AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Grizzly Bear]

Entry hole and windows above are still intact! Wait, are you
going to tell me they're bullet proof and able to withstand an airplane
at 500 MPH too?

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/tail.jpg

They were blast resistant genius... If they were not impacted directly by the air craft then many stayed in relatively good condition. Surprise surprise...

Let's not forget the near perfect punch out hole made by ... LANDING GEAR!
http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/hole.jpg

And?
Let's not forget all of that debris that got pulled out with it.
Pentagon landing gear damage

Perhaps you should choose your photos better... your image was taken at some point during the clean up...

 

[WildCat]

C'mon Turbofan, I'm dying to hear how the wings of a 757 couldn't do the damage to the Pentagon, but a smaller aircraft could.

Oh, and after that explain how the damage seen is consistent with what a missile does.

Turbofan? Is this question really hard or something?

 

[stateofgrace]

Yes the FDR was found at the Pentagon. Planted, or manipulated.

I just want to be crystal clear on this point. You are absolutely certain that the FDR was recovered from the Pentagon? Yes or no?

This is the PFT position? Yes or no ?

Come on turbo, it's not that difficult.

 

[Turbofan]

Turbofan? Is this question really hard or something?

no, I just choose to ignore quesitons that are asked over and over again
after I've addressed them.

All I have to tell you is that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That's proven
by the photo links, and FDR.

The quesiton you are asking me...again for the billionth time requires a new
investigation to figure out. Once that happens, you'll get your answer.

For those that think landing gear made that exit hole with a near perfect
cut, yet the entry hole is not defined are foolish.

Blast resistant windows...enough to withstand a tail section! Oh my!

I need some of those in my house!

Your replies need to be captured on a comedy video. This is funny stuff!
Blast resistant windows and a magical outer wall that lets plane parts
pass through...

Where is that tail section again? Shouldn't it be outside somewhere?
I mean the blast resistant windows didn't break...so the tail must have
stayed out huh?

Did the firemen melt it away with the foam? LMAO

 

[Turbofan]

Come on turbo, it's not that difficult.

No it's not. Can you read? You even quoted it LMFAO!

These guys can't even read English, and they're trying to debate flight data
systems! hahaha!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

All I have to tell you is that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That's proven
by the photo links, and FDR.

Keep living in your fantasy....

Blast resistant windows...enough to withstand a tail section! Oh my!

Compared to the rest of the plane the tale section has a minuscule mass. Aluminum vs reinforced masonry at 500 MPH is a rather bad mix. The most the tail did was gouge a score line into the surface. Parts of the plane with more mass hit with enough kinetic energy to penetrate an 18-inch thick masonry wall

Where is that tail section again? Shouldn't it be outside somewhere?
I mean the blast resistant windows didn't break...so the tail must have
stayed out huh?

Sarcasm noted...
You must also live on a planet where earth's laws of physics don't apply.

 

[stateofgrace]

No it's not. Can you read? You even quoted it LMFAO!

These guys can't even read English, and they're trying to debate flight data
systems! hahaha!

So the data was placed on the FDR's prior to 911, correct?

The FDR's were not tampered with afterwards, correct?

 

[Turbofan]

Let's not forget all of that debris that got pulled out with it.
Pentagon landing gear damage

Wow! Paper and office parts! They can cut oval holes in steel re-inforced
concrete too!

Can you believe the theories here today people!?

Excuse me while I throw some toilet paper through my walls. I need a new
door way to the living room.

 

[WildCat]

no, I just choose to ignore quesitons that are asked over and over again
after I've addressed them.

You haven't addressed it at all. You claimed that a 757 couldn't have caaused the damage at the Pentagon, but a smaller airplane or a missile could. Explain how a smaller airplane can do what a larger one can't, and how a missile bends columns all in the same direction.

The quesiton you are asking me...again for the billionth time requires a new investigation to figure out. Once that happens, you'll get your answer.

You don't know how a 757 could cause that damage, so you assume a 757 didn't cause that damage.

You don't know how a smaller plane or missile could do that damage, yet you assert that it was a smaller plane or a missile and we need an investigation to see just how that smaller plane or missile did the damage..

Truther "logic" at its finest!

Blast resistant windows...enough to withstand a tail section! Oh my!

I need some of those in my house!

Those windows weighed 2,000 lbs each Einstein.

Your replies need to be captured on a comedy video. This is funny stuff!
Blast resistant windows and a magical outer wall that lets plane parts
pass through...

Where is that tail section again? Shouldn't it be outside somewhere?
I mean the blast resistant windows didn't break...so the tail must have
stayed out huh?

So you're a Killtown fan too? Tail sections surviving a high-speed crash? What alternate universe do you and killtown live in that this can happen?

Did the firemen melt it away with the foam? LMAO

No need at all to refute idiocy this apparent.

 

[Turbofan]

Compared to the rest of the plane the tale section has a minuscule mass. Aluminum vs reinforced masonry at 500 MPH is a rather bad mix.

Yeah, for sure. What does a tail section weight, and what was the
impact force?

What is the rated blast force of those magic windows? Funny the other
windows away from the tail section are broken.

Did the only put a few blast resistant windows on that side of the Pentagon?

Maybe they were hoping Osama would shoot through a particular window
and didn't need to protect the other offices?

You must also live on a planet where earth's laws of physics don't apply.

You must be stupid enough to believe a commercial airliner went through
that little hole, and the landing gear made it all the way to the other side
and made a nice circle in the steel re-inforced "masonary".

 

[WildCat]

Wow! Paper and office parts! They can cut oval holes in steel re-inforced
concrete too!

What steel-reinforced concrete?

Can you believe the theories here today people!?

I know, some guy just claimed the C-Ring of the Pentagon was made of steel-reinforced concrete! This, mind you, moments after he posted a picture of a masonry wall! And a thin one (1 brick) at that.

Excuse me while I throw some toilet paper through my walls. I need a new door way to the living room.

Oh please put that on youtube!

 

[Turbofan]

Those windows weighed 2,000 lbs each Einstein.

Is that so? What's your source? What broke the other windows further
away from the plane then? LMAO

This should be good!

So you're a Killtown fan too? Tail sections surviving a high-speed crash? What alternate universe do you and killtown live in that this can happen?


No need at all to refute idiocy this apparent.

What happened to the tail section then? Did it *cough* break apart?
*cough* Vapourize?

If so, where is all the aluminum required to account for the tail section,
and wings that didn't make it past the walls and "blast proof windows"?

Come on selective detectives, I just gotta know how your physics applies
here!

If it didn't vapourize, then show me enough aluminum in the photos to
make up for the wings, and tail section.

then show me the rest for two engines.

Thanks!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Is that so? What's your source? What broke the other windows further
away from the plane then? LMAO

This should be good!

40 mm thick, weighing each 200 KG

The glass panel sections consisted of several glass panels bonded together with plastic interlayers similar to automotive windscreens. They differed in that they had a thickness of almost 40mm and weighed over 200kg each. The window frames were manufactured by Masonry Arts Inc to fit in with the existing architecture. Masonry Arts Inc were also responsible for the installation work.

Source

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What happened to the tail section then? Did it *cough* break apart?
*cough* Vapourize?

Something similar to this, except limited to the tail section and wings.

 

[Turbofan]

Wow, more lies!

200 Kg does not equal 2000 lbs.! nice try Einstein.

Please answer the following, don't run and hide like a chicken

What broke the other windows further
away from the plane then?
This should be good!


What happened to the tail section then? Did it *cough* break apart?
*cough* Vapourize?

If so, where is all the aluminum required to account for the tail section,
and wings that didn't make it past the walls and "blast proof windows"?

Come on selective detectives, I just gotta know how your physics applies
here!

If it didn't vapourize, then show me enough aluminum in the photos to
make up for the wings, and tail section.

then show me the rest for two engines.

Thanks!

 

[Turbofan]

Something similar to this, except limited to the tail section and wings.

Why does everyone quote that video when I ask this question? It has already
been discarded because it's not a valid analogy.

That's not a commerical airliner

The impact wall is made to simulate a nuclear reactor

By that logic, none of AA77 would have entered the Pentagon, right smart guy?

How do you explain the rest of the plane going through, if your video
shows otherwise?

Once again, where is the debris to account for the tail section, wings, etc.

Mass in = Mass out

If the mass wasn't vapourized, then where is it?

It's not on the lawn outside of the Pentagon that's for sure!

Hey, what about those windows that broke away from the impact zone.

Were they the less expensive, extra thin $5,000 versions?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why does everyone quote that video when I ask this question? It has already
been discarded because it's not a valid analogy.

Not intended to describe the progression of the plane impact, only what happened to the wings and tail section, since you clearly lack comprehension skills in that area of physics.

That's not a commerical airliner

The impact wall is made to simulate a nuclear reactor

Irrelevant in the context of the point I am making to you.

By that logic, none of AA77 would have entered the Pentagon, right smart guy?

Not the context for which I posted the video. The nuclear reactor test is 3 to 6 feet of solid concrete. The Pentagon was reinforced masonry construction of approximately 18-inches thickness. The body of the plane had enough mass to penetrate the outer wall, however, the tail section and wing tips did not.

How do you explain the rest of the plane going through, if your video shows otherwise?

Once again you missed the point of my posting it.

Once again, where is the debris to account for the tail section, wings, etc.

The question you should be asking is whether there was anything recognizable left of them. What is your standard of evidence regarding 'left over debris'?

If the mass wasn't vapourized, then where is it?

Good question, can enough of the remains be positively identified to determine the spread of what was left on the pentagon wall or on the lawn?

I have a few questions for you.

You must be stupid enough to believe a commercial airliner went through
that little hole, and the landing gear made it all the way to the other side
and made a nice circle in the steel re-inforced "masonary".

You imply that the entry hole is small? Tell me how big do you think the entry hole was? I'm curious as to your thoughts, give me a rough estimate of the size. And you spelled masonry wrong

 

[beachnut]

... because it's clear you don't understand English.

Is this part of your vast evidence pile? Oops, no, a simple insult; thank you very much.

WHY is the animation altitude different than the data file?!

The animation altitude is exactly the same as the FDR information. You failed to understand my posts. I am a pilot and an engineer, you may not understand me. Get some help from a real pilot not in p4t! Good luck.

Are you forgetting RAD ALT accurate to within +/- 1 foot, or 2% ?

(OMG, if you only knew) The RADALT reads 273 at 1.5 DME, with over 3 seconds left to reach the Pentagon. The heading important; so take the true track, or mag track and draw a line to the impact point back, place your 1.5 DME on that line you have over 4 seconds or more to go!. Since the ground under 77 at that time is 120 feet, we have an MSL reading, now said to be accurate to 1 foot, of 393, and 77 will hit the Pentagon just above 35 feet MSL. We have to loose 360 feet in 4 (four) seconds. Darn, a whooping 90 feet per second has to be lost. When you consider how the DME is stored, you may want to change my estimation. The 1.5 DME is only stored as values as I have stated before, look it up. With DME error and storage resolutions issues, the DME is not very accurate, and can be off by .3 to .5, maybe more. But then why do you care to investigate the truth, you ignore DNA, witnesses, and a whole plane found in and around the Pentagon! Why look up real facts?

The terrorist was descending up to 6600 fpm, his last stick input was the greatest down stick than all his other inputs! I fear some of the terrorist not strapped in, took to flying in the cockpit and aisles! Is this a possible time the FDR stopped recording data (it did)? Only a hand full of modern airliners have been at zero G! I recall a flight with a FDR just like 77, it lost 13 seconds, the same time as a major upset occurred.

You are being literal, at 1.5 DME is very possible to hit the Pentagon from the RADALT at 61.2 true track, 1.5 DME, using your numbers (bet you forgot to plot the true track! You just proved 77 can hit the Pentagon, and previous thread have the math to show you the 11.2 G math/physics error by Balsamo is pure junk! You have debunked yourself. Kids (young men and women), take physics, it may be hard, but you will not regret it (look at Einstein! Truthers seem to quote Hitler, I prefer Einstein.).

Yeah, that's what I thought! RAD ALT supports the corrected Pressure Altitude from 1.5 DME (by the way, DME is accurate to within +/- 0.1 nautical miles).

Sorry, but DME is only stored at a low resolution. Oops, there goes the .1 NM, but have it your way. I just showed the impact possible with you literal numbers! And using your version of the perfect FDR! Busted! Learning is repetition for some.

Like I said, you can't be a pilot...you cannot be a pilot...

Two times wrong! Wrong on 9/11, wrong about me!

Local pressure was not set in the animation descending through 18,000 feet! When the local pressure is adjusted, the plane is actually several hundred feet higher at that same point!

No, the plane does not climb when you change the altimeter setting, the altimeter shows different numbers! You may want to clarify what I know you mean to say. I understand PA was displayed at the end of the animation and the Pentagon was placed in the wrong orientation. Gee, the FDR shows 77 off the runway over 2000 feet at takeoff, but the NTSB moved the ground to be in the proper relative position, due to absolute knowledge it took off on the center line of the runway from evidence! Your posts are confirming the NTSB produced a working copy of the animation, and place the ground representation in parts manually, and never finished the end, due to the fact it takes more time to place a plane that crashed based on the FDR, only accurate to 2000 to 4000 feet. The runway and the Pentagon are not place correctly, relative to each other in the NTSB animation. The animation is correct, you seem to have problems with the terrain manually inserted. And you can't explain it! cool…

The fact is when local pressure is set, the plane is still at the same altitude! Sorry, you are technically wrong! The PA is presented in the animation for the entire second half. This means the data on the animation is exactly the data from the FDR, as I showed by frame in an earlier post! Changing the altimeter setting does not change the altitude of the plane, it is still at the same PA, no matter what you put in the altimeter setting.

Again, you can't be a pilot. G has nothing to do with altitude. PA is confirmed by RAD ALT. ...

Wrong again, I am a pilot. Who said G has anything to do with PA. P4t are unable to calculate G! That is the only fact about G, I think I was making. Does G influence the Indicated vs. Actual altitude? And why? You could be wrong again! Darn, do you look up this stuff before you post?

By the way, there is nothing in the g data to support rapid dives from measured altitude to hit the light poles.

There is no data from 1.5 DME on! Sorry, you forgot the data is missing.

By the way, the plane is off track to even hit the light poles.

No the plane is on a true track of 61.2 degrees, this is perfect for hitting the lampposts. Check it out, it has been done many times. Research is your friend. You are wrong again. Wrongs are adding up!

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that a few times, but it went over your head.

Thanks again, I guess I am part of the argument now. Good job.

1.5 DME from the airport beacon.

This means on a true track of 61.2 degrees, also in the FDR, you have plenty of time to hit the Pentagon! This make you wrong again.

See, you should study the data a little more. You might learn something.

Oh, so ironic.

AA77 was 1.5 DME from the beacon, and too close to the Pentagon to dive down from the corrected altitude of 393 feet! Ever more absurd is the plane hitting the light poles from that altitude!

No, the plane is on schedule to make the big downward move (as described by witnesses) and increase the descent to over 100 feet per second as the rookie terrorist pilot PIOs his way to the Pentagon, one last oscillation! Bingo! The last stick input was the greatest downward motion yet, and the data stops! This means one of the biggest pushovers yet was about to happen! Witnesses talk about a nose down maneuver! This was it, just the movement the data stopped! I wonder if one of the terrorist hit something on the ceiling! The final approach was not comfortable with G readings from .3 to 1.7!

Figure it out for yourself boys and girls. Call up some real flight schools and pilots

Yes, boys and girls. I mean yes, young men and women, stay in school and take the hard courses, try hard, so you will not be as bad in physics and math as the leader of the pack, Balsamo, the 11.2 G wonder! Good job Turbofan.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, and highest tolerances, it doesn't work.

Darn, you have no idea. Make a list of all DME values in your data. See a pattern! Now make a list of all values and try to plot them with the RADAR data.

Keep yourself in denial Beachnut.

Young men and women, that is irony.



Short version! With numbers presented or hinted at from the FDR and certified by Turbofan and p4t, 77 can hit the Pentagon. Even Rob knows his 11.2 G is wrong! So 77 can easily hit the Pentagon.

Shorter version! 77 hit the Pentagon!

 

[WildCat]

Wow, more lies!

200 Kg does not equal 2000 lbs.! nice try Einstein.

200Kg per panel Poindexter. How many panels per window?

But I was going by memory, they were actually 1600 lbs per unit according to Popular Mechanics. Page 71.

Gonna put those in your house Turbofan? If you need more information and want to actually research the subject, you can contact Masonry Arts Inc. of Bessemer Alabama. They built and installed the windows.

Of course, you won't be contacting them.

 

[eeyore1954]

Wow, more lies!

200 Kg does not equal 2000 lbs.! nice try Einstein.

http://www.azom.com/News.asp?NewsID=380

The glass panel sections consisted of several glass panels bonded together with plastic interlayers similar to automotive windscreens. They differed in that they had a thickness of almost 40mm and weighed over 200kg each. The window frames were manufactured by Masonry Arts Inc to fit in with the existing architecture. Masonry Arts Inc were also responsible for the installation work.

Not a lie the way I read it. Several panels maybe 5 times 200 kg each would be 1000 kg which is over 2000 lbs. Most likely it is correct at the worst it is a misinterpretation.