FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

[Jonnyclueless]

Anyone have an image of a radar screen showing primary radar some those who don't buy this scenario can point out to us which plane is which on the screen?

 

[gumboot]

Excellent recap of events gumboot. I knew most of it but your times and details are spot on. A few things I didn't know though. Such as, how was it determined that UA93 was destined for the Capitol? I always assumed so but is there any evidence?

I believe the evidence comes from the testimony of captured and former Al Qaeda members. (Before anyone screams the "torture" line, not all of that testimony comes from the CIA or even from the US government).

Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower collaborates these targets, for example.

 

[gumboot]

Anyone have an image of a radar screen showing primary radar some those who don't buy this scenario can point out to us which plane is which on the screen?

This easy to follow and illustrated presentation (consisting of 41 slides) demonstrates quite effectively why it is that an aircraft can disappear from a radar. The issue Tom Lusch is addressing is somewhat different to 9/11, however what he presents is significantly relevant to the disappearance of AA77, especially if you consider that the long range surveillance radar site closest (about 50 mi away) to AA77 at the time it was hijacked (QHY - Harmony, WV) did not have a primary radar.

 

[tony soprano]

That's an easy one. He ignores it because it shows the aircraft where he doesn't want it to be.

You couldnt find it Reheat? It appears they addressed the DME Feb 9, 2007. Thats last year. I'd post the link, but cant post links yet. Its in their pinned topics. Im surprised you couldnt find it. You seem to know what you are talking about most of the time when i read your posts. I may have to rethink that.

They also came out with a new video and it appears beachnut is very wrong with his 3000+ feet 1.5 DME calculation.

I been lurking for a while.

 

[Reheat]

You couldnt find it Reheat? It appears they addressed the DME Feb 9, 2007. Thats last year. I'd post the link, but cant post links yet. Its in their pinned topics. Im surprised you couldnt find it. You seem to know what you are talking about most of the time when i read your posts. I may have to rethink that.

They also came out with a new video and it appears beachnut is very wrong with his 3000+ feet 1.5 DME calculation.

I been lurking for a while.

Your point is?

 

[tony soprano]

The plane is 2800 feet or so from the Pentagon when the survivable chip data stops.

Beachnut, you need to make up your mind. I've seen you say 2600 feet, 2800 feet, 3000 feet, 3000+ feet, and now its back to 2800. Thats good. It closer to the actual data, but still very wrong. Anyone with Google Earth can check 1.5 DME Nautical miles from DCA VOR. But even so, 2800 feet from the wall is still to high it seems. Ever seen 8000-10,000 fpm descents at less than 300 feet above the ground? Because that is what you are advocating if the data stopped at 2800 feet from the wall. When did they pull out of that dive?

Also, you said you worked with FDR's. Are you familair with ED-55 and/or TSO-124? I think the 4 second buffer was applicable in the old mag tape FDR's. Not the supposed SSFDR claimed to be used in AA77.

 

[tony soprano]

Your point is?

My point is you said PfT never acknowledged DME distance. You are wrong.

 

[Reheat]

The VOR/DME data for instance which Balsamo oddly seems to ignore anyway.

That's an easy one. He ignores it because it shows the aircraft where he doesn't want it to be.

My point is you said PfT never acknowledged DME distance. You are wrong.

Note what I actually said is quoted above. It's not polite to misquote people, particularly on an early post. It detracts from your credibility and makes everyone question your honesty.

Dopy has razzled dazzled his way through so many things and changed his stance so many times it's difficult to keep up with his latest rendition of the troof.

Apparently, you want to "look up the goat's butt with one eyeball" (the FDR Data) and ignore the other mountain of evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. Good freakin' luck.

I'm not an expert on FDR's, in fact, I probably don't know as much as many engineers here. But, I do know one thing. That is that they were never intended to and have never been used as a method of determining if a crash occurred or not. That is usually obvious to even a casual observer. They were designed as a tool to HELP determine the cause of accidents. They are not the sole infallible device to be used exclusively in ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION.

Even tho' it disgusts me to have to read the unadulterated crap on the p4t site, I have watched as the "experts" tried to unravel the FDR Data. Tell your friend Robbie to have a recognized FDR expert analyze the FDR data and agree with his numbers and premise and then I'll discuss it in a serious manner.

BTW, how many feet are in a nautical mile?

 

[tony soprano]

Thanks for the correction Reheat. It was "ignore" instead of "acknowledge". You are still.. very... wrong. PfT has never "ignored" the DME. It was posted last year, thoroughly, in pinned topics, and a recent video was just published. But perhaps i guess you can say they "ignored" the DME. I disagree with you, respectfully.

As for "other evidence". Is this thread about the FDR or "other evidence"? I havent thoroughly looked at the rules for JREF, but is off topic posting against the rules?

As for FDR Experts, it appears they have quite a few. I know it "disgusts" you to look over their work, but they do have an interview with Ed Santana from L3 Communications on their front page which completely destroys beachnuts' argument. When was the last time Beachnut worked with an FDR? It seems quite awhile.

edit to add: Why do you automatically assume im a "friend of Robbie"? Why do you call them names? Isnt it against JREF rules to attack the person instead of the argument? I read many of your posts and initially thought you were fair, i see you are wrong. Feel free to call me a "kook" if it makes you feel better. But it still wont change the fact you are wrong.

 

[Reheat]

Thanks for the correction Reheat. It was "ignore" instead of "acknowledge". You are still.. very... wrong. PfT has never "ignored" the DME. It was posted last year, thoroughly, in pinned topics, and a recent video was just published. But perhaps i guess you can say they "ignored" the DME. I disagree with you, respectfully.

It is customary here to post a link when you refer to other material. I realize you can't post HTML type links until you have 15 posts, but you can separate with spaces. I'm not going to waste my time searching through junk to find the material. I could be wrong, I was once about 25 or 30 years ago.

Sure, they've posted a lot of crap, doesn't mean it was properly addressed, does it? Unless you're talking about recently, after all this thread is pretty old.

As for "other evidence". Is this thread about the FDR or "other evidence"? I havent thoroughly looked at the rules for JREF, but is off topic posting against the rules?

If it's an extended off thread discussion it is not allowed, but it certainly is pertinent to this issue.

As for FDR Experts, it appears they have quite a few. I know it "disgusts" you to look over their work, but they do have an interview with Ed Santana from L3 Communications on their front page which completely destroys beachnuts' argument. When was the last time Beachnut worked with an FDR? It seems quite awhile.

I have no idea what you're talking about without a link referring to the material you address. What did Ed Santana say?

I'm sure beachnut can and will defend his own argument. Why mention it here, I'm not beachnut?

edit to add: Why do you automatically assume im a "friend of Robbie"?

Perhaps a bad assumption, but you seem to be enamored with his work. If referring to him as your friend is insulting, I'm sorry about that.

Why do you call them names?

Oh, Dopy is a term of endearment. He's been called worse.

Isnt it against JREF rules to attack the person instead of the argument?

Where's the attack? You ain't seen nothing yet if you think there's been an attack.

I read many of your posts and initially thought you were fair, i see you are wrong. Feel free to call me a "kook" if it makes you feel better. But it still wont change the fact you are wrong.

You're repeating yourself. If you're patronizing me it not going to work if you accuse me of calling you names before I actually do.

BTW, I'm not going to be wrong and stay up until 0 dark thirty to have a chat. You're not that interesting.

 

[apathoid]

Tony, welcome to JREF. Please take anything from so the so-called "Pilots for Truth" with a pinch of salt....they are selling snakeoil.

Truth is: the exact time, or distance if you prefer, the aircraft was from the wall at the last frame of recorded data cannot possibly be known directly, it has to be inferred. There are two very good values which can triangulate the position of the aircraft during this frame: the DME(+/- 0.1 nm) and the track track(true heading corrected for wind drift). As PfT noted in the new video, the IRS position can be off due to drift and other factors so it's not very reliable here.

I've already worked out this position, but I invite you to do the same. Perhaps we can compare answers.

As for FDR Experts, it appears they have quite a few.

Such as?

 

[tony soprano]

It is customary here to post a link when you refer to other material. I realize you can't post HTML type links until you have 15 posts, but you can separate with spaces. I'm not going to waste my time searching through junk to find the material. I could be wrong, I was once about 25 or 30 years ago.

Thanks for the instruction.

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum // index.php?showtopic=5388

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum // index.php?showtopic=10751

You may use the excuse "junk" as the reason for making statements without checking source, but others will find you are very wrong with your statements and perhaps think you are biased when they actually check readily accessible information you claim PfT ignores? The links are truly very easy to find. Just an observation. With respect. Not sure why anyone would make such a statement as you have without at least checking pinned topics. But thats your choice i suppose.

Sure, they've posted a lot of crap, doesn't mean it was properly addressed, does it? Unless you're talking about recently, after all this thread is pretty old.

The topic you say they ignored was published last year. You posted that they ignored the topic... last month. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "ignore"

If it's an extended off thread discussion it is not allowed, but it certainly is pertinent to this issue.

The topic of this thread states "FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth". After respectfully realizing your faults, i can see why you would want to shift the topic to "other evidence".

I have no idea what you're talking about without a link referring to the material you address. What did Ed Santana say?

pilotsfor911truth. org. You dont have to watch it i suppose since it "disgusts" you. Many others will and do. Seems their core member list is growing pretty rapidly. pilotsfor911truth. org / core . html

I'm sure beachnut can and will defend his own argument. Why mention it here, I'm not beachnut?

Nothing personal to beachnut, but many of his posts are full of ad hom attacks. When he does try to stick to topic, it seems rather incoherent with shifting arguments. I remember a thread awhile back where many on JREF asked him why he had a problem posting coherent posts. I suppose i can dig it out because im sure no one here will try.. but i'll take my time. I understand he is a bit of an old timer. God Bless him. However, i am addressing beachnut because he posted in this thread and it appears he is very wrong as well.

Perhaps a bad assumption, but you seem to be enamored with his work.

Not really. Im just not "disgusted" and will look at both sides.

If referring to him as your friend is insulting, I'm sorry about that.

Doesnt matter to me, but it seems par for the course around here when anyone questions posts from the "regulars". I lurked alot.

It really only hurts you i suppose.

Oh, Dopy is a term of endearment. He's been called worse.

Agreed. I seen it here many times against more than just "Robbie". But again, we're getting off topic and im sure unbiased lurkers understand.

Where's the attack? You ain't seen nothing yet if you think there's been an attack.

Oh, i seen plenty over the years lurking this board. Yes, you are rather tame at this point. But again, getting a bit off topic.

You're repeating yourself. If you're patronizing me it not going to work if you accuse me of calling you names before I actually do.

My apologies.

BTW, I'm not going to be wrong and stay up until 0 dark thirty to have a chat. You're not that interesting.

Sleep well. Im sure this post will be here when you wake up. Hopefully.

 

[tony soprano]

Tony, welcome to JREF. Please take anything from so the so-called "Pilots for Truth" with a pinch of salt....they are selling snakeoil.

If they are selling snake oil, why are so many pilots and aviation professionals joining?

patriotsquestion911. com/ pilots

Those guys dont look like snake oil salesman to me. Good to see you posting again apathoid. I thought you may have disappeared. You happen to be able to put your face on your claims calling them snake oil salesman?

 

[apathoid]

If they are selling snake oil, why are so many pilots and aviation professionals joining?

patriotsquestion911. com/ pilots

Those guys dont look like snake oil salesman to me. Good to see you posting again apathoid. I thought you may have disappeared. You happen to be able to put your face on your claims calling them snake oil salesman?

I'm really not in the business of making claims a la the "Truth" movement - but I guess my claim, if anything, is that there is not enough information from the FDR to do a forensic investigation of AA77s position relative to the light poles.

I simply suggested that you use all available data to attempt to place AA77, don't conviently leave out major parameters(like heading)...doing so will not lead you to the truth my friend.

 

[tony soprano]

Thanks for your insightful post apathoid.

It appears DME found in the CSV file provided by the NTSB places the airplane in a rather specific location, even given the .1 NM error. Ask Beachnut, he'll tell ya. It appears he did on page 1. Or do you feel he is wrong?

Now, back to the snake oil salesman part. Have you tried to speak with PfT and tell them that face to face? I understand "Robbie" has recordings with Ron Weick and Ron doesnt feel that way at all. Matter of fact, Ron says it was rather pleasant phone calls. Of course, im just going by my lurking here and what Ron has posted. I can dig them out as well if you like, but im sure Ron wont disagree, because he did post it.

I'd like to see those who accuse PfT of being "snake oil salesman", from behind their screen to actually stand up to PfT, or at the very least, create a website and put their face and name on their ad hom attacks. Might be asking too much, my apologies.

 

[tony soprano]

BTW, the 300 miles in 30 min claim is addressed here,

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum// index.php?s=&showtopic =8123&view=findpost&p=9880981

 

[gumboot]

When did they pull out of that dive?

What dive?

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, you need to make up your mind. I've seen you say 2600 feet, 2800 feet, 3000 feet, 3000+ feet, and now its back to 2800. Thats good. It closer to the actual data, but still very wrong. Anyone with Google Earth can check 1.5 DME Nautical miles from DCA VOR. But even so, 2800 feet from the wall is still to high it seems. Ever seen 8000-10,000 fpm descents at less than 300 feet above the ground? Because that is what you are advocating if the data stopped at 2800 feet from the wall. When did they pull out of that dive?

Also, you said you worked with FDR's. Are you familair with ED-55 and/or TSO-124? I think the 4 second buffer was applicable in the old mag tape FDR's. Not the supposed SSFDR claimed to be used in AA77.

Too bad you have no idea how a FDR works;

 

[gumboot]

BTW, the 300 miles in 30 min claim is addressed here,

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum// index.php?s=&showtopic =8123&view=findpost&p=9880981

Except when AA77 was 300 miles from the Pentagon it was about 39 minutes away, and when it was 30 minutes away it was only 227 miles from the Pentagon. In other words it was never both 300 miles and 30 minutes from the Pentagon.

 

[tony soprano]

Sorry buddy, but the plane is only maximum of 393 feet at 2800 feet from the Pentagon. What was the altitude it hits at, and what is the reference point on flight 77?

2800 feet/781 f/s speed = 3.5 seconds

393 feet altitude/3.5 seconds = 112 f/s descent rate x 60 = 6737 fpm descent rate at less than 400 feet above the ground. Unfortunately, you just increased the descent rate/pitch angle the NTSB provided, which in fact doesnt hit the poles.

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum// index.php?showtopic=8166&b=1&st=0&p=0&#entry0

Care to revise your statement.. again?

have no brought but talk to a fact discussion you are not advancing knowledge

Coherent posts my friend. Please slow down.

you are repeating hearsay and lies of p4t; idiots who once flew!

Anyone want to report Beachnut for attacking the person instead of the argument?

By the way Beachnut, it appears they have many who are current. And from what "Robbie" says, a major update on the way. Are you current? Or did you only fly limited flights and then assigned a desk.... just wondering.

Still waiting to see if you know what ED-55 and TSO-124 is, but please, keep ignoring it.

Thanks for your input Beachnut. It is always useful.