Warren Stutt,

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

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

I would also like to hear Mr. Sutt's answer to this question but I might put it differently: Do you feel qualified to answer the question Craig is asking?

Very nice, Craig. Someone on the other thread takes you to task for making demands, so you move elsewhere, and continue to be obnoxious. It makes you look like a fanatical loon and is, in any case, boring to read over and over. But I guess now that its in a thread of its own, we don't have to plough through it when looking for constructive posts.

If someone doesn't want to give their opinion on a particular matter, surely it is their prerogative unless they are clearly trying to disrupt matters.

+1 to painter's rephrase.


edit : my bad ~ for some reason I thought I was reading the final page of that thread (220 appeared to be the final post, but I see there are two more pages). I should not (and would not) have posted here had I known you and others had commented over on that thread.

*goes back to lurking*

Hi All,

The question as expressed by painter is important. What I am quite certain about is that the last recorded ALTITUDE (1013.25mB) (FEET) in the FDR file I have been given is -99 feet (note the minus sign). I appreciate that this figure has to be adjusted to obtain the true altitude, but this adjustment is not something I feel qualified to do.

I realise that Rob has used an online calculator to show that the true altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon, however I have seen arguments on J.R.E.F. saying that the pressure altitudes can not be relied upon since normally the aircraft would not be flying so fast, so low and the correct compensation has not been applied. The issue of how accurate the pressure altitude is has also been raised. Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. are more qualified on this issue of adjustment than me, so I don't feel I can add anything useful.

As far as Radio Height goes, the only required adjustment I am aware of is that the recorded value is above touchdown. Again I am quite certain that the last recorded RADIO HEIGHT is 4 feet, the question that Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. differ on is what that is above. Is it the ground in front of the Pentagon, vegetation in front of the Pentagon or the top of the Pentagon?

I know that I said that the question of whether AAL77 was too high to hit the light poles is what prompted me to do write my own decoder. The fact that both Rob and the posters on J.R.E.F. claim that the extra seconds of data I decoded supports their opposing views surprised me. This highlights how the same data can be interpreted differently. I did not fully appreciate this before.

Warren.

Uh huh.

So you take no position because you've been told this critical value "can not be relied on".

But that's not the question...

Using the values reported along with said online calculator to adjust for true altitude...do you agree that your findings in the data concerning altitude CONFIRM the findings of P4T that it shows the plane too high to hit the light poles and the building?




So you agree that RADIO height is more subjective than pressure altitude while you remain uncommitted on both values and never come to any conclusions.

How convenient and predictable.



They can't both be right.

Your failure to take a position on anything regarding the govt controlled data while refusing to accept the independent eyewitness evidence proving that that the plane did not hit has been noted and documented.

If this value "cannot be relied on", why does the NTSB list Pressure altitude as a Validated Parameter and why are J.REF members cherry picking a "not working or unconfirmed" parameter as holding more weight when they dont even know the object the Radar Altitude is measuring from?

meh....

yawn.

the govt loyalist site has not got ther facts straight on the 540+mph speed in the final seconds. They continue to ignore various witnesses who say that the plane took between 10 and 15 seconds to reach the building from the Navy Annex.
The increasing numbers who claim they saw the plane NOC, ´banking´, that place the plane´s arrival on Route 27 nowhere near the lightpoles, that NOBODY apart from Lloyd England has put the plane SOC (he has since backtracked
and even detractors don´t go near him).
Detractors cover their ears regards witness testimony and wave the (undocumented) physical evidence and FDR data, which is now so contradictory that it cannot be looked upon as anything other than forged data. They even messed that up.
It is becoming clear that witness testimony, especially when it is corraborrated from numerous angles and levels, is going to be the only non-biased resolution to this. They can no longer be ´ignored´.

True but when discussing anomalies in the official data you have to reference the speed reported in the official data.

Either way as Rob just pointed out it's a lame excuse and does not change the FACT that the official data has the plane too high to the light poles or building.

We know why j.refers do it.

They are liars.

The more important question is -- why is Warren Stutt allowing j.ref spin to serve as an excuse to refuse to publicly admit the FACT that HIS findings independently confirm YOUR findings concerning altitude?

I just want to note that I'm very appreciative of Warren's work and his honesty (however much it irks Craig's sensibilities). I'm not qualified to verify anything having to do with the FDR, its decoding or the significance that might be drawn from various parameters (although the 'too fast' and 'too high' to hit the light poles and level off at exactly ground level intuitively seems accurate -- we're not talking about a versatile fighter jet here).

However, what I do feel qualified to assess is the veracity of the eye-witnesses made public by CIT. They can't all be lying or confused about their observations which match in the most profound (NOC approach) way. That several also mention a relatively slow approach and a right bank only underscore the point that THE PLANE THE WITNESSES SAW CAN NOT BE THE SOURCE OF THE FDR FROM WHICH THE DATA BEING ANALYZED CAME. In other words, based on the veracity of these witness accounts, this data is fraudulent. The ONLY value analyzing this data has is to further underscore its fraudulent nature. It is hard evidence of a cover-up by agencies of the US Government of what actually happened at the Pentagon.

What I see repeatedly is the attempt to focus in on this or that almost invariably 'contradictory' detail when what has to be looked at simultaneously is the whole 'gestalt' of 9/11. I've said repeatedly, a commercial airliner crash and impact at the Pentagon ought to be as obvious as a heard of elephants stampeding through a china shop, leaving multiple droppings in their wake. Not something easily covered up. That this is not at all obvious and especially not obvious when the details are investigated and found to be 'contradictory' only makes me all the more certain that what we are dealing with here is a deliberate attempt to confuse and deceive: A genuine conspiracy to defraud the American public and the world. That these multiple 'inner contradictions' are ignored by government, military and the corporate media alike, only further cement my contention that what we're dealing with here has been constrained under the COG umbrella of "matters of national security" which can not be publicly broached except in easily contained and marginalized forums such as this. They (meaning the perpetrators of this crime against humanity) do not care what we find or what we say so long as the prevailing narrative is sustained in the hearts and minds of the (mostly dis-informed and/or apathetic) masses. So long as all this can be kept in the arena of "well, nothing is certain, even experts disagree" there can be no fulcrum upon which to leverage a genuine challenge to the structures of power that have now institutionalized treason, mass murder, war crimes and crimes against humanity (just off the top of my head).

I think this is what is driving Craig's near insistence that Mr. Stutt take a public position on this matter. This isn't a game or a mere puzzle or problem to solve; 9/11 exists as a defining moment in American and, indeed, human history -- the meaning of which is now having and will continue to have a profound impact on all our lives whether we have the eyes to see it as such or not. To not have an opinion about it, especially given ALL the evidence now accumulated, is like choosing to not confront evidence of rape and incest within one's own family. In a very real sense, it enables crimes that are not past tense but on going and, thus, calls into question the moral and ethical fiber of one's being. Certainly caution can be a virtue and should not be cast to the wind but when dealing with matters of such gravity for our human present and future, there comes a point where one must take a stand if for no other reason than the preservation of one's own integrity.

Still, though, the fact is, each of us has to come to this understanding on our own terms. No one can, or should, insist that another adopt a moral or ethical position they are not inwardly ready to embrace. Such things are not trivial and have an impact on one's life well beyond the immediate concern.

My 3¢.

Precisely.



Agreed in general and hypothetically.

But not agreed when it comes to a specific individual who has published a website and is positioning himself as an independent researcher who has introduced a layer of obfuscation that only hinders our efforts towards achieving justice.

While I understand there is a big psychological hurdle for most to get over to even consider that 9/11 was an inside job....it is impossible for someone who positions himself as a researcher (and is clearly aware of the evidence that PROVES a deception) to remain entirely neutral and non-committal on EVERYTHING that he has researched or reviewed.

As you said....there comes a point where one must take a stand if for no other reason than the preservation of one's own integrity.

Stutt's public acknowledgment of evidence he has studied closely and/or viewed casually and his stated role of published researcher inextricably puts him in that category and his continued refusal to take a stance on anything whatsoever will fairly increase suspicion against him exponentially with every day.

I personally had been a lurker here for a long time. i became disillusioned and impatient with
the progress in the Manhattan attacks while avoiding the Pentagon and Pennsylvania attacks like
the plague mainly due to, on hindsight, a very well planned disinfo campaign (missile, no plane, etc)
To this day, having combed through his site and watching their video presentations (which are far
more useful to a layman like myself), I am still pretty naieve on the technobabble and specifics of
aeronautical dataframes, calculations and general language.

Warren has been a member since 2007. He (to his credit) admits that he is as naieve as the next
person on aviation and has never been a pilot. But one thing he does have in his favour is his grasp
on mathematics and data translation and can actually design programs.
He, in all likelihood understands Rob and the guys´ translation of the FDR data and its ramifications
more than most. He acknowledges that his 4´ altitude frame has no bearing on whether the plane was
too high to hit the lightpoles.
Those data bits must be burned into his brain by now. Add to that Rob´s help on the data that can only
be gleaned from an experienced pilot (surrouded by other aviation experts) and I am pretty sure that
Warren has a VERY good idea of the path and manouevres which this data relays. And I´m SURE it does
not correspond with the official story/path.
He says that he has received help from the govt loyalist site members on ´other issues´. the govt loyalist site has been publically outed
on numerous occasions in the form of Farmer and his ilk as being dishonest, manipulative and downright
liars in order to confuse and uphold the official line.
They have been constantly called out, but hey, it doesn´t matter. They can delete their links, deny and ignore
questions and turn the debate to a brand of insults and childish rants that even this hairy arsed man is taken
aback by.
Anybody questioning the official story to any degree makes an honest mistake at their peril. They clingggg
onto inoccuous mistakes like flies round....
Rob´s 11.2 g mistake which he publically and on numerous occasions
has admitted BUT rectified.
So, I don´t see how these two sites can be seen on an even par for a researcher. You KNOW where professional,
untainted advice and pointers can be found. It´s not over there.
You MUST know every detail of that plane´s final moments in the basin of land on the west face of the Pentagon.
You MUST know having talked to Rob et al that the consequent damage is irreconcilable with it.
One thing is to be a ´neutral researcher´ but you must have drawn conclusions by now. I´m a layman on the subject
and I already have just by some cursory study on the subject.
What I DO know quite a lot about is the only mainly non-biased volume of corraborrative eyewitness testimony that says
that the FDR data is fake.
I will send you details if you like.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ´researcher´. Into your program and how to perfect it? Or getting to the truth of what happened at the Pentagon that morning?
Sorry if this sounds like a ´witchhunt´ but your program has raised tensions (unnecessary ones IMO) and people are genuinely confused as to your real intentions. Don´t be afraid to offend anyone. The truth is the truth.

I created that web page and used the term independent researcher to answer the question posed in this post on ATS. I meant I was not an official investigator in any form.

I intended all my work to be independently verifiable so it would not matter what I thought. I am not aware of any independent verification at this point, although that could well change. I would certainly welcome it.

Here's a question for Rob:

If an an aircraft like N644AA was flying over level ground with a descent rate the same as calculated from the last pressure altitudes in my decode and at the last true altitude as calculated from the last pressure altitude in my decode for the conditions at the Pentagon on 9/11, would it be able to pull up in time to avoid crashing?

Warren.

I have had a chance this afternoon to look over your data more thoroughly.. .I just opened your "FinalFlightComplete" (i opened your other csv file this morning). Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1, and then pull level almost instantaneously...impossible.. or descend 129 in 1.5 seconds to impact the pentagon creating a more than 6 degree slope (86 f/s drop) which clears all the tops of the poles...

If trends are continued as shown in your data from last interval (59 f/s drop) and considering the descent would be less than 59 f/s based on positive G's over 1 for that segment, but, lets just do 1 G linear trend.. 59*1.5 = 88.5... 174 - 88.5 = 85.5. Still too high for the impact hole. Again, this is at 1 G linear descent rate using 'best' case scenario for an impact based on your data. If we incorporate the increase in positive G loads, whoosh... right over the top... and would be consistent with the radalt bouncing off the top of the pentagon and Turcious statements of "pulling up to clear...". wink.gif

Do the GL's now realize the FDR is not missing 6 seconds from the pentagon wall due to a "bird strike", compressor stall or some mysterious corruption due to "impact"? And that Ed Santana was correct when he stated FDR's cannot be missing any more than 0.5 seconds? Looks like an FDR "salesman" (as Beachy likes to marginalize Ed..) knows more than Beachy... smile.gif

Again, assuming you are correct, you might want to alert the NTSB their Flight Path Study, Time Correlation, "Impact time"... etc etc.. in the National Archives is wrong and the data they are distributing to the American Public through the FOIA is wrong. This has major ramifications for flight safety. We have tried to inform them, but they turned a blind eye.


Once again, no matter how you slice it, the data does not support the govt story of AA77 impact with the Pentagon as reported.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778248

Fair enough. Hopefully Rob will receive a reply soon from the appropriate authorities on the validity
of your program.

Rob answered your question regarding the descent rate. Mind posting the response of the person
who has obviously suggested to you that it IS possible? I mean, what were the calculations that they
deduced (which can be everchanging lol)?
That´s the problem Warren. I´m a layman and I can understand Rob´s calculations on this point.
What are ´they´ actually conveying to you that could make you sit on the fence regarding this fact?
The official data from the FDR makes the descent to strike the lightpoles an impossibility. The additional
(yet to be verified) data from your program hasn´t changed this conclusion.
Again, not having a go at you. Just trying to understand the stalling.

Peace

OSS

Keep in mind folks, the descent rate from the top of the VDOT Antenna to pole 1 is roughly 6 times less than the new data provided by Warren, if you hypothetically tried to descend from the last altitude point in Warrens data to the top of pole 1, based on the last altitude point being 1.5 seconds west of the wall, base on speed data.

The VDOT "pull up" was 10.14 G's as demonstrated in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

Warrens data would require more..

a = 2 s / t^2

a = 2(100)/0.3^2

a = 200/.09

2222 G's

Add 1 G for earth

2223 G's

Nothing this planet could perform or survive such a maneuver.

I agree. In addition IMHO the positional data from Warren's program positions the plane so it misses the poles with a final position showing that it has already missed Pole 1. See these Posts:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10779716
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10779856

So we have all three spatial dimensions covered with timed events showing too high, too late and too far north, too late. Basically from a physics perspective Warren's data allows us to cover all of the relevant spacetime.

On the thread that this was split from I posted in Warren's defense that he has no obligation to take any position and did so in a way that was deferential to Warren. Now being a little rude to Warren as a rhetorical device only (because I actually appreciate his work and think he deserves nice treatment and deference) here's some more reasons why he shouldn't be asked or required to take a position:

1. Given all the above support that can be found in his data, why should we care what he thinks aside from saying that we are not using the numbers provided in his data? By that I do not mean interpreting what the numbers mean such as "to high", but simply Warren saying my data shows a "2" where you are using a "4". So quite frankly I really don't give a s h i t what Warren thinks! I already got what I want out of him!

2. Let's assume Warren succumbs to the pressure and just lies and says he agrees with all of your conclusions. His false opinion is worthless and we are in a worse position because now we are being deceived.

3. What if Warren says his data supports the GL opinion? We are in a worse position than we are now, because now it's just a question of others interpreting his data and drawing conclusions from it that we don't like without Warren's support. FWIW, this is what I'd do whether it was my true opinion or not because it's the best way to be a prick to those who make unreasonable demands on you in the first place. In other words, a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.

I read your post and took in everything you were saying.
I made a post earlier that was more of a rant borne out of the frustration that this site has come so close to actually providing physical evidence of an inside job.
No theory, no speculation , no possibility of twisting evidence. Cold hard proof.
We HAVE to be careful when an investigation gets to this stage.
Nefarious elements will be scurrying like rats to disprove this information and will do whatever it takes to
blacken and undermine it. Maybe I´m paranoid. But that´s me.
I HAVE stepped back lately to watch developments and keep my trap shut as ´infighting´ is a distraction.
I HAVE accepted that Rob has a rapport with Warren and that he would be the better judge.
The problem I DO have is that detractors don´t play nice. They lie. They brazenly involve themselves in
disinfo campaigns.
They will TRY to find a chink in this info that may muddy the waters and draw the veil of inconclusiveness and doubt that they have done for years over any evidence uncovered, no matter how damning it is.
That is their art.

I saw a previous post where Warren had cited Wheelhouse to support an SOC approach. And his insistence and reasoning on this was VERY reminiscent , to anybody who has debated these guys on witnesses, of ´Caustic Logic´. An expert on twisting words (or so HE thinks)
I saw in this last post a question that has obviously been raised by a comment from a detractor.
I asked what the detractor had said as regards calculations proposed.
It has nothing to do with making Warren state his position on the overall citizens investigation into 9/11. I´d just like to hear what his position is on the facts presented to him from both camps on this specific matter given that it is HIS program that they are in all likelihood using to make said calculations.

This IS a debate forum.

Hi OSS,

I came up with the idea that since an aircraft needs to be a certain height above the ground to pull out of a given dive without crashing, that perhaps the if an aircraft had a vertical speed as indicated by the last pressure altitudes and was at a true altitude indicated by the last pressure altitude, that it would it may be too low to avoid crashing in to hypothetical level ground at the height of the ground in front of the Pentagon, never mind how much horizontal distance it needed or having to also hit light poles. I hadn't run any calculations on it. I just thought I'd get Rob's opinion from his knowledge and experience as a pilot. However, Rob appears to happy with using calculations, so I'll do the same. Nobody prompted me to ask this question. I'll look in to this after I get the program updated and get the new program out for the raw 12-bit words.

Warren.

Hi Rob,

I believe the correct formula is a = 2 (s - u t) / t^2, where u is initial velocity. Feel free to check whether I am correct.

Warren.

Thanks Warren, but I was basing it on an initial velocity of zero for simplicity.

I also made a small error in the above, i forgot to divide the final acceleration by 32 for G loading.

So we have 200/.09 = 2222 ft/sec^2

2222/32 = 69 G

Plus 1 for earth - 70 G.

Still impossible for anything on earth.

Using your formula

s - ut = 100 - 60(.3) = 82

2(82)/.09 = 1822 ft/sec^2

1822/32 = 57 G

58 G with earth.

Again, impossible, even based on your data.

Hi Rob,

OK, the math looks good to me now. I'll alert J.R.E.F. that you have fixed the math. I still need to research pressure altitude to true altitude conversions before coming to any conclusions.

Warren.

Aren't you glad you did that ?

( I just finished trying to decipher beachnut's incoherent rant. )

Hi Warren,
No I didn´t mean that somebody ´prompted´ you to ask this question. I meant that you may have heard
somebody come up with calculations that countered Rob´s.
I believe it was Beachnut judging by JFK´s post (?). But no matter.
Rob has explained how he came to his conclusions so that even laymen like me can understand it.



I´ve just yet to see detractors counter this argument.

Peace
OSS

Hi OSS,

I suspect that argument was from before I had done my decode. My decode has more than 4 seconds of data past the point where the radio height of 273 seconds was recorded, rather than 2 seconds. This could well change the calculated steady linear descent rate.

Warren.

Hi Warren,
Yes I saw that IF there were indeed 4 seconds of extra data, Rob had explained that
the plane would have still missed the lightpoles and the Pentagon here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239

Rob explained it in detail.

The only counterargument that detractors have come up with as far as I can see is that
there may be ´lag´ or the recording was not accurate.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163




Was Rob right in saying that the plane was still too high to cause the damage even given the alleged extra 4 seconds?

Hi Rob,

What do you think of the following claim:

Warren.

I think its not proof of PA being more than 120+ in error. We covered this here...


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778360

The 757 is rated for .86M, .70-.72M as displayed in the data is well below the certified limits of the pitot-static system.

Hi Rob,

Isn't there more to the certified limits than mach numbers? Are there combinations of altitudes and airspeeds as well? Is information on the certified limits of the pitot-static system used by 757's publicly available?

Warren.

Hi Warren,

The limitations which are publicly available are the Federal Aviation Regulations.

This requires an altimeter to be within +/-75 of error or the airplane is grounded until repaired or a new altimeter installed.

Comparing Radar Altitude to True altitude during departure, the altimeter is within 30 feet and within one - two feet of vertical climb, PA vs RA. During departure we can be certain the Radar Altimeter is measuring from the ground. During the approach to the pentagon, we have no way to positively identify from what type of object the Radar Altimeter is measuring.

Those who make excuse for the govt story need to prove the Pressure altitude was in error in excess of 120 feet. An altimeter does not "drift" such an amount of error in one flight.

For more on airspeed calibration and measurement and how pneumatic and other errors are minimized or eliminated from a specific airframe when performing type certificate testing at high and low speeds, high and low altitudes, please see here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=103

Keep in mind, this whole discussion is predicated on the assumption that your decode is accurate. As you have already pointed out, you have two sets of PA data based on which conversion factor used from either the Boeing Generic Data Frame Layout or the Custom American Airlines data frame layout. I wont get into too many details now, but there is a reason the American Airlines layout has a different conversion factor.

If your decode is inaccurate, this whole discussion is moot. And is why our research remains unchanged with respect to wanting answers from the NTSB/FBI based on the data/information they have provided. Our core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Hi Rob,

If you have a look at row 606 of ReadOut2, the ALT is 74 and the ALTRad is 8186 and in row 611 of ReadOut2, the ALT is 48 and the ALTRad is 8191.
In these 5 seconds, ALT has decreased by 26, while ALTRad has increased by 5. This means the total difference between ALT and ALTRad is 31 feet and this error has occurred under normal flight conditions.

I looked at the NASA document linked to on that page. It says "The calibrations must be performed under various flight conditions of airspeeds and altitude as well as aircraft attitudes and configurations (combinations of flaps, gear, and external stores).". Do you know whether the flight conditions that 757's are calibrated for include the combination of high speed and low altitude?

I'm interested in the reason for the different conversion factor.

Warren.

The aircraft was still on the ground at those above rows and it has not been defined what "81xx" means in the RadAlt. Try starting to read/analyze at row 612 and then compare, for intellectual honesty. They are near equivalent in terms of vertical climb.

I was also comparing PA in your output file which appears to have more decode of the Radar Altitude.




The document clearly states Mach (read: "subsonic") as limiting factor for Static pressure due to compressibility. This is why Mackey attempted to imply the Mcrit for a 757 is at or near .70 - .72M.

Please review these quotes again. Note the bold.

"Static pressure can be measured with a pitot-static tube or a flush-mounted port on the
fuselage. Figure 3 shows a typical subsonic static pressure distribution on an aircraft fuselage
(ref. 2). The measured minus true static pressure, , normalized to compressible dynamic
pressure, , is plotted as a function of fuselage position. Zero static pressure error on the
fuselage exists at locations 2 through 5."

"Even with the selection of the best static port position, some pressure errors will remain, and
these errors must be determined in flight. The difference between the locally measured static
pressure and the ambient static pressure, which is dependent upon angle of attack, airspeed, and
aircraft configuration, is called
position error. (Ed note: notice altitude is not a factor for position error)

"....These quantities generally need to
be measured and then calibrated to remove errors...."

Again, those who make excuse for the govt story need to provide proof the PA is in error in excess of 120 feet AND that .70 - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757 to hold onto their theory.

Hi Warren and Rob!

I posted my reading of the Manual here on Rob's other thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780697

The situation that was specifically mentioned as bad for pressure altitude lag was high altitude/high speed. They also said that the main cause was variations in altitude which I read as up, down, up down, not a steady descent. I take high altitude to mean 30,000 feet or more where most flight time takes place and high speed means the 425 (or greater) knot cruising speed at that altitude. Hani made a pretty steady (undisturbed) descent on a smooth circular course at around 275 knots average according to the government. Although you ask a valid question because high speed/low altitude would not be a likely flight condition, I don't think Hani's alleged path fits into either of the criteria that were specifically mentioned as causes of or conditions for PA lag in the first place.

Hi Rob,

If you subtract 8192 from the 81xx ALTRad values in ReadOut2 you should get the same values as Radio Height in my decode. Even without considering the ALTRad values, there is still an ALT value of 74 on row 606 and an ALT value of 48 on row 611 which is 5 seconds later and a decrease of 26 feet while the aircraft is supposedly on the verge of lifting off the runway. The ALT values do appear to me to be smoother than the ALTRad values from row 612 though.

I see the document also says:
"Compressibility effects become important above approximately Mach number 0.3."
Isn't Mcrit substantially higher than 0.3?

If you look at cell IV12046 (EST 8:44:04) in the NTSB CSV file you see MACH ENGA when the MACH in column IU on the same row is 0.82. column IV reverts back to ENGA NOT at row 12782 (EST 8:45:36) well before the end of the flight. The MACH in column IU at the end of the NTSB CSV file is at a lower value of 0.70. Would MACH ENGA mean the aircraft was flying faster than Mmo or Mcrit or something else?

A little further on the document also says:
"This pressure distribution changes with flight condition, so a calibration over the flight envelope may still be necessary."
Doesn't that imply that the points of zero static pressure change with flight condition?

Altitude is not specifically mentioned but static pressure is. Isn't pressure altitude calculated from the locally measured static pressure which is dependent on the combination of ambient static pressure and the airspeed?

That make sense to me.

I see that the total pressure (which I realise is not static pressure because it also depends on airspeed) increases to 1400mB in the NTSB CSV file towards the end of the flight. Using my decoder, I see that the total pressure never rises above 1058mB in any of the other flights in the FDR file.

Was the pressure altitude reading on the aircraft calibrated to correctly remove errors at such high total pressures? I don't know.

Are you saying that pressure altitude reading is calibrated up to Mcrit?

Warren.

Warren, we're going in circles.... Please read the following quotes from the paper more thoroughly.

"This pressure distribution changes with flight condition, so a calibration over the flight envelope may still be necessary."

".These quantities generally need to
be measured and then calibrated to remove errors...."

"The techniques and procedures have been only
briefly described here; numerous references should be studied if airdata values are to be measured and calibrated."

Every type of aircraft goes through a rigorous type certification process. The "Flight envelope" of the 757 is .86M and is tested above those speeds. The Static system is tested to such speeds and calibrated to remove such errors.

Compressibility depends on airframe. Sure, some airframes can encounter Compressibility problems at much lower Mach speeds. To understand the definition of Compressibility, I'll let Mackey explain...

"When air approaches the speed of sound, however, "compressibility" sets in. What it means is that under the right conditions, we can no longer assume density is constant, and thus neither can we assume static pressure is constant. Applied to an aircraft, this can happen even at aircraft speeds below Mach 1 -- hence there is no clean distinction between subsonic and supersonic when aircraft are involved. We call this overlap the "transonic" regime. But why does it happen?

Why is because the aircraft shape accelerates the flow. If the aircraft is traveling at the critical Mach number, which can be as low as about 0.6, this means that at some point, probably flowing over the wings, the airflow is accelerated to the point that it becomes supersonic. When that happens, we can no longer treat the air as constant pressure, or constant density."

In other words, those who make excuse for PA error need to prove .70-.72M is above Mcrit for the 757.

The Airdata document provided above is a generic document for the layman to understand that there are inherent errors when dealing with a Static System and that those errors are removed during type certification and flight testing. The document is not 757 specific.

By the way, the 757 Radar Altitude reads 0 on the ground. the "81xx" is undefined. To use the 81xx quantities for anything is intellectually dishonest.

Also, anyone who attempts to equate possible PA errors during rotation on take off, low speeds, high angle of attack, while the aircraft is still on the ground, as compared to being 100-200 feet in the air in steady state flight, is exposing the one of the most blatant displays of intellectual dishonesty. "Ground effect" is most prominent during rotation on take-off and landing, i would expect to see such a PA "dip" upon rotation. It makes sense. As you see the aircraft lift off (as noted by RA), PA is steady because the airflow is free streaming, ie. not disturbed by the ground. You see this starting after 3 feet RA.

Hi, sorry I am confused by different calculations.
What is meaning to be calculated?
I know it's acceleration but what are knowns?

Hi Jefferson,

The above calculations were due to a question asked by Warren on the first page. Here is a direct link.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780090

Warren,

I finally had some time to browse around the internet to read through some of the arguments by those who obviously had more time to spend behind their computer screen during the holidays.

I found some information which may clear up some confusion for you.

First we will discuss the static system calibrations and removal of "position errors" which are calibrated with respect to Mach number (not knots) in which the ADC removes such errors.

The following quotes from a self-proclaimed avionics tech who blindly supports the govt story.

"...the ADC starts looking at AoA at Mach 0.55 and higher.... "

What this means is that the Air Data Computer starts to make adjustments to the Pitot-Static system at .55M and above to remove errors from the system. This was calibrated during type certification we discussed above.

.55M is 369 knots at sea level using 23 deg C as reported by KDCA ATIS on the morning of 9/11/01. This is already 19 knots over Vmo in which the ADC then starts to adjust for any possible errors encountered by the Pitot-Static System. So the claim that the aircraft was "operating outside it's envelope" with respect to the Static system and ADC correction is clear BS. The ADC doesnt even start to recognize "errors" and start adjusting for such errors until .55M. Hence the reason stated in above posts that the "Flight Envelope" is tested to .86M and beyond. Mach, and the effects of Mach which would effect the Static System (Compressibility), is only a function of temperature, not altitude.

The Angle of Attack at end of data (EOD), is roughly -1.6 degrees from level with a -1.2 deg pitch angle. These cancel out each other and means the aircraft was practically level at EOD. Therefore the ADC does not need to do any adjustment for any error due to effects of possible changing pressure around the aircraft due to angle of attack. (Our pilots are still getting a kick out of Will Clinger using FD pitch angles to determine aircraft atitude...lol... too funny).

The argument of "Lag".

Those who make this argument of "lag" claim that since the aircraft was descending at roughly 3500 fpm at EOD, that the altimeter was "lagging" behind the actual aircraft altitude.

Well first. as described above, the aircraft was already leveling and in level flight at EOD. Keep in mind the Pitch and AOA angles update more frequently than PA. This is the reason we dont see the "level out" in the PA. This makes the "lag" argument moot from the start...

but...

For arguments sake, lets assume the aircraft was still descending at 3500 fpm at time of impact. 120+ feet of "lag" needs to be accounted for in order for those to hold onto their "impact" theory who blindly support the govt story. How much "lag" is this in terms of time?

3500/60 = 58 f/sec

120/58 = 2 sec.

Those who claim the altimeter was "lagging", claim the altimeter was lagging behind the aircraft by more than 2 seconds in a 3500 fpm descent.

Now for a quote from "crapathoid", the Govt Loyalist extraordinaire regarding "lag" he observed in a greater descent rate.

"I know there is lag on the 757 because I've seen it when doing my pitot-static tests. I use a rate of about 5000' per minute when changing test altitudes and every single time I pass an altitude at 5000 fpm, I notice the altimeter is a bit behind my test set remotes reading(which represents the atmosphere around the pitot and static ports). Maybe its only a 1/2 second or so, but its there."

crapathoid claims he observes a 0.5 second delay in a 5000 fpm descent on the 757.

5000/60 = 83 f/sec

83 * 0.5 = 41.5 feet "lag".

Using the same "lag" rate for a higher descent rate, lets see how much "lag" would be in a 3500 fpm descent.

3500/5000 = 70%

41.5 * .7 = 29.5 feet of "lag" as the upper limit.

The above interpolation is the UPPER limit of lag if in fact such lag existed at 3500 fpm descent based on lag claim to be observed in a 5000 fpm descent for the 757.

This brings the total to roughly 90 feet still unaccounted for.

The above analysis gives every possible advantage to those who make excuse for the govt story, and still it does not add up to impact.

The above analysis and claims are also not reality in that the pitch shows level (no lag), 3500 fpm descent could NEVER have 4 times more lag than observed in a 5000 fpm descent rate, and that Vmo is the not upper limit of the "Flight Envelope" with respect to the static system.

Conclusion - Removing any possible "errors" from PA lines up more with a flyover. The height of the Pentagon is roughly 100 feet with a 4 RA bouncing off the top of the roof.



Hope this helps.

"Hi Jefferson,

The above calculations were due to a question asked by Warren on the first page. Here is a direct link.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...=10780090"

Thankyou. I did read that before but it needs more data.

What is the descent at start of time period and what is the descent from the light pole to the hole in the wall?

Can Warren Stutt give more accurate time than 0.3s? I mean can the data show how much was written over old data on last frame? I know that if possible then still not perfect.

It is maybe not important except for better accuracy but I don't like varying results for the above calculations that should be same.

I have a thought about altitude. It could be useful or not.

I know that radar on water is not good with angle but the plane was over water before final turn to pentagon and maybe flat surface of water is distinctive in radar altitude data and water has known altitude.

It is maybe not any use but thought I should say anyway.

Altitude reading at End of data is -99 Pressure Altitude. To convert that to True Altitude please see here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778240




Warren didnt calculate the 0.3 seconds. I did. Please read this again.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780090

Here, i'll copy/paste it for you again.

Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1,

The "varying" results are due to the excuses made by those who blindly support the govt story. They love to cloud the issue with spin and throwing anything against the wall they can to see if it will stick. They dont have to win the argument, all they have to do is drag the argument down into endless debate. This is the mission of Bloggers hired by the Pentagon.

Even using the arguments/excuses made by those who blindly support the govt story, it still does not add up to impact. This is what we're showing above in the "varying" calculations.

If we look at the data from a straight forward perspective, and interpret the data the way it was meant to be interpreted and as provided by the NTSB, the altitude is too high, the descent rate too great, the Flight Deck Door closed. The data does not support the govt story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

Read more here on a summary of the findings.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html

Thankyou rob balsamo. Sorry I think I am not being clear.

I am needing the descent rates at the start and end of 0.3s period as well as altitude but never mind I will leave this now.

"Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1, "

Is it 1.2 seconds from pole to wall based on speed?

Download For Warrens Data
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239

Download Google Earth
http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html

Google Earth has a measure tool.

Feel free to help yourself.



Yes.

"Yes. "

Thankyou rob balsamo, that was not mentioned in the post you linked and is where i got confused about where 0.3 seconds came from.

Hi Jefferson,

One thing I will say is that since the pressure altitude is recorded in words 29 and 30 and there are 243 words in the last subframe and subframes which are recorded one per second normally contain 256 words, that the last pressure altitude reading must be at least ((243 - 29) + 1) / 256 = 0.84 seconds before the end of the data.

Warren.

Hi Rob,

Have you read post #4078 by apathoid on the AA77 FDR Data, Explained thread on J.R.E.F?

Warren.

Hi Warren,

I skimmed through most of his posts as most of them are typical immature ad homs and personal attacks due to his frustration with the topic. The one that had any substance i addressed here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780868

Have you asked apathoid to review it? Does he still think a 3500 fpm descent rate can have 4 times more lag than a 5000 fpm descent rate? Do you think so?

Hi Rob,

I have now made J.R.E.F. aware of your previous post that you linked to.

apathoid no longer thinks that proving lag is necessary.

As for the quote "...the ADC starts looking at AoA at Mach 0.55 and higher.... ". Did apathoid say that? if so, where did he say that?

Warren.

Here :



and here :



Don't know why the link gets mangled.

Hi Warren,

He made the statement at ATS Forum under his other name "767Doctor". Just ask him, I'm sure he wont deny it.

I went over to check replies to your post above. None yet, but i see apathoid is attempting to throw more crap at the wall to see if it sticks in terms of differential pressure Pt vs Ps.

As usual, they are holding onto any possible "error" they can, to hold onto their impact theory, while not even knowing the indications should such "errors" exist. This is what happens when you have a typical part changer (which apathoid is) as compared to someone who not only needs to know the system, but also needs to understand how the system works, apply, and correlate the information. This is known as RUAC in the Instructor world. Crapathiod is stuck on the "R", which means Rote memory.

For instance, +/- 75 feet to them means, +75 feet only.

"Can cause damage", means it was damaged and this damage caused the altimeter to show too high... to them.

The language of "May cause damage" is used for everything over Vmo. See a typical Vg diagram. Note the red shaded section where structural failure MAY occur anytime above Max operating limits. They want their cake and be able to eat it too. They claim the Pitot-Static system is in error above Vmo. Since their "lag" argument blew up in their face, they are now trying to claim "error" is due to damage from a high differential pressure, which they interpret as showing too high for altitude, but disregard all other factors of flying above Vmo, Cp vs CG, Trim characteristics, possible flutter, the list goes on (see also typical Vg diagram above).

Now for a basic lesson of the system as its clear apathoid doesnt even realize his latest technobabble actually works against him once again. Once you have a better understanding of the system, you will understand apathoid, true to his moniker "crapatiod", is just trying to throw crap at the J.REF cesspool wall, as his minions lap it up.

Pt vs Ps differential pressure is based on differential at the airspeed indicator. Pt (Pitot) is RAM air entering the instrument, and yes, the airspeed indicator is the ONLY instrument which utilizes the Pt (Pitot) air (unlike what Tino would have you believe..lol). To understand this, see a typical airspeed indicator diagram. (the principle of the airspeed indicator is the same in every aircraft, whether they have an ADC or not).



Note the Pitot connection (Pt) and the static connection (Ps). As the aircraft moves forward, the RAM air enters the Pitot tube and increases pressure in that diaphragm above. Sort of like blowing up a balloon (if you will). As that diaphragm expands due to increased Pt, the linkages, springs etc... interpret that to airspeed on the indicator dial which the pilot reads. Pressure increases, the pilot see's the airspeed increase. Pilot says, "Oh hey, we're moving forward!"

But is he really moving forward? What if the pitot tube becomes clogged? Another lesson for another day..

(Side story - I departed on one flight and realized I had a clogged static port when i was Chief pilot and flying the King Air. The alternate static port was clogged as well. Departed KBED after a night of freezing rain. We were deiced, but the ports remained clogged. Not fun climbing out while your instruments are going haywire or stuck in place. But its easy to remedy if you can recognize the problem and know the system thoroughly. A full load of kids and Executives made it home and didnt even know the problem existed... Again.. another story for another day.)

Now, if you increase the pressure too much at Pt (RAM Air), thereby having a large differential in pressure, you could blow out that diaphragm. When this happens the springs will cause the diaphragm to "deflate", the airspeed will then read zero, and the RAM air will "leak" into the rest of the static lines, increasing the pressure in the static system, and could cause damage to other instruments. This is what crapathoids' documents mean when they say more than 10" can cause damage. (keyword = "can" cause damage, not "does" cause damage).

Question - If increased pressure is sensed in the static lines (ie: altimeter), due to Ram Pitot (Pt) air leaking from the Airspeed indicator, what will happen to the Altimeter?

Thats right, the altimeter will read artificially LOWER than actual (not higher as crapathoid would have you believe).

The limits set for BENCH testing have a margin of error as engineers know that techs who are sloppy in their work can and will damage the instruments. Crapathiod admits himself he has done this. For instance, we know, based on the data, the Pitot-Static system was operating normally, as if the difference in pressure was too great and damaged the diaphragm, we wouldnt even have an airspeed reading. It would be reading zero. If Pt air leaked into the static lines due to such damage, the altitude you are reading is LOWER than true altitude.

Also note Bench test limits for descent is 5,000 fpm. I had to call Capt Kolstad to make sure, but the IVSI on the 757 reads up to 6000 fpm, and when a rapid descent is needed whether by ATC or other, they regularly peg the IVSI. No damage done to instruments. I have performed descents to 10,000 fpm. Instruments were fine.

This is the difference of those who change parts for a living (crapathoid), and those who actually have to know the system because their ass depends on it. This is why pilots train on partial panel work for their instrument rating (what happens if the pitot tube is clogged? Static port clogged? Both? etc..). And then further learn the systems more thoroughly when they become an Instrument Instructor (as I am trained and trained others).

Dont get me wrong, there are many Avionics Techs out there who are excellent. We have quite a few who are in our organization. Crapthoid isnt worth his weight in salt and i'm surprised he still has a job at Delta after damaging an ADC/instruments due to his incompetence.

So, to sum up.

In order for those who blindly support the govt story to hold onto their theory, they must prove the PA was 120 feet in error, they must prove .70M-.72M is above Mcrit for the 757 and as such, the compressibility issues cause an artificially high PA reading, they must prove the "+/- error" is in their favor, they must prove the Pitot-Static system was "damaged" to their favor, and finally, they must prove the data came from N644AA.

So far they have done nothing but throw crap at the wall hoping it will stick. Most of it has bounced back into their face.

I also see Farmer is back on J.REF with a sock. Didnt he once say J.REF can "kiss my ass" and left with his tail between his legs?

Man, as i said before, that guy waffles more than an Eggo... too funny.

Hi Rob,

I think Tom's point of uncertainty in measurement is important here.

You have said that if the altimeter is incorrect by more than +/- 75 feet, then it is repaired or replaced as required by the FAA.

However, how often do pilots fly commercial airliners so fast that the OVERSPEED warning comes on? In both of the FDR files that the NTSB has told us are from AAL77 which contains 42+ hours of data and UAL93 which contains 106+ hours of data, I found only the final flights show OVERSPEED warnings.

Also, would maintenance engineers test altimeters under an OVERSPEED condition?

If an altimeter becomes incorrect by more than +/- 75 feet only when the aircraft is giving an OVERSPEED warning and nobody tests or uses the altimeter under these conditions, then how would anyone know that the altimeter needs to repaired or replaced?

Warren.