Flight AA77 on 9/11

[BCR]

Farmer,

Is it at all possible the FDR data came from the plane that was following the 757?

Only if the the plane followed the 757 into the building.

 

[Senenmut]

farmer-
i just read the pft article.
from the pft website:

t just all comes down to two data fields being zeroed out. no tickee, no laundry. without those, there can... never be any linkage of the FDR to an 'N' number in the F.A.A. registry. not because the 'N' number is in the AC ID field, but the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to.

[T]hose missing, that [data] could come from anywhere...


[N]obody flies boxes with that data zero'ed out or missing. without this data in the CPM [Crash Protected Memory], in the preamble, there can be no linkage to an aircraft N-Number.


why do you think the ACFT ID AND FLEET ID are missing from the data in the blackbox?
do all black boxes have ACFT ID and the FLET ID in there data?

 

[BCR]

why do you think the ACFT ID AND FLEET ID are missing from the data in the blackbox?
do all black boxes have ACFT ID and the FLET ID in there data?

I don't know. Maybe the NTSB can answer that for you.

 

[beachnut]

farmer-
i just read the pft article.
from the pft website:

...
why do you think the ACFT ID AND FLEET ID are missing from the data in the blackbox?
do all black boxes have ACFT ID and the FLET ID in there data?

More made up lies from Balsamo, who offers no theory, so you got the no theory version of, gee, wait, nothing. Balsamo gets someone to say something, then he publishes it.

What does it mean? It means Balsamo is making up stuff, implying things to make idiots think he has something.

The flight data recorder shows exactly what 77 flew for over 24 hours. These flight can be verified by photos, schedules, and passengers who flew the jet before it crashed, before the last flight. It is scary how much data is in the FDR and it all checks with exactly what flight 77 airframe did for over 24 hours. There is so much evidence in the FDR which proves it is 77, it hurts to have to think about tracking down more than the fact it was found in the Pentagon. And now Balsamo continues to make up moronic lies without offering a theory. If you like what idiots make up about 911 and are a paranoid nut case, you will love what Balsamo is selling; pure hogwash.

This BS is equal in stupidity to Balsamo's 11.2g moron math.

Why can't you call the NTSB and find out? Balsamo has no experts, he has a few fringe nut cases who can't figure out 911 given the answers. How disrespectful is it to spit on all the 77 passengers, their remains found in the Pentagon, on the final course they impacted, recorded in the FDR Balsamo has to say is fake; Balsamo is not fake, he is a real moron.

Over 9 years and you can't figure out 911; you have company, neither can Balsamo, and his DVD sales depend on that.

If you have to ask the NTSB, then you can't figure out 77 impacted the Pentagon, then you are lost. But go ahead ask the NTSB why data released in crimes is different than data released in NTSB official investigations; learn all about privilege and other neat legal stuff related to why crimes are investigated different than accidents which the NTSB does. FBI, crime, NTSB accidents. FBI find the bad guys; easy on 911, they are the dead UBL loyalists out to kill Americans (usa ones mainly), the NTSB finds cause of accidents to fix problems. The evidence in crime is different, different rules for disclosure, than the evidence in NTSB accident investigations. Did you know that?

But ask the NTSB and the FBI why Balsamo is on the short list of crazy guys who have threated to kill people over his 911 delusions. While you ask this question which was born out of the mind of a moron, Balsamo.

 

[Senenmut]

More made up lies from Balsamo, who offers no theory, so you got the no theory version of, gee, wait, nothing. Balsamo gets someone to say something, then he publishes it.

What does it mean? It means Balsamo is making up stuff, implying things to make idiots think he has something.

The flight data recorder shows exactly what 77 flew for over 24 hours. These flight can be verified by photos, schedules, and passengers who flew the jet before it crashed, before the last flight. It is scary how much data is in the FDR and it all checks with exactly what flight 77 airframe did for over 24 hours. There is so much evidence in the FDR which proves it is 77, it hurts to have to think about tracking down more than the fact it was found in the Pentagon. And now Balsamo continues to make up moronic lies without offering a theory. If you like what idiots make up about 911 and are a paranoid nut case, you will love what Balsamo is selling; pure hogwash.

This BS is equal in stupidity to Balsamo's 11.2g moron math.

Why can't you call the NTSB and find out? Balsamo has no experts, he has a few fringe nut cases who can't figure out 911 given the answers. How disrespectful is it to spit on all the 77 passengers, their remains found in the Pentagon, on the final course they impacted, recorded in the FDR Balsamo has to say is fake; Balsamo is not fake, he is a real moron.

Over 9 years and you can't figure out 911; you have company, neither can Balsamo, and his DVD sales depend on that.

If you have to ask the NTSB, then you can't figure out 77 impacted the Pentagon, then you are lost. But go ahead ask the NTSB why data released in crimes is different than data released in NTSB official investigations; learn all about privilege and other neat legal stuff related to why crimes are investigated different than accidents which the NTSB does. FBI, crime, NTSB accidents. FBI find the bad guys; easy on 911, they are the dead UBL loyalists out to kill Americans (usa ones mainly), the NTSB finds cause of accidents to fix problems. The evidence in crime is different, different rules for disclosure, than the evidence in NTSB accident investigations. Did you know that?

But ask the NTSB and the FBI why Balsamo is on the short list of crazy guys who have threated to kill people over his 911 delusions. While you ask this question which was born out of the mind of a moron, Balsamo.

hahaha...man tell me how you really feel about Balsamo!!!

 

[BCR]

The RADAR altimeter works in radio/microwave frequencies at the speed of LIGHT, not sound! Poor Dennis is making up delusions to fool people so they can share his insane conspiracy theories. The RADAR altimeter will still function at all speeds, even the speeds Balsamo claims a 757 can't do, even when it did. How stupid is Balsamo?

This comes down to math; Balsamo can't do math.

This is one of the first things I noted in the piece, but wanted the pilots to address it first so that my input as someone who is a non-pilot, but something of a measurement systems 'expert' would not be brushed off because I speak in physics terms not pilot terms.

Here is the deal. There are only two aspects of a radio altimeter (or any other system using radio waves) that could possibly be impacted by the speed of the aircraft. The first is the antenna array. It is exposed to the air moving over it at extreme velocities and at high enough speeds could be ripped off the aircraft. If I recall correctly, there are 3 such antenna on a 757 and there is no evidence that all of them met such a fate prior to impact. Even if one had, then the other two would have remained functional until they met a similar fate. But again, no evidence of that has been reported by anyone.

Second, at a high enough velocity (and yes, I mean velocity not speed) the antenna would out-pace the radio wave being bounced off the ground. This would depend on a number of factors, distance from the ground (altitude), velocity along the axis of the antenna surface, and size of the antenna. In other words, if the antenna moves sufficiently enough before the signal returns then it won't catch it. This is not likely to happen at speeds attainable by commercial aircraft.

To illustrate this, I'll use the case under contention. Assuming the plane is 1,000 feet agl and traveling at 500 knots, the change in antenna position (Ap) will equal:

Ap = (velocity)(time)
where velocity is in feet/second and time is in seconds.

time = (2 * agl)/c

Ap = (2 * agl * velocity)/c = 2 * agl * (velocity/c)

c ~ 186,000 miles per second * (5280 feet/mile) ~ 982080000 feet/second

velocity ~ 500 knots (nautical mile/hour) * (6076 feet/nautical mile) * (hour/3600 second) ~ 844 feet/second

[for you die-hards, I am assuming that speed = velocity along the antenna axis]

so,

Ap = 2 * 1000 * (844/982080000) feet = 0.0017 feet = 0.02 inches​

So under these circumstances the antenna position would move only 0.02 inches. I suspect that the antenna is much larger than that, so there is absolutely no concern in regards to over-driving the antenna.

Another P4T fail.

 

[Reheat]

Second, at a high enough velocity (and yes, I mean velocity not speed) the antenna would out-pace the radio wave being bounced off the ground. This would depend on a number of factors, distance from the ground (altitude), velocity along the axis of the antenna surface, and size of the antenna. In other words, if the antenna moves sufficiently enough before the signal returns then it won't catch it. This is not likely to happen at speeds attainable by commercial aircraft.

It's not likely with any aircraft. Here's the scoop.....

We had a Radar Altimeter override mode in the F-111 which allowed Terrain Following in areas where the Terrain Following Radar (TFR) provided an unreliable return. Over water (lakes or ocean) and deep sand (desert areas) the radar (TFR) was not reliable. There was an RA override mode available until such time as the TFR picked up a reliable signal. The speed restriction in this mode = Mach 1.2. Did it work?

I actually flew in that mode to about Mach 1 at 200' during a daytime NATO exercise in an adversarial role in the Mediterranean against a couple of American Aircraft Carriers. (Side Note) I was intentionally emitting a strong electronic signal for the purposes of the exercise. I did this is 1980.

Consequently, pffft's "expert" is full of crap. If Balsamo had checked with Jeff Latas, he would have known this as Latas used that system in both the F-111 and the F-15E. This establishes two things. One, the supposed "experts" at pffft are NOT. Two, Capn' Crock does not consult with his "verified by the FAA growing core members" who know better, but instead listens to those who confirm his paranoid woo.

Another P4T fail.

Big time fail!

 

[Mobertermy]

Only if the the plane followed the 757 into the building.

I thought the FDR data ended before the building? I thought PFTs claim was when the FDR data ended the plane was too high to have been able to hit.

 

[DGM]

I thought the FDR data ended before the building? I thought PFTs claim was when the FDR data ended the plane was too high to have been able to hit.

PFT and CIT claim a lot of things.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I thought the FDR data ended before the building? I thought PFTs claim was when the FDR data ended the plane was too high to have been able to hit.

The original decode of the data ended a few second before impact due to a software problem. That has been corrected and the original data can now be fully decoded for the whole flight. Note: data points are 2 seconds apart (0.5Hz) so you don't get very good resolution. IIRC the last point is at 4ft.

 

[BCR]

I thought the FDR data ended before the building? I thought PFTs claim was when the FDR data ended the plane was too high to have been able to hit.

Of course it ends 'before' the building, considering that once it hit the building it was kinda in a zillion pieces. The last recorded position corresponds roughly with the generator that was impacted. Within a fraction of a second after that position is recorded, LATERAL ACCELERATION (G's) and LONGITUDINAL ACCEL (G's) spike out at -0.564g and -1.083g (the max the value the fdr can record) with the plane registering a radio altitude of 4 feet (in reality putting the plane about 10 - 15 feet off the ground).

In other words ... bang, boom, that is all she wrote folks.

 

[beachnut]

I thought the FDR data ended before the building? I thought PFTs claim was when the FDR data ended the plane was too high to have been able to hit.

The NTSB decoded all but 4 seconds of 77 final flight. The final seconds are missing some error correction codes, or something which the stock decoding program stopped at. Warren decoded the final four or five seconds. His decode matches the NTSB, and includes the final seconds. Pilots for truth are making up more lies about the FDR data not being from 77, but it is, and if they want they can decode any of 24 hours to see it is Flight 77, landing and taking off exactly the times it did in previous flights.

Pilots for truth were told there were seconds missing from the decode; until Warren looked at the raw data and noticed the seconds were there, they were not decoded. I thought the data was not recorded based on the legacy speeds and equipment looked like there could be a problem storing data, I was wrong, the darn FDR is very fast and stores data in 100 ms or so, only a little data is missing as 77 impacts the Pentagon.

I never looked at the RAW data, but pilots for truth had the RAW data and decoded it with an extra second; I bet Balsamo might of been told there was more data, but then avoided decoding it so he could keep selling lies on DVD. Balsamo's expert FDR decoders failed to decode the RAW data completely, they also list data for times data is not sampled, repeating legacy values over and over. Like the true course is sampled at .5 hz, something that is not understood by the moron math master Balsamo and his club of failed pilots on 911. Some data is stored at 4hz, 8 hz, 1 hz and other sample rates. ..., the .24 hz gets Balsamo confused.

Why did Pilots for truth expert FDR decoders fail to decode the final seconds?

Why is Balsamo making up lies?

What do you think about Balsamo telling lies about the RADALT? Is his failed RADALT ploy due to his failure to understand math and the speed of light?

 

[George 152]

I thought the FDR data ended before the building? I thought PFTs claim was when the FDR data ended the plane was too high to have been able to hit.

And you and pile-its4 truth want to use the FDR data recovered from the Pentagon to prove that the aircraft it was in didn't hit the Pentagon ?

 

[I Ratant]

I suspect the FDR data came from the plane that preceded the plane that was following the 757

.
.
This 'un here.

 

[Sabretooth]

.
.
This 'un here.

Naw...it was probably the B1-RD that was spotted in the area...

 

[Shoof]

Is it just me or has Shoof gone very quiet?..

I wonder if he will ever actually address these questions.. I particularly am looking forward to an answer to this:




Please Shoof, I would love to hear your story of how to so seemingly reluctantly changed your opinion on 9/11 due to some damning evidence.

Do tell.

Thanks for your genuine interest. I'm not certain that the details of how and/or why I came to question the USG CT are relevant to a discussion of its validity.

A few randoms things spring to mind...the report of a policeman finding the nearly pristine passport of one of the alleged hijackers in the rubble...Olson repeatedly changing his story about whether his wife called him from her cell phone or from a seat back phone on Flight 77...Rumsfeld stating that he he saw the nose cone of Flight 77 after it had punched through two or three re-enforced rings of the pentagon...April Gallop's testimony that there was no sign of airliner wreckage when she walked out of the hole immediately after the Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon...the curiosity of why the impact from Flight 77 left wooden desks with books on top unscathed (next within a couple feet of where the building was completely obliterated), whilst huge skyscrapers fell to the ground in a cloud of dust, and nearly all of their steel reinforced concrete floors turned into dust...the pools of molten metal in the debris piles months after 9/11. Those struck me as odd when I heard about them.

On another topic, as some here have mused as to my true intentions in coming her, allow me the opportunity to offer a perspective on the subject of someone coming to this forum to sneakily ask questions. If such as person wished to be sneaky and devious, would they introduce themselves as themselves, or would they make up another identity altogether?

As I've already mentioned, there is no need for any of us here to be concerned with any question---whatever the manner in which it is asked---if we are all willing to embrace the truth. As my 6th grade teacher used to say, "The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked." While that may not be entirely true, his point is worth considering.

 

[pgimeno]

A few randoms things spring to mind...the report of a policeman finding the nearly pristine passport of one of the alleged hijackers in the rubble...

It was not found in the rubble. It was found in the street prior to the collapse. Many more things survived, and many more things survive other catastrophes.

Olson repeatedly changing his story about whether his wife called him from her cell phone or from a seat back phone on Flight 77...

I don't know about that part.

Rumsfeld stating that he he saw the nose cone of Flight 77 after it had punched through two or three re-enforced rings of the pentagon...

After it had punched through two non-reinforced walls, you mean. As for what Rumsfeld said, I don't know. But what he thought he saw and what he saw might be different things.

April Gallop's testimony that there was no sign of airliner wreckage when she walked out of the hole immediately after the Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon...

She said she saw no big metal or luggage or seats, which is apparently what she expected to see to recognize a plane. And indeed that was not on the outside. That all went inside the building in the area that was in flames and she had no access to. So her testimony is pretty expectable, nothing really odd in it.

the curiosity of why the impact from Flight 77 left wooden desks with books on top unscathed (next within a couple feet of where the building was completely obliterated),

If you take a look here: http://www.911hardfacts.com/docs/Pentagon_Shoring.pdf and go to pages 14 and 15, you'll see two pictures, figures 13 and 14, which show what happened to an office which had no sprinklers in it, and what happened to an office that did, respectively.

Guess what category did the office with the book fall into?

If you ask me, I'd say the surface of the book shows signs of having been probably watered:

whilst huge skyscrapers fell to the ground in a cloud of dust, and nearly all of their steel reinforced concrete floors turned into dust...

"nearly all"? Have you really checked the facts? Stop calling yourself a skeptic, because you have just blindly accepted what conspiracy theorists have told you. It's false that nearly all of the concrete turned into dust. There are big chunks of concrete in most GZ pics. Have you really looked? I've already presented this picture recently that shows one of the slabs fractured but mostly complete:

the pools of molten metal in the debris piles months after 9/11.

Got any evidence of such pools after months?

Those struck me as odd when I heard about them.

And they probably would be... if they were true. Checking the facts helps. Don't buy everything that you're told. Always check both versions.

And I suggest you to take this advice by Oystein seriously, because it's good advice:

However, I think, if you approached this with honesty, and open mind and a minimum of intelligence and education, you will find that pretty much all the premises that you base your questions on are in fact untrue. This would then render all your questions invalid.

 

[alienentity]

Thanks for your genuine interest. I'm not certain that the details of how and/or why I came to question the USG CT are relevant to a discussion of its validity.

A few randoms things spring to mind...the report of a policeman finding the nearly pristine passport of one of the alleged hijackers in the rubble...Olson repeatedly changing his story about whether his wife called him from her cell phone or from a seat back phone on Flight 77...Rumsfeld stating that he he saw the nose cone of Flight 77 after it had punched through two or three re-enforced rings of the pentagon...April Gallop's testimony that there was no sign of airliner wreckage when she walked out of the hole immediately after the Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon...the curiosity of why the impact from Flight 77 left wooden desks with books on top unscathed (next within a couple feet of where the building was completely obliterated), whilst huge skyscrapers fell to the ground in a cloud of dust, and nearly all of their steel reinforced concrete floors turned into dust...the pools of molten metal in the debris piles months after 9/11. Those struck me as odd when I heard about them.

On another topic, as some here have mused as to my true intentions in coming her, allow me the opportunity to offer a perspective on the subject of someone coming to this forum to sneakily ask questions. If such as person wished to be sneaky and devious, would they introduce themselves as themselves, or would they make up another identity altogether?

As I've already mentioned, there is no need for any of us here to be concerned with any question---whatever the manner in which it is asked---if we are all willing to embrace the truth. As my 6th grade teacher used to say, "The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked." While that may not be entirely true, his point is worth considering.

One questions how much you've looked into these topics since they're pretty basic and not really complicated to answer.

One further questions whether you're prepared to accept answers given. I'm guessing you probably aren't, which then begs the further question as to why you're here.

I'm sure the answers will be clear soon enough. Maybe you'll surprise us and show an ability to modify your beliefs according to reality. Who knows?

 

[zorro99]

A few randoms things spring to mind...the report of a policeman finding the nearly pristine passport of one of the alleged hijackers in the rubble...Olson repeatedly changing his story about whether his wife called him from her cell phone or from a seat back phone on Flight 77...Rumsfeld stating that he he saw the nose cone of Flight 77 after it had punched through two or three re-enforced rings of the pentagon...April Gallop's testimony that there was no sign of airliner wreckage when she walked out of the hole immediately after the Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon...the curiosity of why the impact from Flight 77 left wooden desks with books on top unscathed (next within a couple feet of where the building was completely obliterated), whilst huge skyscrapers fell to the ground in a cloud of dust, and nearly all of their steel reinforced concrete floors turned into dust...the pools of molten metal in the debris piles months after 9/11. Those struck me as odd when I heard about them.

What strikes me as odd is that none of your observations have anything to do with Bldg 7, to which all of your questions pertain.

 

[Oystein]

What strikes me as odd is that none of your observations have anything to do with Bldg 7, to which all of your questions pertain.

Shoof is on a Gish Gallop, a debate style that aims at leaving all issues unresolved. At the end, Shoof will claim that JREF could not answer his torrent of childish loaded questions to his satisfaction and claim victory.