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 )

18 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 18 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
USAF 84 RADES Data For UA175 Indicates Mach 1 Speed?, edited title

dMz
post Nov 21 2007, 11:42 AM
Post #301



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Perhaps this info was already posted, but the 84RADES "Read Me First" .DOC reads on p.2:

"In addition to primary (search) radar, all radar sites provide secondary (beacon) radar information. The radar sites interrogate and receive secondary (beacon) responses from aircraft transponders providing altimeter height and discrete mode 3A codes (squawk).

In general, the most reliable height information comes from aircraft transponder systems turned ON, responding to mode C interrogations. Mode C height accuracy is limited to +/-100 feet (assuming standard barometric pressure), the value of the least significant bit in the mode C altitude report. Because mode C height is always based on a standard barometric pressure setting, it is not corrected for local pressure conditions, although an approximate correction can be made based on local atmospheric data (D-value). Note, aircraft true height is found by adding local D-value to the mode C reported height. The D-value generally varies +1000 feet. The ARSR-4 3-D height data is generally accurate to within +2000 feet when the aircraft is within 175 nmi of the radar site. The primary range accuracy limitation for both primary and secondary radar systems is  1/8 nmi due to the target reporting format employed by the radar system. Azimuth accuracy is limited to approximately 0.2 degrees for both primary and secondary radar systems.

In addition to these range, azimuth, and height accuracy factors, the radar sites require approximately 12 seconds to complete each 360-degree azimuth scan. This relatively slow scan rate precludes moment-by-moment, contiguous aircraft positional information (i.e., precludes precise track statistics such as heading and speed), particularly when aircraft are making rapid maneuvers. Because of these intrinsic radar limitations, all radar plots illustrated in this report on a scan-to-scan basis should be considered close approximations."


By my ballpark estimation, this still puts Mode 3 Waypoint A "takeoff" at 6100-6300 feet ASL (in a <= 12-second radar "acquisition" sweep time). ~500 feet/sec VERTICAL velocity... This really could sound like a missile or rocket with rate of climb like that!

EDIT: It looks like the WTC1/2 Boeings were tracked by the better Riverhead, NY ARSR-4 3-dimensional radar equipment.

This post has been edited by dMole: Feb 6 2009, 01:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 21 2007, 01:05 PM
Post #302





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 21 2007, 11:42 AM)
EDIT: It looks like the WTC1/2 Boeings were tracked by the better Riverhead, NY ARSR-4 3-dimensional radar equipment.

Yes, but if you use the site filter to the data then you can mostly see multiple radar sites scans, so f.e. the "UA175" is mostly covered by 4 different radars (RIV, DAN, PLA, REM). So you can compare their reads and you can get a clearer picture of the flightpath. There is a anomaly in the beggining of the "UA175" flightpath: very close to the "takeoff" there is the radar NOR, it reads the planes even very far behind Boston in direction to the north west, but this radar doesnt read the initial maneuvers of the object, instead the radar RIV, which is very far, does. Which is highly suspicious to me.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 21 2007, 01:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 21 2007, 07:06 PM
Post #303



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I have graphed the RADES data from the USAF 84 .XLS file and found some very "interesting" regions. I'd like to see several independent calculations if possible to cross-correlate with my spreadsheet and charts.

My "altitude change" profile chart was most interesting from 8:16:04 EDT "takeoff" to 8:22:16. Then UA175 MIGHT be considered "normal" until 8:51:48 to "impact" with WTC2 South Tower around 9:02:24 (when the plane shows to be at 2200-2800 feet AGL)... blink.gif

Most velocities after 8:19:04 appear to be over V_Mmo [of 350 kt = 403 mph = 0.86 Mach], with particularly "interesting" velocities at 8:53:35 and 8:55:35.

Some helpful links:
http://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/special/MileageGuide.jsp

http://www.jqjacobs.net/astro/cosmo.html

I used some reasonably-accurate, approximation techniques as a "data first cut" to locate the "most interesting" radar data- exact calculations can be added as needed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 21 2007, 07:44 PM
Post #304





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 21 2007, 07:06 PM)
Most velocities after 8:19:04 appear to be over V_Mmo [of 350 kt = 403 mph = 0.86 Mach], with particularly "interesting" velocities at 8:53:35 and 8:55:35.

403mph is not 0.86Mach (Mach calculator here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html) but otherwise the calculations of the speeds look interesting.

B767 limitations are described in this thread: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=9272

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 21 2007, 07:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 21 2007, 08:48 PM
Post #305



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I took the 350 knots / 0.86 Mach from the link I posted:

http://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html

"Vmo / Mmo Values
Vmo @ MSL - 350 kts / Mmo - 0.86 Mach"

My calculator seemed to think that 350 knots = 402.7728068082 mph, but I use an English calculator in the US, and "Imperial" gets pretty confusing this way. I LIKELY typed this in non-standard form (I have worked mainly in low sub-sonic and super-sonic "low atmosphere" environments).

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/unit-converter-d_185.html

1 knot (nautical mile per hour)= 0.514444444 m/s = 1.852 kilometers per hour = 1.1515 miles per hour= 1 nautical miles per hour

gave me 350 kts = 403.025 mph

I'm well aware of the mach/air density/speed of sound/altitude thing (I just copied the 0.86 Mach from the Boeing 757 Spec page above). Since the WTC is well below "cruising altitude" I'd like to avoid Mach altogether- it is likely irrelevant here (to anything other than FEMA, NIST, and RADES claimed velocities) anyway. wink.gif

EDIT: The NASA Mach page above states, "If we consider the atmosphere on a standard day at sea level static conditions, the speed of sound is about 761 mph, or 1100 feet/second."

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 21 2007, 08:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 21 2007, 11:47 PM
Post #306





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 21 2007, 08:48 PM)
"Vmo / Mmo Values
Vmo @ MSL - 350 kts / Mmo - 0.86 Mach"

Nothing too important, but isn't the official version that "UA175" was a B767-222?
citation of above mentioned thread:
Speed limits B767:

turbulent airspeed: 290kt/.78M
Vmo/Mmo: 360kt/.86M
gear extend: 270kt/.82M
gear retract: 270kt
alternate gear extension: 250kt/.75M
max tyre speed: 225mph (= 196 kt)
min speed above FL250: Vref30+100 kt
min speed for clean LDG: Vref30+50 kt
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 22 2007, 12:50 AM
Post #307



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Yes, we've been told that UA175 was a 767-200 with Rolls-Royce turbofans from what I recall, but we've been TOLD many things. USAF 84 RADES thinks it is a B757, and the differences appear fairly minor from the below research.

Unfortunately, this link is down:
http://www.767.org.uk/limits/index.html

From:
http://www.757.org.uk/diff/index.html

"This section of the site details pilot-related (handling and operational) differences between the Boeing 757-200 and Boeing 767-300 aircraft. Generally speaking, there are fewer differences between the 757-200 and the 767-200."

My earlier "Altitude Rate Change" AA11 WTC1N and UA175 WTC2So Charts were taken from "active" radar "Height" in the RADES .XLS (not Mode C Altitude). I have updated them and added "Height & Mode C Charts" for AA77 Pentagon and UA93 Pennsylvania- now those are VERY STRANGE indeed!!

See the following page and PM me if you cannot download the charts for some reason (yes, there are VERIFIED zero and negative Mode C altitudes in the .XLS data). blink.gif dunno.gif

http://eyeon9.orbitfiles.com/

EDIT: 360.0 "767" knots = 414.2806012885 mph on my calculator. Also, we will need the 757, 767, and 747 maximum ceiling specifications with these 2 new charts...
blink.gif

EDIT2: Just found some excellent Boeing Flight Test info over at UnderTow's post:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10077498

Do we have any hard data available on max. velocity at various altitudes other than the Joe Keith interview?

EDIT3: My original source data file was named "Radar Data All 4 Events.xls" 789,504 bytes, 12:58:13 P.M on October 5, 2007 on the RADES CD under \Projects\. You can view the "author's" name of Company "84rades" by viewing the file properties, but I'll not post it here right now.

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 22 2007, 02:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 22 2007, 11:36 AM
Post #308





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 22 2007, 12:50 AM)
Yes, we've been told that UA175 was a 767-200 with Rolls-Royce turbofans from what I recall, but we've been TOLD many things.  USAF 84 RADES thinks it is a B757, and the differences appear fairly minor from the below research.

Unfortunately, this link is down:
http://www.767.org.uk/limits/index.html

From:
http://www.757.org.uk/diff/index.html

"This section of the site details pilot-related (handling and operational) differences between the Boeing 757-200 and Boeing 767-300 aircraft. Generally speaking, there are fewer differences between the 757-200 and the 767-200."

My earlier "Altitude Rate Change" AA11 WTC1N and UA175 WTC2So Charts were taken from "active" radar "Height" in the RADES .XLS (not Mode C Altitude).  I have updated them and added "Height & Mode C Charts" for AA77 Pentagon and UA93 Pennsylvania- now those are VERY STRANGE indeed!!

See the following page and PM me if you cannot download the charts for some reason (yes, there are VERIFIED zero and negative Mode C altitudes in the .XLS data). blink.gif  dunno.gif

http://eyeon9.orbitfiles.com/

EDIT: 360.0 "767" knots = 414.2806012885 mph on my calculator.  Also, we will need the 757, 767, and 747 maximum ceiling specifications with these 2 new charts...
blink.gif

EDIT2: Just found some excellent Boeing Flight Test info over at UnderTow's post:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10077498

Do we have any hard data available on max. velocity at various altitudes other than the Joe Keith interview?

EDIT3: My original source data file was named "Radar Data All 4 Events.xls" 789,504 bytes, 12:58:13 P.M on October 5, 2007 on the RADES CD  under \Projects\.  You can view the "author's" name of Company "84rades" by viewing the file properties, but I'll not post it here right now.

Yes the differences between the B757 and B767 are almost omittable. It is amazing that even more than 6 years after we even couldn't be sure what types of planes there were supposed to be...

I downloaded the charts without problem. Thank you. All are quite amazing and show on the first sight that many things heavily don't add up. It looks almost the data are real, because why anybody would fake it this crazy way...

About the Joe Keith, there is a video on YouTube, where somebody was calling to Boeing and asking some enginer if it is real the B767 could fly 500+mph in such a low altitude. It was dismissed by the Boeing enginer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 22 2007, 04:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 24 2007, 10:56 AM
Post #309



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Update: Tume recently asked me about how I handled data from different radar stations. For UA175, all USAF 84 RADES data were taken by RIV (Riverhead, NY) station.

AA11 only had returns from NOR (North Truro, MA) for the first approx. 3 minutes of the data, with the remainder taken at RIV. I have posted info on this at the AA11 thread.

I have so far only looked at the height on UA93 (PA) and AA77 (Pentagon), and that data appears so anomalous that I'm not certain any reasonable conclusions will be made there...

EDIT: Apparently the file server is down for a software upgrade. sad.gif

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 24 2007, 12:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_thirdwaver_*
post Nov 26 2007, 01:36 AM
Post #310





Guest






I'm not a pilot but do your calculations take the descent at full throttle under consideration when discussing the plane's speed capabilities? I would imagine that in a steep dive, a 395,000 lb plane under full thrust could probably achieve these speeds, no? What am I missing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 26 2007, 02:24 AM
Post #311



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (thirdwaver @ Nov 26 2007, 01:36 AM)
What am I missing?


Hello thirdwaver,

Air drag, sub-sonic jet engine turbofan "flame out" and worse, trans-sonic and super-sonic buffeting of sub-sonic design airframe structures, etc. UnderTow has posted on another thread (under Aircraft?) that a Boeing was tested to 0.92 mach (but rated at 0.86 mach MAXIMUM), and Tume and I have found velocities over both levels in the USAF RADES data in our brief investigations.

See Omega892's posts far above on this thread and elsewhere- he was an F4 Phantom jet fighter [EDIT: FAA engineer] for the Royal Navy back in the day, so he knows trans-sonic and supersonic flight better than most, I suspect.

Welcome from me (the admins will likely follow),
d

P.S. Oh yes, I found my highest velocity, 1022 mph, at 08:55:47, when UA175 was still at 28,000 to 29,000 feet AGL (BEFORE the dive). UA 175 entered a brief climb after this, then the "big dive" averaging about 500-550 mph.

EDIT: File server is back up at this moment in time. Also, Tume has obtained different data from RS3 software than I have obtained from the USAF 84 RADES .XLS spreadsheet.

This post has been edited by dMole: Sep 12 2008, 12:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 26 2007, 07:53 AM
Post #312





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2007, 02:24 AM)
See Omega892's posts far above on this thread and elsewhere- he was an F4 Phantom jet fighter pilot for the Royal Navy back in the day, so he knows trans-sonic and supersonic flight better than most, I suspect.

Sorry to have to correct you dMole but I was not, and never intended to imply, that I was a pilot. I did make that plain when I joined the forum but I don't blame you for not noticing that. wink.gif

However I had lengthy training as an Aircraft Artificer in the RNs FAA and gained extra qualifications in Aeronautical Engineering Science and Applied Mechanics (Aircraft), and have since leaving completed a degree course specialising in mathematics and science.

In service we FAA engineers looked after airframe aspects; fuel systems, pneumatic and hydraulics, aircraft structures including U/C and flying controls as well as engines. I completed the RR course in maintaining and troubleshooting RR re-heated Phantom Spey engines and had much experience on the Phantom including much sea time on Ark Royal. I also took every opportunity to have a flight in FAA heavy metal but the Phantom eluded me.

Nearest I got was carrying out nose leg extension caption light checks whilst running both engines at full bore, nose leg extended to 40 inches and tied back on the catapult and pondering how I was going to land the thing if the aircraft broke out. pilotfly.gif

Thus by training and experience I consider my claim to have a good appreciation of aircraft suitability for transonic flight is valid. I also had dealings with some piston types.

Most of the theory I learned is now decidedly rusty and I could not compete with you on the fine calculations that you have carried out on various 9/11 aspects.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 26 2007, 07:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 26 2007, 08:47 AM
Post #313





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 22 2007, 12:50 AM)
EDIT: File server is back up at this moment in time. Also, Tume has obtained different data from RS3 software than I have obtained from the USAF 84 RADES .XLS spreadsheet.
EDIT3: My original source data file was named "Radar Data All 4 Events.xls" 789,504 bytes, 12:58:13 P.M on October 5, 2007 on the RADES CD  under \Projects\.  You can view the "author's" name of Company "84rades" by viewing the file properties, but I'll not post it here right now.


Yes I was digging in the file "Cnv_Multifile Sensor Data" using the RS3 software (where allegedly all the air traffic on the east of US is recorded, containing data for most parts of the airpaths of our "planes" multiple radar tracking). And what I found there I'm still so puzzled of, that I became reluctant to discuss it here before John Farmer will adress the issues to the 84Rades forum, as he promissed http://bluecollarrepublican.com/rades/viewtopic.php?p=63#63
So forgive me the temporary silence here.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 26 2007, 08:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 26 2007, 11:31 AM
Post #314



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



O892,

Thank you for the correction. I still hold that you are far from ignorant regarding supersonic, trans-sonic, and sub-sonic aircraft (both jet- and prop-driven), or HE and fuel fires for that matter. wink.gif

Tume,

As a US Citizen, I'm honestly a little leery of the word "Republican" on that link in light of recent history and the PNAC document, but that's just me. Six years seems like an unduly long time, and we might be nearing a "statute of limitations" in September 2008- any legal opinions available on this? I'm not certain that patience is actually a virtue at this particular point in time (but I'll admit to being born with precious little of that virtue). Caution is seldom a bad thing, however.

Thank you both for your contributions,
d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 26 2007, 02:49 PM
Post #315





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2007, 11:31 AM)
As a US Citizen, I'm honestly a little leery of the word "Republican" on that link in light of recent history and the PNAC document, but that's just me. Six years seems like an unduly long time, and we might be nearing a "statute of limitations" in September 2008- any legal opinions available on this? I'm not certain that patience is actually a virtue at this particular point in time (but I'll admit to being born with precious little of that virtue). Caution is seldom a bad thing, however.

But the Farmer was the guy who obtained the data on FOIA and is anallysing it as well, so I just want to see if he has some counterarguments they make a sense (although I doubt somebody can bring some arguments they'll explain that radar "invisibility" - usualy you need a multibilion investments and multitrilion technological background to accomplish the radar invisibility...). What I know now, he is allegedly suing the NTSB to provide real, not fake, FDR data, because he found some problems there with the missing last couple of seconds.
In fact I'm quite puzzled also with the Democrat-Republicans duality - I'm not a US citizen and I don't live there, so I don't understand it much - so I made a thread about here and posed some questions: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=10066
About that PNAC - I think that's more than a "republican" a Zionist-Straussist-FEDist-fascist something...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_thirdwaver_*
post Nov 26 2007, 11:00 PM
Post #316





Guest






QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2007, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (thirdwaver @ Nov 26 2007, 01:36 AM)
What am I missing?


Hello thirdwaver,

Air drag, sub-sonic jet engine turbofan "flame out" and worse, trans-sonic and super-sonic buffeting of sub-sonic design airframe structures, etc. [...]


Welcome from me (the admins will likely follow),
d

P.S. Oh yes, I found my highest velocity, 1022 mph, at 08:55:47, when UA175 was still at 28,000 to 29,000 feet AGL (BEFORE the dive). UA 175 entered a brief climb after this, then the "big dive" averaging about 500-550 mph.


Thanks for the info! I knew it was a newb question and I have the utmost respect for you guys (hope to get a pilot's license one day). I see what you mean. Based on the recorded call to the NTSB about the discrepancies with their data on Flight 77, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this data was altered to hide something. I think they are assuming that most Americans just aren't paying enough attention to notice.

I appreciate the welcome and the time to explain it. I might add that I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't realize there were 20 pages of posts on this topic before I posted. I'm usually really good about that, but the beautiful background photo distracted me smile.gif

Sean
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 27 2007, 10:47 PM
Post #317



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Update on RADES:

"BCR" has posted some initial observations over at the earlier URL:

http://bluecollarrepublican.com/rades/viewtopic.php?p=63#63

I'll leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions here.

EDIT: My recent chart work has been based DIRECTLY upon the USAF 84 RADES Microsoft Excel .XLS data file AS SHIPPED on the .ISO file that I received recently. I believe that Tume has worked from the RS3 software environment- I have not, as I wanted preliminary, independent evaluation of the .XLS file (circa 13 Sep 2001).

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 28 2007, 01:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 28 2007, 02:34 PM
Post #318





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 27 2007, 10:47 PM)
Update on RADES:

"BCR" has posted some initial observations over at the earlier URL:

http://bluecollarrepublican.com/rades/viewtopic.php?p=63#63

I'll leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions here.

EDIT: My recent chart work has been based DIRECTLY upon the USAF 84 RADES Microsoft Excel .XLS data file AS SHIPPED on the .ISO file that I received recently.  I believe that Tume has worked from the RS3 software environment- I have not, as I wanted preliminary, independent evaluation of the .XLS file (circa 13 Sep 2001).

IMHO before we could credibly evaluate any data set implications, we should evaluate its credibility as a whole. And there is a realy crucial issue: The radar invisibility of "AA77" and "UA93".
For years we were told that incredible story about the transponder-off, and we couldn't confirm it from the radar data. But now we have the radar data, from official source, which confirm the invisibility from more than one radar source, for more than one plane, for realy long periods of time. Before we can see a realy clear word about this - which could credibly explain it - any other of the implications (other than the government story is an utter bogus) about the alleged jetliners from the radar data set, either .xls or .rs3, couldn't be principially at all credible.

I think this is crucial for the whole data set credibility evaluation (and also for the government story evaluation).

EDIT: the dMole's data are there now confirmed from four available radar sources. Although the invisibility issue still not adressed.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 28 2007, 04:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 28 2007, 05:12 PM
Post #319



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 21 2007, 05:06 PM)
I have graphed the RADES data from the USAF 84 .XLS file and found some very "interesting" regions.  I'd like to see several independent calculations if possible to cross-correlate with my spreadsheet and charts.
...

I used some reasonably-accurate, approximation techniques as a "data first cut" to locate the "most interesting" radar data- exact calculations can be added as needed.

Please let me re-iterate this in case anyone missed it earlier:

"I used some reasonably-accurate, approximation techniques as a "data first cut" to locate the "most interesting" radar data- exact calculations can be added as needed."

I have located some Boeing and various engine FAA datasheets today. Right now, I'm more interested in the engine RPM (rotational energy) for various engine combinations. A range/azimuth (trigonometric) verification of the RADES page findings is certainly advisable at this point, to cross check against my latitude/longitude PRELIMINARY "data first cut" charts taken directly from the USAF .XLS data file.

I also have found the 13 Sep 2001 date on the USAF 84 RADES memo, the 2007 filedate on the original .XLS file, the extended primary radar "stealth" periods for AA77 and UA93, and the 757/767/747 discrepancies to be "curious" to say the least...

I invite others to continue investigation from this point- I'd prefer to look at the sub-sonic turbofan jet engine data and their "capabilities" now.

d

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 28 2007, 05:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 29 2007, 12:27 AM
Post #320



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Nov 26 2007, 02:49 PM)
What I know now, he is allegedly suing the NTSB to provide real, not fake,  FDR data, because he found some problems there with the missing last couple of seconds.

Farmer is completey inaccurate in his analysis regarding "missing seconds" of AA77 FDR. Although some of his work has nice little gems, many of which Farmer himself doesnt understand what he has uncovered, I would take anything he analyzes/concludes with a grain of salt.

Furthermore, the NTSB plots the aircraft 1 second away from the pentagon wall.

Lastly, the information "Farmer" is trying to sue the NTSB with, he didnt even get from the NTSB.. so im not sure how he is going to sue based on information obtained elsewhere.

I tried to explain all this to Farmer, but he preferred to put his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, and yell "blah blah blah".

Oh well...

dMole,

email me when you have some time. I'd like to go over some things with you regarding UA175 now that im done with UA93 work (for now).

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 18 >
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: 20th November 2014 - 09:18 PM