywhere, and this is yet another thing to add to the list. Good stuff tume.

This post has been edited by trimble: Feb 24 2011, 12:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 24 2011, 01:34 PM
Post #6





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



Another weird thing is that the IAD radar record doesn't contain any squawk 6653 throughout the whole record, although the 84Rades looks like there is the 6653 squawk quite consistently, read by multiple NEADS radars very soon after the departure, the PLA radar appears to be able to read the plane already at MC100.
From the brief inspection of the closest radar data there are two unidentified planes at the IAD record taking off ~4 minutes one after other from the same runway. For the first of the two, taking off slightly after 12:16 UTC I can't confirm it pushed from gate 26, because the IAD data start at 12:10 UTC, but for the second it very much appears it departed from the northern area of the Concourse D, likely the gates 9 or 11 and at the time close to the time recorded in the FDR and definitely not at 8:09, but 3 to 4 minutes later.
So it very much looks like it is not the plane which departed at 8:09 and also not the plane which would board at gate D26. Yet it is most probably the plane where the "AA77" FDR record belongs to. There are at least 3 radars (PLA, GIB, IAD) + FDR which seem to corroborate this conclusion.

Now. If there are witness accounts from the people who claim they were around when the "AA77" was boarded at the Gate 26, including a FBI wittness of boarding Salem Alhazmi and Nawaf Alhazmi to the plane at Gate 26D. Then this alleged "hijackers" look like ruled-out from hijacking the plane which subsequently turned back to east and allegedly crashed into the Pentagon -if we should believe the FDR and the radar records are genuine.
We should ask what plane was boarded around 8AM EDT at the gate 9 or 11, if any, what type of the plane it was (the FDR contains records showing the plane was "B757-200 RR"), how many passengers, if any, and crew it carried, where it was bound, what carrier, etc.
I think The FAA and NTSB should be able to unequivocaly answer this questions.
I think I must not emphasize there's till this days no taxi out and wheels/off record for any of this two planes in the BTS database whatsoever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2011, 03:36 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



Jan, do you know if an FDR should show receipt of an ACARS message?

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...76edd21/000.jpg

QUOTE
"Robinson sent Flight 77 an ACARS message that ATC wanted them on a certain frequency; however there was no acknowledgement to this message. ACARS was a text messaging system and another means of communication with the cockpit."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Feb 24 2011, 05:45 PM
Post #8





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Jan - amazing work. It takes a fair investment of time and concentration to follow the argument and the evidence you offer, but it is worth it. At some point, I think it would be a real contribution to do an annotated summary to allow the average person to get the "summation for the jury" version that refers back to your calculations. I had to go through it about three times and I am not certain that I understand it well enough to explain it to someone else or to really grasp all its implications.

Just a suggestion. Again thanks for putting in the work to write it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 24 2011, 06:02 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (maturin42 @ Feb 24 2011, 05:45 PM) *
I had to go through it about three times and I am not certain that I understand it well enough to explain it to someone else or to really grasp all its implications.



Basically the above analysis shows that when the FDR lat/long is corrected for INS drift, it shows that the FDR positional data has the aircraft departing from a gate which conflicts with official reports.


The INS drift is a whole other issue as well. "Debunkers" know that such a large error is present in all flights, but they dont seem to apply the same error correction at the end of data. If they did, the aircraft would show North of Citgo.

More here regarding INS.

Claim 2.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 24 2011, 09:32 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Assuming all the numbers are accurate and correct, what is the point--that the plane never departed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 25 2011, 03:32 AM) *
Assuming all the numbers are accurate and correct, what is the point--that the plane never departed?


I think it's more to do with the FDR not adding up from start to finish.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 24 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #12





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 24 2011, 02:32 PM) *
Assuming all the numbers are accurate and correct, what is the point--that the plane never departed?

The point is the opposite:
There it very much looks like there were two planes they departed, all the radars seem to show it quite inadvertently, one from gate D26, the other from the gates 9 or 11.
The plane which departed the gate 9 or 11 at ~12:12:29 UTC very much like seems to have beared our FDR unlike the other plane considered by the OCT.
For those don't believing this is true I encourage them to take the data I've linked in the original post, to plot them and make own conclusions
I very much doubt they'll be other than I did, because a data pattern is something, which hardly can be tweaked.
When I look on the numbers which resulted, I in fact think somebody is seriously kidding us
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 25 2011, 09:12 AM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I think we have some circumstantial evidence that 2 Flight 175 departed BOS, and now we have similar evidence that 2 Flight 77 departed IAD, or so it seems. Perhaps a pattern?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Feb 25 2011, 07:49 PM
Post #14





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



I have difficulty understanding many of tume's recent posts. I like to look at all the aerial position maps and charts, but I don't know what it all "means" or how "important" is it really?
I agree with what maturin42 said: handsdown.gif
QUOTE
Posted Yesterday, 05:45 PM
Jan - amazing work. It takes a fair investment of time and concentration to follow the argument and the evidence you offer, but it is worth it. At some point, I think it would be a real contribution to do an annotated summary to allow the average person to get the "summation for the jury" version that refers back to your calculations. I had to go through it about three times and I am not certain that I understand it well enough to explain it to someone else or to really grasp all its implications.

Just a suggestion. Again thanks for putting in the work to write it.

Then Rob gives us some helpful info: handsdown.gif
QUOTE
Basically the above analysis shows that when the FDR lat/long is corrected for INS drift, it shows that the FDR positional data has the aircraft departing from a gate which conflicts with official reports.

And the subsequent discussion by amazed! OSS and tume have me "convinced" that tume is really "On to Something"? Somehow the "discrepancies" in where the FDR data ENDED seemed "inclusive" to me.

But the analysis that tume now brings to light about the "time and distance offset" discrepancies at the BEGINNING of the FDR data, to determine the "FDR Plane's" departure gate.... is AWESOME! thumbsup.gif

And now he's looking for "duplicate" flights from the "multiple departure gates" of AA 77. He's like a BLOODHOUND tracking the trail of an escaped convict....
now he has PICKED UP THE SCENT, and he is HOT ON THE TRAIL...
I can almost hear him HOWLING from here!

Keep up the GOOD WORK tume, and you'll chase the Bad Guys up a tree in NO TIME! thumbsup.gif salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Feb 25 2011, 09:02 PM
Post #15





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



WAIT A MINUTE! Let me see if I have this "straight".

The FDR that was "alledgedly" recovered from the "alledged" aircraft that "alledgedly" crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, contained "recorded" data indicating that it DID NOT DEPART from GATE D26!

wall.gif

Real People Boarded American flight 77 from either Gate D26 or Gate D32 on 9/11. They NEVER were seen again after that. The government claims to have "identified" their "remains" from "DNA" samples taken from the Pentagon site.

This of course would be IMPOSSIBLE, because Tume's analysis of the "official" government data shows that the FDR recovered from the Pentagon DID NOT DEPART from either Gate D26 or Gate D32.

I realize there is no verifiable connection between the FDR data and a "specific" aircraft as there "should be". But, there is definately a BIG DISCREPANCY in the Government Provided "FACTS"
that AA 77 struck the Pentagon,
that it departed from GATE D26,
that the FDR data recovered from the Pentagon "proves" that it struck the Pentagon,
and the people inside the airplane DIED in the CRASH AT THE PENTAGON! bullshit.gif

BUT:
The FDR data supplied by the Government;
indicates a "departure" from either Gate D9 or Gate D11, and NOT GATE D26
and also an "overflight" of the Pentagon at an altitude too high to fly into it.

So what REALLY HAPPENED to the passengers who DID DEPART Gate D26 on AA77? Where did THEY GO, and WHO KILLED THEM? angry.gif angry.gif

And DON'T expect ME TO BELIEVE that TWO airplanes struck the PentaCON on 9/11....
AA77 knocked down the light poles on the SOC route....
and the flight that departed from Gate D9 or D11 took the NOC route...
THAT's the STUFF that comes outta the SOUTH end of a Northbound BULL... bullshit.gif
And I ain't gonna BUY IT!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Feb 25 2011, 11:49 PM
Post #16





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Islandpilot has quite a stew going there - bubbling away. Now stir in one giant portion of CIT and a North of the Citgo flight path, add a few drops of Roosevelt Roberts seeing the jet flying away, and Lloyde "coming across the highway together" with someone, then simmer over the fact that a plane that does not crash into the Pentagon cannot possibly leave a battered FDR in the wreckage - well, that is something to sink your teeth into. All we need to do is turn up the heat. protest.gif

Stay on the trail, Tume! handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 26 2011, 05:48 AM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Feb 25 2011, 03:02 PM) *
The FDR data supplied by the Government;
indicates a "departure" from either Gate D9 or Gate D11, and NOT GATE D26
and also an "overflight" of the Pentagon at an altitude too high to fly into it.

Indeed.
I was asking Mr. Warren Stutt for the altitude data for the last subframes as he derived them after necessary corrections from the FDR record. Here are the data.
Last altitudes:
subframe 151365 - 391,1167943
subframe 151366 - 318,3093381
subframe 151367 - 241,399513
subframe 151368 - 180,8976387

values are clearly in feets above MSL.
The subframe 151365 is in FDR timestamped 13:37:49 UTC - so the last subframe 151368 was recorded at 13:37:52 - 7 seconds after the official time of crash. The timestamping of the FDR is corroborated by multiple radar datasets.

But lets abandon the timing and let's have a look at the "True Altitude" values.
Last value in the Mr. Warren Stutt's file created for me is 180,8976387 ft MSL. According to this elevation map the elevation at the center of Pentagon site is 56 feet MSL, The Pentagon is 77 ft tall so the elevation of its roof is ~133 feet MSL and posssibly even lower. So according to Mr. Stutt's data, if he is not kidding, the plane was at the "True Altitude" 47ft higher than is the altitude of the Pentagon's roof and at the time 7 seconds later than is the official time of crash noted several times in the 911 Commission report.
How he could then come with Mr. Legge to the conclusion "New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon" based especially on this his "True Altitude" values argumentation remains a real mystery to me. The Lat/Lon positions decoded by Mr. Stutt and the by him derived "True Altitude" values quite clearly rule-out the possibility the plane bearing on its board the alleged "AA77" FDR struck down the 5 lightpoles and crashed into the Pentagon at the level of ~groundfloor by quite a really wide margin of more than 100 feet vertically and 150 feet horizontally.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trimble
post Feb 26 2011, 07:17 AM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



QUOTE
Basically the above analysis shows that when the FDR lat/long is corrected for INS drift, it shows that the FDR positional data has the aircraft departing from a gate which conflicts with official reports. The INS drift is a whole other issue as well. "Debunkers" know that such a large error is present in all flights, but they dont seem to apply the same error correction at the end of data. If they did, the aircraft would show North of Citgo.

Hang on a second. This makes little sense to me. On the one hand, you state that the drift is constant and thus correctable at both ends (ie. its a spatial translation). On the other, you state that this would put it north of CITGO. OK. But the north flightpath cannot then converge with the south flightpath to the alleged point of impact if you are claiming the reason for the N/S discrepancy is this spatial translation (no rotational component). Thus, surely, the CIT interviewees who plot such an effectively converging course would contradict with such an explanation for the N/S discrepancy.

What am I missing ? smile.gif

This post has been edited by trimble: Feb 26 2011, 07:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 26 2011, 09:26 AM
Post #19





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



QUOTE (trimble @ Feb 26 2011, 12:17 AM) *
Hang on a second. This makes little sense to me. On the one hand, you state that the drift is constant and thus correctable at both ends (ie. its a spatial translation). On the other, you state that this would put it north of CITGO. OK. But the north flightpath cannot then converge with the south flightpath to the alleged point of impact if you are claiming the reason for the N/S discrepancy is this spatial translation (no rotational component). Thus, surely, the CIT interviewees who plot such an effectively converging course would contradict with such an explanation for the N/S discrepancy.

What am I missing ? smile.gif

You are literally missing the point, I would say you are missing it some 20 miles. This topic is mainly about "AA77" last landing and takeoff at IAD and especially about identifying the gate where the plane was boarded. rolleyes.gif

The N/S drift in the data at IAD has little to nothing to do with the drift near Pentagon and if we would really apply this drift at IAD to correct the coordinates near Pentagon, then the plane would be very far - like ~800meters north of Citgo somewhere above Arlington cemetery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 26 2011, 10:49 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



Did Stutt ever concede that he was wrong for discarding the PA readings after rob had pointed out his "misconceptions"?

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 30 2011, 07:43 AM) *
Hi SwingDangler,

Here's a screenshot of the same program with the figures I would use:

I changed the left hand altimeter setting to more closely match the standard atmosphere model of 29.9213 inHg pressure at sea level.

I used a temperature of 22.9107 which I obtained from a straight line interpolation between METAR readings from Reagan National Airport and corrected for the airport's height above sea level. Since the standard atmosphere model is 15 degrees C at sea level this gives a delta C of 22.9107 - 15 = 7.9107 degrees C.

The right hand altimeter setting was obtained from a straight line interpolation between METAR readings from Reagan National Airport.

As you can see, that gives a very similar result to Rob's.

However, now let's try to use the program to calculate the true altitude just before the plane starts pitching upward during takeoff from Dulles. This is at subframe counter 146711 in my decode or 8:20:11 EDT in the NTSB decode. Obtaining the figures the same way I did above but now using the METAR readings from Dulles gives:
According to AirNav, the end of the runway from which the plane started the takeoff (Runway 30) has an altitude of 287.8 ft. The other end of the runway (Runway 12) has an altitude of 309.8 feet.

How then can a plane taking off from the runway, before it starts to pitch upwards, have a true altitude of 349 feet? Just as in this example, I usually find when the true altitude is calculated this way when the plane is at low altitudes, that the result is higher than it should be.

Regards,
Warren.


To which Rob replied...

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 30 2011, 11:19 AM) *
Because of change in AOA in a 'dirty' configuration while the aircraft is on the ground. I explained this to you before, but it seems to either have gone in one ear and out the other, or you are just intellectually dishonest.

Now lets see what happens a few seconds later when the aircraft breaks ground and is truly at a "low altitude" (roughly 10 feet above the runway according to RA).



Hmmm, 320 feet? Runway departure end is at 309 feet? 309+10 = 319... Pretty damn accurate.

(by the way, IAD was calling 30.21. Check the Baro Cor column)


Even if he sticks with the RADALT readings, his data doesn't add up.

This is roughly the point where the alleged 57ft RADALT reading is taken, 1 second before lightpole 3, where Legge/Stutt claim the 4ft RADALT reading was taken:



The elevation for the "57ft RADALT" reading is 20m/60ft



57 + 60 =117ft

The elevation of Route 27/lightpole 1 is 15m/45ft

The observed damage to lightpole 1 is roughly 35ft.

*The alleged AGL above Route 27, according to Legge's calculations should be 19ft (laid out at bottom of this post)

The distance from the alleged 57ft RADALT reading to lightpole 1 is roughly 400ft.



Legge/Stutt claim that the aircraft was travelling at 560mph (?) at this point. Say 800fps for argument sake.

That's 0.5 seconds.

So, the aircraft had to execute a descent from 117ft agl (57 + 60) to 64ft (45 + 19) = 53ft in 0.5 seconds

= 106fps descent

BUT, Legge/Stutt also claim that the pullup was executed 0.7 seconds before reaching lightpole 1.



A simultaneous 6000fpm descent and a "pullup" that never exceeded "2gs" and ended up in a "1.2º pitch" shallow descent through the lightpoles??

NOTE: There was also an alleged 124fps descent 2 seconds before this (308ft ASL to 184ft ASL in one second)

Datapoints 151365 to 151366

bs_flag.gif


*In the Legge/Stutt paper, Legge claimed that the "4ft reading" was at lightpole 3. And that such a low reading was due to various factors. The perceived physical damage to the pole shows a "break" at around 20ft.
The same method Legge used to establish the physical damage and the RADALT reading should then be applied to lightpoles 1 and 2 (-16ft)

35ft - 16ft = 19ft
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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 - 06:14 PM