It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ImAPepper
Once again, the rant of a no-planer. You don't see it on video, it fails to exist.
Have you ever read a book, Turbofan, or does your research involve watching Pandora's Box on a continuous loop on your DVD player? Try reading "PENTAGON 911" or "FIREFIGHT". Two very good books that deal with facts, not fantasy. If money is an issue, I will be more than happy to send you my copy of them. Or, try amazon.com, they have a used book section where you can get them rather inexpensively.
Originally posted by 911files
This whole thread lost 'truther' credibility when R_Mackey, aka Capt'n Bob showed up. I take nothing presented by liars with much credibility. Here yoiu have one claiming nothing on the internet is credible unless 'independently verified' and then another posting nothing but links to material on the internet.
Sad that a person with such low credibility would diminish what little might be left of it by stealing the ID of someone who does have credibility to post in an internet forum.
If by some miracle you, dear reader, are still in the Truth Movement, this is the kind of person you're associating yourself with frauds, forgers and bullies. If what the Truth Movement stood for was actually valid, none of this nonsense would be needed at all. Think about it.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Finally, this all assumes the aircraft we are talking about is N644AA. First you have to prove it was N644AA in order to claim the altimeter was operating outside the aircraft envelope.
Start with providing serial/part numbers.
Then you have to prove the altimeter was in error by more than 150 feet.
Air Data Calibration And Measurement
Then you have to convince 757/767 Pilots from American Airlines who have actual flight time in N644AA that the 757 can exceed Vmo by more than 130 knots.
So far all you have is a theory to fit perhaps your already established belief.
I'll add one more, please prove the object from which the last RA is measuring. Hint: Use PA for cross check.
No one has provided any proof of the above. Please let us know when you do.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Anytime you guys are exhausted from your Balsamo Bashfest, feel free to address the issues.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Anytime you guys are exhausted from your Balsamo Bashfest, feel free to address the issues. Here they are again from page 9 and 10.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Finally, this all assumes the aircraft we are talking about is N644AA. First you have to prove it was N644AA in order to claim the altimeter was operating outside the aircraft envelope.
Start with providing serial/part numbers.
Then you have to prove the altimeter was in error by more than 150 feet.
Air Data Calibration And Measurement
Then you have to convince 757/767 Pilots from American Airlines who have actual flight time in N644AA that the 757 can exceed Vmo by more than 130 knots.
So far all you have is a theory to fit perhaps your already established belief.
I'll add one more, please prove the object from which the last RA is measuring. Hint: Use PA for cross check.
No one has provided any proof of the above. Please let us know when you do.
Originally posted by tomk52
I provided 63 (out of 64) "serial numbers"
the DNA of all, but one, of the passengers & crew on the plane. As described here: www.pbs.org...
And in several places, here: /ykz39lc
Here's the DNA report. Not that you'll read it...
web.archive.org...://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf
And finally, "we" don't have to prove anything about the altitude calibration of the FDR.
YOU are the silly, silly little boys who are claiming that:
1. the data taken off of THIS FDR recorder [ www.911myths.com...911_fdr.jpg ],
2. pulled out of THIS wreckage [ www.911myths.com... ] ...
... PROVES that ...
... [wait for it] ...
"... THAT FDR was not pulled out of THAT wreckage...?!!
Silly, silly boys.
Those explanations include 1) lag time, 2) excessive speed of the plane (outside the altimeter calibration envelope) and (my fave) 3) G forces on the delicate internal mechanisms of the altimeter.
PPS. Why are you still posting as "R_Mackey",
even tho you've been busted as a poseur?
Originally posted by R_Mackey
PPS. Why are you still posting as "R_Mackey",
Off topic.
It's the name I chose.
even tho you've been busted as a poseur?
Unproven speculation and false accusation.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
I know you may think there is only one R. Mackey in your world, but there are many more in the real world.
[edit on 2-11-2009 by R_Mackey]
Originally posted by Reheat The 20' accuracy that Turbo has been touting is a manufacturer's tolerance on the instrument itself which does not include the piping and other installation issue such as, placement and performance of the static ports. Consequently, it is misleading and WRONG.
Originally posted by turbofan
Ohhh...so, by adding the piping and stuff, the reading goes up by 50'
error? Like more than double error? Like? Sort of defeats the purpose
of calibrating a device 'out of system' huh?
Originally posted by Reheat The misleading crap continues. The tolerances listed above are "BENCH TEST requirements for an instrument, not operational requirements for an installed altimeter system.
Originally posted by turbofan
Please provide your source for alternate system tolerances in/outside
of the aircraft.
Originally posted by tomk52
You are aware, I assume, that an altimeter will read HIGHER in elevation the faster that a plane in level flight goes, aren't you? You are familiar with Bernoulli's Principle, aren't you?
Geeesh... this is trivial stuff, Turbofan.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
What has been proven is some people prefer theory, personal attacks, false accusations, violating ATS T&C, and are more concerned with the UserID I chose to register, instead of attempting to seek truth.
Originally posted by ImAPepper
Originally posted by R_Mackey
What has been proven is some people prefer theory, personal attacks, false accusations, violating ATS T&C, and are more concerned with the UserID I chose to register, instead of attempting to seek truth.
What we want to know Balsamo, is why you chose to use Ryan Mackey's name as your user name when you have two other names here at ATS.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
What has been proven is some people prefer theory, personal attacks, false accusations, violating ATS T&C, and are more concerned with the UserID I chose to register, instead of attempting to seek truth.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Back to the topic, no one answered me about my Warren Stutt questions... can anyone give me a couple of sentences explaining Warren Stutt?
Originally posted by ImAPepper
Did you look into his website? He is an Aussie, like you!
Originally posted by ImAPepper
If you are interested in him, might I suggest you e-mail him?
Originally posted by 911files
But then again, isn't it differences in air pressure over a curved surface that makes a plane possible in the first place?
Originally posted by tomk52
By adding piping "and stuff", the ERROR in the reading goes up by 50'.
1. the length & diameter of the piping
2. the number of other systems that are accessing (read "changing") the static pressure
3. the location of the static port on the plane,
4. the effect of the shape of the plane on the stability of the flowstream around the plane, and specifically at the location of the static ports.
5. the effect of the plane's attitude on the flowstream at the static ports.
6. the effect of the plane's airspeed on the flowstream at the static ports.
So the measured static pressure changes with ALL of those effects. Meaning that the INSTALLED performance will be much less accurate than the BENCH TOP performance. Just as Reheat told you.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
By the way, has anyone yet informed Ryan Mackey at JREF that Boeings do not "typically cruise" above their Critical Mach? Not a very credible statement from someone claiming to be a NASA scientist.
Early transonic military aircraft such as the Hawker Hunter and F-86 Sabre were designed to fly satisfactorily faster than their Critical Mach number. They did not possess sufficient engine thrust to reach Mach 1.0 in level flight but could be dived to Mach 1.0 and beyond, and remain controllable. Modern passenger-carrying jet aircraft such as Airbus and Boeing aircraft have Maximum Operating Mach numbers slower than Mach 1.0 but they are routinely operated faster than their Critical Mach numbers.