CIT Takes Pentagon Investigation Worldwide with World Tour!

What I am quite certain about is that the last recorded ALTITUDE (1013.25mB) (FEET) in the FDR file I have been given is -99 feet (note the minus sign). I appreciate that this figure has to be adjusted to obtain the true altitude, but this adjustment is not something I feel qualified to do.

(...)

I realise that Rob has used an online calculator to show that the true altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon, however I have seen arguments on J.R.E.F. saying that the pressure altitudes can not be relied upon since normally the aircraft would not be flying so fast, so low and the correct compensation has not been applied. The issue of how accurate the pressure altitude is has also been raised.

WStutt

If this value "cannot be relied on", why does the NTSB list Pressure altitude as a Validated Parameter and why are J.REF members cherry picking a "not working or unconfirmed" parameter as holding more weight when they dont even know the object the Radar Altitude is measuring from?

Rob Balsamo

So we have 200/.09 = 2222 ft/sec^2 2222/32 = 69 G Plus 1 for earth - 70 G. Still impossible for anything on earth. Using your formula s - ut = 100 - 60(.3) = 82 2(82)/.09 = 1822 ft/sec^2 1822/32 = 57 G 58 G with earth. Again, impossible, even based on your data.

Rob Balsamo

OK, the math looks good to me now. I'll alert J.R.E.F. that you have fixed the math. I still need to research pressure altitude to true altitude conversions before coming to any conclusions.

Warren.

IIt'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.

The initial values consist of the aircraft's position and velocity at the end of its data. I took the x-y position to be the origin, and the altitude (z) to be the height of the Pentagon lawn above sea level. The velocity involved a little guesswork: My initial guess came from running the last recorded velocity forward to the end of data as an initial value problem. I then adjusted that guess slightly to improve the match between the shape of the calculated altitude and the shape of the pressure altitude

My numerical solution of the initial value problem is inherently unstable for exactly the same reason that dead reckoning becomes inaccurate over long distances: the errors tend to add up over time. The accumulation of error could be corrected using feedback to bring the calculated altitude back into line with the recorded pressure altitude and radio height, but that seems pointless in this case: We already know the recorded pressure altitude and radio height, and we also have radar data that tell us the aircraft's position and altitude up until its radar return disappeared into ground clutter during its final seconds. Since the final seconds were the only ones for which we did not know the altitudes, and my unsophisticated open-loop solution of the initial value problem is adequate for the final seconds, I didn't bother to add a feedback mechanism.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

CIT have shown that the flightpath presented by the FDR/RADES is also fake.

No, they didn't.

Some saw the plane bounce on the Pentagon lawn. Did that happen?