• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pentagon 9/11 attack plane Flight Data Recorder values plugged in Computer Simulator

david carmichael

Critical Thinker
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
381
Hello Sports Fans,

Here is the Computer Flight Simulator re-creation with the Flight Data Recorder values plugged in.

If the US Government's account is to be believed as true...the traffic light poles would have had to have been 400+ feet high.

This provides the place for critical analysis of THIS GUY'S RE_ CREATION and the US GOVERNMENT FDR VALUES PRESENTED.

I am concurrently running this topic at forum.PhysOrg.com...maybe the Physicists will help us out here.

Possible "smoking gun" about the WTC attacks!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
 
Oh, this again? Simple question: Do you honestly believe that the government would plant evidence at the scene that would blow the lid off their own operation?
 
David, this is old news. The quick versions of the problems with theit assumptions:

1. they haven't adjusted for the differences between magnetic north and true north correctly

2. they don't have the raw FDR data and don't understand how the .csv file they do have is derived from it

3. there is some data missing for the last part of the flight (4 seconds, I think)

4. they are using the data from an FDR found in the wreckage at The Pentagon to try to prove that the plane it came from didn't hit The Pentagon.

More details about the FDR here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047
 
And...

Your point in regurgitating old stuff that's been covered is....what?
 
Piwots"forTwoof said:
I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter".
(Exaggeration added for size of Hani, he was tiny, lets just put it that way). We at pilotsfor911truth.org feel the same as his family in that Capt. Burlingame would not have given up his airplane unlike what is reported in this linked article from CNN.

Infuriating.
 
Hello Sports Fans,

Here is the Computer Flight Simulator re-creation with the Flight Data Recorder values plugged in.

If the US Government's account is to be believed as true...the traffic light poles would have had to have been 400+ feet high.

This provides the place for critical analysis of THIS GUY'S RE_ CREATION and the US GOVERNMENT FDR VALUES PRESENTED.

I am concurrently running this topic at forum.PhysOrg.com...maybe the Physicists will help us out here.

Possible "smoking gun" about the WTC attacks!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Could you figure out how many seconds of data were lost? Did you know the values they plug in do not include location? How do they do it?

I have some more questions for you and your data found at pilots for truth.

How many pilots for truth are there? And what percent of pilots is that?

Why does the NTSB make videos of accident aircraft? Why was this not an accident?

I got more but I expect you will just make a hit and run.
 
Oh, this again? Simple question: Do you honestly believe that the government would plant evidence at the scene that would blow the lid off their own operation?

but they didnt count on the super sleuths of the twoof movement to discover this...lol

TAM:)
 
That's odd, the eyewitnesses must have amazing vision if they could see the American Airlines markings on a plane that's 400+ feet in the air, or maybe they're lying government plants. That's the most logical explaination I would say :)
 
Here is the thread I started at PhysOrg Forum on the Pentagon Plane... I think they're scared now that they know I've invited you all to the discussion.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13053

Here is the first challenge to the facts presented on this site



FROM PHYSICIST ARTHUR(ADOUCETTE)

At the site it is stated:


QUOTE
This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations).



While I can find no support for these assertions, I can assure you that he DOES add 300 ft to the height of the plane.


physicist Grumpy's reply"


And with an error range of +- 75 feet that means the poles could well be 75 feet tall, a not unreasonable pole height.

Grumpy


I think Arthur is challenging the figure of "300 feet" and wants to know how that was derived or where it was sourced


Peace everybody
 
Please see threads by Apathoid and Anti-Sophist that debunk the various MISINTERPRETATIONS of the FDR data.

TAM:)
 
Well, I've invited them here... I'll repost the hyperlink you gave me over there.

Thank you for the hyperlink.


David, this is old news. The quick versions of the problems with theit assumptions:

1. they haven't adjusted for the differences between magnetic north and true north correctly

2. they don't have the raw FDR data and don't understand how the .csv file they do have is derived from it

3. there is some data missing for the last part of the flight (4 seconds, I think)

4. they are using the data from an FDR found in the wreckage at The Pentagon to try to prove that the plane it came from didn't hit The Pentagon.

More details about the FDR here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047
 
So what of these questions of theirs have been answered by any of you folks on this site?

I'm particularly interested in Questions #1, 2 and 3

Questions for the US Govt regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder.

1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.

2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.

3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.

4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).

5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?

6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?

7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?

8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?

9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?

10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?

11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.

12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

07/20/06

Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder

First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions.

So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right?

This is what i get...

Summary.
"The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. "

Full report here.
NTSB report All reports from the NTSB for all 4 planes on Sept 11 are identical.

Ok, sounds reasonable. So lets check with the FBI reports.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm
Thats all i can find from the FBI.

So, lets go to the 9/11 Commission report.
"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 ....

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60...

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. The final speed of 530 mph (460 knots) was calculated by damage done to the pentagon since the FDR was unusable according to the 9/11 Commission report. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.
 
Isn't the unofficial tagline for the CT Crowd: "We put the "Duhh" in redundant"?

perhaps..but then all of the debunkers here at this site fled from my free $500 USS Liberty challenge.

So I still have some questions.

I brought it here to a forum of skeptics...

some of you "intellectually honest"..others of you "intellectually dishonest"
 
...and have any of you fashioned a counter-simulation to the best of the ability to scientifically do so?

It doesn't have to be perfect...just what the various listed constraints allow

If you have the same research ability on the FDR as you do with the USS liberty, you are lost.

Are you really this challenged on research?
 
I again reluctantly post, as I am again offended by this type of person. Again, I say that on that horrible day, I held part of that dead airplane in my hands, covered with fuel, as I stood there, looking at the burning building, and did my small bit of service.

I say I held parts of the airplane, you say there was no airplane. Am I lying?
 

Back
Top Bottom