AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

Hey, Turbofan, what did Calum Douglas say when you approached him with your "at most 0.5 to 2 seconds missing" or "1600 feet" hypothesis? Did he laugh at you? Did you ever ask yourself why not? Do you laugh at his radar altitude analysis, showing the plane was about 5000 feet out at last recorded data? Why not?

I didn't laugh, and I haven't had any exchange with Calum. I saw his
video presentation, and it's very well laid out.

The last posted distance according to the beacon was ~ 1.5 nautical miles.

Considering the radio altitude which coincides with the corrected pressure
altitude, the plane was too high to hit the poles.

At the speed of the plane and distance to the Pentagon, there is no chance
the plane could dive down, hit the poles, level off and strike the wall.

What are your contentions with the NTSB file, or flight simulation?

 

[beachnut]

When will the 9/11 truth movement or p4t post some evidence to deny the FDR was found in the Pentagon, or the DNA of the passengers?

What about all the people who saw 77 hit the poles and the Pentagon? Gee, they have failed to do anything but make up non theories!

No evidence, standard truther stuff...

 

[celestrin]

I didn't laugh, and I haven't had any exchange with Calum. I saw his
video presentation, and it's very well laid out.

I thought you'd say that. I could sense the hook, line and sinker in the corner of your mouth.

The last posted distance according to the beacon was ~ 1.5 nautical miles.

Can you quantify that ~ ?

Considering the radio altitude which coincides with the corrected pressure
altitude, the plane was too high to hit the poles.

At the speed of the plane and distance to the Pentagon, there is no chance
the plane could dive down, hit the poles, level off and strike the wall.

Really? Go ask Douglas. And ask him why he never publicaly mentioned a part of his analysis.

What are your contentions with the NTSB file, or flight simulation?

What NTSB file? The fdr or the csv? I don't see anything wrong with them.

What simulation? Do you really think the NTSB animation was a simulation? Does Wile E. Coyote falling off a cliff constitute a real world simulation?

 

[eeyore1954]

My sources are professionals, yet anyone I mention is considered a crackpot,
or not experienced enough....however the people calling these guys crackpots
are no where near the level of ability of said individuals.

What are your professionals qualifications in interpreting FDR data.

 

[Turbofan]

The woo is flowing freely, we jump from hole, to FDR data, to an E4, Norman, witnesses, and a C-130, all with zero evidence.

No proof? You haven't seen these videos yet? Wow, talk about uneducated!

Here are some links for you to watch:

E4-B CNN Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8mGvFzvwFM

Norman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Pentagon Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8eAK_7i940
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXWlED37bg

I'll get back to you with the C-130 witness video.

Sorry you lose. You should have seen this stuff by now, or are YOU
too busy living in a fantasy land?

No, the plane was not too high to hit the lamp posts you are now making up lies.

WHere is your FDR analysis, video, and calculation to show otherwise?

Has anyone here actually studied the FDR data like PFT, or do you just
call names because you don't believe (just like the VIDEO PROOF that I just posted!)?

No facts, no evidence, no real idea what happen on 9/11, that is 9/11 truth now, and always.

You must not fly planes, or understand physics, to come up and without evidence make up the stuff you do.

See above at the links and VIDEO PROOF. I love beating guys like you
down.

 

[beachnut]

No proof? You haven't seen these videos yet? Wow, talk about uneducated!

Here are some links for you to watch:

E4-B CNN Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8mGvFzvwFM

Norman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Pentagon Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8eAK_7i940
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXWlED37bg

I'll get back to you with the C-130 witness video.

Sorry you lose. You should have seen this stuff by now, or are YOU
too busy living in a fantasy land?


WHere is your FDR analysis, video, and calculation to show otherwise?

Has anyone here actually studied the FDR data like PFT, or do you just
call names because you don't believe (just like the VIDEO PROOF that I just posted!)?



See above at the links and VIDEO PROOF. I love beating guys like you
down.

wowzer!

oops, those witnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon... If you had paid attention in 2001 these same witnesses already went on record seeing 77 hit the Pentagon! Oops!

Darn, just when you had the Pulitzer Prize, it slips away after your hour of research on YouTube! What a waste of 60 whole minutes~! awe shucks!


Debunked ! Calling people uneducated is what? You have no idea what Brooks and Lagasse said over 6 years ago making you look bad. Seems like you have finished here, you went from JAQ, to declaring victory in a day or so! Most truthers stretch out their declaration a while longer; you may of set a record for posting total junk and standing by false statements of 9/11 truth, p4t, and CIT; and then declaring victory over others.

 

[Turbofan]

Can you quantify that ~ ?

Sure, I can do that. Off the top I believe the tolerance is about +/- 0.1 nautical miles. I'll look up the spec and post it.

Really? Go ask Douglas. And ask him why he never publicaly mentioned a part of his analysis.

Sure, I will. I'll send him an e-mail and maybe have him post here with
the results.

What NTSB file? The fdr or the csv? I don't see anything wrong with them.

Raw, and CSV. FDR is not a file format, it's a device...oh man...

You don't see the slightest issue with the RAD. ALT. missing from the CSV
file (among other things)?

What simulation? Do you really think the NTSB animation was a simulation? Does Wile E. Coyote falling off a cliff constitute a real world simulation?

People really love Wile E. around here! Do you happen to know that the
simulation is based off of the flight data? It's not like someone made the
simulation video. The program shows the plane's behaviour based on FDR
data!

Not too many people up to speed on this forum. I'm really surprised.

 

[Turbofan]

wowzer!

oops, those witnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon... If you had paid attention in 2001 these same witnesses already went on record seeing 77 hit the Pentagon! Oops!

Darn, just when you had the Pulitzer Prize, it slips away after your hour of research on YouTube! What a waste of 60 whole minutes~! awe shucks!


Debunked !

Wowzer! Scooby Doo and oops!

Are you forgetting they contest the official flight path? They think they
saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

According to their testimony, the plane flew off course from the offical
story path.

SO WHAT HIT THE LIGHT POLES SMART GUY?!

edit: Wowzer! Oops! Selective research (scooby doo and Wile E!)

 

[Turbofan]

What are your professionals qualifications in interpreting FDR data.

None. What are yours?

Who on this forum?

Do you have to be a scientist to understand a presentation made by an
industry professional?

 

[beachnut]

Wowzer! Scooby Doo and oops!

Are you forgetting they contest the official flight path? They think they
saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

According to their testimony, the plane flew off course from the offical
story path.

SO WHAT HIT THE LIGHT POLES SMART GUY?!

edit: Wowzer! Oops! Selective research (scooby doo and Wile E!)

The witnesses you posted in YouTube videos, saw 77 hit the Pentagon and agree 77 hit the lamppost, and they said this 6 years ago. That debunks the conclusions you have made despite the fact p4t make no theories or conclusions. Why do they let you? Are you their hearsay parrot? So far you have failed to present one piece of evidence, and have shown why p4t and all of 9/11 truth will never garner a Pulitzer Prize for their lack of work solving 9/11.

How much further can you drift from reality?

As a trained aircraft accident investigator, I ask you to study 9/11 before you post more junk already debunked. I find you lack of evidence standard procedure for hearsay false information experts like p4t and 9/11 truth. Why are you repeating the failed ideas of the no fact 9/11 truth movement?

 

[celestrin]

Sure, I can do that. Off the top I believe the tolerance is about +/- 0.1 nautical miles. I'll look up the spec and post it.

Yes, please do. Also try to crosscheck your findings with the csv data itself, while you're at it.

Raw, and CSV. FDR is not a file format, it's a device...oh man...

You don't see the slightest issue with the RAD. ALT. missing from the CSV
file (among other things)?

NTSB did release a .fdr file, no amount of rolling your eyes will change that.

I still fail to see the significance of RADALT not getting officially released. Especially if the fdr data was somehow faked.

People really love Wile E. around here! Do you happen to know that the
simulation is based off of the flight data? It's not like someone made the
simulation video. The program shows the plane's behaviour based on FDR
data!

What would happen, if you fed the program some invalid data? Like plane gaining 10000 feet altitude in a second. Would it fail to render the plane or would it show it at the specified altitude? Simulations usually conform to physical world, animations don't.

 

[beachnut]

Sure, I can do that. Off the top I believe the tolerance is about +/- 0.1 nautical miles. I'll look up the spec and post it.

Do you happen to know that the simulation is based off of the flight data? It's not like someone made the simulation video. The program shows the plane's behaviour based on FDR data!

Not too many people up to speed on this forum. I'm really surprised.

The funny part about your 0.1 nautical mile is the data you have! It is only stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7. Try your 0.1 again after you thing about it.

If the animation was based on the FDR data completely, how did they place the photo of the Pentagon on the animation? I do not recall photos of the Pentagon on the FDR. If they use the Nav data, then the animation should stop way out on a heading of 61.2 relative to the Pentagon properly aligned to true north. But the animation stops with the Pentagon lined up wrong relative to the real 77 path on earth, and off by thousands of feet from the Navigation data stored on 77 flight director. Maybe this is why the animation was called a working copy! Darn, you fail to get one thing right about 9/11; do you know the date of 9/11?

Which failed idea is next?

 

[Turbofan]

As a trained aircraft accident investigator, I ask you to study 9/11 before you post more junk already debunked. I find you lack of evidence standard procedure for hearsay false information experts like p4t and 9/11 truth. Why are you repeating the failed ideas of the no fact 9/11 truth movement?

You are a trained investigator?

You want ME to study before posting, but YOU can't figure out how the
officer's story doesn't add up to the official story.

You are a FAKE!

Please show me, or anyone else how the plane could have flown north of
the Annex and gas station, and still hit all 5 poles?

If the plane hit from that angle, explain the damage inside the Pentagon,
and angle from entry to exit hole!!! HAHAHA ! YOU LOSE!

SHOW ME how you can hit the light poles smart guy:

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_lightpole_vs_ASCE.jpg

Neither officer stated they saw the plane hit the poles. Listen again
smart guy!

You guys need to study all of the facts before posting!

 

[beachnut]

You are a trained investigator?

You want ME to study before posting, but YOU can't figure out how the
officer's story doesn't add up to the official story.

You are a FAKE!

Please show me, or anyone else how the plane could have flown north of
the Annex and gas station, and still hit all 5 poles?

If the plane hit from that angle, explain the damage inside the Pentagon,
and angle from entry to exit hole!!! HAHAHA ! YOU LOSE!

SHOW ME how you can hit the light poles smart guy:


http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_lightpole_vs_ASCE.jpg

Neither officer stated they saw the plane hit the poles. Listen again
smart guy!

You guys need to study all of the facts before posting!

There is nothing fake about your failed ideas; you do not slow down to correct your errors and failed ideas. You posted a lie for the final path of 77, how perfect; where did you get that?

The plane did not fly north of the Citgo station, it was seen on heading verified by the FDR and witnesses, even witnesses you presented, and hit the Pentagon. We have posted this information, you have failed to learn. You are still spewing lies.

The correct heading is in the FDR, and verified by the impact damage. You have failed and have no clue because you did not do your study of 9/11.

We will tell you when you post a fact. So far you are fact less!

Sorry, the officer saw the lamppost, listen to their real stories posted 6 years ago. You are now spreading lies!

Still no evidence! Just hearsay and old debunked ideas.

 

[Turbofan]

Yes, please do. Also try to crosscheck your findings with the csv data itself, while you're at it.

OK, I have received a reply from Calum. What shall I ask? Should I ask
him if he still believes "AA77" was too high to hit the Pentagon based
on the pressure and radar altitude?

Anything else before I respond?

I still fail to see the significance of RADALT not getting officially released. Especially if the fdr data was somehow faked.

How do you strip away one parameter when decoding a file from the
raw FDR file, and insert "Error" in all cells?

What would happen, if you fed the program some invalid data? Like plane gaining 10000 feet altitude in a second. Would it fail to render the plane or would it show it at the specified altitude? Simulations usually conform to physical world, animations don't.

Not sure, never tried. I would suspect the simulator would show an error,
or warning of some sort? Should I ask Calum this question as well?

 

[Turbofan]

There is nothing fake about your failed ideas; you do not slow down to correct your errors and failed ideas. You posted a lie for the final path of 77, how perfect; where did you get that?

The plane did not fly north of the Citgo station, it was seen on heading verified by the FDR and witnesses, even witnesses you presented, and hit the Pentagon. We have posted this information, you have failed to learn. You are still spewing lies.

The correct heading is in the FDR, and verified by the impact damage. You have failed and have no clue because you did not do your study of 9/11.

We will tell you when you post a fact. So far you are fact less!

Beachnut, you are incapable of comprehending the video, and graphic
content I posted.

The Pentagon police officers saw the plane north of the station and Annex.
They drew a line.

It's in the video.

Watch it. Listen to it.

There is nothing fake about it! You are in denial.

How can you possibly ignore officer Lagasse's testimony and believe
that AA77 hit the poles and path of destruction through the Pentagon?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Don't forget aboutthe other links I posted.
Have a nice day trying to deny this proof of testimony.

 

[~enigma~]

You are a trained investigator?

You want ME to study before posting, but YOU can't figure out how the
officer's story doesn't add up to the official story.

You are a FAKE!

More proof that the impotent and moronic truth movement is filled with a bunch of scum that has no respect for anyone.

 

[applecorped]

Beachnut, you are incapable of comprehending the video, and graphic
content I posted.

The Pentagon police officers saw the plane north of the station and Annex.
They drew a line.

It's in the video.
Watch it. Listen to it.

There is nothing fake about it! You are in denial.

How can you possibly ignore officer Lagasse's testimony and believe
that AA77 hit the poles and path of destruction through the Pentagon?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Don't forget aboutthe other links I posted.
Have a nice day trying to deny this proof of testimony.

This is not proof though. What exactly is "proof of testimony"? Wouldn't you want to rely more on physical evidence?

 

[Turbofan]

From this video link at 6:39

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXWlED37bg

Lagasse said:
- Plane is flying from west to east
- North side of Annex
- Never crossed over the station (gas station)
- Drew line showing off course from light poles (end of video)

Question: “Did either of you actually see the plane hit the poles?”

Answer:
Like I said [Lagasse] You can’t really see the light poles from here. I didn’t see it hit them.”

“But as far as the light poles, you didn’t actually see them..”

“ I didn’t…I didn’t see…”

Keep on faking it Beachnut, it looks real good on you. hopefully your friends
can beging to see how fake you are.

 

[beachnut]

Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon

Beachnut, you are incapable of comprehending the video, and graphic
content I posted.

The Pentagon police officers saw the plane north of the station and Annex.
They drew a line.

It's in the video.

Watch it. Listen to it.

There is nothing fake about it! You are in denial.

How can you possibly ignore officer Lagasse's testimony and believe
that AA77 hit the poles and path of destruction through the Pentagon?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Don't forget aboutthe other links I posted.
Have a nice day trying to deny this proof of testimony.

From 6 years ago; you were debunked; 6 years ago.
Lagasse said these things in 2001, DECEMBER 2001. Like over 6 YEARS AGO. Now for the rest of the story..

"an aircraft has just flown into the side of the building…"

Oops, he saw it hit the Pentagon!

"at the scene of the impact…"

He saw a plane parts at the Pentagon seconds after impact.

"secondary explosions from natural gas and welding equipment…"

Oops, the explosions have an explanation, a rational one!

"image of the aircraft flying into the building has not left me…"

Oops, he remembers 77 impacting the Pentagon, it does not leave his memory.

"saw light poles the plane hit…"

OOPS! Looks like he supports 77 hitting the lamp posts! Lagasse supports the official story.


This debunks your videos due to time! Your video was made after this testimony was in! Thus, your witnesses are impeached, by your witnesses. Do you understand this?

Oh, you forgot to listen to this!

This also means you lost this fight, and still have no evidence to prove the DNA of passengers was not found in the Pentagon. How did all of 77 end up smashed up inside and outside the Pentagon?

Some of his witnesses have statements that debunk everything Lyte says, over 5 years ago.

This is where Lyte's witnesses can be found debunking his whole theory five years before he even started to tell lies about 9/11. Ironic. These guys went through a tough event and it is fresh 5 years ago. Hear the guys who responded first on 9/11 at the Pentagon tell the story of flight 77 and the Pentagon. Not clouded by 5 years of tough memories.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

His witnesses prove his video wrong.

Gee, you were debunked a year before you showed up, and 6 years ago by your own witnesses. Sad but true. Wake up...