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 TrueAmerican
I could almost understand if it was just on one plane. But it was on ALL the FDRs provided, making that an extremely unlikely possibility that all serial numbers everywhere were destroyed because of the impacts. Now if that doesn't spell coverup, I don't know what does. There is more on that in the thread I posted.
Pretty funny, SP.
Originally posted by SPreston
Here is an alleged photo from the official US Department of Defense Pentagon 911 book of the alleged FDR planted on some guy's footprints. Perhaps you can see a serial number?
Originally posted by trebor451
You people just can't get over the fact that you are not important enough to be given those serial numbers by the FBI.
...because the FOIA request for those serial numbers was summarily denied, without legal precedent...
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Apparently the NTSB wasn't important enough either. Because they are the ones that were procured by the FBI to handle the data extraction of all the FDRs. And I don't believe the NTSB would have any reason to withhold those serial numbers. They didn't publish them because they didn't get them.
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. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
And apparently FOIA laws aren't important either to the FBI, because the FOIA request for those serial numbers was summarily denied, without legal precedent, and for no rational reason whatsoever. Unless you consider "the people filing the FOIA request are not important enough" a rational reason. Why would I not be surprised if you did?
Originally posted by 911files
So yes, I repeat, PA is highly inaccurate for these purposes. Or at least I call a difference of 80 feet a significant difference.
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by 911files
So yes, I repeat, PA is highly inaccurate for these purposes. Or at least I call a difference of 80 feet a significant difference.
80' difference between a corrected barometric altimeter indication and field elevation (known reference point) is OUT OF TOLERANCE for flight. The limit is 75'. The bench test limit for a radar altimeter is 1'.
posted by SPreston
Here is an alleged photo from the official US Department of Defense Pentagon 911 book of the alleged FDR planted on some guy's footprints. Perhaps you can see a serial number?
posted by ImAPepper
Hello Mr. Preston ~
I'm curious, who have you contacted to confirm the validity of this photograph? So often, members of this forum are very quick to dismiss evidence without doing the proper research.
Originally posted by SPreston
Why don't you amble on down to your local US Department of Defense outlet and purchase you own personal copy of the official Pentagon 911 book and check for yourself if that alleged photo labeled by the Defense Department as the flight data recorder is contained within it?
Originally posted by SPreston
Your very own John Farmer (911files) allegedly copied those photos out of the Pentagon 911 book and filed them online for our use.
Pentagon 911 book photos
Perhaps you have reason to believe he is a fraud and a liar?
Originally posted by PilgrumDuring descent BARO COR 1 is adjusted back to 30.24"Hg but the alteration is not applied to the animation's altimeter which continues to read PA (29.92"Hg) until the end of the flight. I'm not seeing any attempt at deception in it ...
Originally posted by ImAPepper
So, I guess my question to you is; Do you still believe that the FDR supports the flyover theory?
Thank you in advance for your cooperation!
Dr. P
Originally posted by Reheat
Whops, you forgot to explain that brick wall suspended by a skyhook...
Originally posted by 911files
This really is a waste of time, since turbo likes to duck the data and its trends and assert specifications instead. Fact, PA is given as between 42-44 when the plane is on the ground at Dulles. Fact, the elevation of Dulles ranges from 270 to 290. Corrected (according to P4T) for local pressure, the PA is 342-344 feet under ideal circumstances (stationary). And this is for the take-off of AAL77.
Looking at PA on the ground at Dulles at the end of Flight #11 (as recorded in the FDR), the altitude is 120 - 121 feet! Now which is it turbo? Is the altitude at landing correct, or is it the PA at take-off?
So yes, I repeat, PA is highly inaccurate for these purposes. Or at least I call a difference of 80 feet a significant difference.
Originally posted by turbofan
Come on, surely you can't be suggesting that a B-757 hitting 5 light
poles would not register some iota of proof moving at an impossible speed
of 462 knots?