Activism Discussion: Excellent Flight Data Recorder Analysis And ExposE Of The PentaHoax!

Excellent Flight Data Recorder Analysis And ExposE Of The PentaHoax!
Posts: 181

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Zookumar Yelubandi
2007-06-18 20:06:23 EST
"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"

-zookumar-

BDK
2007-06-19 02:07:21 EST
In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zookumar@yahoo.ca says...
> "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
>
> -zookumar-
>

Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up with?

BDK

Zookumar Yelubandi
2007-06-19 03:59:23 EST
BDK wrote:
> In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zookumar@yahoo.ca says...
> > "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
> > -zookumar-
> Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up with?
> BDK

Yes. It was pretty good, wasn't it? Mind you, it doesn't get
much better than cogent analysis, and the people who put together the
presentation were very cogent. Moreover, they worked the government's
own data to a breathtaking *checkmate* .

For those who aren't trained to squawk "kook" at the slightest
hint of reality, the government's own data shows that the lowest
altimeter reading of the flight data recorder was 273 feet, well above
the height of the 40-foot high light poles. And this "last" reading
had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft). At 500 mph or
733 ft/s ... a half-second gives 367 feet from Pentagon facade at time
of "last" reading.

There is no way that a Boeing 757 flying approximately level to
the ground at 733 ft/s (or even at a slight downward angle) could
descend some 250 or 260 feet in a half-second, *level-off* , and then
impact the Pentagon facade at some 10 or 20 feet above the ground.

Also, the data showed a line of approach that was not compatible
with the required line of approach to allow the aircraft to fly over the
light poles. The data was further backed up by eyewitness testimony of
two Pentagon security officers (fueling at the gas station) who stated
that the line of approach of the jetliner was to the *right* of the
required line of approach for a "light pole" flyover.

What observations can we draw from all this?

Well, the FDR data fits in nicely with the sundry eyewitness
accounts of an AA jetliner approaching the Pentagon, only here, the
jetliner didn't crash into the Pentagon (as some of the witnesses have
alleged) ... rather, it flew over the Pentagon by a good couple of
hundred feet. A second aircraft, a much smaller one (perhaps with a
missile payload??) screamed towards the Pentagon facade and crashed into
it at approximately the same time. It is the tailfin of this second
aircraft that we can see peeking over the boomgate in the five frames of
the CCTV video footage released by the FOIA (initiated by Judicial
Watch). Moreover, this second aircraft was likely the one that clipped
the light poles (either that, or the poles were planted there, I mean,
a fighter jet hitting light poles could result in it veering off its
course and/or crashing prematurely). Perhaps they were planted there
to sell the story of a low-flying jetliner, who knows?).

Of course, one may legitimately suggest that they had their New
Pearl Harbour in the twin tower attacks ... so why go through an
elaborate charade to attack the Pentagon? Answer: 2.3 trillion missing
Pentadollars. Indeed, most of the casualties taken at the Pentagon
were in the auditing areas of the building. A quick way to get rid of
auditors who may have known too much and, of course, the documents.


-zookumar-

GovShill
2007-06-19 06:09:16 EST
On Jun 19, 5:59 pm, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> BDK wrote:
> > In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zooku...@yahoo.ca says...
> > > "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
> > > -zookumar-
> > Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up with?
> > BDK
>
> Yes. It was pretty good, wasn't it? Mind you, it doesn't get
> much better than cogent analysis, and the people who put together the
> presentation were very cogent. Moreover, they worked the government's
> own data to a breathtaking *checkmate* .
>
> For those who aren't trained to squawk "kook" at the slightest
> hint of reality, the government's own data shows that the lowest
> altimeter reading of the flight data recorder was 273 feet, well above
> the height of the 40-foot high light poles. And this "last" reading
> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft). At 500 mph or
> 733 ft/s ... a half-second gives 367 feet from Pentagon facade at time
> of "last" reading.
>
> There is no way that a Boeing 757 flying approximately level to
> the ground at 733 ft/s (or even at a slight downward angle) could
> descend some 250 or 260 feet in a half-second, *level-off* , and then
> impact the Pentagon facade at some 10 or 20 feet above the ground.

All of which just goes to show your lack of understanding of
barometric altimeters and Flight Data Recorders.

Once more for the Mensa crowd.

The altimeters in the cockpit, the ones the pilots use, must be
accurate. For this reason they have a knob that the pilot can turn to
calibrate the instrument for current air pressure. Here is the
instument with it's knob in the lower left;

http://www.sarasotaavionics.com/images/productimages/UNITED%20ALTIMETER.jpg

In the centre on the right side of the dial you can see the subscale
which in the picture above reads 29.9 inches. By turning the knob this
subscale may be changed to reflect the current conditions. Failure to
calibrate the instrument in this way may cause errors of up to several
hundred feet. The simulator on this page *may* help explain this;

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning.htm

Now, the barometric altimeter in the Flight Data Recorder (I'm typing
slowly for you Zookook) does not have an adjustment knob that the
pilot can reach (or the ground crew for that matter). This altimeter
is permanently set to 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg). So, should the actual
air pressure at the aircraft's present location be different from this
figure of 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg) the a l t i tu d e r e a d i n g
o f t h e F D R w i l l b e i n a c u r a t e. To several
hundred feet, depending on the actual pressure. All of which can be
simulated on this page;

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.htm

As to;

>... "last" reading
> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft).

A system of analog instruments (they are analog instruments that are
recorded digitally), taking their readings from plastic pipes carrying
changes in air pressure is *not* going to respond in anything like 0.5
seconds with any degree of accuracy. These devices were never
conceived of to be used in this manner. To ascribe to them these
levels of accuracy is ludicrous.

Shill #312


BDK
2007-06-19 06:32:48 EST
In article <v1Mdi.32435$kY6.16799@edtnps82>, zookumar@yahoo.ca says...
> BDK wrote:
> > In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zookumar@yahoo.ca says...
> > > "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
> > > -zookumar-
> > Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up with?
> > BDK
>
> Yes. It was pretty good, wasn't it?

No, it's not. It's really lame, actually.

> Mind you, it doesn't get much better than cogent analysis, and the people
> who put together the presentation were very cogent. Moreover, they worked
> the government's own data to a breathtaking *checkmate* .

Hard to get a checkmate when you are too deranged to even know what game
it is you're playing.

>
> For those who aren't trained to squawk "kook" at the slightest
> hint of reality, the government's own data shows that the lowest
> altimeter reading of the flight data recorder was 273 feet, well above
> the height of the 40-foot high light poles. And this "last" reading
> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft). At 500 mph or
> 733 ft/s ... a half-second gives 367 feet from Pentagon facade at time
> of "last" reading.

Yawn, all explained before, many times. Time for some new kook material.

>
> There is no way that a Boeing 757 flying approximately level to
> the ground at 733 ft/s (or even at a slight downward angle) could
> descend some 250 or 260 feet in a half-second, *level-off* , and then
> impact the Pentagon facade at some 10 or 20 feet above the ground.

It's nice to believe in fairy tales.

>
> Also, the data showed a line of approach that was not compatible
> with the required line of approach to allow the aircraft to fly over the
> light poles. The data was further backed up by eyewitness testimony of
> two Pentagon security officers (fueling at the gas station) who stated
> that the line of approach of the jetliner was to the *right* of the
> required line of approach for a "light pole" flyover.
>
> What observations can we draw from all this?

That you have no idea what you are talking about?

>
> Well, the FDR data fits in nicely with the sundry eyewitness
> accounts of an AA jetliner approaching the Pentagon, only here, the
> jetliner didn't crash into the Pentagon (as some of the witnesses have
> alleged) ... rather, it flew over the Pentagon by a good couple of
> hundred feet. A second aircraft, a much smaller one (perhaps with a
> missile payload??) screamed towards the Pentagon facade and crashed into
> it at approximately the same time. It is the tailfin of this second
> aircraft that we can see peeking over the boomgate in the five frames of
> the CCTV video footage released by the FOIA (initiated by Judicial
> Watch). Moreover, this second aircraft was likely the one that clipped
> the light poles (either that, or the poles were planted there, I mean,
> a fighter jet hitting light poles could result in it veering off its
> course and/or crashing prematurely). Perhaps they were planted there
> to sell the story of a low-flying jetliner, who knows?).

BWHAHAHAHAHA! Absolutely STUPEndous! With the emphasis on STUPE, of
course. Only a true kook would think up the classic like the above.

>
> Of course, one may legitimately suggest that they had their New
> Pearl Harbour in the twin tower attacks ... so why go through an
> elaborate charade to attack the Pentagon? Answer: 2.3 trillion missing
> Pentadollars. Indeed, most of the casualties taken at the Pentagon
> were in the auditing areas of the building. A quick way to get rid of
> auditors who may have known too much and, of course, the documents.

LOL, only someone truly clueless would post something as totally stupid
as what you did above. If you had a clue, you would know that there are
at least several backups for all important documents. Even your fellow
kooks have to be laughing at you now, Zook.

BDK

>
>
> -zookumar-
>

Loogie
2007-06-19 07:26:01 EST
GovShill wrote:
> On Jun 19, 5:59 pm, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> BDK wrote:
>>> In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zooku...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>> "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
>>>> -zookumar-
>>> Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up with?
>>> BDK
>> Yes. It was pretty good, wasn't it? Mind you, it doesn't get
>> much better than cogent analysis, and the people who put together the
>> presentation were very cogent. Moreover, they worked the government's
>> own data to a breathtaking *checkmate* .
>>
>> For those who aren't trained to squawk "kook" at the slightest
>> hint of reality, the government's own data shows that the lowest
>> altimeter reading of the flight data recorder was 273 feet, well above
>> the height of the 40-foot high light poles. And this "last" reading
>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft). At 500 mph or
>> 733 ft/s ... a half-second gives 367 feet from Pentagon facade at time
>> of "last" reading.
>>
>> There is no way that a Boeing 757 flying approximately level to
>> the ground at 733 ft/s (or even at a slight downward angle) could
>> descend some 250 or 260 feet in a half-second, *level-off* , and then
>> impact the Pentagon facade at some 10 or 20 feet above the ground.
>
> All of which just goes to show your lack of understanding of
> barometric altimeters and Flight Data Recorders.
>
> Once more for the Mensa crowd.
>
> The altimeters in the cockpit, the ones the pilots use, must be
> accurate. For this reason they have a knob that the pilot can turn to
> calibrate the instrument for current air pressure. Here is the
> instument with it's knob in the lower left;
>
> http://www.sarasotaavionics.com/images/productimages/UNITED%20ALTIMETER.jpg
>
> In the centre on the right side of the dial you can see the subscale
> which in the picture above reads 29.9 inches. By turning the knob this
> subscale may be changed to reflect the current conditions. Failure to
> calibrate the instrument in this way may cause errors of up to several
> hundred feet. The simulator on this page *may* help explain this;
>
> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning.htm
>
> Now, the barometric altimeter in the Flight Data Recorder (I'm typing
> slowly for you Zookook) does not have an adjustment knob that the
> pilot can reach (or the ground crew for that matter). This altimeter
> is permanently set to 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg). So, should the actual
> air pressure at the aircraft's present location be different from this
> figure of 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg) the a l t i tu d e r e a d i n g
> o f t h e F D R w i l l b e i n a c u r a t e. To several
> hundred feet, depending on the actual pressure. All of which can be
> simulated on this page;
>
> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.htm
>
> As to;
>
>> ... "last" reading
>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft).
>
> A system of analog instruments (they are analog instruments that are
> recorded digitally), taking their readings from plastic pipes carrying
> changes in air pressure is *not* going to respond in anything like 0.5
> seconds with any degree of accuracy. These devices were never
> conceived of to be used in this manner. To ascribe to them these
> levels of accuracy is ludicrous.
>
> Shill #312
>

Shill #312. Although your knowledge of barometric pressure and knobs is
exquisite you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to discredit
Zookumar or the video to which he refers.

This info was put together by experts in their field. Their analysis of
the data involved multiple sources to determine position. All sources
concur +/- 100m position fix. All prove categorically that it was
impossible for the plane to have clipped the light poles and hit the
Pentagon. Further, the impact has categorically shown that it was not a
commercial plane of 757 size that hit the building.

Ask yourself why over 100 auditors of the defense dept were killed that
day...one day after Donald Rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars were
missing. How come that has never been brought back into the public eye?

If you follow the money trail of this whole mess you will find the
culprits.

Contra-Shill #312


Loogie
2007-06-19 07:31:29 EST
BDK wrote:

No one is laughing. The only joke on here is you and your lackies always
trying to discredit people who provide you with facts that your Shepards
do not liked released.

Whose agenda are you protecting? Work for the government or Republican
party?

The effort that you Sheeple are putting forth in an attempt to debunk
the truth is laughable.

Contra-Shill #312

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5KSieH4Afc

Cardinal Chunder
2007-06-19 08:10:21 EST
Loogie wrote:
> GovShill wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 5:59 pm, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> BDK wrote:
>>>> In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zooku...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>>> "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
>>>>> -zookumar-
>>>> Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up with?
>>>> BDK
>>> Yes. It was pretty good, wasn't it? Mind you, it doesn't get
>>> much better than cogent analysis, and the people who put together the
>>> presentation were very cogent. Moreover, they worked the government's
>>> own data to a breathtaking *checkmate* .
>>> For those who aren't trained to squawk "kook" at the slightest
>>> hint of reality, the government's own data shows that the lowest
>>> altimeter reading of the flight data recorder was 273 feet, well above
>>> the height of the 40-foot high light poles. And this "last" reading
>>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft). At 500 mph or
>>> 733 ft/s ... a half-second gives 367 feet from Pentagon facade at time
>>> of "last" reading.
>>> There is no way that a Boeing 757 flying approximately level to
>>> the ground at 733 ft/s (or even at a slight downward angle) could
>>> descend some 250 or 260 feet in a half-second, *level-off* , and then
>>> impact the Pentagon facade at some 10 or 20 feet above the ground.
>>
>> All of which just goes to show your lack of understanding of
>> barometric altimeters and Flight Data Recorders.
>>
>> Once more for the Mensa crowd.
>>
>> The altimeters in the cockpit, the ones the pilots use, must be
>> accurate. For this reason they have a knob that the pilot can turn to
>> calibrate the instrument for current air pressure. Here is the
>> instument with it's knob in the lower left;
>>
>> http://www.sarasotaavionics.com/images/productimages/UNITED%20ALTIMETER.jpg
>>
>>
>> In the centre on the right side of the dial you can see the subscale
>> which in the picture above reads 29.9 inches. By turning the knob this
>> subscale may be changed to reflect the current conditions. Failure to
>> calibrate the instrument in this way may cause errors of up to several
>> hundred feet. The simulator on this page *may* help explain this;
>>
>> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning.htm
>>
>> Now, the barometric altimeter in the Flight Data Recorder (I'm typing
>> slowly for you Zookook) does not have an adjustment knob that the
>> pilot can reach (or the ground crew for that matter). This altimeter
>> is permanently set to 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg). So, should the actual
>> air pressure at the aircraft's present location be different from this
>> figure of 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg) the a l t i tu d e r e a d i n g
>> o f t h e F D R w i l l b e i n a c u r a t e. To several
>> hundred feet, depending on the actual pressure. All of which can be
>> simulated on this page;
>>
>> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.htm
>>
>> As to;
>>
>>> ... "last" reading
>>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft).
>>
>> A system of analog instruments (they are analog instruments that are
>> recorded digitally), taking their readings from plastic pipes carrying
>> changes in air pressure is *not* going to respond in anything like 0.5
>> seconds with any degree of accuracy. These devices were never
>> conceived of to be used in this manner. To ascribe to them these
>> levels of accuracy is ludicrous.
>>
>> Shill #312
>>
>
> Shill #312. Although your knowledge of barometric pressure and knobs is
> exquisite you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to discredit
> Zookumar or the video to which he refers.
>
> This info was put together by experts in their field. Their analysis of
> the data involved multiple sources to determine position. All sources
> concur +/- 100m position fix. All prove categorically that it was
> impossible for the plane to have clipped the light poles and hit the
> Pentagon. Further, the impact has categorically shown that it was not a
> commercial plane of 757 size that hit the building.

By experts you mean Calum Douglas who appears to be an engineering
student of some kind. The presentation itself appears to run through the
usual questions that conspiracists love to ask (while ignoring the
answers) concerning the Pentagon crash.

Loogie
2007-06-19 08:42:00 EST
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> Loogie wrote:
>> GovShill wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 5:59 pm, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>> BDK wrote:
>>>>> In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zooku...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>>>> "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -zookumar-
>>>>> Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up with?
>>>>> BDK
>>>> Yes. It was pretty good, wasn't it? Mind you, it doesn't get
>>>> much better than cogent analysis, and the people who put together the
>>>> presentation were very cogent. Moreover, they worked the government's
>>>> own data to a breathtaking *checkmate* . For those who
>>>> aren't trained to squawk "kook" at the slightest
>>>> hint of reality, the government's own data shows that the lowest
>>>> altimeter reading of the flight data recorder was 273 feet, well above
>>>> the height of the 40-foot high light poles. And this "last" reading
>>>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>>>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft). At 500 mph or
>>>> 733 ft/s ... a half-second gives 367 feet from Pentagon facade at time
>>>> of "last" reading. There is no way that a Boeing 757 flying
>>>> approximately level to
>>>> the ground at 733 ft/s (or even at a slight downward angle) could
>>>> descend some 250 or 260 feet in a half-second, *level-off* , and then
>>>> impact the Pentagon facade at some 10 or 20 feet above the ground.
>>>
>>> All of which just goes to show your lack of understanding of
>>> barometric altimeters and Flight Data Recorders.
>>>
>>> Once more for the Mensa crowd.
>>>
>>> The altimeters in the cockpit, the ones the pilots use, must be
>>> accurate. For this reason they have a knob that the pilot can turn to
>>> calibrate the instrument for current air pressure. Here is the
>>> instument with it's knob in the lower left;
>>>
>>> http://www.sarasotaavionics.com/images/productimages/UNITED%20ALTIMETER.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> In the centre on the right side of the dial you can see the subscale
>>> which in the picture above reads 29.9 inches. By turning the knob this
>>> subscale may be changed to reflect the current conditions. Failure to
>>> calibrate the instrument in this way may cause errors of up to several
>>> hundred feet. The simulator on this page *may* help explain this;
>>>
>>> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning.htm
>>>
>>> Now, the barometric altimeter in the Flight Data Recorder (I'm typing
>>> slowly for you Zookook) does not have an adjustment knob that the
>>> pilot can reach (or the ground crew for that matter). This altimeter
>>> is permanently set to 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg). So, should the actual
>>> air pressure at the aircraft's present location be different from this
>>> figure of 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg) the a l t i tu d e r e a d i n g
>>> o f t h e F D R w i l l b e i n a c u r a t e. To several
>>> hundred feet, depending on the actual pressure. All of which can be
>>> simulated on this page;
>>>
>>> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.htm
>>>
>>> As to;
>>>
>>>> ... "last" reading
>>>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>>>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft).
>>>
>>> A system of analog instruments (they are analog instruments that are
>>> recorded digitally), taking their readings from plastic pipes carrying
>>> changes in air pressure is *not* going to respond in anything like 0.5
>>> seconds with any degree of accuracy. These devices were never
>>> conceived of to be used in this manner. To ascribe to them these
>>> levels of accuracy is ludicrous.
>>>
>>> Shill #312
>>>
>>
>> Shill #312. Although your knowledge of barometric pressure and knobs
>> is exquisite you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to discredit
>> Zookumar or the video to which he refers.
>>
>> This info was put together by experts in their field. Their analysis
>> of the data involved multiple sources to determine position. All
>> sources concur +/- 100m position fix. All prove categorically that it
>> was impossible for the plane to have clipped the light poles and hit
>> the Pentagon. Further, the impact has categorically shown that it was
>> not a commercial plane of 757 size that hit the building.
>
> By experts you mean Calum Douglas who appears to be an engineering
> student of some kind. The presentation itself appears to run through the
> usual questions that conspiracists love to ask (while ignoring the
> answers) concerning the Pentagon crash.

Another Shill who swallowed the wrong pill. You have no idea what you
are talking about. Go back to the flock...there are bigger sheeple on
here that are at least worth some form of debate...you do not qualify.

Contra-Shill #312


Cardinal Chunder
2007-06-19 09:38:25 EST
Loogie wrote:
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>> Loogie wrote:
>>> GovShill wrote:
>>>> On Jun 19, 5:59 pm, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>>> BDK wrote:
>>>>>> In article <36Fdi.32240$kY6.6943@edtnps82>, zooku...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>>>>> "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -zookumar-
>>>>>> Yawn, another kook video. Is this the best stuff you can come up
>>>>>> with?
>>>>>> BDK
>>>>> Yes. It was pretty good, wasn't it? Mind you, it doesn't
>>>>> get
>>>>> much better than cogent analysis, and the people who put together the
>>>>> presentation were very cogent. Moreover, they worked the government's
>>>>> own data to a breathtaking *checkmate* . For those who
>>>>> aren't trained to squawk "kook" at the slightest
>>>>> hint of reality, the government's own data shows that the lowest
>>>>> altimeter reading of the flight data recorder was 273 feet, well above
>>>>> the height of the 40-foot high light poles. And this "last" reading
>>>>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>>>>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft). At 500 mph or
>>>>> 733 ft/s ... a half-second gives 367 feet from Pentagon facade at time
>>>>> of "last" reading. There is no way that a Boeing 757 flying
>>>>> approximately level to
>>>>> the ground at 733 ft/s (or even at a slight downward angle) could
>>>>> descend some 250 or 260 feet in a half-second, *level-off* , and then
>>>>> impact the Pentagon facade at some 10 or 20 feet above the ground.
>>>>
>>>> All of which just goes to show your lack of understanding of
>>>> barometric altimeters and Flight Data Recorders.
>>>>
>>>> Once more for the Mensa crowd.
>>>>
>>>> The altimeters in the cockpit, the ones the pilots use, must be
>>>> accurate. For this reason they have a knob that the pilot can turn to
>>>> calibrate the instrument for current air pressure. Here is the
>>>> instument with it's knob in the lower left;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sarasotaavionics.com/images/productimages/UNITED%20ALTIMETER.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the centre on the right side of the dial you can see the subscale
>>>> which in the picture above reads 29.9 inches. By turning the knob this
>>>> subscale may be changed to reflect the current conditions. Failure to
>>>> calibrate the instrument in this way may cause errors of up to several
>>>> hundred feet. The simulator on this page *may* help explain this;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning.htm
>>>>
>>>> Now, the barometric altimeter in the Flight Data Recorder (I'm typing
>>>> slowly for you Zookook) does not have an adjustment knob that the
>>>> pilot can reach (or the ground crew for that matter). This altimeter
>>>> is permanently set to 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg). So, should the actual
>>>> air pressure at the aircraft's present location be different from this
>>>> figure of 1013.3hPa (29.92 InHg) the a l t i tu d e r e a d i n g
>>>> o f t h e F D R w i l l b e i n a c u r a t e. To several
>>>> hundred feet, depending on the actual pressure. All of which can be
>>>> simulated on this page;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.htm
>>>>
>>>> As to;
>>>>
>>>>> ... "last" reading
>>>>> had to be written into the FDR memory chip within "0.5" seconds of
>>>>> impact (as mandated by law for commercial aircraft).
>>>>
>>>> A system of analog instruments (they are analog instruments that are
>>>> recorded digitally), taking their readings from plastic pipes carrying
>>>> changes in air pressure is *not* going to respond in anything like 0.5
>>>> seconds with any degree of accuracy. These devices were never
>>>> conceived of to be used in this manner. To ascribe to them these
>>>> levels of accuracy is ludicrous.
>>>>
>>>> Shill #312
>>>>
>>>
>>> Shill #312. Although your knowledge of barometric pressure and knobs
>>> is exquisite you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to discredit
>>> Zookumar or the video to which he refers.
>>>
>>> This info was put together by experts in their field. Their analysis
>>> of the data involved multiple sources to determine position. All
>>> sources concur +/- 100m position fix. All prove categorically that it
>>> was impossible for the plane to have clipped the light poles and hit
>>> the Pentagon. Further, the impact has categorically shown that it was
>>> not a commercial plane of 757 size that hit the building.
>>
>> By experts you mean Calum Douglas who appears to be an engineering
>> student of some kind. The presentation itself appears to run through
>> the usual questions that conspiracists love to ask (while ignoring the
>> answers) concerning the Pentagon crash.
>
> Another Shill who swallowed the wrong pill. You have no idea what you
> are talking about. Go back to the flock...there are bigger sheeple on
> here that are at least worth some form of debate...you do not qualify.

Are you claiming that the Calum Douglas presenting is not in fact the
"expert[s] in the field" that you were referring to? Then who were?

Or that Calum Douglas isn't in fact "engineering student at Oxford
Brookes University" and self-claimed "senior researcher at Pilots for
911 Truth"?

I thought I would amuse myself by seeing what undergraduate engineering
courses Oxford Brookes University supplies. Note that is not Oxford
University BTW. So I looked at what courses they offer:

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying/courses/undergraduate/2007

To summarise, they offer:

* Automotive Engineering
* Computer Aided Mechanical Engineering
* Mechanical engineering
* Motorsport Engineering
* Software Engineering

None of which would quality Mr Douglas as an aviation expert. Now it's
time to have a laugh. Want to know what kind of engineer that Mr Douglas
is studying to be? Take a guess and prepare to LOL:

http://www.obmountaineering.co.uk/Profiles/Calum.html

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron