"Woowoo pilots" was - Re: [Peace-discuss] Pentagon

Thu Jun 28 12:49:25 CDT 2007

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chuck Minne
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: "Woowoo pilots" was - Re: [Peace-discuss] Pentagon

I am very reluctant to bring my personal background froward, but in this 
case I will admit that I served one tour in the Navy as a pilot. I have 
960.4 pilot hours, of which 421.9 were flying single engine jet fighters. I 
also have 135.9 hours as a multi-engine pilot. Your arguments below are 
irrelevant regarding the black box "data.".

     Really?  Let's see.

Anyone who has even flown knows that aircraft altimeters are extremely 
accurate barometers. But to serve as altimeters, they must be corrected for 
local barometric pressure.

     Bingo.  Just as I claimed.

 All airports post their altitude. A pilot on the ground at that airport can 
dial in the airport's altitude and then the altimeter will automatically 
show the barometric pressure at that airport. A pilot flying into an 
airport, particularly when on instruments, always obtains the barometric 
pressure at that airport (which is broadcast,) and sets his altimeter to 
that pressure, so his altimeter will read correctly for that airport.

       If she can.  If she can't, it won't.

Barometric altimeters are extremely accurate at ground level when adjusted 
for the correct barometric pressure. En route, their accuracy changes 
because they are flying between different weather conditions and barometric 
pressures, and that is why, when above 18,000, they are re-set to the 
"standard" (but almost in all cases, fictitious,) setting of 29.92. This 
makes the altimeters of all the aircraft in the vicinity read for the same 
pressure, although the altitude is almost certainly not correct. But 
everyone is using the same setting and thus the error is uniform - which is 
what counts.

But when you get close to the ground you get the correct pressure setting 
and your altimeter is accurate.

       Irrelevant, if no one gets the correct pressure setting and the 
altimeter hasn't been reset from 29.92.

Now the black box showed that the altimeter was never changed from it's 
above 18,000 feet setting of 29.92. Thus the altimeter would have indicated 
that the aircraft was at an altitude a couple of hundred feet below the 
Pentagon when it supposedly hit it. But the black box "data" showed that it 
was at the altitude of the Pentagon WITH THE WRONG PRESSURE SETTING of 
29.92. THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

       Funny, your woowoos say the data showed it was 'at least' 100 feet 
above the Pentagon.  And you simply can't say that's impossible without the 
pressure and temperature at the impact site.

THERE IS NO EXPLAINATION OTHER THAN THAT THE BLACK BOX DATA WAS FUDGED.

       Sure there is.  One inch of pressure =  about 1000 feet error. 
Again, and I hate to have to keep stressing this, you need that temperature 
and pressure for the impact site at the impact time.

If you are interested further, I suggest you educate yourself at :

How do planes know the exact altitude ?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/866507388.Ph.r.html

       Hey, thanks.  Some highlights:

      "So ordinary day-to-day type of weather variations influences an 
altimeter's reading by a few hundred feet (100 meters or so), hurricanes 
excepted."

       "The rationale for the procedure described above is that flight below 
18,000 feet tends to be at slow to moderate speeds, so the distance covered 
in a half hour is perhaps 100 to 150 miles (at most), and updates to 
altimeter settings need not be more frequent than one or twice an hour while 
enroute."

  (and, since we know the plane was moving at over 500 miles per hour 
instead)

        "Above 18,000 feet, aircraft can cover 100 miles every 10 minutes or 
so. To preclude having to update the altimeter setting many times an hour, 
the practice is for all pilots intending to fly above 18,000 feet to adjust 
their altimeter setting to 29.92 inches of Hg (1013 millibars), the 
barometric pressure corresponding to seal leval pressure in a standard 
atmosphere."

       So, errors from weather of around 300 feet or so, and a need to reset 
the altimeter many times an hour at the hijackers' speeds (especially when 
descending).   Are you sure this is working out as you intend?

Your statements below are as irrelevant as was your claim that nobody could 
have expected the hijackers to reset the altimeter.

       Yes, moon hoaxers and creationists also maintain irrelevance of the 
facts routinely.  But perhaps you can point to where I made that claim, 
Chuck.  I'll wait.

You have my condolences.

       I'm certain of it.  Woowoos almost always actively resist any change 
in their worldview.  But when do you supply the pressure and temperature 
figures for the impact site at the impact time?  Until we have those, this 
is all blather, because you can't even show what altitude the black box 
needed to indicate.  You have obtained no calibration standard for the 
'landing site', as your own argument would put it, and are susceptible to 
the same error your info warns us about.  And again, based on the error 
figures from source after source, 100 feet discrepancy is simply not a 
problem in this scenario.

"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chuck Minne
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:40 AM
Subject: "Woowoo pilots" was - Re: [Peace-discuss] Pentagon

Well, apparently I have not been unsubscribed - yet.

       This is woowoospeak for "folks are being nice enough to me that no 
one cares enough to meet the level of my ridiculous straw man 
'unsubscribed'."  By the way, not only do you screw everyone on 
peace-discuss out of mail access time and possibly endanger their machines 
with your endless parade of the same tired debunked binaries everyone has 
seen a hundred times, by refusing to post in plain text you also prevent the 
software from '>'ing your quotes.  So now you get to wonder who said what - 
provided you read these through at all, something for which I've seen 
precious little evidence.  I'll try to indent more, you think up another 
snappy comeback.  ;)

You miss the point entirely on the altimeter settings.

      Nope.  We'll see in a minute how this typical woowoo transference 
stands up to scrutiny.  As usual.

 Don't feel too bad, you're not alone, so did the people who released the 
black box "data." Whether the "hijackers" reset the altimeter or not is 
completely irrelevant. However, the people who released the black box data 
have the aircraft hitting the Pentagon at an altimeter setting of 29.92. But 
that was not the correct setting, and they (the government officials who 
clearly fudged the readings,)

      lol  Oh, clearly.

 missed that completely. Oooops, when the altimeter is corrected for the 
actual barometric pressure at the time

       Cite?  Remember, for pitot tube instruments, you need the actual 
pressure and actual temperature at the _impact site_.

, guess what? The plane was too high to hit any light poles OR the Pentagon.

       D'OH!  You showed me!  The Men In Black obviously sawed off the light 
poles, and every emergency worker who noticed is sleeping with the fishes or 
retired to Aruba. (What's wrong with this picture?)

In other words, because the "hijackers" did not reset the altimeter, and 
left it at 29.92, it (and the black box,) would have falsely indicated that 
the plane was flying several stories underground when it supposedly hit the 
light poles and the Pentagon.

         Odd.  According to your woowoo site, "All Altitude data shows the 
aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles."

         http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html  (While you're 
there, don't forget to 'Make a Donation'.)

        Which is it, Chuck?

        For insight into this question, let's do a little research.  I 
quickly found this:

        http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0702.html

        If you go to the middle of the document, to the graph labeled 
"Lowest Flight Level Correction Factor", you see that for an altimater 
setting of 29.92, a correction factor of 500 feet comes into play.

        The following text is also illustrative:

        "b. Once in flight, it is very important to obtain frequently 
current altimeter settings en route. If you do not reset your altimeter when 
flying from an area of high pressure into an area of low pressure, your 
aircraft will be closer to the surface than your altimeter indicates. An 
inch error in the altimeter setting equals 1,000 feet of altitude. To quote 
an old saying: "GOING FROM A HIGH TO A LOW, LOOK OUT BELOW."

         There certainly does seem to be a lot of error built into pitot 
tube altimeters, doesn't there?

         Now, let's take another look at that press release from your woowoo 
pals.  After noting that it _never_ makes the claim that no 757 hit the 
Pentagon, we notice:

        "All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to 
have struck the light poles."

         "The record of data stops at least one second prior to official 
impact time."

         "If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have 
been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon."

         Ok, so according to your pals, the aircraft would have been 100 
feet too high.  At an altimeter setting where correction factors up to 500 
feet are indicated.

         Your margin of error is now so far within the range of pitot tube 
instrumentation error as to be laughable, particularly with a timeline that 
merits an 'at least'.  Your 'Pilots for 9/11 bucks' apparently failed to hit 
the books - and if they're trusting their altimeters to within 100 feet on 
landing, they've got even more serious problems!  =)

          BTW, here's yet another 9/11 site article disavowing the no-plane 
theory.  But you hang on tight there, dude.

          http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

          (If you stay true to the script, you will now once again offer me 
your 'condolences' for my being able to read and think.  Something of an odd 
choice of words for one with an open mind.  The funny part?  For BushCo to 
be responsible for 9/11 requires NONE of this.)
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss 