Loose Change - Part IV

[Darth Rotor]

The lamp posts were about 40 feet tall.

That puts them at 70-85 feet MSL, depending on the ground sloping between the parking lot and the Pentagon. IIRC, having driven that road, the road to the left (west) of the Pentagon is slightly higher elevation looking east, but I couldn't swear how much, as you look from road to parking lot to Pentagon.

DR

PS: If the hijacker did not reset the altimeter to local settings in the Washington area (1/100th setting represents about a 10 foot change), or left the altimeter set to 29.92. 29.92 is the standard for altitudes above 18,000 feet. Their last cleared altitude was FL 350, or 35,000 MSL referenced to 29.92 inches Hg. (A pressure altitude, technically)

On the way back down, any difference between 29.92 and the actual barometric altimeter setting at Washington Reagan (very close to Pentagon) makes errors of AGL to MSL between 10 and 100 feet likely, assuming the altitudes from FDR are MSL and not from the Radar Altimeter. Now, if he cared to, the hijacker could have listened to the ATIS broadcast at Reagan before he began his descent to set his altimeter to the local settings. Doing so would have made his job easier, so that altitude MSL roughly equals altitude AGL, so my guess is that he might have done so, though perhaps it slipped his mind. I wonder if any FDR showed a change in Kollsman window setting.

Example of why this matters. If the altimeter setting at Reagan was 29.90 at that time, setting 29.92 in the cockpit would indicate 20 feet higher above ground than the plane actually was. Reagan being at 29.85 would put the altimeter showing the plane 70 feet higher than it was.

See where this goes, vis a vis the light poles?

DR

 

[apathoid]

I've finally had some FOIA success, and got some documents from the NTSB today about Flight 77 & others. These include the altitude readings they're talking about. Read more & download from http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html

A few minutes after the hijackers took control of the cockpit (at approximately 08:52), the horizontal mode was changed to a heading select and the airplane began a 180-degree turn back towards Washington. After the new heading was selected, and up until the last nine
minutes of the flight, the autopilot operated in modes that receive inputs from the MCP (i.e., target values of altitude, speed, and heading set directly by the operators of the aircraft) rather than from the FMC.

Good work Mike. This report answers alot of the questions I had.

 

[MikeW]

Good work Mike. This report answers alot of the questions I had.

Glad to hear it. What do you think it clarifies, apart from that bit you've quoted? Any analysis & thoughts will be useful.

 

[Gravy]

That puts them at 70-85 feet MSL, depending on the ground sloping between the parking lot and the Pentagon. IIRC, having driven that road, the road to the left (west) of the Pentagon is slightly higher elevation looking east, but I couldn't swear how much, as you look from road to parking lot to Pentagon.

DR

PS: If the hijacker did not reset the altimeter to local settings in the Washington area (1/100th setting represents about a 10 foot change), or left the altimeter set to 29.92. 29.92 is the standard for altitudes above 18,000 feet. Their last cleared altitude was FL 350, or 35,000 MSL referenced to 29.92 inches Hg. (A pressure altitude, technically)

On the way back down, any difference between 29.92 and the actual barometric altimeter setting at Washington Reagan (very close to Pentagon) makes errors of AGL to MSL between 10 and 100 feet likely, assuming the altitudes from FDR are MSL and not from the Radar Altimeter. Now, if he cared to, the hijacker could have listened to the ATIS broadcast at Reagan before he began his descent to set his altimeter to the local settings. Doing so would have made his job easier, so that altitude MSL roughly equals altitude AGL, so my guess is that he might have done so, though perhaps it slipped his mind. I wonder if any FDR showed a change in Kollsman window setting.

Example of why this matters. If the altimeter setting at Reagan was 29.90 at that time, setting 29.92 in the cockpit would indicate 20 feet higher above ground than the plane actually was. Reagan being at 29.85 would put the altimeter showing the plane 70 feet higher than it was.

See where this goes, vis a vis the light poles?

DR

Very interesting, DR. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[JamesB]

They show a copy of a patent and evidence that the device in question has been manufactured. Are you suggesting that the manufacturer has no idea whether it works?


Yeah ok it's easy to poke some fun there. Where, though, is there an article in the 9/11 studies journal that says WTC towers are like trees? Anyway, we were talking about the reputation of the journal, not of the editors or the authors. A journal earns its reputation by publishing solid research that has passed peer review. Even if you doubt that this is the case with the 9/11 studies journal, the quality of its papers has to my knowledge not been defended by pointing out the author's degrees.
My question, again, is: do you want the JoD to earn a reputation as a solid journal?

Please provide the evidence that these devices were ever manufactured. One of the posters on the “journal” forum said they called the company that held the patent, but they never said what they found out. They must not have gotten what they wanted. Please show in the patent where it says that the device can cut a nice clean diagonal cut through 12 inches of steel.

As to the next point, I was speaking more generally of the “scholars”. Face it, the “scholars” are the journal. It is not an independent entity, they created it, they control it. That means Fetzer and Jones. Given your experience with them, you of all people should know that. Listen to one of Fetzer’s radio interviews. I have listened to dozens, just look at my blog. His entire argument is “appeal to authority”. Anytime someone questions him, he starts rattling of all the experts in the “scholars”.

The trees analogy wasn’t in the Journal, but it was made by Judy Wood and posted on the “Scholars” site. Wood was one of the original editors of the journal, although she has been removed for some reason and replaced by waterboy Kevin Ryan. I have no doubt if she had submitted her work it would have been published. Maybe that is why she is no longer an editor? Although I guess she can’t now . It has been “published” already and Jones would accuse her of violations of academic ethics.

And to repeat my answer, yes, I want our work to earn a favorable reputation, but for the merits of its arguments. I couldn’t care less whether people consider us a “journal” or not. Although it is amusing to be given that status by Jones.

Edit: I should point out that I am just one of the people who has posted there. I did not create the site, nor do I control it. If you want to help shape its future, send in a submission.

 

[apathoid]

Glad to hear it. What do you think it clarifies, apart from that bit you've quoted? Any analysis & thoughts will be useful.

A few things stood out. One, they used basic autopilot modes coupled with VOR navigation. They did not re-program the FMC(which is a snap), instead they engaged HDG select and Vertical Speed/Altitude select. Those are the most basic autopilot modes and they are modelled in MSFS(which the hijackers were in possesion of).

However, even though the EFIS was in the MAP mode at
the time, it was in the 80 nautical mile range setting, and so would not have shown DCA on the display; consequently, it is unlikely that the hijackers used the map display on the EHSI to deduce the correct heading for Washington. It follows that the hijackers had some other means of obtaining this heading.

In the case of AA77, they actually didn't use the EHSI as a GPS of sorts, as I thought they might. Map mode can display airports(like DCA) and navaids up to 320 miles out. Instead, they changed the EHSI mode to VOR and tuned up their navaid and homed it as if they were flying a Cessna. Initially, they were out of range of the VOR. The initial intercept was was probably predetermined from practice runs in MSFS. Once the navaid was in range, they adjusted the course to line up and dialed the HDG knob to match.

Another thing that stood out was the slopiness and poor planning of the descents. UA 93 started down waaaay too early(probably why some had success using their cells). AA77 was in good shape 38 miles away at 7000'(normally in a descent an airliner at that range would still be 10-12,000' or more), but somehow still overshot and had to do that altitude bleeding turnaround. Another thing I noticed in the case of AA77 is that Hani kept getting autopilot disconnects, he ended up trying both the L and R autopilots. I think was essentially fumbling around - and it kept disconnecting because his inputs were out of bounds and it finally stayed on after he started using IAS/FLCH modes...

All in all, they seemed well rehearsed, if a little sloppy.

 

[apathoid]

That puts them at 70-85 feet MSL, depending on the ground sloping between the parking lot and the Pentagon. IIRC, having driven that road, the road to the left (west) of the Pentagon is slightly higher elevation looking east, but I couldn't swear how much, as you look from road to parking lot to Pentagon.

DR

PS: If the hijacker did not reset the altimeter to local settings in the Washington area (1/100th setting represents about a 10 foot change), or left the altimeter set to 29.92. 29.92 is the standard for altitudes above 18,000 feet. Their last cleared altitude was FL 350, or 35,000 MSL referenced to 29.92 inches Hg. (A pressure altitude, technically)

On the way back down, any difference between 29.92 and the actual barometric altimeter setting at Washington Reagan (very close to Pentagon) makes errors of AGL to MSL between 10 and 100 feet likely, assuming the altitudes from FDR are MSL and not from the Radar Altimeter. Now, if he cared to, the hijacker could have listened to the ATIS broadcast at Reagan before he began his descent to set his altimeter to the local settings. Doing so would have made his job easier, so that altitude MSL roughly equals altitude AGL, so my guess is that he might have done so, though perhaps it slipped his mind. I wonder if any FDR showed a change in Kollsman window setting.

Example of why this matters. If the altimeter setting at Reagan was 29.90 at that time, setting 29.92 in the cockpit would indicate 20 feet higher above ground than the plane actually was. Reagan being at 29.85 would put the altimeter showing the plane 70 feet higher than it was.

See where this goes, vis a vis the light poles?

DR

This is a very good point, I seriously doubt the hijackers wouldve changed the baro setting. What I'm not sure of is whether in the DFDR computes the pressure altitude automatically irrespective of the altimeter setting. I suspect it may....

 

[T.A.M.]

juryone:

You are correct, however, when I went back to google to check what I did the google search on, it was "Charles Pagelow", so the search that turned up with only the MD in it, was on the right guy...but thanks.

Re: Journal of 9/11 Studies.

1. It was created by the "Scholars", is overseen by them, with an advisory board consisting of members of the "Scholars".

2. They do not provide any data on who the "Peers" are that "Peer Reviewed" the articles.

3. Given the credentials of the Full Time members, it is HIGHLY unlikely they have enough EXPERTS in the given Fields to form any PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES of any size beyond 1-2. In the FUll time members I believe they have 1, possibly 2 Physicists, and 1 Mechanical (Dental) engineer.

4. True credibility to any of the articles present in that "journal" would be best gained by the same articles having been successfully PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED in other scientific journals, of which I see no evidence.

As I have asked many, many times, show me ONE case, ONE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL of note, that has PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED, any of the articles in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies".

 

[NDBoston]

Not to change the subject but I'm planning on going down to GZ on 9/11 to honor my friends and I can't see the families of firefighters and police officers taking the garbage spewed by Dylan Avery and co very well.

I'm hoping the police won't allow the CT's anywhere near the families or it could get ugly.

 

[T.A.M.]

Mentioning the cells...

I know we have deduced through the Moussaoui Trial info that all but 1 call was made by AIrfone, it would be a worthwhile project for someone to go through the recently acquired data from the NTSB and plot what the exact altitudes were at the times of the calls. It would paint a more accurate picture.

 

[MikeW]

A few things stood out. One, they used basic autopilot modes coupled with VOR navigation. They did not re-program the FMC(which is a snap), instead they engaged HDG select and Vertical Speed/Altitude select. Those are the most basic autopilot modes and they are modelled in MSFS(which the hijackers were in possesion of)...

Good points, thanks! So it seems to show the signs of an inexperienced pilot...? Might be worth collecting these together, then: there's probably another 911myths.com piece in discussing whether the evidence shows they were crack pilots, or not.

 

[realitybites]

JDX's post is up regarding Flight 77's FDR.

This is all way too technical for me, so if anyone has flight experience (billzilla where are you) and have not yet been banned, mosey on over.

 

[Gravy]

Good points, thanks! So it seems to show the signs of an inexperienced pilot...? Might be worth collecting these together, then: there's probably another 911myths.com piece in discussing whether the evidence shows they were crack pilots, or not.

...or remote pilots, or not. I agree that it would be a good piece for your site.

 

[Submersible]

Maybe if the producers of "Sweet Misery" would have given away copies of their video, more people would be interested in the genocide that continues to take place on a daily basis in this country.

Do any of you know when and how the door was opened for aspartame's approval?
On Ronald Reagan's FIRST day in office, when Donald Rumsfeld "called in his political markers".

There are hundreds if not thousands of websites dedicated to this "issue" but nobody seems to care. Maybe it's because the majority of this nation has been affected by the massive consumption of methanol and formaldehyde and it's impossible for U.S. to believe that our own government could do something like this.. to U.S.
But it's NOT.

http://www.relfe.com/Aspartame_92.html
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/01/22/new_mexico_aspartame_bills_charge_fda_inaction.htm

I understand if your one of the brilliant people sitting there thinking "what does this have to do with a Loose Change thread?"
It pertains to this thread because between aspartame and Posilac there is more preventable deaths taking place in this country on a daily basis than there was on 9-11... and the majority of you are stuck here trying to find the words to dismiss what your eyes are showing you, or insult others who do not agree with the "story" offered by the USG.

So maybe if you let your mind drift away from Ground Zero and the rest of the 9-11 soap-opera for a little while and look at some of this government's actions AGAINST U.S. in the past, the next time you watch the video's of the towers as they fall you might start to realize that, it IS possible, for "them",, to DO something like that.... to U.S. !!!

Market Potential & Areas of Application:
Recent figures show that over 1.3 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer in 2003. At some point during his or her lifetime, 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women will be diagnosed with cancer. This disease claims over half a million Americans every year, and unlike some other major diseases (heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, etc.), the relative cancer mortality rate is not subsiding.

http://iurtc.iu.edu/ott/technol/9708/9708_ES_FINAL.html

I loved my country too, before I realized it was already gone.
It's OK to intentionally cause cancer in this country, and it's illegal to provide others with a cure.
http://www.1cure4cancer.com/
http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer/Laetrile.html

Do you honestly believe that "they" wouldn't kill a few thousand people and drop a few buildings to give 'them' a good enough excuse to re-start our big bad War MACHINE, considering the amount of "elites' and their endless mountain of money involved?? ??
This is from the day before the soap opera started.
http://www.rense.com/general70/trill.htm

This post might be irrelevant or even get edited, which is fine with me ... I'm just trying to help by offering you some other examples of the "impossible" that have already taken place in this country,
and just like the 9-11 CT... most Americans are just not wiling to accept what their eyes are seeing. It can't be that hard to believe that we have been intentionally misled considering the amount of time our eyes are focused on a tube, they did call it programming ya' know.

Rise, surprise ! Open your EYES !
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/nypix/gndzero.jpg
19 Muslims pulled off the worlds best demolition with box cutters and ,
pixie dust ?

COME ON !~

 

[Darth Rotor]

19 Muslims pulled off the worlds best demolition with box cutters and pixie dust?

COME ON !~

Submersible, the world's best demolition happened at Hiroshima. What are you talking about?

Oh, besides the infamous box cutters, they had a thing called a plan. And tests of the system And rehearsals. And INS asleep at the wheel. And they exploited an overtolerance of illegals within our borders. And they got a little know-how on flying, enough for a one way job. Taking off is relatively easy, as is maneuvering a plane: landing is the tricky part.

And one thing your completely forget: will. There is a little thing old country boys call "want to."

Get your cranium out of your rectum, please, and breath a little fresh air. Attributing to malice what is basically a matter of incompetence seems to be the common theme among the CT/9-11 crowd.

DR

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

# Is Aspartame Safe? (FDA):
To date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems.
# Aspartame and the Internet (The Lancet):
Our research revealed over 6000 web sites that mention aspartame, with many hundreds alleging aspartame to be the cause of multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis, Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, brain tumours, and diabetes mellitus, among many others. Virtually all of the information offered is anecdotal, from anonymous sources and is scientifically implausible.
# ACSH Debunks Internet Health Hoax (American Council on Science and Health):
Health scare artists have found a whole new medium for terrorizing the public — the Internet. Individuals in search of accurate health information may literally become caught in the Web, where health hoaxes and urban medical myths run rampant. The health scare messages are always the same — whatever it is, it will make you sick.
# Beware The E-Mail Hoax: The Evils Of Nutrasweet (Aspartame) (Dr. Dean Edell):
A highly inaccurate "chain letter" is being circulated via e-mail warning the reader of the health dangers of aspartame (Nutrasweet) diet drinks.

There is so much scientific untruth in it, it’s scary. Be careful, because others know how to manipulate you by this. Just because something is beyond your comprehension doesn’t mean it is scientific.
# FDA Statement on Aspartame (FDA):
Analysis of the National Cancer Institute's public data base on cancer incidence in the United States — the SEER Program — does not support an association between the use of aspartame and increased incidence of brain tumors.
# Study Reaffirms Safety of Aspartame (MIT News):
Even daily large doses of the high-intensity sweetener aspartame, also known as NutraSweet, had no adverse effect on study subjects' health and well-being, a visiting scientist at MIT reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last week.

"We conclude that aspartame is safe for the general population," said Paul A. Spiers, visiting scientist in the Clinical Research Center (CRC).
# A Web of Deceit (TIME magazine):
A widely disseminated e-mail by a "Nancy Markle" links aspartame to Alzheimer's, birth defects, brain cancer, diabetes, Gulf War syndrome, lupus, multiple sclerosis and seizures. Right away, the long list warrants skepticism. Just as no single chemical cures everything, none causes everything.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

 

[kookbreaker]

There are hundreds if not thousands of websites dedicated to this "issue" but nobody seems to care. Maybe it's because the majority of this nation has been affected by the massive consumption of methanol and formaldehyde and it's impossible for U.S. to believe that our own government could do something like this.. to U.S.
But it's NOT.

*Yawn*

Its a load of ROT!

This post might be irrelevant

It is.

or even get edited,

It won't. But you'll never, ever acknowledge that. You just wanted to get your nutty paranoid jab in.

 

[juryjone]

Maybe if the producers of "Sweet Misery" would have given away copies of their video, more people would be interested in the genocide that continues to take place on a daily basis in this country.

Do any of you know when and how the door was opened for aspartame's approval?
On Ronald Reagan's FIRST day in office, when Donald Rumsfeld "called in his political markers".

[snip]

Rise, surprise ! Open your EYES !
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/nypix/gndzero.jpg
19 Muslims pulled off the worlds best demolition with box cutters and ,
pixie dust ?

COME ON !~

We had spaghetti at our house three times last week.

 

[T.A.M.]

Submersible:

Noone is saying the point doesn't deserve discussion. The JREF Forum is a huge forum...and yes I will say what you anticipated...Keep the comments to the TOPIC of the Forum thread. Go make your own thread on it. I might actually go there and debate with you on it, as it is a topic I have read a little on, although it was a while ago...and I still drink about 6 diet cokes a day.

 

[Submersible]

We had spaghetti at our house three times last week.

I keep eating all the smoked turkey necks out of my red beans & rice, but the beans still taste good.

I might actually go there and debate with you on it, as it is a topic I have read a little on, although it was a while ago...and I still drink about 6 diet cokes a day.

It would be healthier for you to buy a 20 crack rock,,but that's your choice.