FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

[wtcconspiracy]

As fiction maybe.

I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....

Ben

[twinstead]

I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....


To each his own, I suppose. It really just depends on what you are predisposed to believe. Have you considered you think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11 because it supports what you believe? There are also very good evaluations of the events of 9/11 from other sources that come to different conclusions.

Personally, I think most of his writings are ideologically biased. Like I said: to each his own.

[ElMondoHummus]

I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....

Ben


Personally, I think most of his writings are ideologically biased. Like I said: to each his own.

Forgive me for saying this directly, but: That's not the proper way to evaluate DRG's work. The whole argument behind his work rests on its accuracy or lack thereof, and many of his works have been found to be inaccurate. For example, his errors in his work "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie" have been discussed in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80841

Ryan Mackey illustrates DRG's mistakes regarding the WTC collapse in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_0.doc

The point behind DRG's work is not the ideological slant, it's whether it's objectively, factually correct. And in regards to the two specific works cited here, DRG's work is not. They are not regardless of idealogical bias or intent or lack of either; his work fails at the level of non-idealogical facts and due to that, conclusions he's drawn in those works do not rise to the level of being "accurate" or "correct".

Twin, forgive me for including you in there too. I know you don't buy DRG's work at all. It's just that I saw danger in allowing the subdiscussion to evolve into a question of DRG's vs. anyone else's ideology, and at that point, the fact that Griffin's been shown many times to be factually wrong gets lost. I meant nothing personal in including your statement.

ETA: I need to slap my own wrist here. This post, and the subtopic we're discussing, is every bit as off topic as iAmerican's above, and what I wrote about his post applies to my own as well. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. Therefore, I need to declare myself off topic :( and recommend that, if anyone wants to continue discussing DRG's work, those posts should be split off into that topic's own thread.

[beachnut]

I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....

Ben
No facts, no evidence, just hearsay and conspiracy talk by the hearsay master. Fiction? No Fraud is a better term. Truly the stuff to make a fool part with his money; I present DRG, the man who has nothing right about 9/11. What a dolt, how can he get everything wrong?

The worst evaluation of 9/11! Bet he has no clue on the FDR either. I would ask you to mention something he got right but that would be impossible for you to do. Any FDR stuff?

[twinstead]

Twin, forgive me for including you in there too. I know you don't buy DRG's work at all. It's just that I saw danger in allowing the subdiscussion to evolve into a question of DRG's vs. anyone else's ideology, and at that point, the fact that Griffin's been shown many times to be factually wrong gets lost. I meant nothing personal in including your statement.


You are correct, of course. I was being diplomatic toward wtcconspiracy in my response--perhaps too much so. I agree that any discussion of DRGs stuff that doesn't include the fact that he is often factually wrong isn't complete.

[Dave Rogers]

Has DRG covered the AA77 FDR yet? If he does, I'll bet he gets that wrong too.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

ok this transmission is shameful......

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!
(bold for emphasis).....
How exactly is a Real-world hiacking cool.....am i missing something......

Ben

"cool" as in "got it!", not "oh goody".

[Jumpa31]

I posted a youtube video almost a year ago. Using X-Plane, a software certified for training by the FAA, I put in as much of the parameters as possible of AA77. I did not know T/O weight or altimeter settings so I maxed out the weight, and set altimeter to 30.01. I then flew the route normally, taking into consideration times of events, such as, hijack, altitude changes, time of impact, etc. I did not go as far beyond the HNN vortac as AA77 did, probably because of my fuel weight. Time to Pentagon was 1 minute off. The thing about this flight that interested me was in making the 330 degree turn, I lost sight of the pentagon. When I found it....I was at the same angle to the building as AA77. Also encountered ALOT of stability issues as I got closer. The video is under my Youtube Profile of Jumpa31, same as here.

[DGM]

Welcome jumpa31!
Nice job! Here's the video,

ZPXGc7u6Z6Y

[deep]

The one thing you need to keep in mind as you examine the technical minutiae is that the FDR Data is NOT NEEDED to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. There is a mountain of evidence that it did.


Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence? No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data. Let's see, we have: - little or no visible debris usually found in areas where a plane has crashed.

- a hole in the side of the building that didn't appear to be large enough for a commercial airliner.

- conflicting reports from eye-witnesses, some even reporting seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon.
Sorry, but that's not a mountain of evidence.

Oh, and for those of you who claim there was some sort of delay - aside from the federal regulations prohibiting the use of FDRs with more than a .5 second delay, that claim isn't technically sound. Even personal computers with their cache-heavy file systems will retain data that was written up to the point of a power failure (within .5s).

Are you telling me that the FDRs used on commercial airliners are using some inferior technology? Please explain to me, in technical terms, how that would be possible? Given the fact that FDRs are writing a steady stream of data that does not vary in size, there would be no benefit in caching it. So what caused the delay?

Sorry folks, but that is evidence. Please stop with your erroneous claims that there isn't any.

[applecorped]

Stundielicious!!

[deep]

Stundielicious!!


If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[rwguinn]

Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence? No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data. Let's see, we have:Snip Non-=sequiters and circular references.

Um...
The only people interested in examining the FDR data are...
(Any guesses?)


Yes! Troofers! They look at it like a holy grail
The rest of the world notes that "all systems were operating normally" and get on with their lives..

[Disbelief]

If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Spare everyone your wounded heart. Not only have all of your silly points been debunked repeatedly, you have to rely on fabrication of evidence to try and put out a coherent story. What about the passenger DNA at the scene? What about eyewitness reports of plane parts and human remains insode the Pentagon? What about all the gaping holes in the CIT story (since you appear to be trumpeting their "findings"?

[twinstead]

If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.


Actually, REAL ad hominem attacks are neither encouraged nor tolerated here. What's your point?

[beachnut]

If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.

Thanks, but no thanks.
If you were serious you would have evidence instead of hearsay lies from 9/11 truth. Not a thing you posted is serious evidence, just talk and false information.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, good Lord, how many times do some of these myths have to be refuted? My God, some of them are like weeds, resurrecting themselves over and over again.'

There was much (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html) debris (http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html) found at the Pentagon, including the FDR, not to mention engine parts and landing gear. Oh, and corpses (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html).

And every time someone makes the "hole too small" claim, they're pointing at the wrong (http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#ring-c-and-the-nose) damn (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#bigplane) hole. Check out the images in the Pentagon Building Performance Report (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf), and tell me how the impact area hole is supposedly "too small".

And "conflicting witnesses"? Consider the list of witness testimony that Gravy has compiled (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary):


104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.


2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.


Links to witnesses specific testimony is available at Gravy's site.

In sum: It is simply ridiculous to purport that the evidence for the crash is weak or contradictory. A simple perusal of the evidence shows that to be false. And misrepresenting the evidence by making claims about the hole being the wrong size, implying that the wreckage is insufficient to identify it as AA77, or implying that the witness testimony is confused or contradictory is hardly conducive to finding the truth.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ps. Just to slam the door shut on the canard about the hole being too small: Does anyone have the link to the post where one of the posters here stiched together images to show the main impact hole in its entirety? For some odd reason, I'm not digging it up in forum searches, and I don't know why.

ETA: Gaah! Dammit, I did it again. Once more, I've been off topic. If we need to split this and my previous post from the main topic, go ahead and do so.

Blech... why do I keep on doing that?...

[Anti-sophist]

Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence?


I don't think you understand what circular logic means.


No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data.
Or maybe you do. That's circular logic.

Regardless..

- little or no visible debris usually found in areas where a plane has crashed.

False.

The use of the term "usually" here gives you away. You assume there have been other plane crashes like AA77. You assume you know what to look for. You are wrong.

Unless you know of other 500+mph collisions at a 90-degree incidence angle to a reinforced concrete structure. Do you?


- a hole in the side of the building that didn't appear to be large enough for a commercial airliner.
False. This bizarre truther myth has been demolished for 4+ years now.

- conflicting reports from eye-witnesses, some even reporting seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon
False. Not a single eye witness has ever said this.


Oh, and for those of you who claim there was some sort of delay - aside from the federal regulations prohibiting the use of FDRs with more than a .5 second delay, that claim isn't technically sound. Federal regulations say no such thing. To be fair, there are federal regulations with which the above statement has a passing resemblance but you've removed so much actual information in a clear attempt to deceive that it's safe to say you are either ignorant or lying.

Regardless, there is no FAA regulation addressing how much data can be lost when the FDR slams into a building at 500 mph.

If you want to quote the actual FAA regulations in question, I'll tell you why they are inapplicable to the case of amateur analysis of AA77's data.

Even personal computers with their cache-heavy file systems will retain data that was written up to the point of a power failure (within .5s).
Nonsense.

Let's start with this simple fact: even if this gibberish about PCs was true (it's not), it's still an absurd analogy. The inner workings are, at best, tangentially related to the inner workings of an FDR.


Are you telling me that the FDRs used on commercial airliners are using some inferior technology?FDRs are based on technology that do exactly what its designed to do. So the answer to your question is: yes. Performance requirements aren't as high, for one. Two, the market for FDRs is much smaller and subject to much stricter regulations. It's the same reasons that space shuttles go up with inferior technology.

You seem to be guessing how FDRs work and presuming they work somewhat like the way you've guessed computers work. This type of argument is going to get you very close to nowhere with me.

Please explain to me, in technical terms, how that would be possible? Given the fact that FDRs are writing a steady stream of data that does not vary in size, there would be no benefit in caching it. Not true, at all. The benefit of caching the data is obvious once you understand how FDRs work in conjunction with other digital components aboard an aircraft. I wrote a giant post describing this in great detail. Maybe you should read it. It's called something along the lines of "AA77 FDR data explained".

Also, you've ignored about 15 other reasons why the data in the files floating around on the internet may be incomplete. You've focused on this one source ignoring a dozen others. I suggest you complete your view before attempting to pick holes at such a small piece of the puzzle.


So what caused the delay?Measurement delay. Hysteresis. Competition for computational resources. Digital signal processing delay. Priority scheduling. Digital buffering (due to a time-sliced serial data stream). Data compression delay. Storage delay. Impact damage. Incomplete/damaged frames. Decoding of damaged frames. Validation of damaged frames.

To name a few.

By the way, I have intimate knowledge of both how PCs and FDRs work. If you really want to have this particular argument in depth, I will. I can assure you that your PC analogy is fundamentally flawed. And my responses won't be filled with innuendo likes yours. I won't name random devices and say things like "Don't you think it would work like this?". Unlike you, I -know- how these things work. I don't need to guess.

[T.A.M.]

Here is what I find remarkably STUPID wrt the truthers canard on "no debris at the Pentagon"...

WTF...did you have a look inside the Pentagon itself, you know, where the jet went into!!!

Just because a few dozen photos show only small pieces of debris, DOES NOT mean there was little to no debris. On the contrary, I am sure if one were privy to the debris list or report from the scene in its entirety, one would see that a HUGE amount of debris was present.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

For what it is worth, there are witnesses, IIRC that witnessed a plane flying over the Pentagon, but it was a while after the crash of AA77.

TAM:)

[Jonnyclueless]

Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence? No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data. Let's see, we have: - little or no visible debris usually found in areas where a plane has crashed.

- a hole in the side of the building that didn't appear to be large enough for a commercial airliner.

- conflicting reports from eye-witnesses, some even reporting seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon.
Sorry, but that's not a mountain of evidence.

Oh, and for those of you who claim there was some sort of delay - aside from the federal regulations prohibiting the use of FDRs with more than a .5 second delay, that claim isn't technically sound. Even personal computers with their cache-heavy file systems will retain data that was written up to the point of a power failure (within .5s).

Are you telling me that the FDRs used on commercial airliners are using some inferior technology? Please explain to me, in technical terms, how that would be possible? Given the fact that FDRs are writing a steady stream of data that does not vary in size, there would be no benefit in caching it. So what caused the delay?

Sorry folks, but that is evidence. Please stop with your erroneous claims that there isn't any.

Definite stundie material, but what really hits home is that he is oblivious as to why it's such stundie material.

[rsalinger]

I started this thread a long time ago and I'm pleased to see it's still rolling along.

I keep reading about the performance of an FDR under the conditions of the Pentagon crash. From what I gathered on the PFT website, they have claimed that the FDR shows the plane to be way too high at the moment of impact. From what I've read here, this is explained by saying that there was is a several second difference between the last readable frames on the FDR and the actual crash. This doesn't seem reasonable to me on its face. Why would it be so hard to get date into the FDR in close to real time? I've thought about this, and I think it would be really informational if someone from Boeing would explain the entire system (which is where I suspect the problem actually lies). It's too simple to say that the FDR has a 1/2 second latency from buffer to memory. For example, the digital altimeter is transmitting data to the FDR how frequently? For example, can we tell how many frames were lost/damaged? For example, what is the speed of the information bus on the airplane? How accurate is the altimeter at 400ft and 500mph? It's really a shame that it's not possible to get something from the people who actually know the real answers.

I think that the other evidence for AA77 is compelling on its own. It would have taken a conspiracy involving thousands of people to pull it off, and no one has yet come forward and there's no logical reason to have done this. However, if the veil of secrecy would be lifted, all this could be put to bed. It's just a shame that our government wants so many of it's citizens to be deceived rather than take tiny risks. And that's the real lesson, the paranoid concerns of the central government make it really hard for citizens to know what is going on. We need a new FOIA with real teeth in it.

[AMTMAN]

. For example, the digital altimeter is transmitting data to the FDR how frequently? .

Who told you that the altimeter transmits to the FDR?

[beachnut]

I started this thread a long time ago and I'm pleased to see it's still rolling along.

I keep reading about the performance of an FDR under the conditions of the Pentagon crash. From what I gathered on the PFT website, they have claimed that the FDR shows the plane to be way too high at the moment of impact. From what I've read here, this is explained by saying that there was is a several second difference between the last readable frames on the FDR and the actual crash. This doesn't seem reasonable to me on its face. Why would it be so hard to get date into the FDR in close to real time? I've thought about this, and I think it would be really informational if someone from Boeing would explain the entire system (which is where I suspect the problem actually lies). It's too simple to say that the FDR has a 1/2 second latency from buffer to memory. For example, the digital altimeter is transmitting data to the FDR how frequently? For example, can we tell how many frames were lost/damaged? For example, what is the speed of the information bus on the airplane? How accurate is the altimeter at 400ft and 500mph? It's really a shame that it's not possible to get something from the people who actually know the real answers.

I think that the other evidence for AA77 is compelling on its own. It would have taken a conspiracy involving thousands of people to pull it off, and no one has yet come forward and there's no logical reason to have done this. However, if the veil of secrecy would be lifted, all this could be put to bed. It's just a shame that our government wants so many of it's citizens to be deceived rather than take tiny risks. And that's the real lesson, the paranoid concerns of the central government make it really hard for citizens to know what is going on. We need a new FOIA with real teeth in it.

There is nothing new about missing data in accidents with planes and FDRs. This is why the standards change on survivability and data requirements. If you look at past accidents the FDRs have lost data. This is not new.

The .5 second lag standard is for what? Please post the standard, by paragraph. Did the FDR in flight 77 have to conform? The first solid state chips are slow. Did you know the data pipe line in 77's FDR was at the data rate that took one second to collect? This means there is zero tolerance for delay. Have you seen what the standard says?

The part about the government is pure paranoid delusion. The p4t have all the data; the data they have shows all 25 hours of exactly what the airframe of 77 did before 9/11, each airport and each parking spot. It appears to me there is missing data. In fact, if the standard (you have never seen, or shown anyone) may have been changed to get rid of the old delay storing the data in the survivable chip.

Can you explain the standard the p4t have never explained. In fact a salesman stated the standard without presenting the standards. If you read the FAA standard, older FDRs may not have to comply. If you design FDR systems, I know all the data could be in the system, it just was not stored yet.

Do you know how the data is compressed? How many seconds are compressed to store the data frame? Why are there time stamps on the NTSB readout, but no data? Is the data compressed in 4 second frames? Was this changed to meet the ED-55 standard as specified for new FDR installed after the FAA directive?

Study the FDR, before you start blaming the NTSB, the FBI, and the FAA for the paranoid minds of a few fringe pilots at p4t. They are not only wrong, they do not get a single thing right about 9/11.

There is no veil of secrecy, there is only paranoid dumb pilots who make up false information and doubts to help people form conclusions based on paranoid ideas.

[rsalinger]

Actually, what I should have said is that I can't find any information about flight recorders which would be probative in the matter. That's why I can't post the standard for an aircraft like a 757 in 2001 and you haven't given me a link to one either. That's more or less what I'd like someone to do, and for precisely the point you raise because without it we just have people and theories. Wouldn't it be simple for someone who makes the systems to come forward and say either that the conditions at the end of the flight mean that the data is not accurate or that theres a 2-3 second delay inherent in a crash?

I accept that you can argue the point that there is "missing data". As this is unprovable, it's a weak argument, in my view. What proof do you have for missing data?

I don't understand your point about 25 hours of data, maybe you could amplify that.

I think I'll stick to my view that the US government is choosing not to deal with these loose ends because it's the nature of the institutions we have today not to serve the people but rather to keep things under wraps for as long as possible. I also find it genuinely odd that the standards and specifications for FDR's aren't available on the internet.

[CurtC]

Wouldn't it be simple for someone who makes the systems to come forward and say either that the conditions at the end of the flight mean that the data is not accurate or that theres a 2-3 second delay inherent in a crash?Let's say you have a multi-billion dollar company who's struggling against strong competitors, have promised new products to compete with your competitors' upcoming products, and the stock market is holding your feet to the fire to deliver.

Then there's a small band of kooks on the Internet, who is accusing your company of at least tangentially assisting in mass murder. This small group is marginalized and has no hope of ever making their case accepted in public. So do you, as an executive with the company, take some of your personnel resources to address the band of kooks? Or do you have your engineers continue working on the new products?


I think I'll stick to my view that the US government is choosing not to deal with these loose ends because...You can choose to hold that view, but the reality is that the PfT kooks are not even a blip on the government's radar, except for possibly some guys at the FBI who are worried about potential domestic terrorism.

[Mancman]

I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....

Ben

I've read both 'A New Pearl Harbour' and 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking' and found both to be pretty much shocking. Extremely biased, full of misunderstandings and flat out deceptions.

[Reheat]

I accept that you can argue the point that there is "missing data". As this is unprovable, it's a weak argument, in my view. What proof do you have for missing data?

Holy crap batman! No one, and I mean no one can state with certainty the exact position of AA77 at the end of the data extracted by the pilot loon site. There are numerous discrepancies with the FDR Data they have extracted. The DME records don't agree, the INS data has significant error, the Radar Altimeter shows the aircraft too high to hit the building according to THEIR calculations. The data doesn't show what numerous witnesses testified about the flight profile of the aircraft as it approached the building. If this isn't evidence proof of missing data I don't know what is. There is an undeniable mountain of physical evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. To deny this and find implausible academic anomalies that don't fit according to twoofer logic is pure delusion to support a biased political agenda.

I don't understand your point about 25 hours of data, maybe you could amplify that.

FDR's store 25 hours of flight data, so all of AA77 previous flights up to 25 hours worth are there. To my knowledge no effort by the loons has been made to extract any of that data to establish either trends or to more positively identify the possible problems with the FDR. In fact, they use the shutdown and parking location at Dulles to begin an analysis of the INS information. It's in error even at the parking spot where it spend the evening of 9/10 parked at the Dulles terminal.

If p4t is interested in the truth, why haven't they extracted and analyzed all 25 hours of the data to determine (if possible) what's going on with the FDR and to silence the loons who insist that the aircraft has not been identified?

I suspect the NTSB/FBI knows that any answer to the "loose ends" will simply result in more "loose ends" to answer as it has already with the released videos. What the Government really needs is a time machine for twoofers that can place them in a position to witness AA77 on it's final flight path. Even then I'd suggest they would find a problem with their placed position or that the time machine was the wrong color.

[AMTMAN]

Let's say you have a multi-billion dollar company who's struggling against strong competitors, have promised new products to compete with your competitors' upcoming products, and the stock market is holding your feet to the fire to deliver.

Then there's a small band of kooks on the Internet, who is accusing your company of at least tangentially assisting in mass murder. This small group is marginalized and has no hope of ever making their case accepted in public. So do you, as an executive with the company, take some of your personnel resources to address the band of kooks? Or do you have your engineers continue working on the new products?


You can choose to hold that view, but the reality is that the PfT kooks are not even a blip on the government's radar, except for possibly some guys at the FBI who are worried about potential domestic terrorism.

Usually the only way PfT talks to someone within the industry is when they get a hold of someones phone number and ambush them. I have yet to open my weekly issue of Av Week and see any mention of PfT "research" into FDR's. Or any other aviation periodical for that matter. Why is that, because because most people see it for what it is.

[jaydeehess]

I wrote a giant post describing this in great detail. Maybe you should read it. It's called something along the lines of "AA77 FDR data explained".


Indeed you did and it is entitled "AA77 FDR Data, Explained "
dep44 and rsalinger can read it at;
http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=66047
This is a long thread, the last post, at the time I write, was on Feb 25/08. However, the opening post addresses the topic sufficientlty.

[jaydeehess]

- a hole in the side of the building that didn't appear to be large enough for a commercial airliner. topic derail

The missing section of the ground floor wall is 90-100 feet wide. The round hole in the second floor is 18-20 feet in diameter. This is consistent with the wings hitting mostly just below the ground floor roof and thus the fuselage hitting at the second floor level.

- conflicting reports from eye-witnesses, some even reporting seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon.topic derail

No one at all ever reported a plane that approached the Pentagon pulled up and over it. There are reports of aircraft overhead the Pentagon but none of them are described in any way as having been close enough to have been a plane that flew at and then pulled up and over the Pentagon.

The eyewitness reports that contradict the accepted flight path are in the definite minority and also do not agree with each other. Even the three CIT witnesses at the CITGO station do not agree with each other. Turcois puts the plane's starboard wing over the canopy in his third adjustment, at the interviewer's coaching,. Prior to that he had it further south. Lagasse has the plane to the north of the station as does Brooks but they disagree as to exactly where it was.
All thre however do agree on one point, that the plane hit the Pentagon!

Cited above, Anti-sophist details how the FDR works and why there is a delay in writing data to it.

[uk_dave]

In fact, they use the shutdown and parking location at Dulles to begin an analysis of the INS information. It's in error even at the parking spot where it spend the evening of 9/10 parked at the Dulles terminal.


I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you expand on it, please? :)

[Reheat]

I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you expand on it, please? :)

The INS is about ~ 3000' off at Dulles on the last shutdown prior to 9/11. There is a map on p4t that, but I don't have time to search for it now. The INS FDR last position indicated a geographical position ~19 miles or so from the Pentagon. The INS was not accurate, but I haven't researched the issue enough to know how it was performing over the long term or even during the actual flight.

There is so such nonsense and noise in the p4t posts (because they don't know what they are doing) that it was extremely annoying to search for it the first time and I don't care to do it again. It's there somewhere.

[beachnut]

I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you expand on it, please? :)
The INS system on 77 in 2001 was accurate to 1000 to 3000 feet. We would have to look it up to be exact, but as Reheat said, the starting position as the plane taxied out was off, as in this photo.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745cb5cd36f6fa.jpg
1/4 mile error in the INS was common; without GPS updates. It is different for new planes and systems.

[Reheat]

Yes, that's the photo. Thanks beachnut! :)

[uk_dave]

Cheers Reheat & Beachnut.

So, basically, the data available from the flight indicates that the co-ordinates were off in the first place, based upon the position of the taxiways and runway and the difference between the planes actual position and the recorded position.

And when this discrepancy is taken into account with the fdr data at point of impact.......

[Reheat]

Cheers Reheat & Beachnut.

So, basically, the data available from the flight indicates that the co-ordinates were off in the first place, based upon the position of the taxiways and runway and the difference between the planes actual position and the recorded position.

And when this discrepancy is taken into account with the fdr data at point of impact.......

Yep, you've got the gist of it. Of course, there is no "point of impact" in the FDR as there is missing data, but the position is calculated using an offset.

Now, there is also a discrepancy between the two DME's both tuned to DCA. In the last line of data one says 1.5 but the other indicates 3.2. I've seen no discussion of that, but guess which one they chose to use? Well, obviously the one that comes closest to supporting their fantasy.

There's more, but it's best to just let them flounder and slobber their tripe. As I've said many times, the FDR data is not conclusive and it was not designed to be used in the way they're trying to use it to prove that AA77 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon. Rest assured they are not searching for the REAL WORLD truth, they are searching for the twoofer world trooth.

That's precisely why the rational world pays them little heed. If they had a real case, it would be the scoop of the Century. Instead they are floundering in the world of obscurity continuing to try to find ways to convince a rational world with their delusions while refusing to address the comprehensive mountain of evidence that conclusively proves AA77 struck the Pentagon.

Most everyone here realizes it's a game with them. The few there who have some expertise delve into technical minutia that is contradictory and that not everyone understands while refusing to address the total evidence and do nothing except poke imaginary holes in what they term the "Official Conspiracy".

Take a look at their Forum where the "Guides who Lie" post mostly political oriented tripe while bowing to the whelms of their dictator who allows no dissension. It's DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

[TC329]

Yep, you've got the gist of it. Of course, there is no "point of impact" in the FDR as there is missing data, but the position is calculated using an offset.

Now, there is also a discrepancy between the two DME's both tuned to DCA. In the last line of data one says 1.5 but the other indicates 3.2. I've seen no discussion of that, but guess which one they chose to use? Well, obviously the one that comes closest to supporting their fantasy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947)

[DGM]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947)
Have they corrected their math errors yet? Why would they leave that paper up on their site if they know it's wrong?

[TC329]

Have they corrected their math errors yet? Why would they leave that paper up on their site if they know it's wrong?



03/20/08 - Update:The calculations below used for the purpose of this article are in error. We are currently reviewing the calculations and will publish a revision with the proper formula(s)/calculations consistent with the premise of this article. We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your understanding.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html)





Patience.

[DGM]

Patience.
The question is why is a paper that they admit is wrong still up? This doesn't seem wrong to you?

[nicepants]

The question is why is a paper that they admit is wrong still up? This doesn't seem wrong to you?

If they took it down, what would prisonplanet & 911blogger link to? :P

To the truthers, taking the article (which they admit is wrong) down would be akin to accepting defeat.

The fact that they published and publicized this article so heavily just destroys their credibility even more. They really dug their own hole in this one. Legitimate researchers would have evaluated the calculations to ensure accuracy. Clearly, accuracy is not a priority of Pilots for Truth....accusations are. They have shown that they will use bad & wrong math to support their outrageous conclusions, and won't even bother to check their work until they are called out on it by skeptics.

Truthers - this is another prime example of why you're not taken seriously

[Reheat]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947)

You can take Robbie's Video and shove it!

Now, I understand why I was confused about the DME and why he uses the csv file in this video. The csv file he's using only shows Nav 1 DME which is 1.5 NM. It does not show Nav 2 DME which is 3.2. That is only shown in the raw data print out.

Both Nav sets were tuned to DCA VOR and theoretically they should be the same, but they aren't.

Ooops, something else needs to be fixed.....

[beachnut]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947)
The only thing jdx proves is he is not a FDR expert. It may sound like something to someone who does not fly and has zero knowledge on the FDR, but jdx only shows his lack of experience and total inability to generate rational thoughts on 9/11.

jdx is as good at analyzing the FDR and flight 77 as he is at math and physics : total failure

[TC329]

The question is why is a paper that they admit is wrong still up? This doesn't seem wrong to you?


PFT dont delete/hide their mistakes as has been demostrated by JREFers.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1)


They prefer to admit their mistakes and show how they work through them.

[DGM]

PFT dont delete/hide their mistakes as has been demostrated by JREFers.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1)


They prefer to admit their mistakes and show how they work through them.
Nice spin! Except they don't specify the mistake or directly point out how it effects the paper.. Nice try though.

[nicepants]

PFT dont delete/hide their mistakes
They prefer to admit their mistakes and show how they work through them.


Could you point us to the URLs for their retractions on prisonplanet.com, and 911blogger.com? Both sites appear to still be making claims based on the flawed data.

[Anti-sophist]

I don't really have a problem with them not removing it. Simply stating that it's flawed is sufficient, in my book.

In web circles, that is pretty much standard practice. Leave the original mistake up and make corrections through updates. Often this is done by striking-out the offending material but leaving it up and readable for the sake of disclosure.

Regardless, I'm far less offended by their corrective measures than I am by the fact that they have multiple people who have spammed this all over the internet and none of whom decided to check it... It escapes explanation how such an absurdly obvious error should have escaped so many "scholars".

I do wonder, though, how many of those sites spammed by CIT and others they've followed up by posting in those threads (and/or comments) that this material was flawed? I guess information you like is worth spamming all over the internet... but when you find out it's wrong, don't bother fixing it? Hmm.

[celestrin]

Now, I understand why I was confused about the DME and why he uses the csv file in this video. The csv file he's using only shows Nav 1 DME which is 1.5 NM. It does not show Nav 2 DME which is 3.2. That is only shown in the raw data print out.
IIRC, the last DME data in the csv file is in fact 1.5NM. There is actually no data for the other Nav set. That's because DME data got updated every 8s, but the offset between both Nav sets was 4s. During the last csv second, the first Nav set just got updated, while the other one was still showing the data from 4s ago. That's what's causing the difference between 1.5 and 3.2. I don't think the Guides That Are Selective With Truth can be blamed for using 1.5.

[beachnut]

IIRC, the last DME data in the csv file is in fact 1.5NM. There is actually no data for the other Nav set. That's because DME data got updated every 8s, but the offset between both Nav sets was 4s. During the last csv second, the first Nav set just got updated, while the other one was still showing the data from 4s ago. That's what's causing the difference between 1.5 and 3.2. I don't think the Guides That Are Selective With Truth can be blamed for using 1.5.
The DME is decoded only to X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8 increments in the NTSB file, and X.7 instead of X.8 in the p4t decode. The errors in DME and the fact DME is stored only in .2 to .3 resolution, make the video by jdx not as exact as he tries to make the pilot/flying stuff appear.

jdx analysis is as bad as his math and physics

[celestrin]

The DME is decoded only to X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8 increments in the NTSB file, and X.7 instead of X.8 in the p4t decode. The errors in DME and the fact DME is stored only in .2 to .3 resolution, make the video by jdx not as exact as he tries to make the pilot/flying stuff appear.

jdx analysis is as bad as his math and physics

Yes, I believe you are quite right about that (if I understand you correctly with X.x increments). You are talking about data resolution, right?

In any case, I'm yet to see any of their "calculations/analyses" which account for such obsolete things as measurement error or accuracy.

[beachnut]

Yes, I believe you are quite right about that (if I understand you correctly with X.x increments). You are talking about data resolution, right?

In any case, I'm yet to see any of their "calculations/analyses" which account for such obsolete things as measurement error or accuracy.
Yes. There are only .0, .2, .5, and .8 DME decimal values on any sample.

If the DME is 4.1, the FDR stores only 4.0, or 4.2. I do not know how it is rounded to 4.0, or 4.2. But that leaves a .1 to .15 or greater error just due to storing the data; not to mention DME errors in the plane and station.

[TC329]

The eyewitness reports that contradict the accepted flight path are in the definite minority and also do not agree with each other.

Please list all the South side of the Citgo witnesses who state seeing it on the South side. Please provide video evidence of these witnesses and be sure to ask them if they saw the plane hitting light poles.

Even the three CIT witnesses at the CITGO station do not agree with each other. Turcois puts the plane's starboard wing over the canopy in his third adjustment, at the interviewer's coaching,. Prior to that he had it further south.

"at the interviewer's coaching" is such a garbage claim and totally unsubstantiated and displays your true bias.

I wonder how you will explain away Sean Boger's account. Sean was working inside the heliport tower giving him an incredible vantage point to be able to tell which side of the station the plane approached from.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/heliporttower.jpg

So his viewpoint is a lot like this :
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/Washblvd2.jpg

Sean describes the plane as approaching from "in front of the Navy Annex" and that it was "tilted" or coming in "on an angle" or a bank.

He said he could see the gas station and without hesitation said the plane was on his right side of the station:

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side." :jaw-dropp

Levi Stephens is another witness who places it on the North side of the Citgo station.

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm

Turcios, Stephens, Boger, Brooks, LaGasse, Paik (crossing over to the north side of Navy Annex) all see this plane on the North side of the Citgo.

And while they all state they saw it hit the Pentagon, the part you "debunkers" love to leave out is that NONE OF THEM SAW IT HIT ANY LIGHT POLES. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Sucherman & Father McGraw also state they didn't see it hit light poles and merely deduced it after seeing the poles on the ground.


Lagasse has the plane to the north of the station as does Brooks but they disagree as to exactly where it was.

Yeah but they're both impressed with where the other places the plane on the approach because their flight paths are nearly identical.


All thre however do agree on one point, that the plane hit the Pentagon!

All 6 witnesses agree the plane approached from the North side of the Citgo, All 8 witnesses state they did not see it hit any light poles, and yes they all agree on impact.

I figured since you were spewing off topic propaganda it deserved an honest rebuttal with truth.

[TC329]

I do wonder, though, how many of those sites spammed by CIT and others they've followed up by posting in those threads (and/or comments) that this material was flawed? I guess information you like is worth spamming all over the internet... but when you find out it's wrong, don't bother fixing it? Hmm.


Any links to support your claim?

[nicepants]

Please list all the South side of the Citgo witnesses who state seeing it on the South side. Please provide video evidence of these witnesses and be sure to ask them if they saw the plane hitting light poles.

Ugh...here we go again.

Just so you know, TC, most of the eyewitnesses did not use the Citgo station as their primary reference point. Any eyewitness who reported the plane on the accepted flight path is a witness who contradicts those interviewed by CIT, whether they specifically mention the gas station or not.

Any links to support your claim?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/150308Topography.htm

Original article still posted, sans retraction.

[TC329]

Ugh...here we go again.

Just so you know, TC, most of the eyewitnesses did not use the Citgo station as their primary reference point. Any eyewitness who reported the plane on the accepted flight path is a witness who contradicts those interviewed by CIT, whether they specifically mention the gas station or not.

Well then I guess there are none. As one of your own kind told me in another thread you have a telephone pick it up and use it.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/150308Topography.htm

Original article still posted, sans retraction.

I have no control over Alex Jones' Prison Planet. If I did Susan McElwain would have had the front page of it a year ago.

[Arus808]

Well then I guess there are none. As one of your own kind told me in another thread you have a telephone pick it up and use it.

did you miss the part where witnesses wouldn't necessarily use the citgo as a point of reference? why do we need to call these witnesses to have them make a claim using the citgo station? their testimony stands today, as it did 6 years ago.

[beachnut]

Any links to support your claim?
What do the people who contradict your story with their testimony in 2001 have to do with the FDR? You have no ability to stay on topic or connect the dots to the simplest evidence (math and physics errors posted on p4t false information web site) which you have twisted beyond all recognition like the math and physics you and jdx present, all your stuff is false information made up by a paranoid pilot, jdx.

FDR, got some facts or just more hearsay and misinformation? FDR.

[Reheat]

That's what's causing the difference between 1.5 and 3.2. I don't think the Guides That Are Selective With Truth can be blamed for using 1.5.

Yes, I see that now. Thanks for the correction. I haven't downloaded the data and missed the difference in RECORDING of the two Nav Sets.

[COLOR=black]The DME is decoded only to X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8 increments in the NTSB file, and X.7 instead of X.8 in the p4t decode. The errors in DME and the fact DME is stored only in .2 to .3 resolution, make the video by jdx not as exact as he tries to make the pilot/flying stuff appear.

The lack of accuracy is even worse than I thought.

In any case, I'm yet to see any of their "calculations/analyses" which account for such obsolete things as measurement error or accuracy.

Heck if you're searching for the twoof, minor issue that don't fit the fantasy are just hand waved away or ignored as if they don't exist.

Yes. There are only .0, .2, .5, and .8 DME decimal values on any sample.

If the DME is 4.1, the FDR stores only 4.0, or 4.2. I do not know how it is rounded to 4.0, or 4.2. But that leaves a .1 to .15 or greater error just due to storing the data; not to mention DME errors in the plane and station.

There is more than enough room for errors that dictate the data should not be used as it is. As has been pointed out time and time again, he is not telling the whole story, only the twoofer version.

[beachnut]

Yes, I see that now. Thanks for the correction. I haven't downloaded the data and missed the difference in RECORDING of the two Nav Sets.

The lack of accuracy is even worse than I thought.

Heck if you're searching for the twoof, minor issue that don't fit the fantasy are just hand waved away or ignored as if they don't exist.

There is more than enough room for errors that dictate the data should not be used as it is. As has been pointed out time and time again, he is not telling the whole story, only the twoofer version.
The FDR is used to figure out accidents, not where the plane was!;, what the plane was doing. Wake up jdx.

Only the p4t and a few suckers buy into the implications of false conclusions pushed by p4t, the only pilots in the world who can not hit buildings in the safety of a simulator; something kids have done with precision, and amateur pilots can do with great ease.

[pomeroo]

Please list all the South side of the Citgo witnesses who state seeing it on the South side. Please provide video evidence of these witnesses and be sure to ask them if they saw the plane hitting light poles.



"at the interviewer's coaching" is such a garbage claim and totally unsubstantiated and displays your true bias.

I wonder how you will explain away Sean Boger's account. Sean was working inside the heliport tower giving him an incredible vantage point to be able to tell which side of the station the plane approached from.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/heliporttower.jpg

So his viewpoint is a lot like this :
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/Washblvd2.jpg

Sean describes the plane as approaching from "in front of the Navy Annex" and that it was "tilted" or coming in "on an angle" or a bank.

He said he could see the gas station and without hesitation said the plane was on his right side of the station:

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side." :jaw-dropp

Levi Stephens is another witness who places it on the North side of the Citgo station.

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm

Turcios, Stephens, Boger, Brooks, LaGasse, Paik (crossing over to the north side of Navy Annex) all see this plane on the North side of the Citgo.

And while they all state they saw it hit the Pentagon, the part you "debunkers" love to leave out is that NONE OF THEM SAW IT HIT ANY LIGHT POLES. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Sucherman & Father McGraw also state they didn't see it hit light poles and merely deduced it after seeing the poles on the ground.




Yeah but they're both impressed with where the other places the plane on the approach because their flight paths are nearly identical.




All 6 witnesses agree the plane approached from the North side of the Citgo, All 8 witnesses state they did not see it hit any light poles, and yes they all agree on impact.

I figured since you were spewing off topic propaganda it deserved an honest rebuttal with truth.


You don't deal in truth: you are a conspiracy liar. Remember?

I keep wondering when the Penta-conmen intend to ask their tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses to abandon one or the other of their mutually-exclusive claims. Are those witnesses willing to concede that they might not have been able to determine the exact position of the plane relative to the Citgo station or are they prepared to admit that they did not see it hit the Pentagon?

All right, I'm not wondering at all. The Penta-conmen know the answer, just as everyone here does.

[TC329]

The NTSB plotted 1.5 DME at 09:37:43. Two more seconds of full parameters were recorded after this data. The NTSB calculated "impact" time at 09:37:45 based on radar, FDR and ATC transcripts. Anonymous JREFers say the NTSB is wrong, yet do nothing about it except make excuses from behind their screen.

The thread linked above from Anti-Sophist which he likes to drop and yell "Debunked!" is in fact is not "debunked" using his own words.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1

Anti-Sophist claims/"debunks" that there is up to "2 seconds missing" from the FDR data. His claims/excuses are shown here.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2237875&postcount=337
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2239284&postcount=341
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2002910&postcount=43

Anti-Sophist uses the above thread (as do many of his "collegues" at JREF) and yells "Debunked" many times a day (as is shown above in this very thread). He refuses to acknowledge the fact that his own words places the aircraft too high. The FDR data has not been "Debunked".

Using his own claims, the aircraft is still too high.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4801

Anti-Sophist is unable to address Radar Altitude and passes it off to Beachnut.

Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102924&page=3
(starts at post 102)

His excuse when caught deleting his incriminating words... "Saving Space". JREFers seem to condone such actions.

Beachnut deleted incriminating post content twice in the same thread and was caught both times. The mods removed tony's post calling out Beachnuts' second attempt showing extreme Mod bias.


The NTSB has plotted the FDR data. The data shows too high to hit the pentagon as plotted. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Anonymous JREFers have been shown that even their own excuses place the aircraft too high. Anonymous JREFers accumulate thousands of posts on JREF saying the NTSB did not do their job properly and released error filled data through the Freedom Of Information Act to the American public. Instead of JREFers trying to contact the NTSB to correct what JREFers claim is error filled data, JREFers make excuses behind their screens.. anonymously, to confuse and obfuscate the facts. The NTSB has stated it wants everything as accurate as possible when providing data through the FOIA. The NTSB accounts for an error in the clock annotation and MCP for the autopilot. They do not account or comment on any other errors as the anonymous JREFers claim exist.


All of the above anonymous self-proclaimed "FDR Experts" of JREF did not know what ED-55 or TSO-124 were last year, either that, or they intentionally omitted that information from you. They also cannot obtain their own data frame layout. Instead, these anon ymous JREFers pry PFT for such information, when if they were real "FDR Experts" as they claim, they would know its proprietary information that cannot be shared. If they were able to obtain such information (which they should if they are who they claim), they would confirm that it does not have an impact on PFT analysis regarding altitude, vertical speed, DME, etc etc...

The data plotted by the NTSB is consistent with ED-55, TSO-124, statements made by the manufacturer of the FDR, and the positional data itself. Beachnut tries to minimize Ed Santana statements by saying he is a "salesman". Salesmen are also engineers in such a capacity and need to have extensive product knowledge in order to sell the product to fleets worldwide. This "salesman" appears to know alot more than Beachy as Beachy didnt even know what TSO-124 and ED-55 was last year (nor did/does Anti-Sophist). His excuse this time last year was "hearsay" when confronted with this information

Anonymous, self proclaimed "professionals" at JREF accept error filled data (according to their claims) being distributed through the Freedom Of Information Act to the American public and prefer to make excuses for what they admit/feel is error filled data from behind their screens mixed in with ample ad hom and personal attacks.

If the NTSB data is missing as many seconds as you anonymous JREFers claim, why didnt the NTSB stop the data at that point in the animation, extend the "time of impact" in their flight path study, or include a note for such "errors" along with their other noted "errors" in the clock and MCP? I suppose anonymous JREFers who didnt even know what TSO-124 and ED-55 were this time last year know more than the NTSB?

[TC329]

You don't deal in truth: you are a conspiracy liar. Remember?

I keep wondering when the Penta-conmen intend to ask their tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses to abandon one or the other of their mutually-exclusive claims. Are those witnesses willing to concede that they might not have been able to determine the exact position of the plane relative to the Citgo station or are they prepared to admit that they did not see it hit the Pentagon?

All right, I'm not wondering at all. The Penta-conmen know the answer, just as everyone here does.

Says the man who has proudly admitted repeatedly to having never even watched any of the eyewitness accounts presented to date by Craig & Aldo.

[jaydeehess]

We are currently reviewing the calculations and will publish a revision with the proper formula(s)/calculations consistent with the premise of this article. We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your understanding

So that's what is taking so long. they are still looking for a way to calculate the trajectory that will fit their contention that the plane could not hit the building.

Yep, critical thinking at its finest!:rolleyes:

Please list all the South side of the Citgo witnesses who state seeing it on the South side. Please provide video evidence of these witnesses and be sure to ask them if they saw the plane hitting light poles.

As pointed out several times, most people would have no reason whatsoever to use the CITGO as a reference in describing the position of the plane. Instead they used the frame of reference of where they were when it went over.
To call these people years later and ask them to place the plane with respect to the gas station is just plain idiotic.

"at the interviewer's coaching" is such a garbage claim and totally unsubstantiated and displays your true bias.
(not a verbatim transcript but close enough. If you dispute it then post and exact transcript)
"Where did you see the plane?
"Over there" points above the station.
"You mean the wing was over the station or the whole plane?"
" Well maybe only the wing"
"The whole wing or just the wing tip?"
"It was part of the wing"
"So the fuselage went over the pavement?"
"uh, yeah"
"over those trees?"
"uh, yeah"

Basically Robert had originally pointed that the plane went over the station and with coaching had it flying with only (maybe) the starboard wingtip over the canopy. Had his original position been accepted it could have been that his angle, the speed of the craft and the split second with which to judge distance that Robert saw the plane south of the station. we will never know since he was coached into having the plane elsewhere.

So his viewpoint is a lot like this :


Really? Must be the lens used on that camera. Makes the road seem a lot closer to the heliport. Would he even have been able to see the CITGO? The pentacon page says that he would be higher and farther back from where the picture was taken. Did anyone think to take a picture facing the exact opposite way showing the heliport? Was the camera on a leveled tripod or handheld?

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side."

To the left of the gas station? That would be south. Gas station's do not have personal left's and right's. Oddly enough with all the calling you do for eyewitnesses to place the plane either north or south of the station. This statement says neither.

Again, with a highway overpass between him and the CITGO would Levi be able to see the station from where he states he was?
He says he had to turn to see the aircraft. How far from the building was it when he turned? Obviously if he watched it pass he would be turning to follow it.
Again, for all the bluster about having witnesses state "south or north" Levi does not state either.
His description would match the accepted flight path if he was off at all on the distance to the aircraft.

Like Levi and the CITGO witnesses; Sean also believes the plane hit the building while his placement of it proves that it could not have.

Yes, they ALL believe that the plane HIT the Pentagon. none of them have any trouble believeing that it hit the lower floors rather than the upper floors. IF the plane flew 77 feet higher than we are told it did then one would assume that at least ONE witness would have been puzzled that it was said to have hit the ground floor. None were.

Turcois did not see the impact because from where he was the plane goes over the overpass and desends below his line of sight never to emerge above the level of the overpass again. All he sees is the fireball rising above that sight line. Well if Robert could not see the ground level of the Pentagon how could Levi see the single storey gas station from his position with the overpass and several trees in the way?

IIRC correctly Brooks says the plane went north of the station BUT he saw it fly all the way to the Pentagon and impact. From where he was he could see the building well. Regardless of from where he believes it came, he says he saw it HIT, not fly over.

Paik could see neither the Pentagon or the gas station. His account easily fits the accepted flight path as pointed out in another thread.

That is enough derail for me on this. If you want to hash this over more then ressurect one of Lyte's threads on the subject. I will address this no more in THIS thread.

[jaydeehess]

In the picture taken from the side of the road looking towards the gas station on the pentacon page
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm

Is that the VDOT tower in the background just to the left (south) of the edge of the station canopy?

If the scrape on the VDOT tower was caused by Flight 77 then would it have been the starborad or port wing? In other words, what side of the tower got scraped?

[A W Smith]

In the picture taken from the side of the road looking towards the gas station on the pentacon page
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm

Is that the VDOT tower in the background just to the left (south) of the edge of the station canopy?

If the scrape on the VDOT tower was caused by Flight 77 then would it have been the starborad or port wing? In other words, what side of the tower got scraped?


thats the vdot tower
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/VDOTAntennaAerial.jpg

[pomeroo]

Says the man who has proudly admitted repeatedly to having never even watched any of the eyewitness accounts presented to date by Craig & Aldo.


I repeat: WHICH ONE OF THE MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS ARE THE WITNESSES PREPARED TO ABANDON?

I repeat: WHY WASN'T THIS OBVIOUS QUESTION ASKED BY THE FRAUDS WHO PROMOTE A NONSENSICAL THEORY FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT?

I repeat: WILL ANY OF THE BOGUS "PILOTS" ACCOMPANY ME TO INTERVIEW THESE WITNESSES?

[TC329]

did you miss the part where witnesses wouldn't necessarily use the citgo as a point of reference? why do we need to call these witnesses to have them make a claim using the citgo station? their testimony stands today, as it did 6 years ago.

you can have them admit to actually seeing the plane hit the light poles which would prove the south side of the Citgo. to date we can't locate anyone who saw the light poles event and that includes Sucherman & McGraw.

[TC329]

I repeat: WHICH ONE OF THE MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS ARE THE WITNESSES PREPARED TO ABANDON?

I repeat: WHY WASN'T THIS OBVIOUS QUESTION ASKED BY THE FRAUDS WHO PROMOTE A NONSENSICAL THEORY FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT?

I repeat: WILL ANY OF THE BOGUS "PILOTS" ACCOMPANY ME TO INTERVIEW THESE WITNESSES?


1) NONE


I am ignoring questions 2 and 3 until you ask them without the Ad-Homs. In the meantime have you actually watched any of the interviews obtained by CIT?

[SDC]

The topic of this thread is not the "CIT" or the Citgo witnesses. Any chance, TC329, you could remember that?

[TC329]

To the left of the gas station? That would be south. Gas station's do not have personal left's and right's. Oddly enough with all the calling you do for eyewitnesses to place the plane either north or south of the station. This statement says neither.

His right, taken into consideration that if he was standing at the Citgo looking at the Pentagon it would be on the gas station's left.

You need to come up with something much better than this.

As pointed out several times, most people would have no reason whatsoever to use the CITGO as a reference in describing the position of the plane. Instead they used the frame of reference of where they were when it went over.
To call these people years later and ask them to place the plane with respect to the gas station is just plain idiotic.

To ask them if they saw the plane hitting light poles would prove a South side approach. You wouldn't need to use the Citgo as a reference point.

All of CIT's witnesses did not see the plane hit any poles and that includes McGraw & Sucherman.

[SDC]

TC329, how about you restart a Lyte Trip-related thread? Or something like that.

[pomeroo]

1) NONE



You have been caught lying. The Penta-conmen failed to ask this obvious follow-up question. It was no accident: they understand perfectly well that even their confused, cherry-picked witnesses will not abandon their belief that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.




I am ignoring questions 2 and 3 until you ask them without the Ad-Homs. In the meantime have you actually watched any of the interviews obtained by CIT?



You will ignore my second and third questions because you have no other choice: they are devastating to the transparent fraud being perpetrated by the bogus "pilots."

I will watch any interviews you care to send me. I will not pay a dime to agenda-driven liars promoting an evil cause.

[Anti-sophist]

Isn't constantly pasting banned members words bannable? Haven't you been warned about this before? Are you copy/pasting this tripe or is Rob just using your account?


Anti-Sophist is unable to address Radar Altitude and passes it off to Beachnut.


Please stop copy/pasting Rob's tired words onto this forum as if meant as a reply in a thread. I've seen this tripe no less than 10 times. It's not any more true than it was the first time you or him pasted it. It's certainly not on topic... and it's most certainly been dealt with several times in the past. Re-pasting the same tired nonsense gets us nowhere.

Search for "beachnut":
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1&colorshift=yes
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14354


The FDR data has not been "Debunked".
This is what it's like arguing with you kids. You make a new claim. We prove it wrong. You copy/paste the same tired old nonsense we've debunked 100 times. Yes, the FDR has. It has been for over a year now. You've come up with nothing new. In between ad-hominem, new DVDs, press releases, and death threats you, once in a while, come up with some "analysis". _ALL_ of your analysis is flawed for exactly two reasons: 1) Your timeslip errors 2) your poor math skills.

That hasn't and won't change. You can't jam this square peg you've invented into the round hole. Sorry.

[TC329]

I will watch any interviews you care to send me. I will not pay a dime to agenda-driven liars promoting an evil cause.

You are well aware that all the interviews are freely available online.


http://www.thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

http://www.thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm

[uk_dave]

The 'researchers edition'?

[pomeroo]

You are well aware that all the interviews are freely available online.


http://www.thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

http://www.thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm


When you frauds get around to asking your cherry-picked witnesses to abandon at least one of their mutually-exclusive claims, I will display some interest.

[chillzero]

Get this thread back on topic please, or it will be moderated.

[beachnut]

The NTSB plotted 1.5 DME at 09:37:43. Two more seconds of full parameters were recorded after this data. The NTSB calculated "impact" time at 09:37:45 based on radar, FDR and ATC transcripts. Anonymous JREFers say the NTSB is wrong, yet do nothing about it except make excuses from behind their screen.
Error by you and p4t? The NTSB only has one second of data after 1.5 DME in the :43 data frame. And 1.5 is a value between 1.3 and 1.7 DME due to resolution the data is stored at. I doubt jdx, your physics math mentor can do much to help you on this. p4t decoded zero data after the 1.5 DME data frame.

You have no idea the true impact time based on the FDR or Radar data. The last radar point of 77 was at 13:37:12. OOPS …………LOLFAAD

Please inform the masses how the NTSB came up with an impact time? Looks like RADAR data is not possible to have an impact of :45, since the impact would be at 19.5 seconds. Darn, what time did 77 impact!

I can tell everyone there is no way to tell from the FDR! Sorry, your cherry picked jdx time from a letter the NTSB posted about a working copy is a bogus time? Or is it? But go ahead tell us the real impact time and how it was produced. Hurry, because the NTSB told you and p4t that their animation was a working copy. But yes, I have seen the impact time from the NTSB, but it does not line up with RADAR data. But then you guys have no clue about time or 9/11.

Your jdx behind the screen junk is showing. Your math and physics post need correction please. Your posts are filled with errors; why?

[beachnut]

Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims.
I would erase this to save space, but jdx will save it as a smoking gun I can do better math than he. I have left out some details which can be filled in if someone wants to waste time with a map and DME offsets against the final heading of 77. BTW, the flight paths p4t have published in the past to show a north approach are impossible to do without witnesses seeing excessive banks and high G maneuvers, not witnessed on 9/11.

A disclaimer first! There is no doubt 77 hit the pentagon, knocked down light posts and 77 came to rest with all souls on board at the Pentagon. The p4t, this guy, and jdx have not debunked a single piece of the thousands of pieces of evidence proving 77 hit the Pentagon. They have failed to produce anything but paranoid anti government rant with zero evidence. They take the FDR and try to make implication of false conclusions so they can sell DVDs for 15 bucks. So, if you like CT thinking, buy DVD that have lots of implications of false conclusions; you will be rewarded with such.

I will discuss the FDR again, but remember 77 did hit the Pentagon, and not a thing in the FDR shows it did not! !!!

The terrorist pilot demonstrated to witnesses his steep descent gradients. The FDR has rates higher than 6060 feet per minute.

If the FDR altitude is correct. (BTW, at take off the Radar Altimeter is off 40 feet from the PA altitude; and at the area 4 or 5 seconds away from the Pentagon the RADAR altimeter is off 100 feet from the PA, pressure altitude corrected for pressure) All you have to do is back up in time to make the impact in the zone for the terrorist pilot to make. In fact you can hit all the poles and impact the Pentagon easy.

I have said 77 was 4 to 6 seconds or more away from the Pentagon when the data stops. The trouble is the p4t have data that stopped at :43 past the minute, the NTSB has data that stops :44 past the minute but time stamps to :46. What time do I use?

The quibbling jdx/p4t and you are unable to specify any initial conditions and just rant about beachnut erasing his never ending spew of junk which repeats stuff you can fine if you search for it right here at JREF (oh I fooled you by erasing what; please present what I erased and why I care if you have it; you do not understand much about 9/11, how can you understand what I erased?). Sorry if I decide to erase my posts when I can edit them and not overload with more words the point I wanted to make. Don't worry jdx and his sock puppet Warned me he had recorded all my posts and he would use them against me; and as you post he has and he does not even understand discussion, math, or physics; so how can he understand my posts in the fires place; he is not able to do math and physics, and understanding an engineer (me) who does not command the English language as well as esl people, what do you expect. You and jdx fail to understand math and physics, I do, you will not understand my simple FDR discussion, it is beyond your abilities as demonstrated with your post.

At 1.5 DME based on heading and an exact 1.5 NM from DCA and if you use the RAD ALT, giving you 400 MSL, and an impact of 40 MSL, you have to loose 360 feet in 3.57 seonds and you only have to do 100.67 feet per second to impact the Pentagon. The last stick input by the terrorist pilot would guarantee descent in excess of 101 feet per second, it was the biggest stick input for going down inputted by the terrorist as the data stops. Earlier his biggest input resulted in excess of 6060 feet per minute descent rate; this input was bigger.

If you take/understand the fact the DME could have been 1.65 DME and stored as 1.5 DME at the time the RAD ALT said 273 feet, you add the local feet o 129 and have 402, you only need about 70 feet per second to impact the Pentagon.

If you use the messed up physics of p4t tower problem proposal, the descent rate is only 80 feet per second. Rates the terrorist beat by over 20 percent. At that point they have a 406 MSL reading on the plane at odds with a PA MSL reading of 504~! What are p4t going to do with out me to erase the numbers they want to ignore; or it brings up the fact they have no idea in time where each data point is, in each stored second! Sad to think they try to use the FDR as some smoking gun but do not know how to use the FDR data, or do they understand anything about the FDR system.

The more I look at the data, and how it stops. It looks like the final input of the terrorist put the plane at below zero G, and that could turn off the electrical power to the plane; it does in my plane built by Boeing I flew for over 20 years. That could account for the FDR stopping well before the impact at the Pentagon.

Please expain what the possible error is in 1.5 DME stored in the FDR? Remember, of the values the FDR could store the only possible values are 1.2, 1.5 or 1.8. BTW, your p4t used 1.7 instead of 1.8 on the decode of the FDR. In fact the RAD ALT decode is kind of off too. But then you guys do not really care as long as you can just quote anything you can make up implications of false conclusions from.

But since the 1.5 DME is only as accurate as 1.79 DME to 1.31 DME, depending on how it is stored; where is 77? Is it 2800 feet away when the last data stops? Why is the calculated altitude 100 feet off of the RAD ALT if you use the ground level? In time when is the DME stored VS, the altimeter data and other data? You have no clue. We can discuss the FDR, but it does not make some plane fly over, the plane was seen impacting the Pentagon, and then the plane was found by witnesses which you use to make up a north flight path which is proven wrong by the FDR. Funny stuff you come up with is debunked by the same stuff you fail to show makes the fact 77 hit the Pentagon not true. You fail in math, physics, and logical thinking, and you do it so effortlessly.

As stated at the beginning, there is not evidence to show Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon. The FDR discussion is just discussion and learning about the values stored in a device that does debunk every implied conclusion made by p4t.

So why is there data missing from the FDR? What were the known/unknown problems with transport delay in this model FDR that lead to new standards in the future models. The FDR is interesting. If found it interesting that the data rate to the secure chip was slow. The data accumulated in one second took one second to store! How did the data get collected and stored, and compressed in time multiplexed fashions and not impose delays that could back up the data in this old FDR? Since Flight 77 was manufactured and first flew in 1991, many improvements were made that were not changed on Flight 77's FDR. Please explain to me how data is stored and why data is can be missing from a FDR?

Yes, please anyone who is interested there are many examples of data missing from FDR, and you can follow the standard changes to see how they are correcting the missing data problems of the past.

Does anyone want to guess why I erased some posts when jdx was back as a sock puppet? I read it! lol

What a waste, when 77 hit the Pentagon.

[AMTMAN]

I would erase this to save space, but jdx will save it as a smoking gun I can do better math than he. I have left out some details which can be filled in if someone wants to waste time with a map and DME offsets against the final heading of 77. BTW, the flight paths p4t have published in the past to show a north approach are impossible to do without witnesses seeing excessive banks and high G maneuvers, not witnessed on 9/11.

. [/COLOR]

Maybe I missed it but they have not yet explained the 757 wrekage found at the Pentagon.

[jaydeehess]

TC329, how about you restart a Lyte Trip-related thread? Or something like that.

That makes at least twice that suggestion has been made in this thread.

quote jaydeehess
That is enough derail for me on this. If you want to hash this over more then ressurect one of Lyte's threads on the subject. I will address this no more in THIS thread.

[jaydeehess]

Maybe I missed it but they have not yet explained the 757 wrekage found at the Pentagon.

No they have not but that is not a topic that would corresspond to the title of this thread. Don't let TC's ranting derail you too.

If he wants to discuss these other issues then he can ressurect Lyte's threads in which those topics are covered.
chances are though that he will be too lazy to look them up.

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe I missed it but they have not yet explained the 757 wrekage found at the Pentagon.

It was pushed out the back of the C-130 that flew over to distract from 77 flying over the Pentagon, Duh!

[beachnut]

It was pushed out the back of the C-130 that flew over to distract from 77 flying over the Pentagon, Duh!
with a fdr, with 25 hours of exact data from previous Flight 77 flights...

with an exact amount of jet fuel as on board 77, to make a fireball just like an aircraft impact at 470 KIAS!...



His excuse when caught deleting his incriminating words... "Saving Space". JREFers seem to condone such actions.

Beachnut deleted incriminating post content twice in the same thread and was caught both times. The mods removed tony's post calling out Beachnuts' second attempt showing extreme Mod bias.
This is comedy, it belongs in the comedy section. Jdx said he as all my incriminating posts; oh noes.

People may appreciate me "saving a lot more space"!
You and jdx have no facts so you talk about me. What does that prove about the FDR?
You guys find my deleted posts to save space, more interesting than your failed ideas on 9/11. (save space could mean, after reading the post, there was no point to made with majority of the post; like this).

FDR stuff is an academic discussion at best, since 77 really did hit the Pentagon. The FDR only debunks your ideas; you are left struggling with math and physics as you ponder the errors you posted here to be seen for years to come. You should have saved space and checked your computations first. Lol

But you sure include a lot of filler with your FDR stuff.