Need debunk for Pentagon FDR. Thanks.

[alexg]

Would someone care to debunk this for me, or point me to a thread that does? It's from a debate in another forum. I have yet to hear how the FDR data is resolved. Thanks.


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

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. I have sat through the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet according to Google Earth. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65291
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62553
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369

[R.Mackey]

The best beat-down of John Doe X's miscalculations occurs in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369). Poster Anti-Sophist shows that John Doe X's assumption that the aircraft was travelling in a straight line is not only wrong, but to blame for his incorrect conclusions.

Also in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1972055#post1972055) I raise additional sources of error, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1972249#post1972249) Skeptic4Sure passes along JDX's response (unless Skeptic4Sure is JDX), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1972315#post1972315) I show his response to be completely unsatisfactory. They haven't been heard from since.

[alexg]

Thank you both!

[Gravy]

Thank you both!
Indeed. Well done.

[Anti-sophist]

I have actually studied the flight-data recorder in quite a bit more detail, and am preparing a longer version. That particular mathematical analysis deals with one particular set of numbers (altimeter), and ignores the rest of the FDR.

JDX combines FDR information willy-nilly without ever proving it's internally consistent. For instance, a likely objection to my "work" is that the final moments G-meter don't indicate a positive acceleration, but it's fairly trivial for me to show that the two columns aren't correleated in time very well.

I'm still working.


The fundamental problem, as always, is false precision. Error is completely unaccounted for, and all of the data is treated as infinitely precise. Once you correctly account for error, everything can be handled. This includes instrumentation error, and time-lag error.

Furthermore, I worked for a year for the USAF doing instrumentation and data collection on F15s, and as such I understand the basics of PCM data. I have my doubts that the CSV file floating around is really the "raw" data, given my background with aircraft data collection and instrumentation, the CSV file appears to have undergone some level of preprocessing... This preprocessing appears to have removed some very important information required to remove the amount of error required to do this calculation precisely. I'll detail it more once I have the facts straight on the actual electronics of the FDR.

This reminds me, does anyone know whether any data-sheet or even model of the actual FDR used in Flight 77?

[Anti-sophist]

Also, if you don't mind, post or pm me a link so I can read what people are saying. Unlike certain folks, I am more than happy to entertain criticism and fix apparent flaws.

[weedwacker]

Hi All,

Here are some things I found interesting on their forum.

At 09:37:42 The Flight Data Recorder was descending at 5520 fpm. The Flight Data Recorder shows .7 G's being pulled between :42 and :43 (1.7 G's total, 1 G is normal gravity and is the zero point). At 09:37:43 the descent rate had slowed by 1440 fpm to 4080 fpm. 1440 fpm is 24 ft/sec. 32 ft/sec^2 is acceleration due to gravity. 24/32=.75. The FDR cross checks with the math.

The FDR shows the aircraft pulling 1.7 G's at top force to slow the descent rate by 1440 fpm.

At :44 the descent rate was 3980 fpm. The average G's pulled between :43-:44 was 1.04 G's. The FDR shows .04 G's needed to slow descent rate by 100 fpm. Makes sense.

From the :44 time stamp to impact time of :45, the average G's were .66 G's. .66x32ft/sec^2=21ft/sec increase in vertical speed. 21ft/secx60=1267 fpm increase in descent rate from :44-:45 official impact time.

3980 as shown at :44 plus 1267 fpm increase in descent rate = 5247 fpm descent rate for the last second :44-:45 data.

Conclusion - This descent rate is impossible to have been accomplished if the aircraft was low enough to hit the poles. It would have dug itself into the ground long before getting to the pentagon. 5247fpm is also not enough to have hit the pentagon from the altitude recorded by the Flight Data Recorder.

Using a more accurate descent rate based on G Force.

Official Impact time of 09:37:45.
Speed used - 784ft/sec
Descent rate = 5247 fpm = 87.5 ft/sec. (based on G Force recorded between :44-:45)

Pole 1 distance from impact hole = 1012 feet/784 = 1.30 seconds
Pole 2 = 886 feet/784 = 1.13 seconds
Pole 3 = 708 feet/784 = .90 seconds
Pole 4 = 598 feet/784 = .76 seconds
Pole 5 = 467 feet/784 = .60 seconds

Pole 1 height in MSL = 74.5 MSL
Pole 1 aircraft height = 87.5(1.3 seconds)+10.38 impact hole height + 38' MSL at pentagon = 162.13 MSL at pole 1
Aircraft was 87.63 feet above Pole 1

Pole 2 = 83' MSL pole height
Pole 2 aircraft height = 87.5(1.13)+48.38= 147.25MSL
Aircraft was 64.25 above Pole 2

Pole 3 = 82'MSL
Pole 3 Aircraft height = 87.5(.90)+48.38 = 127.13'MSL
Aircraft was 45.13' above Pole 3

Pole 4 = 82'MSL
Pole 4 Aircraft Height = 87.5(.76)+48.38 = 114.5'MSL
Aircraft was 32.5 feet above Pole 4

Pole 5 = 81' MSL
Pole 5 Aircraft Height = 87.5(.60)+48.38 = 100.88'MSL
Aircraft was 19.88' above Pole 5


As a reminder, this analysis is a hypothetical based on working back from the impact hole with new G Force analysis added for a more accurate descent rate between :44-:45 time stamps. For a more accurate aircraft altitude in terms of MSL indicated by the altimeter and corrected for local pressure, please visit pilotsfor911truth.org pentagon page.. mid page.


Errors.

Although most pilots already know this...

All Airdata systems go through rigorous testing to remove errors at various speed, angles of attack, and position error. The following are highlights to show how an airdata system is calibrated to remove errors when undergoing certification. Full report is linked below.

"The presence of the aircraft in the airstream causes input errors to the measuring
instruments — the aircraft disturbs the air that it flies through, thereby also disturbing the airdata
measurements. Figure 1 shows the airflow around an airplane wing."


"Accurate airdata are necessary for many purposes and applications. Obviously, the pilot
cannot safely fly the aircraft without knowing airspeed and pressure altitude. In civil aviation, the
small vertical separation between flight levels assigned by air traffic controllers is based on
accurate knowledge of pressure altitude."


"Static pressure can be measured with a pitot-static tube or a flush-mounted port on the
fuselage. Figure 3 shows a typical subsonic static pressure distribution on an aircraft fuselage
(ref. 2). The measured minus true static pressure, , normalized to compressible dynamic
pressure, , is plotted as a function of fuselage position. Zero static pressure error on the
fuselage exists at locations 2 through 5."

"Even with the selection of the best static port position, some pressure errors will remain, and
these errors must be determined in flight. The difference between the locally measured static
pressure and the ambient static pressure, which is dependent upon angle of attack, airspeed, and
aircraft configuration, is called
position error.
.
Three calibration types are generally used to determine position error: direct comparison,altimetry, and velocimetry."

"This subsection describes typical maneuvers and methods for most airdata calibrations.
Tower-flyby, trailing static or trailing cone, pacer aircraft, radar tracking, and dynamic maneuvers
are included."

"Lag and attenuation can be estimated or measured experimentally. Criteria can be set for how
quickly pressure can change in the pneumatic system without affecting the airdata. Such
calibration methods as the trailing cone may have very large pneumatic lags and may have to be
used in steady flight."

"Airdata quantities are needed for a multitude of tasks, including flight safety, control,
navigation, weapons delivery, flight test, and flight research. These quantities generally need to
be measured and then calibrated to remove errors. The techniques and procedures have been only
briefly described here; numerous references should be studied if airdata values are to be measured and calibrated."

http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000221/01/104316.pdf (http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000221/01/104316.pdf)

Conclusion - The Flight Data Recorder doesnt have any errors in terms of air data (altitude, airspeed). Those errors are removed during calibration testing for certification.

[TheGrunion]

Hi All,

Here are some things I found interesting on their forum.






Errors.

Why do you find this interesting? Do you agree with the stated conclusion?

[Dog Town]

We were just victims of a JDX drive by!

[DavidJames]

Hi All,

Here are some things I found interesting on their forum.
Some of this has been addressed in detail here. Care to respond or pass it along to the author of your quotes?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369

[weedwacker]

We were just victims of a JDX drive by!


Haha, You think I'm JDX? How many other "JDX's" do you have over here? I bet anyone who quotes their forum must be "JDX".

I haven't read the other threads I was posting on over here, but I'm sure some people probably think I'm JDX.

I haven't had much time to play online, but I thought I would drop by and see what was new. I came across this thread and posted some quotes I read the other day. Do with it what you will.

[weedwacker]

Some of this has been addressed in detail here. Care to respond or pass it along to the author of your quotes?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369


I briefly looked over there. It doesn't account for the less than 1 G after :44-:45.

It looks like JDX has accounted for the 1.7 G pull in the 1440 fpm decrease in decent rate.

Anti-So says we needed 3 G's to pull out of that dive. 3 G's is no where to be found on the FDR data.

[Dog Town]

I just meant it was his info, we were sprayed. Chill!

[TheGrunion]

Are you going to answer my questions Weedwacker?

[weedwacker]

This quote says it all by Anti-Sophist.

There are a few other explainations, as well, but yours sounds plausible. I'm not an expert on how to interpret this data, but simple things can effect G-forces.

[DavidJames]

I briefly looked over there. It doesn't account for the less than 1 G after :44-:45.

It looks like JDX has accounted for the 1.7 G pull in the 1440 fpm decrease in decent rate.

Anti-So says we needed 3 G's to pull out of that dive. 3 G's is no where to be found on the FDR data.
yawn - Why don't you actually present the quotes and address them in an intelligent manner rather then this, pilotboy.

[Anti-sophist]

JDX is mixing data on the flight recorder assuming all of it that has the time-stamp actually occured at the same time. There are a million and one reasons to conclude that the RECORDED time is not the same as the MEASURED time.

There is AMPLE evidence of this, in the data itself. I will provide more details as the time goes.

You need to, before combining multiple sources of data, correct for time shifts.

Furthermore, there is evidence that this data comes from a fixed-frequency PCM stream, and, in the form the data is presented, does not translate into a fixed-frequency PCM stream. In other words, somewhere along in the processing or preprocessing of this data, time-information has been lost.

[R.Mackey]

Hi All,

Here are some things I found interesting on their forum.
Yep, quite interesting just how wrong they all are...

Conclusion - This descent rate is impossible to have been accomplished if the aircraft was low enough to hit the poles. It would have dug itself into the ground long before getting to the pentagon. 5247fpm is also not enough to have hit the pentagon from the altitude recorded by the Flight Data Recorder.
Conclusion is wrong. See Anti-Sophist's chart showing height vs. distance downrange.

The calculation is showing how much the rate of descent fluctuated in the last three seconds before the end of the recording. It clearly shows just how rapidly the aircraft could adjust its trajectory. Yet here John Doe X (I presume) is saying (a) it was too high to hit the Pentagon with "that rate of descent" and (b) it would have been too low had it hit the poles.

Ridiculous. You can't extract a three second record and use that to bound the entire flight path. The aircraft had way more performance than that, and what we see in the last three seconds is absolutely 100% consistent with last-second corrections on a high-speed collision course. The author is either attempting to deceive, or gifted with an uncommon immunity to logical thought.

Using a more accurate descent rate based on G Force.

Official Impact time of 09:37:45.
Speed used - 784ft/sec
Descent rate = 5247 fpm = 87.5 ft/sec. (based on G Force recorded between :44-:45)

"More Accurate" indeed. Now he takes a single second out of the FDR, uses that to assume an even steeper straight line descent -- but still insists on a straight line -- and surprise! the flight plan doesn't match up.

Why would anyone make not one, but two such absurd assumptions?

Conclusion - The Flight Data Recorder doesnt have any errors in terms of air data (altitude, airspeed). Those errors are removed during calibration testing for certification.
The conclusion is totally wrong. We've already read that paper, which was produced by NASA Dryden, sister center to where I work, and it shows that there are sources of error. It gives ways to compensate for them. Ways, verily, that John Doe X does not understand and does not use in his derivation.

So yes, quite interesting. It gives a rare glimpse into just how technically ignorant they are over there. And how desperate to defend their already laughable theory that Flight 77 somehow missed the Pentagon, and that throngs and throngs of people participated in this grand coverup, enough to fool everyone in the world except Mr. John Doe X -- a true patriot who, despite his inability to calculate a simple parabola or propagate errors, is the only one gifted enough to expose the FDR data for what it truly is: A falsification, almost perfect, but with "subtle flaws" deliberately left in, a final mocking touch of the NWO supervillains, the telltale signature... of the Twilight Zone.

[weedwacker]

Are you going to answer my questions Weedwacker?


I'm still researching. But JDX's work is starting to make sense, although it doesn't make sense with the official story. I have contacted a few people I know and we are still working on it. I have a feeling the FDR might be a fake. That is the only way I can explain it right now. If it is a fake, the NTSB has a real problem releasing fake data through the FOIA.

[TheGrunion]

I briefly looked over there. It doesn't account for the less than 1 G after :44-:45.

It looks like JDX has accounted for the 1.7 G pull in the 1440 fpm decrease in decent rate.

Anti-So says we needed 3 G's to pull out of that dive. 3 G's is no where to be found on the FDR data.

I can't speak for others, but I don't believe that too many people on this board are all that interested in what JDX has to say. He has zero credibility. Heck, things have gotten so bad for him that he's been completely marginalized on the Loose Change Boards. The CT'ers appear to be supporting what is being brought forward by Russell Pickering instead.

Apparently you couldn't get JDX to show up here. Maybe you could try to get Russell Pickering over here instead?

[R.Mackey]

I'm still researching. But JDX's work is starting to make sense, although it doesn't make sense with the official story. I have contacted a few people I know and we are still working on it. I have a feeling the FDR might be a fake. That is the only way I can explain it right now. If it is a fake, the NTSB has a real problem releasing fake data through the FOIA.

There's nothing to research. Your math is wrong, plain and simple. Math cannot be falsified in a way that will withstand scrutiny.

[weedwacker]

The conclusion is totally wrong. We've already read that paper, which was produced by NASA Dryden, sister center to where I work, and it shows that there are sources of error. It gives ways to compensate for them. Ways, verily, that John Doe X does not understand and does not use in his derivation.


All aircraft go through certification. Errors are present in a raw static system. Flight testing is performed to remove those errors. Lives depend on it.

The G Forces were recorded 8 times per second. The 1440 fpm decrease in descent rate is accounted for in the FDR in terms of G Force. It cross-checks. No where does it show enough G's to pull out of that dive to be level across the lawn as shown in the DoD video. Still trying to find out why.

It would be so much easier if the Pentagon would just release a video tape of an American Airlines 757 hitting the pentagon.

[weedwacker]

There's nothing to research. Your math is wrong, plain and simple. Math cannot be falsified in a way that will withstand scrutiny.


Its not my math. Show what math is wrong. Until then you sound alot like Cheney. You say its wrong, but that doesn't make it so.

[Dog Town]

Ok... if you aren't JDX, you are memorex(TM)! You spout all his pet BS! All I'm say'en!

[R.Mackey]

All aircraft go through certification. Errors are present in a raw static system. Flight testing is performed to remove those errors. Lives depend on it.

The G Forces were recorded 8 times per second. The 1440 fpm decrease in descent rate is accounted for in the FDR in terms of G Force. It cross-checks. No where does it show enough G's to pull out of that dive to be level across the lawn as shown in the DoD video. Still trying to find out why.

It would be so much easier if the Pentagon would just release a video tape of an American Airlines 757 hitting the pentagon.
Not really, because you yahoos would just say it was "faked," or a hologram, or something...

Flight 77 was operating out of calibration. Too fast and too low. Oops, there goes that theory.

I've already pointed that out to John Doe X, through fellow sycophant Skeptic4Sure. Guess what, the FDR has inaccuracies in it. Your disbelief does not change that.

And your math is still wrong.

[R.Mackey]

Its not my math. Show what math is wrong. Until then you sound alot like Cheney. You say its wrong, but that doesn't make it so.

John Doe X is assuming a straight line trajectory.

It's wrong. QED.

Call me whatever you like, it doesn't make your story so.

[Anti-sophist]

This quote says it all by Anti-Sophist.

You should be careful, weedwacker, because you don't know my full background, and you just might step on a "knowledge" landmine. For the sake of full disclosure, I worked for a year in data recording for the USAF. I've personally designed boxes to fit into F15s to record analog/bus data. I know exactly what and how avionic data aquisition works, and on what principles.

I know more than you think I know. I am as close to an expert you are going to find on in-flight data-aquisition, around here, but even I am not comfortable speaking expertly on "crash" FDRs. They are slightly different than the full data aq. I worked on for military tests, but the premise remains wholly the same. I dealt with the same manufacturers, and the same standards. If you want me to get into Chapter 2, Chapter 7 or Chapter 10 of the IRIG standard, I will.

I, unlike your quoted "expert", also know what I do not know. Here is one thing I will say with utmost certainty:

Neither JDX, nor I, are capable of properly deciphering the FDR data, especially as given.

Without the help of Boeing (or other similar experts from the FAA, or NTSB), any such analysis is suspect, and crude. Furthermore, the data in the current format is not raw. It has been, obviously, processed in some capacity, and I believe not all of the necesary information for a full reconstruction is contained within it.

[weedwacker]

Wow, they're all coming out of the woodwork. It's like a gang rape. I can only imagine if JDX tried to come over here. Post after post saying "You're wrong". haha.

The data is there. AS, you said yourself you are not an expert. I'm just quoting you.

The data does show the aircraft too high to hit the light poles. The G forces do not show this aircraft pulling out of the dive. If there was any altimeter lag, you have to account for increased descent rate. JDX might be an ass to you people (I'm starting to see why, I haven't done anything and I'm being treated like crap), but his calculations make sense based on the data.

I'm thinking the data may be fake. If it is, the NTSB/FBI has a real problem.


Good day all.

[Anti-sophist]

Using a more accurate descent rate based on G Force.

Official Impact time of 09:37:45.
Speed used - 784ft/sec
Descent rate = 5247 fpm = 87.5 ft/sec. (based on G Force recorded between :44-:45)

Pole 1 distance from impact hole = 1012 feet/784 = 1.30 seconds
Pole 2 = 886 feet/784 = 1.13 seconds
Pole 3 = 708 feet/784 = .90 seconds
Pole 4 = 598 feet/784 = .76 seconds
Pole 5 = 467 feet/784 = .60 seconds

Pole 1 height in MSL = 74.5 MSL
Pole 1 aircraft height = 87.5(1.3 seconds)+10.38 impact hole height + 38' MSL at pentagon = 162.13 MSL at pole 1
Aircraft was 87.63 feet above Pole 1

Wow. I didn't even read this closely enough. His calculation has gotten worse. He is using acceleration during the final second, to calculate slope of his linear trajectory (which means you assume no accleration).

Let me repeat that. He is using the ACCELERATION in the final second, to calculate the slope of his line, which assumes NO ACCELERATION.

One more time.. err.. you get the point, I hope.
---

Even still, the FDR data doesn't let you just line things up horizontally and assume they happened at the same time.. this is just pure fallacy. The recoreded time does not equal the measured time. You must correct for this if you are going to combine data from "different" columns. He is combining 3 different sensors: altimeter, airspeed, accelerometer. He has made no effort to adjust them in time properly.

[Anti-sophist]

The data is there. AS, you said yourself you are not an expert. I'm just quoting you.


Neither is JDX. The data IS there, and you are believing a fraud. I am not an expert (that is the truth), and neither is he. Both of us are amatuers trying to repoduce work that should be done by professionals.

The difference? I have the mathematical, technical, and professional experience to know what something like this requires... he is literally making it up as he goes along, using bad science, and poor math.

[R.Mackey]

The data does show the aircraft too high to hit the light poles. The G forces do not show this aircraft pulling out of the dive. If there was any altimeter lag, you have to account for increased descent rate. JDX might be an ass to you people (I'm starting to see why, I haven't done anything and I'm being treated like crap), but his calculations make sense based on the data.
You're being handled roughly because you're defending a derivation I could have dismantled in third grade. Since you've added no critical thought, you appear to be a cheerleader for John Doe X. This does not endear you to us, since his clumsiness and fabrications are his excuse to falsely accuse thousands of people, and stain the memory of hundreds who died.

His calculations make no sense. We can explain this to you if you're interested. Entirely up to you.

[R.Mackey]

Wow. I didn't even read this closely enough. His calculation has gotten worse. He is using acceleration during the final second, to calculate slope of his linear trajectory (which means you assume no accleration).

Yup. Pretty awful, huh. I'm beginning to think none of those guys have ever even heard of a "parabola."

You worked F-15? Good deal... I worked F-15 propulsion briefly, doing research for JSF. Spent some time last year with F/A-18 and its air data bus. Not my main line, though.

Still, it takes nothing more than simple algebra to see what's wrong with John Doe X's story.

[bignickel]

WW, last week (or the week before, I forget which), you said you would take a look at JDX's site, look at the data and math, and get back to us on it. I advised in my posts that we wait until you did before jumping the gun and stating "WW is..." I believe everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Since then, have you posted in a thread yet your analysis of JDX's site and/or math? If not, at what point will you do so? No pressure, I know everyone has a RL to deal with, but a timeframe would be nice.

Looking forward to your critique.

(BTW - "It looks good" isn't the analysis we're looking for)

EDITED: I think "Post after post saying "You're wrong because..."" is really what you wanted to say here.

[Anti-sophist]

Like I said, I am conducting a more "scientific" analysis of the FDR data.. here is something I ran across very early when trying to validate my data (insane concept, I know)

It basically removes the entire premise of this new argument, outright.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65819


You worked F-15? Good deal... I worked F-15 propulsion briefly, doing research for JSF. Spent some time last year with F/A-18 and its air data bus. Not my main line, though.


Alot of C/D, some E, even got to work on an S model, which was fun. We were doing alot of testing and support for f-22 testing out of Tyndall. I was at Eglin. Apparently 15Cs make good fake-22s as platforms. I didn't really know what the testing was, beyond the fact that they needed data, and it was my job to instrument the aircraft to give it to them.

[jhunter1163]

I've just been reading the debunking of JDX's stuff again, and all I can say is... wow. I mean, it's one thing to say something is bull(rule8), but it's another entirely to not only say it, but to say which bull it came from, when it was dumped, and how bad it smells in ppm of CH4, which is what R. Mackey and Anti-Sophist have done. I salute you both.

[R.Mackey]

Like I said, I am conducting a more "scientific" analysis of the FDR data.. here is something I ran across very early when trying to validate my data (insane concept, I know)
Exactly. I brought that point up to Skeptic4Sure when that particular sock^W^W^W he was conversing with John Doe X, but John Doe X's answers suggested that he didn't understand what I was talking about.

Big surprise.

Alot of C/D, some E, even got to work on an S model, which was fun. We were doing alot of testing and support for f-22 testing out of Tyndall. I was at Eglin. Apparently 15Cs make good fake-22s as platforms. I didn't really know what the testing was, beyond the fact that they needed data, and it was my job to instrument the aircraft to give it to them.
One F-15S (the IFCS (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/F-15B_IFCS/)) is housed at Dryden. I worked with one of its project managers, Mike Toberman, last year. Neat plane. Fly-by-wire, F-22 engines, vectored thrust and steerable canards made from F-18 (I think) tailplanes, adaptive control system. I might be lucky enough to experiment on that bird someday, if we can figure it out.

The work I do is very critical about time alignment in performance data. Working with the old Dryden F/A-18 (a pre-A model) gave us fits, since the time misalignment is so prevalent. I know exactly what you're talking about. We wound up having to build our own independent DAQ with its own timestamp capability, along with some sophisticated logic to detect staleness in the quasi-1553 bus. ah well. Got it done. Made us think, made us deliver a better product.

Good to see so many actual engineers and scientists on this site. I'm pretty confident JREF vs. the "9/11 Scholars for Truth" would be mercifully quick.

[LashL]

I've just been reading the debunking of JDX's stuff again, and all I can say is... wow. I mean, it's one thing to say something is bull(rule8), but it's another entirely to not only say it, but to say which bull it came from, when it was dumped, and how bad it smells in ppm of CH4, which is what R. Mackey and Anti-Sophist have done. I salute you both.

Indeed. Kudos to R. Mackey and Anti-Sophist.

It's rather humorous to see JDX sockpuppets come along every once in a while to mine for information from people who actually do know what they're talking about so that the D'oh Boy can continue his pretense to knowledge and understanding that he clearly does not possess.

Even more humorous is the fact that it's as predictable as rising gas prices on the Friday of a long weekend. The sock drawer gets a workout whenever the D'oh Boy starts to feel neglected by the loosers and whenever he starts to feel depressed about the failure of his pilots for troof site.

[Obviousman]

This reminds me, does anyone know whether any data-sheet or even model of the actual FDR used in Flight 77?

Loral Fairchild SSFDR Model F-2100

[pgwenthold]

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

Can someone please answer the obvious question, then?

What DID strike down the light poles, if it weren't the plane that hit the building?

[StoneWT]

How many active members (same person with multiple accounts does not count) does his TROOF site have now? 10, 11, maybe 12?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Wow, they're all coming out of the woodwork. It's like a gang rape. I can only imagine if JDX tried to come over here. Post after post saying "You're wrong". haha.

The data is there. AS, you said yourself you are not an expert. I'm just quoting you.

The data does show the aircraft too high to hit the light poles. The G forces do not show this aircraft pulling out of the dive. If there was any altimeter lag, you have to account for increased descent rate. JDX might be an ass to you people (I'm starting to see why, I haven't done anything and I'm being treated like crap), but his calculations make sense based on the data.

I'm thinking the data may be fake. If it is, the NTSB/FBI has a real problem.


Good day all.

http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000221/01/104316.pdf

I think you should take a closer look into the calibration perimeters of the aircraft, if fighter jets have problems with altimeter readings at low altitude at high speeds then what happens to commercial aircraft?

[Dog Town]

Poor Russell's adventures in JDX world.

JDX,

Hey I have an idea.

Would you be willing to allow 2 JREFer's limited access to a debate thread with you on the FDR data?

Some of us here just don't get exposed to a second opinion on this stuff.

When you compared me to them and suggested I go over there, I did some reading. Some of them appear to be employed in the aerospace industry and pretty knowledgeable.

They have some ideas and formulas that indicate some different conclusions that seem reasonable.

As you've pointed out I am not that bright at this aerospace stuff and a couple of others have been told they don't know what they're talking about either. Since those of us here are not exposed to this stuff much, I thought it might help us understand the issues better.

We would know who they are and that they are taking the position of skeptics in advance. They would also only have limited access to the debate thread and would not "troll" the boards.

It seems like a good idea and with the facts you would be able to convince them of your interpretation of the data putting this all to rest.

Would you be open to doing that?

Is anybody else interested in seeing an open discussion like this? The truth has nothing to fear.

Russell


JDX then goes on a tirade! Facing none of RP's ideas!

[jsiv]

How many active members (same person with multiple accounts does not count) does his TROOF site have now? 10, 11, maybe 12?
He claims to have 50 aviation experts (30 of which are pilots) in his Pilots for Truth organization. That was a while ago though, and as he claims more and more people are joining, it should probably be closer to 80 now! You'd think some of them would make the occasional post on his forum, but the only people posting there seems to be him and a couple of "laymen" from the Loose Change forum.

[TheGrunion]

JDX,

Hey I have an idea.

Would you be willing to allow 2 JREFer's limited access to a debate thread with you on the FDR data?

Some of us here just don't get exposed to a second opinion on this stuff.

When you compared me to them and suggested I go over there, I did some reading. Some of them appear to be employed in the aerospace industry and pretty knowledgeable.

They have some ideas and formulas that indicate some different conclusions that seem reasonable.

As you've pointed out I am not that bright at this aerospace stuff and a couple of others have been told they don't know what they're talking about either. Since those of us here are not exposed to this stuff much, I thought it might help us understand the issues better.

We would know who they are and that they are taking the position of skeptics in advance. They would also only have limited access to the debate thread and would not "troll" the boards.

It seems like a good idea and with the facts you would be able to convince them of your interpretation of the data putting this all to rest.

Would you be open to doing that?

Is anybody else interested in seeing an open discussion like this? The truth has nothing to fear.

Russell


This appears to have been deleted on the LC boards already. The truth may not have anything to fear, but apparently the TROOF does.

[Hellbound]

We should extend an invite to Russell, if no one has yet. Unlike many of the "troofers", he actually does seem interested in investigating, rather than confirming a foregone conclusion.

[Dog Town]

This appears to have been deleted on the LC boards already. The truth may not have anything to fear, but apparently the TROOF does.

Nah, it's still there.
pentagon> opendiscussion suggestion - by Russ.

[DavidJames]

We should extend an invite to Russell, if no one has yet. Unlike many of the "troofers", he actually does seem interested in investigating, rather than confirming a foregone conclusion.Sort of. He believes a version of CT that the plane that hit the Pentagon was remote controlled. But I agree, he is open to actual evidence changing his mind. He's gone from a no plane hit the Pentagon to remote contolled plane. He's a CTist at heart, but he's got a brain and he does allow his brain to overturn his heart.

He's unique in that respect at LC.

[DavidJames]

Russell Pickering continues his quest for a open discussion in the " Official Story Officially Debunked, Better than any witness or FDR" thread in the Pentagon forum.

JDX continues his dodge and weave. (Run away little johnny, run away)

[DavidJames]

Just posted in the (irony alert) "Open Discussion Suggestion" forum

I just banned Anti-sophist. For being an admitted JREFer. JREFers are not welcome on this forum.

I repeat, JREFers are not welcome here.

Anyone who talks on their forum about alerting the FBI, NSA, CIA to the LC forum in hope of shutting this place down and seeing some of us killed (yes, they really were talking about that over there), or anyone that associates with people of that mind-set, are not welcome here. Period. In case anyone didn't get the memo.

JREFers will be banned on sight. As I just did. We welcome skeptics, but not JREFers.

Thank you all for your consideration.

asshat.

Nice job JDX - Did you get Sanders to do your dirty work?

[Anti-sophist]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16466

Haha, that has to be a new record.

Here, in it's entirity, is my post:


Hi, my name is Anti-sophist.

I worked as an instrumentation engineer with the USAF (as a civilian). I'll be happy to look at your calculations in detail (I've already done so, repeatedly, in a shallow respect), and give you my honest evaluation. For the sake of full disclosure: I am a "skeptic" by every definition of the word, and a JREFer by you all's definition. However, none of those affiliations are paramount to my role as an engineer or scientist. I draw conclusions based on the evidence, and if the evidence changes, so will my conclusions. I consider my "skepticism" to be the the result of looking at the evidence, not the bias I bring to its analysis. You'll need to judge my honesty, for yourself, over time.

My only "rules" for any "debate" is that the goal is to get the science right, first, and draw conclusions last. Also, the debate needs to be about the science, and intellectually honest. I'm not in the business of sophistry or propaganda... getting the science right is all that should matter. Under those conditions, I'm willing to participate in any debate and/or discussion.

My expertise has to do with data aquisition systems, pcm data, and recording/telemetry devices. I've worked with tape and solid-state recorders, although never "crash survivable" ones. I do not claim to be an expert on issues like "pressure altitude" sensors and its calibration with respect to air speeds and lag and all that other stuff. That wasn't my business. My business was, very specifically, in reading data from instruments, storing the data returned, and telemetry. As such, any error related to the instrument must be dealt with post-decoding of the PCM data.

As such, I'm willing to discuss, specifically the FDR data. The CSV file released by the NTSB is the only data I have in possession. I understand there is also a '.fdr' file floating around which may contain raw data. If someone could provide me a link to that, I'd be happy to download that. Furthermore, does there exist, anywhere, the major-frame description of this raw data?



Banned. Who is afraid of the truth now?

[DavidJames]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16466

Haha, that has to be a new record.

Here, in it's entirity, is my post:



Banned. Who is afraid of the truth now?Would you be willing to do the same thing at JDX's forum? At least there it would be obvious that it was his ax doing the dirty work.

[Anti-sophist]

Would you be willing to do the same thing at JDX's forum? At least there it would be obvious that it was his ax doing the dirty work.


Maybe. However, it took him not 10 minutes to attack my credibility based on absolutely no evidence, as soon as I was gone. Feel free to read my posts, and his response, which is basically an attack on me personally.

They have severe misunderstandings on how FDR data is collected, buffered, and recorded into a PCM stream, and I was perfectly willing to teach them the inner workings in order to more accurately interpret the CSV file... but, alas... "truth" strikes again.

[DavidJames]

Maybe. However, it took him not 10 minutes to attack my credibility based on absolutely no evidence, as soon as I was gone. Feel free to read my posts, and his response, which is basically an attack on me personally.

They have severe misunderstandings on how FDR data is collected, buffered, and recorded into a PCM stream, and I was perfectly willing to teach them the inner workings in order to more accurately interpret the CSV file... but, alas... "truth" strikes again.I read all the posts, you were civil, polite and professional. JDX is an immature idiot, that goes without saying and I'm betting he had Sanders ban you before you embarrassed him further. I'm guessing though, he would never even let you register at his forum. Then deny or ignore any comments about it.

[TheGrunion]

Maybe. However, it took him not 10 minutes to attack my credibility based on absolutely no evidence, as soon as I was gone. Feel free to read my posts, and his response, which is basically an attack on me personally.

They have severe misunderstandings on how FDR data is collected, buffered, and recorded into a PCM stream, and I was perfectly willing to teach them the inner workings in order to more accurately interpret the CSV file... but, alas... "truth" strikes again.

You did good for the brief time you were over there :) .

Getting the admins to behave that poorly that quickly is probably a much more effective "debunk" than the debate in which you were prepared to engage.

[R.Mackey]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16466

Haha, that has to be a new record.

Here, in it's entirity, is my post:

[...]

Banned. Who is afraid of the truth now?

Actually, I think the Loosers have banned people who haven't even gotten a single post off, so I don't think you set the record. Sorry.

Anyway, this all goes to show quite clearly why the "challenge" issued is bunk. They control the field, they have a track record of juvenility when it comes to conversation. There's absolutely nothing for us to gain.

I sympathize with Russell Pickering. While I admit he and I will probably differ wildly on some other aspects of Sept. 11th, his requests for a more intelligent discussion over there, along with his reasons why, are spot on. The whole reason the Loose Change forum is a joke is because they only allow particularly rabid, self-reinforcing viewpoints. Pilots for Trooth is a joke because there's nobody there.

Banning indiscriminately does not improve one's arguments.

John Doe X also needs to understand that it doesn't really matter to us -- to me, anyway -- whether or not we can convince him. His stubbornness is completely out of our control.

All I want, as an honest researcher, is to say to myself, without any self-deception, that I have fairly considered all scientific viewpoints, and I have come up with the most accurate theory that I can. In this vein, I have considered John Doe X's arguments, and rejected them, for a variety of fundamental mathematical and physical reasons. It's up to him to do better. It's not up to me to seek him out in his lair. I've got what I want.

So unless he poses a real challenge -- an intellectual challenge -- he can have his loony opinions. Baiting us to debate on his forum, under his rules, is simply asinine.

[DavidJames]

Looks like JDX is coming out of the CT closet reguarding the Pentagon:A bombing run is something of my personal opinon when i take ALL the facts into consideration. The physical damage and FDR. (Combined with the fact i have flown sims on many bombing engagements using CCIP). I rarely share it publicly.

[Anti-sophist]

Actually, I think the Loosers have banned people who haven't even gotten a single post off, so I don't think you set the record. Sorry.


Oh well. I still get my badge, right?

[DavidJames]

Russ started a thread titled: "Flight Path Submission, for criticism and review."

Great reading, not for his analysis, but for the cat fight between him and JDX. Looks like JDX is reading emails sent to Russ via the website. JDX is one amazing paranoid looser.

[Gravy]

Looks like JDX is coming out of the CT closet reguarding the Pentagon:
I wish he had stayed in. What an absolute howling moron.

[jsiv]

Looks like JDX is coming out of the CT closet reguarding the Pentagon:
What does "flown sims on many bombing engagements using CCIP" mean?

He sure likes his acronyms and technical lingo doesn't he? Has anyone reminded him that he's talking to mostly laymen?

[jhunter1163]

I bet it means Command and Conquer Internet Protocol. Probably the closest he's ever been to a real plane.

[jhunter1163]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16559&st=30

On the second page, JDX admits that the LC admins regularly read posters' PMs. For some reason, this really annoys me. I guess it's the utter hypocrisy.. they read people's PRIVATE messages, then have the unmitigated gall to call others fascists. I should stop reading those threads. They're bad for my blood pressure.

[Gravy]

What does "flown sims on many bombing engagements using CCIP" mean?

He sure likes his acronyms and technical lingo doesn't he? Has anyone reminded him that he's talking to mostly laymen?
He thinks spouting acronyms makes him smart. CCIP is Continuously Calculated Impact Point, a method of bombing where the pilot releases gravity bombs based on cues in the cockpit head-up display (HUD). Sim is flight simulator software (i.e. video games for JDX).

[mrfreeze]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16559&st=30

On the second page, JDX admits that the LC admins regularly read posters' PMs. For some reason, this really annoys me. I guess it's the utter hypocrisy.. they read people's PRIVATE messages, then have the unmitigated gall to call others fascists. I should stop reading those threads. They're bad for my blood pressure.

He admitted to reading an e-mail that was either sent to or by Russell Pickering to another member using the boards e-mail function. To make sure that "No one was breaking the Invision TOS". Then he posted it.

[jsiv]

He thinks spouting acronyms makes him smart. CCIP is Continuously Calculated Impact Point, a method of bombing where the pilot releases gravity bombs based on cues in the cockpit head-up display (HUD). Sim is flight simulator software (i.e. video games for JDX).
Ah right, the only thing I could find on Google was a "Common Configuration Implementation Program" for the F-16, which didn't make much sense in that context.

So, uhm, he's basing his expert opinion (in part) on the fact that he has flown bombers in a computer game? I mean, I can't see any reason why he would have flown actual military simulators "on many bombing missions." He has no (claimed) military experience, does he? I guess it's not really important, I just thought it was a weird thing to say.

Does he actually think that they dropped a bomb on the Pentagon? What about the debris, including the light poles? Did they drop that out of a plane on a "bombing run" as well? Fine, it could be possible... But would they really take the FDR from the plane that dropped the bombs, delete the part where it flies over the Pentagon, and then try to pass it off as the real thing?

Come on, no human could possibly be that stupid. I'm sure the people who make the recorders have the means to stream simulated data to one for testing purposes without even leaving their desk. If you read this, John, do you seriously expect us to believe that The Man couldn't properly fake one of the most important pieces of evidence? Give me a break.

Oh well, I can see why he doesn't share his theory very often... IT MAKES NO FRIGGIN' SENSE!

[jsiv]

He admitted to reading an e-mail that was either sent to or by Russell Pickering to another member using the boards e-mail function. To make sure that "No one was breaking the Invision TOS". Then he posted it.
Is he really so paranoid that he has to go through other people's private messages to see if they're talking about him?

Hehehe.

:dc_biggrin::dc_tongue::dc_shocked::dc_unhappy:

[R.Mackey]

Is he really so paranoid that he has to go through other people's private messages to see if they're talking about him?
Apparently so...

Emails sent through this site are not private. The disclaimer is right on the message box. So Russ, what is the evidence you are trying to suppress?
As if any further reason was needed why their fora are ignoble places to debate. I don't understand why anyone puts up with that crap.

Mr. Doe X also demonstrates some further ignorance of basic aircraft performance... I still don't have any evidence of whether he's a pilot or not, but he's pretty darn stupid when it comes to the practicals of aerospace engineering:

Listen up all, Russ thinks a 757 has a roll rate better than an F/A-18 Hornet!

Russ, psssst... that airplane is 1 second away from the pentagon wall, according to the NTSB. Unfortunately, it also needs a descent rate in excess for even the Space Shuttle looking at that animation and altitude.
(it also appears Russ ignores the fact i already told him the roll angle is one of the few parameters recorded up to the reported impact time of :45 and shows a RIGHT BANK ANGLE)

Keep playing dumb Russ.. what was that. .number 19 on the disinfo list?
Does anyone have any idea what the F/A-18 roll rate claim is about? The F/A-18 roll rate is something like 220o per second (quoted in High-Tech Warfare, Richardson, Gunston, and Hogg, Salamander Books 1991), I find it extremely hard to believe anything in the FDR or any single witness statement requires this kind of performance!

And on the Space Shuttle, Mr. Doe X has it precisely backwards. In terms of maneuverability, the Space Shuttle is about the worst performing aircraft since the Spruce Goose. The fact that it indeed does have a high initial rate of descent, yet doesn't smack into the ground, proves that even it is capable of pulling out of its dive. Any commercial airliner, therefore, could do the same.

Debating Mr. Doe X would be like taking candy from a baby, if his fingers weren't on the controls.

[Obviousman]

I agree its real or its fake.

But just because its real does not mean it wasnt planted or recorded remotely, ....

That's gold, DOH!

Straight to the pool room with that one!

[Obviousman]

More gold!

I've always believed that the light poles were dropped from the C130, based on the eyewitness evidence that said, 'debris rained down for some time after'.

[mrfreeze]

JDX is no longer an admin by the way. Apparently Dylan removed him.

[apathoid]

More gold!


I've always believed that the light poles were dropped from the C130, based on the eyewitness evidence that said, 'debris rained down for some time after'.

:eye-poppi Oh my good God!!