Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Many interviews conducted in 2006....

5 years later.

....were simple reinforcements of what the same witnesses described in their 2001 CMH and LOC interviews

Not by a long shot. The 2006 "interviews" were conducted by a couple of amateurs with a bias confirmation and the entire "interviews" were never released so you don't know what they contain.

Is that clear?

Is what clear?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
The "vertical limitation" notion can be put to rest with a simple image Snowcrash.

What happens when an aircraft crosses this terrain? Where a 27º slope, according to what you're saying, would send the RADALT into overdrive. Period.

Doppler effect relates to the point source of the radar signal, not the reflecting surface, do you understand this?

2 * 4 feet = 2.4384(m)

t(0) = 2h / c(0) = 2.4384(m) / 299,792,458 (m/s) = 8.1336269 × 10^-9 (s) time delay between pulse send and receive, in which time AA 77 has traveled approximately 248.412 (m/s) * 8.1336269 × 10^-9 (s) =~ 0.002 millimeter.

I'd stop listening to Rob Balsamo for "expert" advice and start to think for myself if I were you.

And this is exactly why I think Rob Balsamo is a danger in the air.

I can't believe this man was once a "flight instructor".

Originally posted by snowcrash911
And this is exactly why I think Rob Balsamo is a danger in the air.

I can't believe this man was once a "flight instructor".

You're not alone with you opinion. Every single pilot I know believes exactly the same thing...

He has embarrassed himself (well to most people it would be embarrassing) on pPrune under numerous aliases that most pilots would hide in shame for being so ill informed. He never corrects proven falsehood on his Web Site and is arrogant and belligerent toward other pilots with far more knowledge and experience than he can ever hope to have. He repeatedly "appeals to authority" of his "core" membership, but has never proven that they support his looney ideas beyond an interview he did with most of them years ago...

He has mostly used videos to preach his agenda with fast talking "techno babble" in order to deceive the gullible. As you pointed out he has used the "scorched earth" strategy with any organization that might respond to some of the "anomalies" he has invented sabotaging efforts by others to get an "official" rebuttal to his nonsense. It goes on and on with his fraud and deceptive techniques to confuse and attract the ignorant and gullible... He is nothing more than a fraudulent charlatan that deserves to be muzzled and prevented from ever carrying passenger in any type of commercial aviation ever again....

reply to post by Reheat


True that.

Have you tried figuring out how they came up with 27° ? I'm trying to figure out the mental contortions they went through and I think they just took a speed, below cruise speed, since height increase for a discrete time for a given slope depends on that, then calculated the slope required for a 100.5 (m) jump.

They could have picked cruise speed and "proven" the RA wouldn't work with a slope of 23° instead.

Not to mention the RA under their interpretation would fail if the plane went faster than 195 kts, while the 757 has a cruise speed of 458 kts.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

In fact, P4T's RA tracking limit fail is so embarrassing, I'd just quietly leave the thread if I were CIT or P4T.

I'm amazed and absolutely aghast at CIT/P4T's talent for subterfuge and prevarication. What's more, once they realize this is a HUGE FAIL, they'll simply stop talking about it and act like it never happened. Unless somebody makes a long list of these clusterf---'s P4T can simply start from scratch every time, claiming "expertise".

But if anybody were to take a look at their track record, this fail included, they would never give this organization the time of day, and there would be no need to even indulge their latest "OMG CONSPIRACY WOW" at all...

This is a key issue: accountability for blunders and lies. Whatever errors I've made, I admit. P4T and CIT won't ever do the same. A small and very incomplete list: Terry Morin. ACARS. G-force calculations. Flight envelope excess. Flight tracker. Radio altimeter. Engine remnant at the Pentagon. Ground effect misinformation. What's next?

By the way, when is Craig Ranke going to come on here and debate himself regarding Terry Morin?

The truths will come out, this is not it

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by Reheat

 

True that.

Have you tried figuring out how they came up with 27° ? I'm trying to figure out the mental contortions they went through and I think they just took a speed, below cruise speed, since height increase for a discrete time for a given slope depends on that, then calculated the slope required for a 100.5 (m) jump.

They could have picked cruise speed and "proven" the RA wouldn't work with a slope of 23° instead.

Not to mention the RA under their interpretation would fail if the plane went faster than 195 kts, while the 757 has a cruise speed of 458 kts.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

I don't know how they came up with that figure. Probably from nether regions... It really doesn't matter anyway... The GPWS will not protect an aircraft from a slope that steep anyway assuming it is more than a few feet from the top.. There is no transport category in existence that can climb that fast.and steep. An F-22 Raptor could if the pilot reacted quickly and aggressively enough, but that's about the only aircraft that could...

As you know the radar altimeter integrated into the GPWS looks BELOW the aircraft, it does not look ahead. Therefore, if an aircraft approached that terrain in their "SCARE PHOTO" low enough to trigger the GWPS it would begin warning in the foothills area of that mountainous terrain, but NOT if the tracking limits is 330 fps horizontal speed as Ballsucker says it is.... If it's a vertical tracking limit (it is), there is no problem with handling that kind of rising terrain warning at all... Again, there would be no warning at all (or any warning would be unreliable) during climb or cruise in any commercial transport category aircraft if the tracking limit is horizontal speed as all operate above that speed.

The GPWS is really designed to protect from a too rapid descent on an ILS approach or descending too low on a non-precision approach while not in the landing configuration... It likely would not protect from the type of terrain in that photograph anyway, again depending on how low the aircraft is on the approach to the foothills of that rising terrain....

Either crying or laughing are both appropriate for the deceptions perpetuated by pfffft. It just depends on your mood.

reply to post by Reheat


Also, what the knob at P4T doesn't bother to fully explain is the concept of enhanced GPWS that is more prevalent today, with the addition of GPS position information.

EGPWS even displays on the EHSI screens.

This handy PDF has some good bits in it.


But of particular note is, of course, the P4T (let's face it, that "group" of so-called "experts" only contains one individual, in reality) continually mis-use information and data to skew it for their (his) audience of lay people. The "330 fps" idea being just one of many, many examples.

And Reheat, from what I read, the idea of the "330 fps" accuracy limitation on the RA transceivers is in place precisely (pun) for the primary intended use of RA....precision instrument approaches. Fact that RA also is integrated into the GPWS is simply using a component for an additional function.

The "330 fps" is a lateral velocity, to indicate that reliability is ensured at the utmost typical forward velocity that an airplane will be travelling during the landing approach. So, the P4T claims are utter hogwash, as is usual with everything ever claimed by them (him) in relation to this silly "9/11 conspiracy" business......whenever it is discussing the aviation aspects.

Originally posted by Reheat
I don't know how they came up with that figure. Probably from nether regions... It really doesn't matter anyway... The GWPS will not protect an aircraft from a slope that steep anyway assuming it is more than a few feet from the top.. There is no transport category in existence that can climb that fast.and steep. An F-22 Raptor could if the pilot reacted quickly and aggressively enough, but that's about the only aircraft that could...

As you know the radar altimeter integrated into the GWPS looks BELOW the aircraft, it does not look ahead. Therefore, if an aircraft approached that terrain in their "SCARE PHOTO" low enough to trigger the GWPS it would begin warning in the foothills area of that mountainous terrain, but NOT if the tracking limits is 330 fps horizontal speed as Ballsucker says it is....

LOL! Yeah, that's what Terrain Following Radar is for, even though that has its limitations... It's what those SEALs used when they did nap-of-the-earth, I suppose.

Originally posted by Reheat
If it's a vertical tracking limit (it is), there is no problem with handling that kind of rising terrain warning at all... Again, there would be no warning at all during climb or cruise in any commercial transport category aircraft if the tracking limit is horizontal speed as all operate above that speed.

The GWPS is really designed to protect from a too rapid descent on an ILS approach or descending too low on a non-precision approach while not in the landing configuration... It likely would not protect from the type of terrain in that photograph anyway, again depending on how low the aircraft is on the approach to the foothills of that rising terrain....

Yeah, I was more or less postulating that the plane would be flying above the top of the mountain/hill and what the RA would register in that situation... it will warn without CFIT occurring...

To reverse engineer P4T's RA tracking capability fail diagram I simply calculated atan(100.5/x) = 27° --> x ~ 197(m) ~ 388 kts. 757 cruise speed is 458 kts, which would have given them atan(100.5/236) ~ 23°.

Why pass up on the opportunity to obscure the facts even further and make their non-existent point with a shallower slope?

We don't even know if the slope depicted in their picture equals 27°.

The fail is strong with this one.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Reheat

 

the "330 fps" is a lateral velocity, to indicate that reliability is ensured at the utmost typical forward velocity that an airplane will be travelling during the landing approach. So, the P4T claims are utter hogwash, as is usual with everything ever claimed by them (him) in relation to this silly "9/11 conspiracy" business......whenever it is discussing the aviation aspects.

I agree with what you said, but tracking capability really does refer to descent rate, it's because of a radar altimeter's internal Doppler effect compensation logic. AA 77 could have been going much, much faster, and what's more, radar altimeter accuracy is improved when approaching the ground, and what's more, it would have signaled NCD if it had failed to get a reading; see ARINC 429.

See also the calculations here, AA 77 would have progressed 0.002 millimeter given its final recorded speed. I am under the impression that some at P4T think the receiver would "miss" the return signal because of the plane's excessive velocity. Not so.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

LOL! Yeah, that's what Terrain Following Radar is for, even though that has its limitations... It's what those SEALs used when they did nap-of-the-earth, I suppose.

Yes, they have TFR and they also wear and train extensively with night vision goggles, as well. Both in combination make their operation at night very reliable. TFR is over 40 years old now and has been refined over the years making it better and better. It's quite impressive....

reply to post by snowcrash911


Yes of course, this is also true:

I agree with what you said, but tracking capability really does refer to descent rate...

....regarding vertical velocity.

However, just do the math. "330 fps" is equal to 19,800 feet per minute. Any pilot can attest that nearly 20,000 fpm is a rather impressive vertical velocity......

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Yes of course, this is also true:

I agree with what you said, but tracking capability really does refer to descent rate...

....regarding vertical velocity.

However, just do the math. "330 fps" is equal to 19,800 feet per minute. Any pilot can attest that nearly 20,000 fpm is a rather impressive vertical velocity......

One could also say radio altimeters like the LRA 900 have an excellent tracking capability and are extremely resilient! Of course, extreme banks would preclude a reading, and would probably result in NCD.

(BTW, I can't resist mentioning: 0.002 millimeter is 2 micrometer, which is 1/50th of the width of a human hair, or about a quarter of the diameter of a red blood cell... )

It really is the Doppler effect, since RAs work by detecting the frequency shift between the sawtooth modulation sent and received. Approaching the ground that fast is similar to the pitch distortion you hear if an ambulance (Or Pile-Its for 9/11 Truth's crazy train) speeds towards you. It's also the reason why Lagasse mentioned the Doppler effect: it lowers the audible detection time you have for an approaching plane. That goes for Morin too, especially given noise decay and Navy Annex sound attenuation.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Reheat

 

the "330 fps" is a lateral velocity, to indicate that reliability is ensured at the utmost typical forward velocity that an airplane will be travelling during the landing approach. So, the P4T claims are utter hogwash, as is usual with everything ever claimed by them (him) in relation to this silly "9/11 conspiracy" business......whenever it is discussing the aviation aspects.

I agree with what you said, but tracking capability really does refer to descent rate, it's because of a radar altimeter's internal Doppler effect compensation logic. AA 77 could have been going much, much faster, and what's more, radar altimeter accuracy is improved when approaching the ground, and what's more, it would have signaled NCD if it had failed to get a reading; see ARINC 429.

See also the calculations here, AA 77 would have progressed 0.002 millimeter given its final recorded speed. I am under the impression that some at P4T think the receiver would "miss" the return signal because of the plane's excessive velocity. Not so.

I agree. However, since we don't have a delineation of the meaning of that tracking capability parameter it remains an informed empirical opinion only. As I said earlier, although I have not flown with that specific model of RA, but I have flown as fast as 1.2 Mach and the RA used was quite reliable. In fact, since the TFR was/is not reliable over sand and water the aircraft had a RA override mode in which the ONLY height input was from the RA. There is simply no way the USAF would have allowed the Mach 1.2 limit speed if it was even close to being unreliable...

Until such time as documentation is produced establishing it as a horizontal limit, I insist it has to be a vertical limit....

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Yes of course, this is also true:

I agree with what you said, but tracking capability really does refer to descent rate...

....regarding vertical velocity.

However, just do the math. "330 fps" is equal to 19,800 feet per minute. Any pilot can attest that nearly 20,000 fpm is a rather impressive vertical velocity......

Have you ever been Mach 1 going straight down vertically?

ETA: PB, An F-15 and and a F-22 will accelerate through Mach 1 going straight UP.

Originally posted by Reheat
I agree. However, since we don't have a delineation of the meaning of that tracking capability parameter it remains an informed empirical opinion only. As I said earlier, although I have not flown with that specific model of RA, but I have flown as fast as 1.2 Mach and the RA used was quite reliable. In fact, since the TFR was/is not reliable over sand and water the aircraft had a RA override mode in which the ONLY height input was from the RA. There is simply no way the USAF would have allowed the Mach 1.2 limit speed if it was even close to being unreliable...

Until such time as documentation is produced establishing it as a horizontal limit, I insist it has to be a vertical limit....

Fair enough. Looking at the internal working of a radar altimeter though, I can't come to any other conclusion: ground speed doesn't change anything about the signal. (Unless DSP height jump filter logic interferes)

That LRA 900 would have to be one piss-poor radar altimeter!

reply to post by Reheat


I may be wrong, but you're never going to get anyone over at that other site to agree with anything, regardless of factuality or common sense, as long as they can maintain the website and ask for donations. When I think that just 25 years ago if those guys wanted to do the same thing they would have had to stand on a street corner with a hand out screaming at the top of their lungs, now all they have to do is sit in their underwear in front of a keyboard and keep typing "you're wrong" over and over again.

reply to post by Reheat

Have you ever been Mach 1 going straight down vertically?

No, LOL.

Not sure many who have live to be able to post on ATS, I would surmise.....

ETA: PB, An F-15 and and a F-22 will accelerate through Mach 1 going straight UP.

Well, yes....that is the point of building a specific fighter jet in the first place. Put an engine in it that gives it incredible power to weight ratios.

Unfortunately though, the Boeing 757 (for example) has a different function and use, and therefore design, in the real world......

reply to post by snowcrash911

....ground speed doesn't change anything about the signal.

AND, we come full circle back to the point of the mis-information that is rife with "that other site" (Voldemort?).

We also have the act of the "sampling rate" per the DFDR, and any "leveling effects" that you have already brought up.

I have personally seen the actual real-time RA indications show up....the approach to Seattle's SeaTac airport is a prime example. Given that the airport is on a mesa, of sorts. Of course, for the last bits of an instrument approach procedure, the land is there to give reliable RA information up to the decision point.

But, as in most airline protocols, we are taught and trained to "call out" (the person not flying does this) the "1,000" foot point, then the "500" foot and so on, every 100 feet.

(THIS is all supposed to be referenced to the height of the touchdown point. Of the landing runway. Which is on our charts. AND which we have "bugged" [set on the altimeter, whether a physical device or electronically]).

We can do this by reference to the RA, in most cases....or, the PA (Pressure Altimeter) which is preferred. It depends on how lazy, or conversely "aware" you are.

Of course, the RA in the example above (KSEA) is not a reliable reference for this task. Just because of the peculiarity of the terrain, for that airport.

Of course, we ALL know this going in, and is usually commonly accepted, and/or briefed if for some reason it is *not* understood.