A message from JDX/Rob Balsamo of Pilots for truth

[Gravy]

I'll print my reply first:

I was told the thread was deleted. It may as well have been, because I "do not have permission to view that topic"

You had accepted my challenge of a debate. The challenge was: my evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon against yours that it didn't. That IS what's important, isn't it, Rob? That the hijacked plane hit the building and killed all those people? I posted my suggested format on your forum.

You want debate that includes technical subjects to take place entirely during a recorded phone call? Gee, I wonder why scientific papers aren't presented that way. That's nonsensical and you know it.

Final chance: do you accept this debate on my very simple terms? Yes or no?

Paranoid threats and childish name-calling will never, ever make you right, Rob.

Yes or no?


Mr. Balsamo's email to me
On 3/19/07, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:You're such an idiot... i love it when you do stuff like this..

(got bored this morning and took a gander at your gossip forum)

1. The thread was not deleted idiot...
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4467
all 7 pages... but im not surprised you arent very observant.

2. I have accepted your debate.. your observation skills are so lacking its pathetic...
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4555&hl=

Title "Mark Roberts is Confused"
I have accepted his challenge numerous times to debate (although it was my challenge initially. .it seems Mark declined that challenge by default and tried a bait and switch tactic). Mark Roberts seems he wants an internet debate. I dont have time for that.. so i decline his internet debate.

But i will debate Mark Roberts on a recorded phone call regarding the claims/analysis i have done with the FDR. It seems Mark Roberts cannot debate the FDR, so i have included Anti-Sophist and Apathoid.

Mark Roberts says pilotsfor911truth.org (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/) makes the claim that AA77 did not hit the pentagon. I have asked him to quote this claim we supposedly made from our website, he hasnt.

Mark Roberts does make the claim that AA77 hit the pentagon. I say excellent. Prove it to us as the NTSB and FBI doesnt seem very forthcoming with answers nor do they feel the need to prove it to real professionals or family members/victims.

Since Mark Roberts is lying about our claims and trying a bait and switch tactic.. we accpet his attempts at 'debating us' regarding his claim that AA77 hit the pentagon. We look forward to him proving to us that AA77 hit the pentagon. We still await his email... he has not emailed us to date.

Once again.. we accept his challenge based on his claims.. (repeated since it seems Mark didnt comprehend the first 20 times).

We await your email Mark. We refuse an internet debate as we dont have the time to waste with you punching our keyboard. We will put time aside to have a professional, recorded 'debate'.

Mark is not banned from this site and can read this message. If he refuses to come here to read, please feel free to forward it in its entirety.

Also, if anyone has Mark's email address... i will send the same to his email as it seems he doesnt know how to email me at pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org.

Once again, i accept Marks challenge to debate. Does Mark accept my challenge to debate the FDR analysis? He still refuses to email regarding my challenge. So i figure he declines.

Again.. i decline an internet debate as my time on the net is for research and correspondence with other professionals/friends. Does Mark decline a recorded phone call debate? (Anti-Sophist and apathoid can remain anonymous on a recorded line as we already know they are cowards).

Cheers!
Rob

Lets keep this simple shall we? -
Pilots for Truth Claim -
According to the FDR provided by the NTSB, The aircraft was too high to hit the light poles on highway 27 and if trends continue based on this information, also too high to hit the pentagon...
- proven in http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=3895 Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two

Mark Roberts (Gravy) Claim -
AA77 Struck the pentagon
-not proven, no positive identification has been established by Mark Roberts or the US Govt. We're waiting... You want a debate? Start with full point by point debunk of Pandora's Black Box...

Freakin moron..lol... get a life and stop trying to suppress people from question their govt.. a govt that constantly lies.

[JAStewart]

Start with full point by point debunk of Pandora's Black Box...

And he thinks you have enough time for that? That piece of rule8 debunks itself.

get a life and stop trying to suppress people from question their govt

"suppress people from question their govt"? (haha, 'from question')

When has mark done that, Robbie boy?

Debunking is not suppression. Idiot.

[T.A.M.]

Providing the physical evidence, and expert opinion on the various aspects of 9/11 doesn't seem like supression to me. As far as I can tell, that is what you do Mark, you do it very well, but I don't see you doing anything beyond providing the evidence, and debating the evidence provided by others.

TAM:)

[ref]

That's so childish of him it's unimaginable. He does nothing but namecalling. He is only willing to debate some technical FDR data and his own movie. What about all the evidence, Rob? Why not debate the damage, passengers, DNA, debris, eyewitnesses? No, Rob wants to debate only about some stuff only he claims to have understood, but doesn't. Argh.

ETA: And what's the deal with him and the recorded phone calls? He wants to do them with everyone.

[T.A.M.]

When he was over at LCF, as a mod, he did very little actual debating, so I suspect he does not, as he knows very little about the 9/11 attacks except the FDR issue.

TAM:)

[Anti-sophist]

According to the FDR provided by the NTSB, The aircraft was too high to hit the light poles on highway 27 and if trends continue based on this information, also too high to hit the pentagon...



Only when you assume infinite accuracy and precision and pay no regard to error, whatsoever. Adherence to the existence of phenomena at or beyond the edge of our detection capability is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

When Rob can establish the scientific and statistical significance of these deviations, wake me up. In the mean time, it's plain old pseudoscience.


Again.. i decline an internet debate as my time on the net is for research and correspondence with other professionals/friends. Does Mark decline a recorded phone call debate?


Science isn't discussed in "live recorded debates". When he wants a proper debate, he will publish his findings like the rest of the science community. I'll even forego the requirement that it be peer-reviewed.

If he is unwilling to publish his findings and all the necessary data to check his claims, his work is unscientific. We don't "trust" in Science. Especially not known liars with well established mental problems.

Furthermore, a live conversation would consist, entirely of me saying "No, you cannot claim that. Not within the justifiable precision of the measurement". Over and over. Maybe he'll mix in some off-topic references to NASA documents.

In the mean time, the only people that will listen will be truthers... and the only reason JDX is interested in such a high-profile event is to reclaim some of his status among the truthers where him and his no-planer friends have been relegated to the fringe of their own movement.

[Anti-sophist]

ETA: And what's the deal with him and the recorded phone calls? He wants to do them with everyone.

Just to reiterate. He wants material for upcoming videos, he wants reasons to get his name "in lights" around the conspirosphere. It's propaganda to help him and his status in the conspiracy community.

He's very hurt that he's been relegated to the fringes of his own fringe community. He's desperate for credibility.

[apathoid]

What, no death threats this time? He must be in a good mood.

[Horatius]

Just to reiterate. He wants material for upcoming videos, he wants reasons to get his name "in lights" around the conspirosphere. It's propaganda to help him and his status in the conspiracy community.

He's very hurt that he's been relegated to the fringes of his own fringe community. He's desperate for credibility.



Would one of the laywer-types here be able to write up some sort of contract, that would allow someone like Gravy to have control over how these recordings might be used, should they decide to have a go at it?

I certainly wouldn't want to allow them to record me if I suspected they'd do the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation they always do, but if we had some means to hold them to account for such acts, it might be worth the risk. Imagine a clear court decision holding that one of the leading twoofers had violated a contract by misrepresenting a debate. Wouldn't that be good?

[Anti-sophist]

Would one of the laywer-types here be able to write up some sort of contract, that would allow someone like Gravy to have control over how these recordings might be used, should they decide to have a go at it?


I'd insist on some form of agreement on the intellectually property and copy rights. I'll be damned if JDX is gonna quote-mine me and sell it in his next trashy video.

I've put aside any thought of an actual debate though, until he can meet the most basic requirements of science.. namely.. open and checkable work, (e-)published in written form. I'd also add that he starts acting like an adult. No one wants to debate Rob "TELL ME WHO YOU ARE SO I CAN FIGHT YOU" Balsamo.

[Calcas]

...one of the leading twoofers...

Wouldn't he like to think so.

[jaydeehess]

in a few minutes I will post the following to that thread on "Pilots for 911 Truth".

My proposal would completely eliminate the 'debate' and go right to the heart of any technical issue, that is to publish one's findings.

If you want to put your POV forward then perhaps developing a technical paper including all data and calculations done using that data and a statistical analysis showing the error margins would be the best way to go about it.

You do not seem in the least interested in addressing the issues surrounding the event on 9/11 at the Pentagon other than the FDR data so a technical paper would seem to be the logical way to go.

You have a video out that could be an appendum to the paper but the ONLY way to actually put any technical subject out there is to produce a technical analysis.

This would be devoid of all emotional references and stick entirely to the technical issues.

I am sure that you know of many aviation magazines that could be approached with such a paper. I also suggest Scientific American.

If your work is sound it will get published. If there are problems with the analysis then I believe that they will be passed on to you and undertow.

This path would avoid any 'pissing match', it would avoid any ad hominem attacks that are sure to bog down any debate, and it ensures that the technical aspects are conveyed to the public. The latter of which is simply not possible in a telephone debate. It is not possible to show the FDR data and the calculations done using that data in a verbal debate.

This would of course require that undertow overcome his puzzling reluctance to relaese the work he performed for review. Certainly the same data is available to all (or at least so says undertow and I have no reason to disbelieve that claim) but what is required is the method by which this data was utilized. that is only possible to disseminate in a manner that allows claculations and references to be displayed.

Now this may take a while since all of my posts must be reviewed by a mod at P4T before they are posted.

My prediction is that one of the following will result;

a) the post never gets posted in the thread or gets posted as a new thread so that anyone reading it will have to search to find the context in which it was written
b) it gets posted but edited by jdx or another mod (edited also reffering to additions to what I said
c) it will get posted and jdx/undertow will refuse the suggestion and either offer lame excuses why, or give no reason whatsoever why they won't even bother to try it.

I also predict my upcoming banning at P4T and a thorough slagging by the usual suspects at P4T

[Gravy]

Would one of the laywer-types here be able to write up some sort of contract, that would allow someone like Gravy to have control over how these recordings might be used, should they decide to have a go at it?

I certainly wouldn't want to allow them to record me if I suspected they'd do the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation they always do, but if we had some means to hold them to account for such acts, it might be worth the risk. Imagine a clear court decision holding that one of the leading twoofers had violated a contract by misrepresenting a debate. Wouldn't that be good?
My stipulation to Balsamo was that all debate negotiations, and the debate itself, be in writing on the internet, for all to see. Simple. He doesn't seem to be aware that I have a huge volume of evidence on my side.

Rob, since you're reading this, you claim that I said Pilots for Truth claims that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I don't recall saying that, but it's certainly the impression that I get from you, Rob Balsamo. You seem desperate to find any evidence that confirms your beliefs...so desperate that you've twice called for my execution, although you've never once shown that I've gotten anything wrong.

I haven't seen your video, so I don't know where you leave that question. So what is your position, Rob? Based on all the evidence that's publicly available, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Dylan Avery doesn't have the courage to answer that question. I hope you do.

[ref]

Based on all the evidence that's publicly available, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Dylan Avery doesn't have the courage to answer that question. I hope you do.

Answering yes to that question would kill a huge bunch of their theories. Wonder how it feels to know you're lying, but still not admit it. Wonder how it feels to know what happened, but trying to create anything, anything at all that could possibly make it seem to be otherwise.

[beachnut]

I'd insist on some form of agreement on the intellectually property and copy rights. I'll be damned if JDX is gonna quote-mine me and sell it in his next trashy video.

I've put aside any thought of an actual debate though, until he can meet the most basic requirements of science.. namely.. open and checkable work, (e-)published in written form. I'd also add that he starts acting like an adult. No one wants to debate Rob "TELL ME WHO YOU ARE SO I CAN FIGHT YOU" Balsamo.
He would do just as Griffin does, as you said quote-mine you, and then build his lie around it.

JDX/johndoeX/RB has some problem with the government. He is trying to harass the C-130 pilot who saw flight 77 on 9/11. He harasses the NTSB, the FBI etc. He must be on a lot of watch lists for someone most likely to go McVeigh. JDX seems kind of unstable. He will only phone debate? Why? He talks about keyboard commandos or something. Is he challenged on typing? He could be a Pre-School typing level guy. He is real upset he can not place flight 77 with the FDR data while I think I can.

JDX must not realize if you are not a PFTF member you can not see PFTF junk. What a dolt! He tell Gravy the stuff is where Gravy can not see it! Dumber than dirt and still kicking. When will the leader of such a small group of nut case pilots give up and find a real job? There may be enough nut cases out there to buy his DVD, too bad it is about flying. Most pilots know his stuff is BS when they look at his very stupid statements in his youTube/GoogleVideo junk. Too bad he has choosen such a narrow CT topic!

[ref]

I think Dylan knows for sure, that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. He just can't admit to it anymore. He's in too deep. Bermas might not believe likewise yet, he might still be in denial. He is so passionately explaining his stuff. Rob, I don't know. I get the feeling he just focuses on the FDR and doesn't even think further.


BTW, I earlier sometimes thought Bermas might be JDX :cool: They had something in common in their style of expression.

[WildCat]

I notice there are google ads on that site... am I correct in my belief that doh'boy has no control over the google ads, nor does he get any money for them since it is an invisionfree site? Wouldn't it be funny to advertise the JREF there? Or the SLC if the JREF won't allow this? I'd donate a few dollars for that... :cool:

[apathoid]

Mark Roberts says pilotsfor911truth.org makes the claim that AA77 did not hit the pentagon. I have asked him to quote this claim we supposedly made from our website, he hasnt.

. So what is your position, Rob? Based on all the evidence that's publicly available, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Dylan Avery doesn't have the courage to answer that question. I hope you do.

I guess he thinks it the Pentagon, but the NTSB faked the FDR to make it look like it didn't hit. Makes perfect sense. :boggled:

[Horatius]

I'd insist on some form of agreement on the intellectually property and copy rights. I'll be damned if JDX is gonna quote-mine me and sell it in his next trashy video.

...

I'd also add that he starts acting like an adult. No one wants to debate Rob "TELL ME WHO YOU ARE SO I CAN FIGHT YOU" Balsamo.



That's part of what we'd want. Creative control over the end-product, so any resulting video would need your approval. Some sort of up-front fee, and percentage of the gross. Also, JDX (or whoever, this could apply to others) would also have to indemnify you for any use others make of the footage (in case he "looses" a copy at a friend's place, say).

With enough protections in it, and some real money on the line, I think he might be inspired to act like an adult.

Or we could add a bit about who he has to fight if he doesn't want to pay :)



Wouldn't he like to think so.


Well, yeah, but we could use this as a model contract for any such "debates".



My stipulation to Balsamo was that all debate negotiations, and the debate itself, be in writing on the internet, for all to see. Simple. He doesn't seem to be aware that I have a huge volume of evidence on my side.





Understood, but I think it's clear that he will never agree to such a thing. I'm trying to think of ways we can have a debate that won't allow them to misrepresent your positions or arguments, or allow them to exploit your work for their sole profit (since that's what PfT is all about, anyways).

We could also stipulate that the recording be done by a neutral third party, so we could get complete copies of all footage as well, and publish it ourselves.

Just some ideas, is all.....

[pagan]

When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.

[juryjone]

When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.

Thank you for showing so clearly the level of debate of which twoofers are capable.

Could you please give us the noun that the word "most" is modifying in the sentence "But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77"? I'm sure your intention was not to say that "But most [people] tend to believe it wasn't AA77." Because that would be wrong.

[Gravy]

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.All this time I've been pretending to be a liberal who can't stand Bush, but pagan has found me out. I confess. I attacked the Pentagon.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045feedc5090ab.jpg

[Augustine]

When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.


What exactly about the Pentagon "event" was "very enigmatic"?

[scooby]

I'll print my reply first:

I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

:)

[A W Smith]

Balsamo would never agree to a hardfire debate. would he? of course not, he cannot defend his own work. How many have peer reviewed his work? answer "0". Is he afraid to be seen in public because of a risk of arrest as a felon? (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/making-a-terrorist-threat.html)

[Gravy]

I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

:)I am I the only one who doesn't know what that means?

Intellectual cowards are a dime a dozen, scooby. Care to take up my Pentagon challenge?

[Augustine]

I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

:)

I imagine that you are completely unaware of the irony of that statement coming from you.

[A W Smith]

I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

:)

The argument has already been won. Rob will not release his data. he wont even debate it for all to see. He just wants audio that he can edit to his liking. he has been defeated.

[TheGrunion]

Just to reiterate. He wants material for upcoming videos, he wants reasons to get his name "in lights" around the conspirosphere. It's propaganda to help him and his status in the conspiracy community.

He's very hurt that he's been relegated to the fringes of his own fringe community. He's desperate for credibility.

QFT.

JDX thought he was going to make money off of his lies. His latest antics reek of desperation. I suspect that he'll fade away soon enough if we just ignore him.

[Regnad Kcin]

When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event.Setting aside your incorrect grammar, please explain what is even mildly, much less very, "enigmatic" about the Pentagon hit.

There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.Opinions are not evidence.

By the way, ever wonder why the "truth movement" has yet to provide a single and comprehensive alternate explanation for the events of 9/11?

But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.One can "believe" in something all one wants. Absent of evidence however, one shouldn't expect others to share in the belief.

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.Really, it's never too late to grow up.

[Regnad Kcin]

I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

:)No evidence for an inside job? Really? None?

You'd think that would cause a person to pause and contemplate for a moment or two.

[fuelair]

That's so childish of him it's unimaginable. He does nothing but namecalling. He is only willing to debate some technical FDR data and his own movie. What about all the evidence, Rob? Why not debate the damage, passengers, DNA, debris, eyewitnesses? No, Rob wants to debate only about some stuff only he claims to have understood, but doesn't. Argh.

ETA: And what's the deal with him and the recorded phone calls? He wants to do them with everyone.
My assumption based on my limited exposure to his silliness is that he plans to have them computer doctored and possibly try to convert so Mark appears to be saying something that Rubbub could use for a false libel suit - but I'm probably thinking something above his technical prowess by several factors of 10 (again, besed on viewed postings of his).

[Calcas]

Science isn't discussed in "live recorded debates". When he wants a proper debate, he will publish his findings like the rest of the science community. I'll even forego the requirement that it be peer-reviewed.

If he is unwilling to publish his findings and all the necessary data to check his claims, his work is unscientific. We don't "trust" in Science. Especially not known liars with well established mental problems.

Furthermore, a live conversation would consist, entirely of me saying "No, you cannot claim that. Not within the justifiable precision of the measurement". Over and over. Maybe he'll mix in some off-topic references to NASA documents.

In the mean time, the only people that will listen will be truthers... and the only reason JDX is interested in such a high-profile event is to reclaim some of his status among the truthers where him and his no-planer friends have been relegated to the fringe of their own movement.



You still said it best...;)

[jaydeehess]

I posted my suggestion to jdx on his forum and he replied.

He chafed at the idea of a paper on the subject.
I further responded(hope no one here minds me keeping a record of what was said )




Im not familiar with any scientific 'journals' that publish aviation facts. Most scientific journals post theory and undergo peer review.

Actually many magazines including science and technology ones, do run articles on both the triumphs and pratfalls in the tech feild. Scientific American ran an article slamming the gov't on their so-called 'successful' tests of anti-ballistic missile systems in which although the test missile did not even come close to hitting or intercepting the incoming missile they simply rewrote the test objectives after the fact.

There are many other magazines, DISCOVER, and TECHNOLOGY REVIEW come to mind. Their essays often are not what the present administration would charcaterize as friendly. If you can come up with a well written paper pointing out, without emotion or vitriol, that the FDR data from Flight 77 does not indicate that the aircraft could have hit the lamp poles or the Pentagon you will get more people working on this, you will have disseminated your work to a wider audience.

That is what you want, I am correct in that am I not?

We have approached a few organizations for comment such as ALPA, they have evaded the issue. Next we record them (they were nervous we were recording them the last time).

If you had a paper explaining in detail that the FDR data does not illustrate an aircraft that could hit the lamp posts or the Pentagon you could simply send that paper to as many organizations as you care to and ask for comment. In this way they can study your work carefully and develop a proper response.

Our presentation is based on information provided by the govt...

We are trying to get answers for that information.

,, and I am attempting to illustrate another tact by which you can do this.

It seems you are not concerned with getting answers for the very same information which conflicts with the govt story. A govt who is filled with proven liars, felons, and corruption.

You feel its better to make excuses and fight those looking for answers.

A gov't is a 'what' not a 'who'
I am quite comfortable with anyone seeking to find out why the FDR data does not corresspond with an aircraft that could have hit the lamp posts or the Pentagon.
However, if you begin any corresspondence to any organization with the sentiment that any gov't organization or official is felonious, untruthfull and corrupt I don't think you will get much in the way of well thought out response.

In this thread I have not said anything whatsoever to contradict your findings. I have not attempted to draw you into a debate. I have simply and solely attempted to suggest another tact by which you can get your word out.

JAStewart.. why dont you use your more well known name to post here?

I am not that person.
Since it is so important to you, I was beebop at the new LC. (I was banned at the LC for daring to continue illustrating the idiocy in the crap that spews from Klowntown's head - something it seems we are in some agreement about) I was never a member of the old LC. I am jaydeehess on BAUT and on JREF

It is by odd coincidence that my initials, JDS (hence the jaydeehess) are somewhat similar to your moniker, JDX, since until I started posting at the new LC I had never even heard of this forum or you.

All our work is shown for peer review. Many of my peers have reviewed it.

I assume by peers you are refering to other members of the "Pilots for 911 Truth"
jdx that is refered to as preaching to the choir. I had assumed that you wished to disseminate your work here to a wider audience. Was I incorrect in that?

It seems you are keeping something to yourselves as illustrated in this exchange in this very thread:
JDX: "Word Frames"
My reply - Can i tell him about this one yet UT? I'll let you take care of this one. Bottom line - Anti-Sophist no longer has even his '2 seconds of error'.

UNDERTOW: Rob, you asked me something early and I suggest No.

And, for this latest round of "show me all your raw material, work, data, etc".

BITE ME

Everyone and thier grandma has access to the same data I have.
I am not satisfied with the 'findings' or 'validity' of the NTSB provided data.

If you are, and can't find any sources of 'error' on your own. Then scamper off.



What is it that undertow suggests jdx not "tell him"?

[R.Mackey]

Im not familiar with any scientific 'journals' that publish aviation facts. Most scientific journals post theory and undergo peer review.


Wow.

He couldn't possibly be more wrong. There's the AIAA for one. IEEE holds an Aerospace conference every year, and publishes its proceedings; if that's not scholarly enough for you, some of those papers go into IEEE Spectrum or other publications.

Heck, I'd even settle for Aviation Leak.

Whoever this guy is, he sure isn't a big wheel in piloting circles.

[beachnut]

When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.

I was going to say you left you mind open and the part that was responsible for rational thinking left for greener pastures. That is impossible, but now I am not sure.

I was going to say truthers would have to have brain rot and severe mental retardation to not know flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The evidence and proof, including the FDR recovered at the Pentagon prove what happen on 9/11. It is very hard to figure out how dumb you have to be to have missed the facts on 9/11. But who will ever know why people fall for fraud?

What are the reasons the truth movement are not convince? Are they all challenged on doing research and to easy in believing lies so called experts?. If you find yourself incapable of finding facts on 9/11 then you may suffer from a rare form of terminal stupidity. The only cure is tons of education.

[jaydeehess]

jdx has replied to my second post in that thread.
As expected:
Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

The error returned was:

Sorry, you are not permitted to use this board


It appears I am banned.

,,, and I never even questioned his findings about the FDR. All I did was suggest a new tact for getting his message out.

Freedom of speech, Rob Balsamo style. Quench even the hint of dissent.
Not sure why he thought I was JAStewart.

[WildCat]

jdx has replied to my second post in that thread.
As expected:


It appears I am banned.

,,, and I never even questioned his findings about the FDR. All I did was suggest a new tact for getting his message out.
[gomer]
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
[/pyle]

[Anti-sophist]

And, for this latest round of "show me all your raw material, work, data, etc".

BITE ME


Rofl.

In fact, I remember the first time I read Einstein's "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" when he was all like "Let it be known that E=MC^2. If you want to see how I got there, BITE ME".

This is what psuedoscience looks like. Findings are given in press conferences... science is hidden in the background.

[Gravy]

Here's the next exchange:

On 3/19/07, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote: Mark,

Debates start with a claim for each side. Do you not know this?

It is up to each team to prove their claim.

We have made our claim, you and the govt have made yours.

We can prove ours, we look forward to you and the govt proving yours.

Wherever and whenever you want to hold this 'debate', let me know and i will start to assemble our team of professionals, family members and victims.

Bring NTSB and FBI members as those are the people who we are currently dealing with mostly. Also bring Lt Col O'Brien of the ANG along with John Anthony of the FAA.

Can you prove your claim or not? Yes, we accept your challenge. It is noted you have side stepped ours and declined by default.

Rob


Me:

I was going to reply on your forum, but although registered, I am unable to post there. I wonder why.

Actually, debates start with an agreement to the debate terms.

Wherever? On the Internet. For all the world to see. The JREF will suit me fine. They won't delete the thread.

Whenever? Starting today. I'm ready to go.

The debate: my evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon against yours that it didn't.

Last chance (for the umpteenth time, that is: don't say I haven't given you the chance, even after you've twice publicly called for me to be killed).

Give me a one word answer. No excuses, no b.s. about assembling teams and synchronizing Verizon accounts.



ETA: Since I can't post on your forum, Rob, and you read this one, I thought I'd mention this. In Terrorcell's hilariously inept flight 93 thread at P4T, you posted some photos of the US Air flight 427 crash, to show that it left a lot of debris compared to flight 93. However, according to flight 427's FDR, it was traveling at 261.7 knots when it hit the ground. Flight 93, as I'm sure you know, struck the ground at over 500 knots.

Failing to make that distinction is bad form, old sport. Don't you agree?

[ref]

I'd like to see that. And it should be just Gravy and JDX debating, nobody else. Otherwise the discussion blows out of proportion.

[Gravy]

Forgive me if this has been posted here before. I've only been to the P4T site two or three times, and just noticed this. Bolding mine.

(http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4574&view=findpost&p=7848890)
...This file is the complete list of columns (parameters) read out from the raw file.

These two files are groups of similar information from the complete file.
NAVall_complete.csv PASS_OXYall_complete.csv

When someone sees this, I can already here the cries for complete access to everything. The least of which will be the data frame information. Both me and my host had the correct file, so now I've seen two of these mystery documents. If you would like to see a complete data frame layout, good luck. Get your own.

That said, I will share a short and trimmed part of the layout (to which you can compare to your eventual discovery). If any specific questions may arise about something in paticular, it never hurts to ask.

JDX heartily agrees with UnderTow that the free exchange of information is the best policy when seeking the "truth."

thumbsup.gif

cheers.gif

We're not here to cater to internet Keyboard Commando's. We are here to get answers from our govt.

If anyone would like to discuss our findings in a more professional atmosphere, please feel free to contact us at pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org.

Ya just can't make this stuff up.

[Anti-sophist]

All I want to do is check their decoding of the data. I admit that the likelihood of fakery is low (not because of their credibility, but more so because of their competence -- or rather, lack thereof). Still, producing data without any ability to "repeat" the experiment and check the work is just plain pseudoscience, and I refuse to dignify pseudoscience with actual effort.

That being said, some people who I've been in contact with have dug into their "new" data and already found ample evidence that they are, again, wrong. Maybe one day when they elevate their work to the level of basic science, I'll give it another go.

Further still, I've already lined up means to check the data-frame layout once I receive it. I categorically refuse to call in favors to get the data-frame layout on my own because jobs would at risk, and I refuse such stakes for clowns like this. Besides, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and if they are going to make claims, they need to back it up. I shouldn't have to expend the effort and I definitely will not risk others employment.

[Hutch]

It might even be possible to hold a debate at the JREF and PFT forums if both parties would agree on a few simple terms...

1. Both would open thread(s) with the identical title(s), for example "RESOLVED: That American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. Or maybe RESOLVED: That the Flight Data Recorder data shows that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

2. Whoever is arguing the affirmative (agrees with the Resolution) posts first on their Forum listing the evidence they have. Their opponent also posts the non-affirmative argument on their site.

3. The two sides then "trade" information and post rebuttals of the others position.

4. A second round of evidence and follow-up data is posted, and a new "rebuttal" post is made for this data.

5. If agreed upon, there can be a "question" time, where each is allowed to ask a limited (say 10-12) questions and request responses.

it would be much, much easier if held on the same Forum thread, but that does not seem likely, so this is my thought.

The important thing is the Resolved: portion--it has to be specific and clearly show what the debate is to be about. This allows both sides to call the other when the debate strays from the topic.

Just my 2 dirhams worth.

[jaydeehess]

If jdx wants a third party to host the debate rather than this forum, how about the Apollo Hoax forums. They have a section entitled conspiracy theories and Lunar Orbit should be able to set up a thread in which only jdx and Gravy can post.

Its just a suggestion and one would have to ask at AH if they are interested.

however given jdx's childish reluctance to even consider any suggestion I make, I doubt he'd actually go for it.

I now truly doubt his truthfullness in wanting to get the story of the FDR out to a wider audience or to show the gov't to be liars to the general public.

His actions speak loud. They point to a phony who wants only to sell his product to the gullible.

[Horatius]

JDX:

Bring NTSB and FBI members as those are the people who we are currently dealing with mostly. Also bring Lt Col O'Brien of the ANG along with John Anthony of the FAA


So, what, does he think all these people are just sitting by the phone, waiting for Gravy's Call to Action?

Just another example of them not being serious about wanting an honest debate - insisting on a "Dream Team" of people they know we'll never be able to assemble!

[uk_dave]

Personally, I think the 'pilots' should just take their claims to the police and be done with it.

I mean, it's not like they're saying "Oh hey guys, we've got some interesting data which seems to suggest the official story aint true, could you cast your eyes over it and give us a second opinion", no, they're saying "We've got the smokin' gun, you're wrong, so **** off, neener neener neener".

Well, if they're so sure of their 'evidence' they better start getting the law involved.

[WildCat]

JDX and his entire team are frauds, charlatans, profiteers, and above all else cowards. They won't go for a public, written debate on this or any other forum where they can't delete the evidence once they get their butts handed to them on a silver platter.

Just MHO, of course.

[jaydeehess]

[gomer]
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
[/pyle]

It wasn't much of a surprise of course. I had been hopeful though that he would at least acknowledge that my suggestion had some merit in being another way to get his message out to the general public and in that way put pressure on the NTSB et al to address his work.

AS I said I was hopeful that he was sincere in his desire to have his work out to the public and to have it then addressed by officials.

On the first issue, getting the message out to the public;
He continually talks a big talk about wanting to do this yet seems absolutly stuck as far as actually doing it. The general public , if so inclined, and that means already concerned with the events of 9/11 and whether or not they played out as the mainstream media has portrayed them, can visit his site and download (pay) for the video he and his people have produced. He also wants a verbal debate that can be recorded and be made available on his site. Such a debate will prove absolutly nothing, it would not be possible to actually make any technical arguements and show the work done to back them up. The only reason he could have for such an arrangement would be as some edited fodder for another video that he can sell on the internet.

All he has done for the other is phone and brow beat anyone who answers the call. AFAIK he has not sent in his work on the FDR data to the FBI, NTSB or anyone else. He may have sent a copy of "Pandora's Box" but that simply won't cut it other than as an addendum to the technical work done.

Anti-sophist, you say there is data you could get if you called in favors but that it could get people in trouble for their jobs.

Seems possible then that undertow has a similar way of getting information and has availed himself of it. Thus it would seem possible that they are protecting that source by not releasing the data. Thus when asked to do so undertow simply (to paraphrase) says , "BITE ME, go find it yourself".That way if you relerase that data to the public it is your source that gets into trouble not theirs.

[beachnut]

Forgive me if this has been posted here before. I've only been to the P4T site two or three times, and just noticed this. Bolding mine.

[url="http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4574&view=findpost&p=7848890"][/b]

JDX heartily agrees with UnderTow that the free exchange of information is the best policy when seeking the "truth."



Ya just can't make this stuff up.
Does Boeing, American, and other companies know the propriety information has been passed to idiots on the internet who make up lies?

[T.A.M.]

Those statements by Undertow and JDX have to be the most unprofessional, unscientific statements I have ever seen.

It is simple. If you make a claim about something, and then refuse to provide the full set of data/variables you used to come to said conclusion, you will BE LAUGHED out of every meeting, IGNORED BY every journal you submit it to. EOS.

TAM:)

[NoZed Avenger]

Would one of the laywer-types here be able to write up some sort of contract, that would allow someone like Gravy to have control over how these recordings might be used, should they decide to have a go at it?

I certainly wouldn't want to allow them to record me if I suspected they'd do the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation they always do, but if we had some means to hold them to account for such acts, it might be worth the risk. Imagine a clear court decision holding that one of the leading twoofers had violated a contract by misrepresenting a debate. Wouldn't that be good?

I will lay 10 to 1 odds that this individual (the CTist) is judgment-proof. So if you won, what could you get?

[WildCat]

I will lay 10 to 1 odds that this individual (the CTist) is judgment-proof. So if you won, what could you get?
The proceeds from all the "pilots for troof" merch sales.

[Comsat Angel]

The alarm bells started ringing when JDX stated that he didn't have time for an internet debate - but he did have time for a Recorded Phone Call Debate! How the flip can you present numerical or statistical or graph data in a phone call? How can - oh I give up! Truly, he's not interested in broadcasting a message to the public, he's interested in screwing a few more $$$ from his audience.

And then Pagan chimes in.

Just when you think the Twoofers have reached rock bottom, the absolute depths of the abyssal zone, they manage to get lower. There's "insane", there's "b*tsh*t insane" and, new category, there's "Twoofer insane". What's that quote from Mythbusters? "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" Sums them up perfectly.

[jaydeehess]

R.Balsamo and I have exchanged e-mails. He invited me to post it here.

The following is the whole exchange as shown in my response to his reply to my e-mail(so they are in reverse chronicological order)

I still don't know exactly why I was banned but it strikes me now that perhaps jdx was not the admin that banned me.

oh well.

To: Rob Balsamo;

First of all how could I have posted the reply you made when i had been banned before trying to access that thread again? Your complaint makes no sense sir. You ban me and as a result I cannot see the thread then you berate me for not posting the reply in that thread to the Randi forums.

A-S did not say he could not find the data. He said he would not jepordize his friend by asking for it.

However, none of this was the subject of my post on your thread. My posts concerned another way to get your message out, pure and simple. Instead of even considering it you attacked it by coming up with thin reasons not to bother with it.

All you need do is write a consise article entitled "FDR data does match flight path - is FDR data untrustworthy?" and present it to "Aviation Week and Space Technology", "Scientific American", "Technology Review", or even "Discover". How many in the industry read AW+ST sir? How many would be interested to find out that there is a case in which the supposed flight path is not faithfully recorded on the FDR? If you wish to present your case the way you have been doing so far you will get little attention. You may hate that but it is the way of the world. constant accusation of gov't officials (who you have on many occasions said are liars etc.) will not garner you the public review or answers you say you desire just as anyone on P4T who berates other posters will get any questions they ask attended to.

Take my advice, don't take my advice, I truly couldn't care less. I had simply hoped that you were open to suggestions. If not, fine.

Now go check the Randi forum thread. This entire exchange will be there momentarily.

JDS

----- Original Message -----
From: Pilots For Truth
To: jaydee
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: banned


I see you didnt post the below reply.. typical...

But i did see you posted this...

"Seems possible then that undertow has a similar way of getting information and has availed himself of it. Thus it would seem possible that they are protecting that source by not releasing the data. Thus when asked to do so undertow simply (to paraphrase) says , "BITE ME, go find it yourself".That way if you release that data to the public it is your source that gets into trouble not theirs."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2442835&postcount=49

Why is it that you get the point, but Anti-Sophist doesnt.. yet he claims to be the 'expert'.

Not to mention the fact he doesnt need the data frame layout to answer the questions we have posed. He dodges like the best of em and im sure will dodge your post above explaining why we show all our work but will not release the full data frame layout.

Ask yourself why A-S cant find his own data frame layout and keep it to himself to verify our work that is widely available while being an FDR expert? Simple, he wants to expose our source and perhaps get him fired. As UT said.. "BITE ME".

Bottom line, we show all our work, we will not share proprietary information. The work we have performed can be back by the Flight Training Handbook. This is not 'test data' or 'groundbreaking new scientific data' that no one has seen before in order to need 'peer review'. Its widely known how to interpret this data. Go to faa.gov and learn how to do it yourself.

We are looking for answers from our govt based on the information they provided. The information they provided does not need to be 'tested' in the scientific community as a theory. It is fact, for example, that their information shows the aircraft too high.

Will you post this to JREF? I doubt it as you didnt post the below... again. .typical. This is why people like you get banned.. spin, half quotes, distraction, chaos...

Cheers!
Rob

BCC: Members of pilotsfor911truth.org

Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:
You didnt get a chance to read my replies? Awww.... (be sure to post it for all your friends now... i have a feeling you wont, either that or quote mine.. prove me wrong)


Posted: Mar 19 2007, 11:27 PM

Moment of Silence for the Dojet..

Group: Admin
Posts: 2,516
Member No.: 1
Joined: 13-August 06

beebop, jaydeees.. .whoever you are...
You assume too much, you have done very little research on this topic and you have no idea what is in the works...
People like you from the govt loyalist site who make excuses for the govt are not our concern. The govt agencies/people who supply this information as well as lies and corruption are our concern.
Further, No, not just peers within our organization.. (however, they are able to analyze the information, they have the experience). Its obvious you dont.
So, keep on chasing us around looking for us to give you answers.. an anonymous person on the internet who makes excuses for govt cover-up's... while we chase after the actual people to uncover the facts.
What a life!
Stay tuned, its gonna get interesting...
Cheers!
Rob

--------------------
Click on Banner to get Pandora's Black Box on DVD.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain
IP: ----------
johndoeX Posted: Mar 19 2007, 11:36 PM

Moment of Silence for the Dojet..

Group: Admin
Posts: 2,516
Member No.: 1
Joined: 13-August 06

QUOTE (beebop @ Mar 19 2007, 10:54 PM)

Undertow is suggesting that you do not "tell him about this one ".
If you want debate or clear understanding of your work why hold back?

What i find interesting about this is that you people claim to have the 'proper experts' for this type of work, yet you cannot get the same information.

Ok, i spent my day on the net debating you people who make excuses. You have offered nothing of substance but to show the ignorance, apathy in research, assumptions of conclusions.. to rebut our work.
If you want to debate, start with a point by point debunk of Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two. Found pinned in the multimedia section of this forum.
I can see why you people do not want to have a proper debate in person. You have offered nothing. You hide behind your screen. You have shown your so-called anonymous 'experts' are unable to get the same information we can yet you say we dont have the expertise.. its apparent you want to distract us from our work. You will be banned when i have the motivation to go into the admin cp and get it done.
For now, enjoy your short stay.. and enjoy chasing us around as we ignore you while going after the govt for answers...
Cheers!
Rob
(perhaps you want to consider a new JDX Fan Club Avatar like so many of you anonymous govt loyalists have on your site?)

jaydee <jaydeehess@norcomcable.ca> wrote:
May I ask exactly what the reason is for my being banned? I did not question any point in the work you have done concerning Flight 77 FDR.

What was it that irked you about my suggestions?

JDS

[WildCat]

perhaps you want to consider a new JDX Fan Club Avatar like so many of you anonymous govt loyalists have on your site?
Hehe, good to see he's still smarting over David James's avatar.

I still think it would be funny to buy a google ad on P4T.

[Anti-sophist]

Why is it that you get the point, but Anti-Sophist doesnt.. yet he claims to be the 'expert'.

I've never claimed to be an expert. I've only claimed to have infinitely more expertise then all of pilots for 911 truth, combined. I have professional experience with flight data aquisition. That makes me infinitely more qualified then all of pilots for 911 truth, combined. I'd never be so arrogant as to call myself an "expert" on such a broad field because it's virtually impossible to be such an expert on such an ill-defined field. JDX's lack of understanding of what goes into such systems further evidences his rudimentary knowledge.

We can chalk that up to more poor reading comprehesion.


Not to mention the fact he doesnt need the data frame layout to answer the questions we have posed.

This might be true. I haven't bothered to read their "new" questions because they can't pass the most basic precepts of scientific inquiry. Maybe I'll do that. I'm not really sure where they keep their "questions" and I rarely visit their site because it's basically 2 people doing work and a cadre of nutjobs who got banned from other sites.

He dodges like the best of em and im sure will dodge your post above explaining why we show all our work but will not release the full data frame layout.
How can you show all your work but then not.. at the same time? Either you show all your work, or you don't. You don't. Case closed.

Again, it would be trivial for your "computer expert" to make a plain-text version of the data frame layout. The fact that this is too complicated and you think it would be 'traceable' is a testament to the utter incompetance at pilots for 911 truth.


Ask yourself why A-S cant find his own data frame layout and keep it to himself to verify our work that is widely available while being an FDR expert?


That would be a good question if it hadn't already been address ad nauseum. Like I said, the employment of my personal contacts aren't worth clowns who make accusations they can't back up with the evidence. I'm not the one making claims. Like I said, it would be trivial for someone who was in actual possession of the full data-frame layout to make a plain-text version. If that's too complicated for the pilots for 911 truth's computer experts, then I think I already have my answer as to their ability to decode the flight data recorder.


Bottom line, we show all our work.

An obvious lie, given the context.

Its widely known how to interpret this data.

Is this a joke? Is that why they pay people with actual degrees to do it? Because anyone can do it by going to faa.gov?

It is fact, for example, that their information shows the aircraft too high.


False. This conclusion is only possible if you misinterpret the data.


Will you post this to JREF? I doubt it as you didnt post the below... again. .typical. This is why people like you get banned.. spin, half quotes, distraction, chaos...



Whoops. You can apoligize to him now, JDX. Keep up that banning.

[Mr.D]

Only when you assume infinite accuracy and precision and pay no regard to error, whatsoever.

Sophist,

I can't find the posts right now, but am I correct in remembering that flight 77 in the moments before the FDR stopped recording, was operating outside the normal operating parameters of many of the instruments? (I _think_ it was you who posted that Flight 77 was flying lower and faster than the operating parameters of the barometric altimeter)

What is known about the accuracy of the various instruments under those kinds of operating conditions anyway?

(Anyone else get the feeling that neither JDX, nor his 'analysts' know what the difference between accuracy and precision is? I'm pretty certain that they've never even attempted to estimate thier systematic or statistical errors in any numbers they've posted.)

[ref]

I have never heard JDX's voice, but here it is now. I have no speakers at work, but these are a couple of Rob Balsamo interview-mp3's at www.v911t.org (http://www.v911t.org).

Here:
http://www.v911t.org//M/PilotsRawDataFile.mp3
http://www.v911t.org/M/Pandora's%20Black%20Box%20-%20FDR%2077.mp3

These clips must contain terrible amounts of disinformation.

[Gravy]

So, a final answer from Mr. Balsamo, and a challenge to his group from me:

On 3/20/07, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote: Mark,

Do you know what positive ID means?

1. What is your background and/or professional experience as i dont want to waste my time with someone unarmed. It seems you are.

2. I decline internet debate. I have told you that many times. Do i need to tell you again?

3. Do you decline a proper team debate in person based on the Flight Data Recorder? (The original challenge that you are continuing to side-step).

4. If you do not know what positive ID means, please find out because our team will except no less. Talk to apathoid if you're unsure.



Rob,

Thank you for your final answer.

I'll extend my challenge to all of your members. Since I can't post on your forum (although you say I haven't been banned), perhaps you'll do me the favor of posting this for me:

ARE ANY MEMBERS OF PILOTS FOR TRUTH WHO BELIEVE THAT FLIGHT 77 DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON WILLING TO STAND BEHIND THEIR BELIEFS AND CLAIMS?

Anyone at all? Let me know.

– Mark Roberts email: nyctours@gmail.com

[Gravy]

I have never heard JDX's voice, but here it is now. I have no speakers at work, but these are a couple of Rob Balsamo interview-mp3's at www.v911t.org (http://www.v911t.org).

Here:
http://www.v911t.org//M/PilotsRawDataFile.mp3
http://www.v911t.org/M/Pandora's%20Black%20Box%20-%20FDR%2077.mp3 (http://www.v911t.org/M/Pandora%27s%20Black%20Box%20-%20FDR%2077.mp3)

These clips must contain terrible amounts of disinformation.

Thanks for that. Anyone who is very interested in these topics should listen to these two interviews.

[Anti-sophist]

Sophist,

I can't find the posts right now, but am I correct in remembering that flight 77 in the moments before the FDR stopped recording, was operating outside the normal operating parameters of many of the instruments? (I _think_ it was you who posted that Flight 77 was flying lower and faster than the operating parameters of the barometric altimeter)

Beachnut and apathoid know more about that particular instrument then I do. There is no question that the plane's velocity and low altitude provided a combination that no altimeter is checked for accuracy in.


What is known about the accuracy of the various instruments under those kinds of operating conditions anyway?
Little to nothing. The altimeter was never calibrated or tested to be operating under those conditions. It's sort of like asking what would happen if you hooked up your cars GPS navigation device to an F15 and let her go at Mach 2. Would it work? Maybe. Would you trust it? (This is a bad example because I know for certain that it wouldn't work.. but that's beside the point).

[aggle-rithm]

Only when you assume infinite accuracy and precision and pay no regard to error, whatsoever. Adherence to the existence of phenomena at or beyond the edge of our detection capability is a hallmark of pseudoscience.


I'm not expert, but if the instruments were as accurate as the Fake Pilots for Troof say they are, isn't it ridiculous to separate aircraft by 1000 vertical feet to keep them from colliding? 100 feet would seem to be more than enough.

[aggle-rithm]

It's sort of like asking what would happen if you hooked up your cars GPS navigation device to an F15 and let her go at Mach 2. Would it work?

I would think it would just keep saying, "Recalculating...recalculating...recalculating..."

[ref]

I'm not expert, but if the instruments were as accurate as the Fake Pilots for Troof say they are, isn't it ridiculous to separate aircraft by 1000 vertical feet to keep them from colliding? 100 feet would seem to be more than enough.

I suspect turbulence plays a factor here, as well as the speeds, leaving very small margins of error at close distances.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I would think it would just keep saying, "Recalculating...recalculating...recalculating..."
Or else, "Make the next available U-turn."

[jaydeehess]

I suspect turbulence plays a factor here, as well as the speeds, leaving very small margins of error at close distances.


100 feet might be a little tight since an aircraft at an ATC assigned altitude must maintain that altitude +/- 50 feet.:)

According to two retired ATC controllers I know.

[aggle-rithm]

Or else, "Make the next available U-turn."

Once, when I got the correct location, the GPS signaled that fact by saying, "Make a U-turn, then make a U-turn."

I imagined it saying, "Continue until it dawns on you that you've reached your destination."

We called the GPS "Mrs. Hawking", because it sounded like a feminine version of Stephen Hawking's computer-generated voice.

[aggle-rithm]

I suspect turbulence plays a factor here, as well as the speeds, leaving very small margins of error at close distances.

Turbulence and speed are government-concocted fictions, you sheeple! Now go back to sleep... ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Once, when I got the correct location, the GPS signaled that fact by saying, "Make a U-turn, then make a U-turn."

I imagined it saying, "Continue until it dawns on you that you've reached your destination."

We called the GPS "Mrs. Hawking", because it sounded like a feminine version of Stephen Hawking's computer-generated voice.
I've had that happen, but it actually made sense as I had passed my destination and the road had a median.

[beachnut]

I have never heard JDX's voice, but here it is now. I have no speakers at work, but these are a couple of Rob Balsamo interview-mp3's at www.v911t.org (http://www.v911t.org).

Here:
http://www.v911t.org//M/PilotsRawDataFile.mp3
http://www.v911t.org/M/Pandora's%20Black%20Box%20-%20FDR%2077.mp3

These clips must contain terrible amounts of disinformation.
So JDX says he never said 77 did not hit the Pentagon! Is he a liar or too dumb to realize he said it!

JDX said this, the guy asks a simple question.

1:56"file confirms what we have" ,host asks, "flying to high and too far north to of hit the Pentagon?" JDX says "That's correct"
Dear JDX, this means you are saying 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Now you did not say "77 did not hit", but your words say "that's correct" to "flying too high and too far north to hit the Pentagon".

In first grade we begin learning cause and effect. You must of skipped that day in the first grade, second grade, third grade, etc. Now Rob pilots do not have a big reputation for being smart, but we do not want to lower the bar too far. We pilots have decided to drop you as a pilot and just call you a simpleton liar. Please remove "pilot" from the name of your liars web site. Everyone knows the terrorist were over qualified to hit buildings with planes you could fly, or any kid off the street could have done.

We do not need you using the name pilot and telling lies and misleading others. You need to stop the government loyalist stuff, it makes you look as if you are about to go Tim McVeigh on something.

Review for JDX! You say that 77 did not hit the Pentagon because it was too high and too far north. End of Story please stop telling lies about 9/11 and what you say. You are making pilots look bad. You and you group of less than 100 should march on DC, but please change your name and remove "pilot" from your stuff. Only a dolt does not understand the radar altimeter as you were shown up by your host on one interview. Please do not go on web cast you are too dumb to look good.

[ref]

Whoa. The interviews are 40 minutes and 67 minutes long. That's a lot of BS.

I listened a few excerpts of those. There is some very strange background noise during the entire interviews.

Rob plays so nice and in the end says, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact us. WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS! You just don't give us the answers. He goes on for ages about his analysis.

Some other points he makes:

Even the plane parts don't make a positive ID to American 77
Even from radar, to even eyewitnesses, to even physical evidence at the crash site, does not positively ID American 77
Even the FDR does not positively ID American 77, we don't know the chain of custody
All the system indications show no impact, FDR does not show any impact with lightpoles or anything
At pilots what we do, is cross-check everythingI couldn't listen to it anymore.

But he reveals something, his theory of what could have happened. Check this out:

Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:
It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits.

What are you talking about, Rob?

This gives great ammunition, in case there ever is a debate.

[Gravy]

beachnut, notice how he always puts it in terms of the FDR data not showing impact. From what I've heard and read, he is careful to avoid saying that he believes the plane itself didn't hit. Sure, he's not taking sides. That's why he initially accepted my challenge to argue that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. :rolleyes:

I'd be interested to know if, when JDX steps on an electronic bathroom scale and it reads zero, he concludes that he weighs nothing.

[Gravy]

Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:
It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits.

What are you talking about, Rob?

This gives great ammunition, in case there ever is a debate.He left out the part about the chemtrail hypnosis. That's essential.

[beachnut]

beachnut, notice how he always puts it in terms of the FDR data not showing impact. From what I've heard and read, he is careful to avoid saying that he believes the plane itself didn't hit. Sure, he's not taking sides. That's why he initially accepted my challenge to argue that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. :rolleyes:

I'd be interested to know if, when JDX steps on an electronic bathroom scale and it reads zero, he concludes that he weighs nothing.
He would argue that for a while. But then say it does not matter.

He is one strange guy. He is taking the FDR and saying hundreds of witnesses are wrong who are backed up with physical evidence. JDX this means a person saw flight 77 hit the light posts, and the light post was found hit on the ground and this all happened when the person saw it. JDX this means the person saw the plane hit a pole standing, and then the plane hit the Pentagon cause it was too low to fly over.

If JDX would stop a second the FDR matches what everyone saw that day. Even the radar track matches the FDR. The witnesses match the FDR.

JDX has is cherry picking the FDR to death. He leaves out stuff, he makes us stuff.

The funniest is the headings. There are four sets of heading in the FDR data. Magnetic, like a compass, True, as in true north, and then the track heading for Mag and True. Track is the heading the plane makes over the ground. Remember the aiplane is in the air, the plane moves with the wind, so the aircraft heading is not always the same as it's track across the ground.

JDX has someone tell him the data was diverging and it looked like the government had inserted data and messed up. It was the wind and the difference between the track across the ground and the heading of the plane in the air. Simple Drift becomes as government conspiracy. Mother nature tricks JDX.

[jaydeehess]

JDX's reluctance, or utter refusal, to consider my suggestion of a written paper on the issue of the FDR not matching the supposed flight path is puzzling.

His reluctance, or utter refusal to consider anything other than an audio only venue for debate on such a technical issue is also puzzling.

They give rise to speculation as to why.
Perhaps he will address these in the future but I am less hopeful with every exchange that he is sincere in his quest to get his messgae out to the public and to obtain a review of this matter and answers to his questions, from the NTSB or FBI.

I will , when I have time, go to the faa.gov website and check the Flight Training Handbook that jdx has directed me to. He instructs me that this is all that is needed in order to understand fully the FDR data even without the Data Frame Layout. (I only have 8 minutes left on my lunch break right now)

[DavidJames]

You win this months "giving the benefit of the doubt" award :)

JDX's reluctance, or utter refusal, to consider my suggestion of a written paper on the issue of the FDR not matching the supposed flight path is puzzling.

His reluctance, or utter refusal to consider anything other than an audio only venue for debate on such a technical issue is also puzzling.I give him this much credit, he knows he's got nothing which could stand the least bit of scrutiny. Not puzzling, he's got nothing and he knows it.
Perhaps he will address these in the future but I am less hopeful with every exchange that he is sincere in his quest to get his messgae out to the public and to obtain a review of this matter and answers to his questions, from the NTSB or FBI.Like every CTist I've read about, he has no interest in seeking redress for his complaints. He's only interested posting on Internet forums.

[jaydeehess]

I have done a search of the FAA site and the only reference I could find to the "Flight Training Handbook", that one will be supplied to a pilot in training.
I also looked through the "handbooks and manuals" section, the "training" and the Testing" sections and cannot find that manual online there. Anyone know exactly where on the FAA site this manual resides?

Now would I be incorrect in assuming that this manual does not actually contain any information on the use of FDR data by NTSB officials in the event of a crash and instead is soley a manual designed to teach applicants how to fly aircraft?

I did find the "Airplane Flying Handbook" but it does not even have a section dealing with the FDR.(at least not listed as such in the table of contents)

Just trying to get a handle on this.

My take is that Rob Balsamo is saying that all one needs to have a complete picture of what the FDR data is illustrating is the knowledge of how to fly an aircraft.

[jaydeehess]

You win this months "giving the benefit of the doubt" award :)

I give him this much credit, he knows he's got nothing which could stand the least bit of scrutiny. Not puzzling, he's got nothing and he knows it.
Like every CTist I've read about, he has no interest in seeking redress for his complaints. He's only interested posting on Internet forums.

He is bombastic for certain.
He is quite officious as well.
He is certainly set in his opinion.

I decided to offer suggestions about getting his message out to the public.

I do have reservations about his conclusions about the FDR data and what it illustrates but I would like the NTSB give an official report on this matter. It does appear true that taking the raw data from the FDR and creating an animation from that data has the aircraft well above the lamp posts.
I suspect the biggest reason would be that the pressure altitude is unreliable given the speed and air pressure that existed. Certainly when the aircraft was above Vmo this instrument is in conditions beyond which it is designed to work properly and certified for.

However, I am not particularily interested in debating that aspect with him. I simply would like an NTSB pronouncement on this matter and in that I am willing to offer suggestions to Balsamo.

[apathoid]

About the high pressure altitude issue, here is a pretty interesting thread at the old Looser forum.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12436

In addition to the FDR recording lag, I've been thinking that the pressure altitude problem was compounded by the phenomenon of pneumatic lag, which I've witnessed during Full Range Pitot-Static System checkouts. Mad(Flt)Scientist* touches on it below. FWIW, the Air Data Computer's biggest asset over pure pitot-static systems is it's abilty to eliminate source errors(imperfections in the probe) and compensate for the compressablity of high altitude air density. The compensation obviously has a calibration range and I think everyone, D'oh included, can agree that AA77 was likely out of this range - being 80 kts over Vmo.

* - Mad(Flt)Scientist apparently analyzes FDRs for a living.

No, I'm not. We get that exact kind of lag on production and experimental systems during flight test for high descent rate manoeuvres, especially during tests like flutter testing and high speed upsets - which are similar to the kinds of speeds and descent rates that are see in the AA77 data. And we have modern, micro-processor based ADCs of the same sophistication as a B757.

Put any aircraft into a 6000fpm dive, there will be lag on the altitude data. Its unavoidable.

It's not lag due to rate of change of aircraft attitude - it's lag due to rate of change of aLtitude. It wouldn't even have to be an aircraft. If you simply dropped a static pressure sensor (of the type fitted to an aircraft) attached to a huge, but streamlined, rock, it would also see a lag.

[jaydeehess]

Put any aircraft into a 6000fpm dive, there will be lag on the altitude data..

Was Flt 77 in such a dive?

That's 100 fps. Forward velocity was said to be 500 MPH which is 733 fps
If 733 fps is taken to be velocity along the path of the aircraft

sine-1(100/733) = 7.84 degrees glide slope

If it is to be ground speed then
tan-1(100/733) = 7.76 degrees

I thought it came in at 4 degrees

I thought that the pressure altitude problem would be more that the air flow over the craft would be out of the parameters for certification due to its going well over Vmo and not due to its dropping too fast. (though certainly that would also cause a problem as per Mad(flt) Scientist's post.

The instruments were simply never designed to read properly at that altitude and while the aircraft was going that fast.

[beachnut]

JDX's reluctance, or utter refusal, to consider my suggestion of a written paper on the issue of the FDR not matching the supposed flight path is puzzling.

His reluctance, or utter refusal to consider anything other than an audio only venue for debate on such a technical issue is also puzzling.

They give rise to speculation as to why.
Perhaps he will address these in the future but I am less hopeful with every exchange that he is sincere in his quest to get his messgae out to the public and to obtain a review of this matter and answers to his questions, from the NTSB or FBI.

I will , when I have time, go to the faa.gov website and check the Flight Training Handbook that jdx has directed me to. He instructs me that this is all that is needed in order to understand fully the FDR data even without the Data Frame Layout. (I only have 8 minutes left on my lunch break right now)
I think he is trying to talk down to you. I think he is saying to understand the terms and stuff you need the FIH. It is free, and you can download it and tons of stuff on flying. But I do not recall FDR information you want in the FIH.

The FDR data is used by the NTSB to help figure out what happen to make planes and flight safer. The USAF did not have FDRs in planes, that is changing, so they had to study accidents based on what ever was seen or left over. The NTSB uses both the FDR data and any evidence they can find.

The FDR in the NTSB video was just raw flight data. It was not referenced with real position data; to my knowledge. In fact the only position data the NTSB decoded was off by 20 miles. But with a heading, speed, attitude, roll angles, pitich angles, yaw angles, acceleration, altitude, you can make a video and path based on time and speed etc. That is what the NTSB did. They included the Pentagon area but it was not in registratoin with the "real" flight path of 77.

JDX decoded data that has a position but is is off by 3000 feet and varies in direction. This nav data is from the INS system and 3000 feet is a good normal error without GPS. JDX also has a VOR/DME of 1.5 from the DCA VOR. This puts the position of 77 on one of infinite postions on a circle from DCA. You could use the heading which I have to say is one of the most accurate pieces of the FDR data you have. You have 4 versions to pick from and each one confirms the data of 9/11. The four headings can be used to confirm the wind on 9/11 at the times and places and attitude 77 flew. The headings will place 77 on tow points on that big 1.5 NM circle. 1.5 NM is 9000 plus feet, there are 6076 feet in a NM. You can see google earth and thus position flight 77 in a location ready to hit the Pentagon within 3000 or so feet of impact. But you still have errors in being this exact. Time, what time was the data collected and stored. The DME data is not stored every second. Was the data from the first part of a second or was it all flushed from registers loaded at the same time? AS talks about data and how it is loaded and possible errors in data storage.

The plane is not too high to hit anything because with the FDR you can not tell anyone where the plane is and how much data is missing.

Normally the accident information you want happens before the big impact on the FDR! So no one cares if 5 or 8 seconds of data are missing, the cause of the accident is recorded and the rest of the data is just an out of control mess.

I look at the FDR and it confirms the wind form about 330 degrees at 5 to 10 knots. This is why the plane was heading 70 degreees but the ground track was 71.4 degrees, the plane was being blown sideways. I have now the FDR confirming the WX reports saved and looked up by JDX. Thank you JDX. Yes truthers always have some facts but not to support their ideas. That is a 61.2 true track and a true heading of 58.8 true heading.

The FDR is a bunch of data you can use to confirm what people saw. They saw a plane in a slight bank, it is on the FDR. Wings rocking, it is on the FDR. You could line up the witnesses and see the plane do it on the FDR.

People saw a steep approach! Yes a normal approach for an airplane is nose up 2.5 degree flight path down. 77 had 6 degrees down flight path and nose down. I would call that steep, and if you land that way so will you!

I look at the FDR as confirmation of 77 and what it did. I have not found anything in it to keep 77 from doing what it did.

JDX has a 273 radar altimeter, which if the plane is on heading about 3000 feet or more away from the Pentagon, that is just 400 feet above sea level and not very hard to hit the Pentagon as it did. This RADALT, does show that the pressure atltimeter may have been off by 80 feet, but then the plane was doing 463 KIAS and it is not suppose to go over 350KCAS. It was out of the normal operating range.

The FIH helps you understand flying, becareful if you read it you will be ahead of JDX.

[Anti-sophist]

sine-1(100/733) = 7.84 degrees glide slope

If it is to be ground speed then
tan-1(100/733) = 7.76 degrees

I thought it came in at 4 degree




You are being somewhat overly precise. It varies a fair amount. For example, the pitch angle of the plane (which isn't quite the number you want)... varies from like -8.5 to -4 during the last 10 seconds or so of recorded data.

[beachnut]

Was Flt 77 in such a dive?

That's 100 fps. Forward velocity was said to be 500 MPH which is 733 fps
If 733 fps is taken to be velocity along the path of the aircraft

sine-1(100/733) = 7.84 degrees glide slope

If it is to be ground speed then
tan-1(100/733) = 7.76 degrees

I thought it came in at 4 degrees

I thought that the pressure altitude problem would be more that the air flow over the craft would be out of the parameters for certification due to its going well over Vmo and not due to its dropping too fast. (though certainly that would also cause a problem as per Mad(flt) Scientist's post.

The instruments were simply never designed to read properly at that altitude and while the aircraft was going that fast.
Pilots use some extimates like the 60 to 1 rule.

Take the 600 feet and you would have 50 feet lost at 5 degrees. It works for small angles. 60 to 1. If you are 60 miles away and one degree off course you are 1 mile off course.

Your 100 feet per second, at 733 feet per second is about 8 degrees using a quick 60 to 1 rule.

But the real formula works great and the pitch angle on the FDR may not be the angle the plane makes in space.

[jaydeehess]

You are being somewhat overly precise. It varies a fair amount. For example, the pitch angle of the plane (which isn't quite the number you want)... varies from like -8.5 to -4 during the last 10 seconds or so of recorded data.


Point taken. The calcs I did would be only for the short time that the aircraft was doing those exact rates of course.

Yes, I know that an 8 degree desent would be steep. I used to (25 years ago) do the PM's and repair on ILS systems and other nav-aids.

DME are accurate to within 1/10 nautical mile so that gives another source of error to the position data.(I worked on DME/VOR and TACAN as well)

I do also understand the idea of the time lag in having the parameters recorded on the FDR and that the FDR's main function is to illustrate what occured to when an aircraft leaves normal flight and not so much to accurately record the non-standard flight up to the crash.

It would be interesting to compare this FDR with those of aircraft that crashed at high speeds and out of control such as the Air Alaska aircraft that crashed due to a broken shaft in the tail trim or horz. stabilizer(I forget which-same result)

[apathoid]

I look at the FDR and it confirms the wind form about 330 degrees at 5 to 10 knots. This is why the plane was heading 70 degreees but the ground track was 71.4 degrees, the plane was being blown sideways. I have now the FDR confirming the WX reports saved and looked up by JDX. Thank you JDX. Yes truthers always have some facts but not to support their ideas. That is a 61.2 true track and a true heading of 58.8 true heading.


Speaking of the true track, one might ask themselves how that lines up with the damage..


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/990245f935ef1f7bb.jpg



...pretty well as you can see, and far better than I expected. All I did here was insert placemarks over each of the downed poles and the impact area, took a screen cap, then rotated the canvas exactly 61.2 degrees in photoshop, used the selection box to draw a perfectly straight line over the impact placemark, and cropped. At least they managed to fake something right.

[Mr.D]

Beachnut and apathoid know more about that particular instrument then I do. There is no question that the plane's velocity and low altitude provided a combination that no altimeter is checked for accuracy in.


That's essentially what I thought.

Apathoid came along later in the thread and addressed one of the followup points I was wondering about; Instrument lag. Though to be honest the particular ones I had in mind were inertial lag in the compass and lag in the heading (pitch and yaw in aviation terms, I think) measurements.

(I think it's pretty clear that the magnetic vs. true north systematic would dominate any statistical or environmental/callibration error in the compass reading - but that's an easy one to check)

I was wondering if just the various systematic errors in both time and measurement of the various instruments would be enough to invalidate various truther's conclusions about the FDR data being faked/too high/off course to hit the Pentagon even without knowing the FDR frame layout.

Without knowing either the operating parameters of the instruments, nor their accuracy within said parameters, I'm guessing (unless there's some known large systematic error in the altitude measurements at high speeds/low altitudes) that the answer is no; unfortunately it's not enough.

(Of course, since pseudoscientists rarely know anything about errors except possibly how to abuse statistics, I'm pretty sure an error analysis based debunking would go right over their heads anyway)

[beachnut]

That's essentially what I thought.

Apathoid came along later in the thread and addressed one of the followup points I was wondering about; Instrument lag. Though to be honest the particular ones I had in mind were inertial lag in the compass and lag in the heading (pitch and yaw in aviation terms, I think) measurements.

(I think it's pretty clear that the magnetic vs. true north systematic would dominate any statistical or environmental/callibration error in the compass reading - but that's an easy one to check)

I was wondering if just the various systematic errors in both time and measurement of the various instruments would be enough to invalidate various truther's conclusions about the FDR data being faked/too high/off course to hit the Pentagon even without knowing the FDR frame layout.

Without knowing either the operating parameters of the instruments, nor their accuracy within said parameters, I'm guessing (unless there's some known large systematic error in the altitude measurements at high speeds/low altitudes) that the answer is no; unfortunately it's not enough.

(Of course, since pseudoscientists rarely know anything about errors except possibly how to abuse statistics, I'm pretty sure an error analysis based debunking would go right over their heads anyway)

Modern compass systems work very well. The plane system must meet check point accuracy and the pilot will not accept more than 4 degrees of error between aircraft systems or ground check points. The compass heading at the end of the flight should be right on. You can check the take off heading to be lined up with the actual runway heading. The FDR should read the exact track of the mag heading for take off.

Runway 30 is 301 magnetic, 291 true, FDR reads 300.2 and 300.6, so the compass on take off was real close to 301 magnetic heading.

The planes top speed was 350KCAS, and the terrorist were doing 463KIAS. The pressure altimeter could be off.

Based on the radar altimeter and the best guess on aircraft location at that point the aircraft atltitude was about 400 feet msl if you take 273 radar reading and add 130 from the ground elevation. The best guess based on the FDR data for the aicraft location is the around the red dot area below, for the last data that JDX has.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745cd092eee417.jpg
Near this red point. There is still 2800 feet to go and no more FDR data. The altimeter here would say 500 feet, but the radar altimeter plus the ground would be 400 feet. Looks like the pressure altimeter is off by 100. You are talking about a system who is +-75 feet in the first place. Here you have a plane going 25 pecent past its top speed. I have no information on what the pitot static system errors are and no one else beside Boeing would know. Some aero majors could make some educated stabs with reasons for errors.

[Mr.D]

Modern compass systems work very well.


Ugh. Shoulda done one more round of editing/proofreading.

The analogy I had in mind was the inertial lag on an old style hand held cub-scout magnetic compass - which is little more than a magnet floating in a sealed disk filled with water.
(Ten years ago I worked with some solid-state accelerometers and tiltometers. The accelerometers turned out to be useless for us; there was a slight lag time characteristic of them (I don't remember the details). One of the natural harmonic periods in the system turned out to be too close to a mutiple of the measurement lag.)
I don't know what the state of the art is with respect to avionics equipment, but I am assuming that at extremes outside the normal operating parameters that there are some very large systematics in the measurments.

I'm totally guessing about systematics (what else other than lag? A high pressure front causing a 'prepulse' type effect?) in time.

[Anti-sophist]

I'm totally guessing about systematics (what else other than lag? A high pressure front causing a 'prepulse' type effect?) in time.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSSI.htm
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSI.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system

To answer your question in a shorter way, there are at least two kinds of error. Hysterisis (or transient error) is what we typically talk about when we say "lag". This error causes a lag that keeps the altimeter from 'keeping up' with the plane during rapid changes. There would also be some steady-state (or positional) error. This is the error that exists once you give the altimeter time to "level-off" and catch up with a plane who's altitude isn't changing.

[apathoid]

That's essentially what I thought.

Apathoid came along later in the thread and addressed one of the followup points I was wondering about; Instrument lag. Though to be honest the particular ones I had in mind were inertial lag in the compass and lag in the heading (pitch and yaw in aviation terms, I think) measurements.

(I think it's pretty clear that the magnetic vs. true north systematic would dominate any statistical or environmental/callibration error in the compass reading - but that's an easy one to check)

I was wondering if just the various systematic errors in both time and measurement of the various instruments would be enough to invalidate various truther's conclusions about the FDR data being faked/too high/off course to hit the Pentagon even without knowing the FDR frame layout.

Without knowing either the operating parameters of the instruments, nor their accuracy within said parameters, I'm guessing (unless there's some known large systematic error in the altitude measurements at high speeds/low altitudes) that the answer is no; unfortunately it's not enough.

(Of course, since pseudoscientists rarely know anything about errors except possibly how to abuse statistics, I'm pretty sure an error analysis based debunking would go right over their heads anyway)

There isn't gonna be any appreciable lag in most modern flight instrument systems(air data notwithstanding). For example, the compass system and attitude reference system of the 757 consists of 3 ring laser gyros, one for each axis, that compute the difference of arrival of two helium-neon lasers and sends that resultant error signal to the Electronic Flight Instrument symbol generators for display. If there is delay, it's in the milli/micro-second range. Since the Air Data Computer still relies on pneumatic inputs, which are subject to source errors like turbulent airflow and which have to travel through over 10 yards of plumbing, lag is inevitable.

As far as the maximum static error within the flight envelope, it depends on the altitude as well as the airspeed. When we test for 350+ kts of airspeed, the altitude has to be simulated at 30,000+ ft. I'd have to double check, but I believe the static error is +/- 125 ft at the highest tested airspeed. Since we don't test the static system at low altitude/high speed, I cannot even guess what the margin for error is and I'd imagine that very few people can make an educated guess. You'd have to consider aerodynamics past the flight tested speeds, the ADCs density compensation outside of the design range as well as the overall predicted lag at vertical speeds and forward speeds much high than the design limit.

[JAStewart]

jdx has replied to my second post in that thread.
As expected:


It appears I am banned.

,,, and I never even questioned his findings about the FDR. All I did was suggest a new tact for getting his message out.

Freedom of speech, Rob Balsamo style. Quench even the hint of dissent.
Not sure why he thought I was JAStewart.

I am registerd there as JAStewart :P

just shows his attention to detail :)

[pagan]

Gravy: Your (and others in your group) whole life seems to be dedicated to battle us truthers.
At the same time you compare us with ufo fantasists, bigfooters and moonhoaxers etc.

I think we have a discrepancy here. Because I suppose you're not going after the bigfooters?

Perhaps, our "illusions" are more dangerous? Our actions can actually stop the war in the ME and the coming attack on Iran? And you and your comrades don't like that?

You want the Americans to keep the war going, to secure the oil supply or whatever?

[uk_dave]

You JAQing off again pagan?

[pagan]

You JAQing off again pagan?

Yep, did you cum too?:D

[Rawkarma]

Gravy: Your (and others in your group) whole life seems to be dedicated to battle us truthers.
At the same time you compare us with ufo fantasists, bigfooters and moonhoaxers etc.

I think we have a discrepancy here. Because I suppose you're not going after the bigfooters?

Perhaps, our "illusions" are more dangerous? Our actions can actually stop the war in the ME and the coming attack on Iran? And you and your comrades don't like that?

You want the Americans to keep the war going, to secure the oil supply or whatever?

Whole life? Unlike most troofers, we do have other priorities in life, but many of us rational folk find your unsubstantiated claims and your carelessness in accusing others of mass murder with not a jot of evidence extremely distasteful.

The Cters for bigfoot, the moon landing hoax, and 911 are all fantasists. Where 911 differs is you accuse people of murder with no evidence. You accuse family members of the victims of lying about receiving the last phone calls from thier loved ones with no evidence; you accuse the first responders of being complicit in 911 and without evidence.

And on being dangerous: there are many in the twoof movement that are extremely radical. If they could, they'd lynch the bush administration in a heart beat. All in the name of freedom and justice and without a shred of evidence.

In their minds they have already proven and convicted the evil doers. No amount of evidence to the contrary matters; all that matters is when they get to carry out the sentence.

Go listen to Alex Jones's radio show sometime. He is clearly insane... and he is not an exception within the movement.

[pagan]

Whole life? Unlike most troofers, we do have other priorities in life, but many of us rational folk find your unsubstantiated claims and your carelessness in accusing others of mass murder with not a jot of evidence extremely distasteful.

The Cters for bigfoot, the moon landing hoax, and 911 are all fantasies. Where 911 differs if you accuse people of muder with no evidence. You accuse family members of the victims of lying about receiving the last phone calls from thier loved ones with no evidence. You accuse the first responders of being complicit in 911 and without evidence.

And on being dangerous: there are many in the twoof movement that are extremely radical. If they could, they'd lynch the bush administration in a heart beat. All in the name of freedom and justice and without a shred of evidence.

In their minds they have already proven and convicted the evil doers. No amount of evidence to the contrary matters; all that matters is when they get to carry out the sentence.

Go listen to Alex Jones's radio show sometime. He is clearly inane, and he is not an exception within the movement.


You are again using the victims in your battle against us. This is extemely dishonest. Remember the "Victim families steering committe, who pushed for a real investigation.
They are on our side, they want to know the truth. What do you say about this site:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

We sure want the Bush adm on trial. We don't want to lynch them before the trial. Well, hmm... maybe after the trial?

Alex Jones? I wouldn't call him insane. While, not being a personal favourite of mine. He is doing a lot of good work for 911 truth. Alex is not typical for the truth movement. He is unique.

[Rawkarma]

You are again using the victims in your battle against us. This is extemely dishonest. Remember the "Victim families steering committe, who pushed for a real investigation.
They are on our side, they want to know the truth. What do you say about this site:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

We sure want the Bush adm on trial. We don't want to lynch them before the trial. Well, hmm... maybe after the trial?

Alex Jones? I wouldn't call him insane. While, not being a personal favourite of mine. He is doing a lot of good work for 911 truth. Alex is not typical for the truth movement. He is unique.

It's extremely dishonest when you dodge questions.

Do you agree that Cters for bigfoot, the moon landing hoax, and 911 differ? I won't say in being fantasists, as you clearly believe otherwise, but in how your movement accuses people of mass murder and without evidence?

Does your movement accuse family members of the victims of lying about receiving phone calls on 9/11?

Does your movement accuse the first responders of being complicit in 911?

"Alex Jones? I wouldn't call him insane. While, not being a personal favourite of mine. He is doing a lot of good work for 911 truth. Alex is not typical for the truth movement. He is unique."

Alex Jones is a raving lunatic. You need to listen to his show more and without your tin hat on.

And I agree with you in that Alex Jones is doing alot of good for your movement, but in this regard: He is showing rational people how radicalized your movement has become.

Alex is not typical for the truth movement?

That's another one right there. Its in keeping with your mindset and your love of fantasies pagan -- I can't really expect you to view it any other way.

Like, rationally.

[Gravy]

Gravy: Your (and others in your group) whole life seems to be dedicated to battle us truthers.
At the same time you compare us with ufo fantasists, bigfooters and moonhoaxers etc.

I think we have a discrepancy here.


No, we just have a normal pagan lie here. Rational adults know that if you have to lie to support your arguments, there's something wrong with your arguments.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904558d6428eff8.jpg

[Panoply_Prefect]

I know JDX has declined to have anything but a telephone debate, however the Holocaustsphere, or whattyawannacallit, had a debate were both sides actually agreed how to go about it. It was fascinating to follow, with multiple participants on both teams. Worth a look imho:

http://p102.ezboard.com/The-Scholars-Debate/frodohforumfrm23

It would be very interesting to see such a debate for the 911-ummm..sphere. Using the same rules and procedures, it could actually be a huge debate.

Cheers,
S

[westprog]

Our actions can actually stop the war in the ME and the coming attack on Iran? And you and your comrades don't like that?

You want the Americans to keep the war going, to secure the oil supply or whatever?

In fact, the TM is of some benefit to GWB. The stupidity of the theories is so obvious, that it has pretty well prevented any serious investigation into the failings of 9/11.

I once facetiously suggested that the entire TM was set up by the Bush administration as a smokescreen. I don't really believe it, but it certainly serves a purpose for them.

[Gravy]

In fact, the TM is of some benefit to GWB.

You got that right. While I'll bet very few people have been converted to activists against the Bush administration by the "truth" movement, many people who are predisposed against Bush have kept themselves from doing anything productive about that because they're spending countless hours hunting squibs and reading works of fantasy written by fools. What a waste.

[aggle-rithm]

No, we just have a normal pagan lie here. Rational adults know that if you have to lie to support your arguments, there's something wrong with your arguments.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904558d6428eff8.jpg


From the CT viewpoint, though, getting the "truth" out is so important that they can't be bothered with puny ethical considerations such as whether the "truth" is true or not.

No, don't try and figure it out. It takes a special sort of mind. ;)

[westprog]

You got that right. While I'll bet very few people have been converted to activists against the Bush administration by the "truth" movement, many people who are predisposed against Bush have kept themselves from doing anything productive about that because they're spending countless hours hunting squibs and reading works of fantasy written by fools. What a waste.

If nothing else, the CT's have muddied the waters sufficiently that there is much less prospect of a coherent investigation into how 911 came to happen. That is their only real achievement.

[Totovader]

Gravy: Your (and others in your group) whole life seems to be dedicated to battle us truthers.
At the same time you compare us with ufo fantasists, bigfooters and moonhoaxers etc.

I think we have a discrepancy here. Because I suppose you're not going after the bigfooters?

Perhaps, our "illusions" are more dangerous? Our actions can actually stop the war in the ME and the coming attack on Iran? And you and your comrades don't like that?

You want the Americans to keep the war going, to secure the oil supply or whatever?

So to you- it's strictly "ends justify the means"? Even if your theories are wacky, unsubstantiated, bull crap- you're against the war and that's noble?

Skipping an entire argument and just arriving at the conclusion- only to say your "evidence" and position is irrelevant... that sort of shines a gigantic spotlight on your bias.

[Gravy]

If nothing else, the CT's have muddied the waters sufficiently that there is much less prospect of a coherent investigation into how 911 came to happen. That is their only real achievement.Indeed, although allow me to suggest "another coherent investigation" as being more accurate. :)

[westprog]

Indeed, although allow me to suggest "another coherent investigation" as being more accurate. :)

I think the investigation as to how the hijackings took place, how the buildings collapsed, and how Al-Quaeda are operating was coherent, useful and correct.

What is less clear is how CIA support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan helped the rise of militant Islam. How the Israelis promoted the rise of Hamas and Islamism to subvert the PLO. How the support of the USA for the corrupt Saudi regime led Osama to see them as his primary enemy once the Soviets left Afghanistan.

These are all fuzzy, tricky issues, and they span many years. There is nothing obvious there - I certainly don't know if all the points I made are valid, or what weight to attach to them. I do know that they are far more interesting areas for investigation than exactly how WTC7 came to collapse.

[Gravy]

I agree, westprog. Those are the questions I'd most like to see answered. I'd love to have a look at the 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee report, which may have more to say about US-Saudi relations than either government is comfortable with. I wonder how much of such a foreign policy* investigation could or would be allowed to see the light of day and how much would be classified as national security secrets.

*(And domestic, since energy policy is related.)

[Lurker]

It is intersting seeing JDX disavow any claims about the Pentagon he made in the past when it comes to an upcoming debate. Note how he makes sure to get Gravy's claim set in stone.

The reason is simple, by having Gravy claim that the plane hit the Pentagon and JDX making no claims, it falls on Gravy to prove his claim, not on JDX to prove anything else.

It is much easier to poke holes in someone else's claim than to prove your own. Basic debate tactic and clearly JDX wants Gravy on the defensive rather than himself having to defend his own claims.

Lurker

[Panoply_Prefect]

It is intersting seeing JDX disavow any claims about the Pentagon he made in the past when it comes to an upcoming debate. Note how he makes sure to get Gravy's claim set in stone.

The reason is simple, by having Gravy claim that the plane hit the Pentagon and JDX making no claims, it falls on Gravy to prove his claim, not on JDX to prove anything else.

It is much easier to poke holes in someone else's claim than to prove your own. Basic debate tactic and clearly JDX wants Gravy on the defensive rather than himself having to defend his own claims.

Lurker

A very valid point. Which explains why so many truthers are so afraid of actually commiting to a theory of their own. Instead they hide behind the "Im just asking questions" -shield.

/S

[westprog]

I agree, westprog. Those are the questions I'd most like to see answered. I'd love to have a look at the 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee report, which may have more to say about US-Saudi relations than either government is comfortable with. I wonder how much of such a foreign policy* investigation could or would be allowed to see the light of day and how much would be classified as national security secrets.

*(And domestic, since energy policy is related.)


The irritating thing is that the CT's really aren't interested in any of that stuff. Things that might really catch out the government, or justify their actions, aren't even on the radar. It's massive self-deception as to what is and what isn't relevant.

[beachnut]

Gravy: Your (and others in your group) whole life seems to be dedicated to battle us truthers.
At the same time you compare us with ufo fantasists, bigfooters and moonhoaxers etc.

I think we have a discrepancy here. Because I suppose you're not going after the bigfooters?

Perhaps, our "illusions" are more dangerous? Our actions can actually stop the war in the ME and the coming attack on Iran? And you and your comrades don't like that?

You want the Americans to keep the war going, to secure the oil supply or whatever?
This is about 9/11 CT. You must of missed the anti war forum. This is about JDX who also is void of fact like you on 9/11. Wrong thread, wrong forum, still no facts. Thank you
Our actions can actually stop the war in the ME and the coming attack on Iran?
No, idiots making up lies about 9/11 can not stop the war. They can just look dumb. (you should go to Iraq and protest the people blowing up their own people; but then you are just a CTer with no facts, not an action man, a talk man)

[jaydeehess]

It is intersting seeing JDX disavow any claims about the Pentagon he made in the past when it comes to an upcoming debate. .



On P4T I have witnessed on several occassions, a poster refer to CT theories that were expressed on the P4T forums only to have jdx basically respond that P4T makes no claim of a theory. This seems to be done in order to attempt to shut down any non-CT arguement. jdx does not make the same response to theories put forth by anyone who is a CT. The prime example is jdx's reluctance(actually I have never witnessed at all) to rein in one George Hayduke, who does indeed post some far fetched senarios that he declares are true.
JDX has never objected to anyone, for instance, claiming that the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with a missile. I even pointed out how the adamage is inconsistent with any missile theory. I was then attacked by jdx who said that real evidence is examining the FDR. No mention by jdx that Geo.H. offered no plausible evidence.

[rwguinn]

<<Snip cheeseless whine...>>>
I think we have a discrepancy here. Because I suppose you're not going after the bigfooters?

Perhaps, our "illusions" are more dangerous? Our actions can actually stop the war in the ME and the coming attack on Iran? And you and your comrades don't like that?

<Snip Straw>?
Oh, we do (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2185604#post2185604)
That's a wholly different forum...

[Obviousman]

It's good to see even the LC admins can see what JDX is up to:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6390

[jaydeehess]

It's good to see even the LC admins can see what JDX is up to:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6390


Could you be more specific for those of us bad, bad people whose IP addresses are banned from veiwing LC.:boggled:

[Obviousman]

Okay... JDX conversation with IVXX:

(Rob Balsamo @ Mar 29 2007, 05:56 PM)
IVXX,

I'll just ask these questions once here since you didnt reply to them via email or IM.

Why are you letting Russ lie about my return to these forums?

Well Rob like you I'd rather not get "roped" into BS either but I will answer the questions.

First. Russ isn't lying about your return to the the forums. If he objected for any reason you wouldn't be here.

(Rob)

Why havent you told him that you invited me back and that i told you i would be better off staying banned as i dont want to get roped into the infighting?


I haven't told him I invited you back cause that is not true. The way it happen was I received a PM from Merc asking if we could unban your account. I told him I had to ask Dylan since it was Dylan who ban you in the first place. Dylan agreed so it was Dylan who invited you back. Yes I was the "bridge" but it wasn't my place to invite you back. Again though if there was objection from Russell the ban wouldn't have been lifted.

(Rob)

Why did you tell me that the infighting would stop yet then let Russ make thread after thread saying "we have an agenda to take down these forums"?


First I don't let Russ do anything just like he doesn't let me do anything. I told you the infighting has to stop cause it does. Answering some direct questions could easily help put this to rest. However when the questions are asked be it by Russell or another user they are meet with attacks and the answers dodged. I'm sure you can see how this would lead to frustration for some users.

(Rob)

Why did you and Quest come to us to try and mend wounds and let by-gones be by-gones when you are letting Russ continue his ****-stirring?


Quest may have "come to you" but I didn't. I have always been approached be it by email or PM from you, Merc or Lyte. Also again I'm not letting Russell do anything.

(Rob)

We have work to do and i dont feel like getting roped into the BS that goes on over here.


Yet you continue to post here. I said it in another thread and I'll say it here. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to post here. If you don't like this forum or the admins, don't post here. Easy enough don't you think??

(Rob)

Those who lived through the last forum debacle, know the truth.

Click For Truth
All statements from those respected individuals who lived through it are there.


And for every statement there I can get another one that knows the truth completely different.

(Rob)

Our only agenda is to expose govt lies. We have disseminated some of our analysis here. I apologize if that upsets some people. It is clear others have an agenda other than exposing govt lies.


Some here just have questions about the analysis and evidence posted here but when they ask those question they don't receive answers. I apologize for people actually expecting answers to their questions.

What it boils down to Rob is just many people besides RP ask questions and either get attacked or are told the answer doesn't matter for some reason. The questions asked are very important and will be asked sooner or later by someone. I posted this in another thread but will post it here as well. I give kudos and props to all who are investigating in whatever way. However I will ask the questions that any analysis or evidence brings up to me. I have even questioned Dylan on points in LC.

I said this in a PM to Lyte but I believe it's important enough to post publicly. Dylan is not controlled by Russell and that is an out and out insult to Dylan no matter who says it. The truth of the matter is I have had way more input on LC:FC and talk to Dylan way more than Russell does. There is also no "cheerleading" for Dylan coming from me, which I have been accused of. Dylan asked me to be an admin and has giving me an inside look at LC:FC and I have thanked him for his trust in me. However and Dylan can confirm this. I tell Dylan what I feel needs to be said. He asks my opinion a lot and I don't tell him what I think he wants to hear. I tell him what he needs to hear no matter what the issue. My interest is in the truth and the good of LC and these forums.

That all being said, I still believe the infighting is poitless and counterproductive.

then later...

(Rob Balsamo @ Mar 29 2007, 07:17 PM)
IVXX,

just one more question.

Do you think us professionals should ignore this FDR information? Do you think we should not pursue the govt based on this information? Do you feel you have a better grasp of this information than us? (ok.. so thats technically 3)


No I don't think the FDR should be ignored and yes the gov't should be pursued based on the infomation. Could you point out once where I said I feel I have a better grasp??

(Rob)

Bottom line folks, your name is not on this information. .so stop fighting it.


Asking questions is not "fighting it".

(Rob)

We dont have time to give you a full course in aviation (although i have supplied many links for people). Many of the questions have been asked and answered. Some people have a habit of asking the same thing over and over again that has already been answered. Some people do have a comprehension problem and perhaps a learning disorder (not an attack, that is fact)


The fact is there is still many unanswered questions. Questions that aren't even answered with speculation.

(Rob)

So with that said, dont worry about the FDR information, your name isnt on it. The people who understand it are taking care of it. But fight it if you wish.. You will not stop us..


Again no one is fighting it. Asking questions is not fighting it. Also no one is try to stop you so get over it.

(Rob)

Ask yourself.. why are so many people here fighting the work of the P4T and CIT when the pople who are fighting this work dont even have their name on it, nor are they pursuing the govt for answers based on it.. .all they do is fight the information. They're entitled. Whatever floats their boat i guess... Have at it..


Again no one is frighting your work, they are asking questions. You have to ask yourself, why is asking questions be labeled as fighting??

More to come...

[DavidJames]

I love it, JDX is pissed off at CTist "just asking questions"

JDX, you are the best thing we having to fight the tin hat CTists. I would like to personally thank you for personifying the intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy that is the "truth movement". You are doing more to expose the the "truth movement" for it's dishonesty, hypocrisy and self serving ego trips then JREF ever could.

Thank You JDX.

[Obviousman]

JDX doesn't like being stood up too....



IVXX, (or Russ).

Delete my account please.

Thank you.

Your account won't be deleted. If you don't want to post here, then don't. It's called will power and self control.



Those who have serious questions that havent already been answered know where to find us.

Most, if not all, answers can be found on our forums for those who are motivated to do the research and not be spoon fed.


I could run down a list of serious questions that have not been answered but since you left I won't. Plus they've been asked before and remain unanswered. No one is being spoon fed Rob. The fact that they ask questions proves that.

lol.. they ban me twice.. IVXX IM's me and tells me im unbanned. I ask him to keep me banned as i dont feel like getting roped into the infighting. He tells me the infighting will stop.

Russ attacks us saying we 'have an agenda', that we are 'vindictive and manipulating' in several threads. I post here in defense even though IVXX knows i dont want to get roped into this stuff.

I request to have the account deleted as to not be tempted by this BS (i agree with self-control, but its kinda hard not to engage when constant attacks and lies are allowed to be posted here and my account is still active).

If you IVXX admin this forum from an unbiased position, if you source your claims, and if you actually read the information i had asked you to, perhaps this forum would be more a pleasure to post. Therefore, since you will not respect a request of one of your members, i will do the best i can to stop posting here. If the attacks from Russ continue, we will take further steps.


However, as to Russ's questions...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=12847500

the reply:


If you IVXX admin this forum from an unbiased position, if you source your claims, and if you actually read the information i had asked you to, perhaps this forum would be more a pleasure to post. Therefore, since you will not respect a request of one of your members, i will do the best i can to stop posting here. If the attacks from Russ continue, we will take further steps.

OK Rob I will delete your account cause it seems you won't be able to stop posting here by yourself. Putting Russell aside for a moment. Even questions from other users get twisted and deemed attacks. These are legit question that deserve an answers. If the answer is not known do not accuse the person asking of attacking just say the answer is unknown.

Threat noted, however empty it may be.

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, it becomes ever more clear that I was never going to get anywhere with jdx unless and only if I left my intellect at the door and proclaimed my absolute acceptance of all of his claims.

,,,,, and this guy wonders why no one wants a verbal debate with him. He regards any questioning of his work as a personal attack.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And while we're at it... what is the JREF rule (if any) about needlessly bumping ANCIENT crusty old threads?

[DC]

Only when you assume infinite accuracy and precision and pay no regard to error, whatsoever. Adherence to the existence of phenomena at or beyond the edge of our detection capability is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

When Rob can establish the scientific and statistical significance of these deviations, wake me up. In the mean time, it's plain old pseudoscience.



Science isn't discussed in "live recorded debates". When he wants a proper debate, he will publish his findings like the rest of the science community. I'll even forego the requirement that it be peer-reviewed.

If he is unwilling to publish his findings and all the necessary data to check his claims, his work is unscientific. We don't "trust" in Science. Especially not known liars with well established mental problems.

Furthermore, a live conversation would consist, entirely of me saying "No, you cannot claim that. Not within the justifiable precision of the measurement". Over and over. Maybe he'll mix in some off-topic references to NASA documents.

In the mean time, the only people that will listen will be truthers... and the only reason JDX is interested in such a high-profile event is to reclaim some of his status among the truthers where him and his no-planer friends have been relegated to the fringe of their own movement.


was you ever able to deliver any evidence or backup for your very very specualtive assumptions about FDR data from Flight 77?
the fantasy of FDR lag and such? you know that stuff that you normaly will find in the NTSB report when there is indeed a lag or corrupted data in the FDR. normally the NTSB report mentions such things, but not in the report of flight 77.

can you deliver evidence by now?

[beachnut]

was you ever able to deliver any evidence or backup for your very very specualtive assumptions about FDR data from Flight 77?
the fantasy of FDR lag and such? you know that stuff that you normaly will find in the NTSB report when there is indeed a lag or corrupted data in the FDR. normally the NTSB report mentions such things, but not in the report of flight 77.

can you deliver evidence by now?
was?

Example? Got one? (never mind, I see you are unaware who was lead on 9/11, NTSB does accidents, the FBI does murder!) All products were most likely asked for by the FBI so they could see what happen, or if the FDR had something to reveal about the terrorist.

With all the uncertainty on 9/11, the FBI probably asked for the FDR readout and to see who was flying the jet. The FDR clearly shows the terrorist were flying. I doubt you understand that, but it is clear to me, and anyone at the NTSB who is a pilot or familiar with commercial pilots.

The animation for instance is not finished, it is a working copy. This animation is one reason Balsamo and p4t can't figure out 9/11, they do not understand what a working copy is, or could be. They just twist and cherry pick and mess up stuff. Like you do.

I do not know what the FBI tasked the NTSB to do. As I said above, my speculation is the FBI wanted to confirm the terrorist flew the planes, it is confirmed by looking at the flight data! ... take heart, at least your sig is correct. …
... ...
Oh, the NTSB did not do a safety report. They only assisted the FBI. Darn, I thought you were going to have something worth talking about but you don't. Better luck next thread

[DC]

was

Example? Got one?

Oh, the NTSB did not do a safety report. They only assisted the FBI. Darn, I thought you were going to have something worth talking about but you don't.

oc for you ppl in denial there is nothing special...... nothing to worry about.....

who did the Data readout? an NTSB worker or someone from the FBI?
and wouldnt it be even more usefull to deliver such info about lag or corrupted data etc, when you do it for another agency and not for yourself?

btw, still waiting for your evidence.... got any?

[WildCat]

you know that stuff that you normaly will find in the NTSB report when there is indeed a lag or corrupted data in the FDR. normally the NTSB report mentions such things, but not in the report of flight 77.
What NTSB report? :rolleyes:

More incredible ignorance from the crack "researchers" of the truth movement.

[tsig]

What NTSB report? :rolleyes:

More incredible ignorance from the crack "researchers" of the truth movement.

Did you mean "crack" researchers?

[Turbofan]

oc for you ppl in denial there is nothing special...... nothing to worry about.....

who did the Data readout? an NTSB worker or someone from the FBI?
and wouldnt it be even more usefull to deliver such info about lag or corrupted data etc, when you do it for another agency and not for yourself?

btw, still waiting for your evidence.... got any?

Don't hold your breath.

Most of these guys wont answer questions, let alone provide links and proof.

They will just throw something trivial in response, and ask questions that
don't pertain to the main subject.

Then you're left chasing down information about rediculous, petty points
because if you don't answer...well...they will label you as a "nut case",
or "crack researcher" that can't provide proof.

[Bobert]

Pot meet kettle.

[applecorped]

Don't hold your breath.

Most of these guys wont answer questions, let alone provide links and proof.

They will just throw something trivial in response, and ask questions that
don't pertain to the main subject.

Then you're left chasing down information about rediculous, petty points
because if you don't answer...well...they will label you as a "nut case",
or "crack researcher" that can't provide proof.

Finally! The truth!