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 wholetruth
which after tracking this down i've developed serious doubts about the author of this thread as the "newly decoded" additional seconds only further corroborates claims that the plane did not hit light poles or the pentagon.....
maybe thats why the originator of this thread won't source it?
Originally posted by wholetruth
oh im sorry your anonymous cia buddy who started this thread won't provide a source so i did.
the person whom he references is discussing this with balsamo. did you actually click the link?
anyways "reheat"s source doesn't dispute balsamo saying the plane is too high to hit light poles or the pentagon. do you know why?
It's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed.
Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.
In my post on J.R.E.F. announcing my new program, I included a link to this thread so that readers could follow the views expressed here.
I am in the process of adding more flight parameters to the program for the next release which will hopefully shed more light on this issue.
Warren.
Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas
i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?
Originally posted by ImAPepper
Originally posted by wholetruth
oh im sorry your anonymous cia buddy who started this thread won't provide a source so i did.
the person whom he references is discussing this with balsamo. did you actually click the link?
anyways "reheat"s source doesn't dispute balsamo saying the plane is too high to hit light poles or the pentagon. do you know why?
Keep in mind that Warren is a current member of Pilot 4 911 Truth.
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas
i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?
I hate to break the news but I am way ahead of you.
rob balsamo
The last Radar Altitude in Warrens data is 4 feet. This does NOT mean 4 feet above the ground. Radar Altimeters send out a signal straight down from the aircraft that bounces off any object, ground, building, tree.... whatever, and returns to the aircraft giving a read out of your height above that object. Kind of like a Fish-Finder or depth gauge on a boat.. if you will....
The Radar Altitude prior to that is 57 feet. There is a one second interval between the two. Based on speed, thats only 815 feet horizontally. The light poles cover an area up to ~1020 feet from the pentagon. The light poles only get up to 36 feet above ground IIRC? 57' is too high to hit the initial light poles The slope made by the RadAlt is also above the tops of the poles when working backwards from the impact hole.
This is why we have to look at Pressure Altitude adjusted to True altitude and correlate for a more precise measurement and placement of the aircraft. Since the Pressure altitude is still too high, the only logical conclusion based on the data is that the Radar Altitude at 4 feet is not measuring the distance to the ground, but some other higher object, perhaps the top of the Pentagon?
Now, I'm sure the GL's are hand waiving and making all types of excuses for the higher pressure altitude, such as "altimeter lag", as they did before we decoded the raw file and only had the original CSV file from the NTSB, and therefore only Pressure altitude. But like then, they have no evidence for such lag, just innuendo, theory and speculation while we now have several American and United 757/767 Captains who have actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and have never seen such "lag" in their aircraft not to mention they think the speeds are ridiculous, especially pulling more than 2 G's at more than 130 knots over Vmo in a 757. Warren, you may want to inform Randi's kids to familiarize themselves with a Vg diagram.
Randi's kids are probably also reaching at the limits of margins for error in favor of their "impact" theory as well. The FAA allows +/- 75' margin for error on altimeters which pilots check prior to take off. The AA77 FDR altimeter margin was -13 feet at take off. This is the correct margin for error which should applied as no altimeter "drifts" 62 feet more off True Altitude during a single flight creating the largest margin for error. Not to mention you have to add the 13 feet to AA77 FDR altimeter to get a proper height. In other words, I calculated 174 feet above in the Alt Sim. When adjusting for instrument error, the True altitude is 187.
To keep it simple...
If the FDR was in the aircraft which flew over the pentagon, the data recorded would look like what Warren has provided.
If the FDR was in an aircraft which caused the damage at the Pentagon, the data would not look like what Warren provided and would show a lower Pressure altitude to match the Radar Altitude.
warren stuttIt's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed.
Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that theory.
DOI.
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that theory.
DOI.
As you well know, we accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 4 hijackings by Arabs.
Originally posted by wholetruth
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas
i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?
I hate to break the news but I am way ahead of you.
yea lets see einstein :
[quote=rob balsamo]The last Radar Altitude in Warrens data is 4 feet....
The fact is that there were hundreds of people on the freeways, the bridges over the Potomac, in surrounding buildings, and in the Pentagon parking lots, all of whom were in a position to not only see a flyover but to hear it too had one occurred. Many of those people, particularly crossing the bridge from DC towards the Pentagon would have had the jet and the explosion behind it directly in their line of site.
Originally posted by wholetruth
please name these hundreds of people so i can begin contacting them.
The public has a right to information concerning the activities of its
Government. DoD policy is to conduct its activities in an open manner and provide the public with a maximum amount of accurate and timely information concerning its activities, consistent always with the legitimate public and private interests of the American people.
C5.1.2. Requests from Private Parties. The provisions of the FOIA are reserved for persons with private interests as opposed to U.S. Federal Agencies seeking official information. Requests from private persons will be made in writing, and should clearly show all other addressees within the Federal Government to which the request was also sent. This procedure will reduce processing time requirements, and ensure better inter- and intra-agency coordination. However, if the requester does not show all other addressees to which the request was also sent, DoD Components shall still
process the request. DoD Components should encourage requesters to send requests by mail, facsimile, or by electronic means. Disclosure of records to individuals under the FOIA is considered public release of information, except as provided for in subsections C1.5.6. and C3.2.1., above.
C1.5.4.3.1. Compelling need means that the failure to obtain the
records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual
Originally posted by wholetruth
jthomas arrives and claims there were hundreds of people in many different places who all saw what happened. he said they were here they were there they were everywhere.
i tried to see how he came to this belief so i challenged him on his claims.
'hundreds of people saw the plane fly over the pentagon'
Originally posted by wholetruth
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that theory.
DOI.
As you well know, we accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 4 hijackings by Arabs.
who is "we" and what have "we" seen that the fbi hasn't since they don't list obl as wanted for the crimes of 9/11?
Originally posted by wholetruth
i will reply because you completely ignored what i said and drove this whole subject off topic and then told me not to bother replying if i dont believe in fairy tales......
again you made a claim about "4 feet is 4 feet"......
so what do you mean by that?
The fact is that there were hundreds of people on the freeways, the bridges over the Potomac, in surrounding buildings, and in the Pentagon parking lots, all of whom were in a position to not only see a flyover but to hear it too had one occurred. Many of those people, particularly crossing the bridge from DC towards the Pentagon would have had the jet and the explosion behind it directly in their line of site.
please name these hundreds of people so i can begin contacting them.
Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by trebor451
why do you insist on living in a world full of deception and spin. oh what tangled webs you weave for the uninitiated to get trapped within.
jthomas arrives and claims there were hundreds of people in many different places who all saw what happened. he said they were here they were there they were everywhere.
i tried to see how he came to this belief so i challenged him on his claims.
i dont' believe there were hundreds of people staring at the pentagon prior to the explosion there.
i don't believe people near reagan international airport become awestruck at the site of a low flying plane and it appears that by the time it got low enough to cause concern there wasn't much time to see anything.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by wholetruth
jthomas arrives and claims there were hundreds of people in many different places who all saw what happened. he said they were here they were there they were everywhere.
i tried to see how he came to this belief so i challenged him on his claims.
Well, lets start taking apart this "hundreds of people" claim and see if it has any merit.
Sheer numbers belie your claims.