Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

[Turbofan]

Ah, so when you tell someone to buy a DVD, then you can understand now? Now you see the irony in you wanting others to pay in order to discuss, but how you yourself refuse to spend any of your own money in the process.

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

If you need a video to understand, then I've offered that as well.

CL wants to talk this out. I applaud that gesture. Let's do it!

 

[beachnut]

What's this? The camera was traveling at 1 foot per second, or was the
plane filming at 750 frames per second?

If we saw 5 frames of video, did the object require 5 seconds
to move across the lawn?

Are we expect an object moving at 750 fps with such mass
to be diving, lifting, turning within that short distance across
the lawn?

Care to clarify please?

77 was going faster, the FDR last data was 463 KIAS, gaining 5 knots a second. Impact is 6 seconds after that. Just thought you might want to know some more things you and p4t do not know.

Sorry, camera only caught how many frames of 77? Do you even look before you leap? 64 words/second, now you have no clue on the speed of the camera? You know as much about this as you do the FDR.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

If you need a video to understand, then I've offered that as well.

CL wants to talk this out. I applaud that gesture. Let's do it!

Nice dodge. Hour response to many questions has been for people to go buy the DVD. It's YOU who seems to *need* it, not us. We have asked you for the calculations. you seem to think you don't need calculations but instead you only need a video.

 

[Turbofan]

77 was going faster, the FDR last data was 463 KIAS, gaining 5 knots a second. Impact is 6 seconds after that. Just thought you might want to know some more things you and p4t do not know.

Sorry, camera only caught how many frames of 77? Do you even look before you leap? 64 words/second, now you have no clue on the speed of the camera? You know as much about this as you do the FDR.

6 seconds? Right...

Have you made up a theory of why the FDR stopped for no apparent reason?

Do you have an excuse of how DME could be a trillion times out of tolerance?

Your circular non technical BS is really get old and washed up...

 

[beachnut]

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

If you need a video to understand, then I've offered that as well.

CL wants to talk this out. I applaud that gesture. Let's do it!

Mackey's work still stands! You never even tried to show it had errors.

It is uncanny how one of the scenarios matched G forces used by the terrorist, albeit the terrorist pilot was not a smooth curve guy like real pilots can be. Remember p4t stated they could not hit buildings in simulators, I have taken kids to simulators and they were able to fly into buildings. Kids with zero flying experience and terrorist with flying licenses are better than p4t pilots.

You and p4t have produced another false information special. Failure comes to mind, Balsamo puts a level off in that never happened. Good work being all you can be, spew the lie 77 did not hit when the FDR you want to argue about was found in the Pentagon, and the souls you disrespect were all identified by DNA with layers of oversight! You are proven a liar, p4t are proven failed physics and really bad flying false information experts who can only apologize for terrorist with implications of lies. Funny how Balsamo puts all the level off in one small area, to come up with 10 and 34 Gs and he gets it wrong. Why not level off in .01 second and get even more Gs. Funny, you have no clue on flying.

 

[Turbofan]

Funny you can't follow the math and corrections. I guess that's why you
wont go live and debate us.

 

[beachnut]

6 seconds? Right...

Here is RADAR and FDR positions! The last FDR position is the yellow dot to the right, the last RADAR is the blue on the right. This is proof of no NoC and if you take all your skills you could correlate 77 FDR to RADAR, and see 77 is over 6 seconds away. But your have only a lie to spread. You do not real research, you are lost on this topic, as Balsamo is unprepared with physics and flight dynamics. He messes up every thing, the feet in a nautical mile to the frequency of a RAR ALT.

You may need help to understand this, you will not get any from the math challenged p4t crew. (John Farmer did the work to get and plot the positions, unlike p4t he is doing real research and analysis)

Have you made up a theory of why the FDR stopped for no apparent reason?

It is a fact, the FDR last point is 13:37:44, impact is after 13:37:50. I used matching the radar data to FDR data; so did Farmer. Just like many times, FDR are missing data for the entire flight! FACT. 77 last point is logged over 6 seconds from impact, on a true track course of 61.2 degrees. Even the FDR shows 77 over 8 seconds away in the above diagram, but the navigation system is 1600 to 2000 feet off. You have no real skills here I can see. Why are you not knowledgeable on navigation and RADAR stuff?
Not a theory, the FDR last point is 6 seconds away, you can't figure it out, so you lie and say 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Do you have an excuse of how DME could be a trillion times out of tolerance? ...

The DME is only stored in the FDR with values of X.2, X.5, X.8, X.0. This means the best resolution is what CLASS? Do you even have a clue? The accuracy of DME used in planes like 77 was less than 1/2 mile or 3 percent whichever is greater, from AIM. If you would research this, studies down in the terminal area show typical errors in DME to be 0.23 NM. Therefore the 1.5 DME stored in the FDR at 13:37:43 could be over 1600 feet in error.

If Balsamo uses 1.5 DME in his video, he has made a 1600 foot to 3000 foot error. Par for p4t! I have explained this and you fail to grasp, just like the 64 words per second, were you were off a factor of FOUR. I am telling the truth, or trying, you are spewing a lie and not trying.

Your circular non technical BS is really get old and washed up...

Calling math and physics circular non technical BS may be the reason you are unable to figure out 9/11. Math is not non-technical, nor are flying manuals. So I post technical specs, you call them non-technical. The NAZIs used this kind of propaganda, and Balsamo runs his web site as a truth-NAZI, like the soup-NAZI. Lol

Yes calling math, physics and posting technical specs, "non-technical", is anti-intellectual on your part as you spew the lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon and becoming another terrorist apologist due to lack of evidence etc.

 

[R.Mackey]

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

I haven't seen these alleged corrections.

It's pretty simple math, and it's been verified by others, including Gregory Urich, who is not an "OCT"er.

 

[Turbofan]

Yawwwn...

The NTSB has the impact time at :45

Are you trying to tell me the clock sync is 6 seconds off?

Damn, I'd love to get you in a live debate.

 

[Turbofan]

R. Mackey based off his own calculations:

"there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77"

Care to show me the data trends which reflect your 4.0G calcs? Please
don't lie and tell me the recording stopped prior.

We all know that's false, and we all know you are either lying or covering
up your error. Which is it?

Here's a little picture if you need it:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi povs/FDR_Pent_Alt1_ab.jpg

 

[R.Mackey]

It bears pointing out, at this stage, that the 9/11 Commission Report has the impact times for WTC 1 and WTC 2 verifiably off by approximately ten seconds. An error of six seconds in the NTSB report, with far less data upon which to base a conclusion, is not at all surprising.

ETA: The FDR data did stop. Since the FDR shows the aircraft well above the impact point, there can be no doubt that it did not record all the way to impact. And if there was no impact at all (as the no-planers will argue), there's no reason for it to stop at all. Very simple.

ETAII: I'm referring to the picture linked above -- that's your picture?? I had thought it was made by someone refuting you... It clearly shows your error. If you assume the aircraft travelled in a straight dive, and performed its entire pull-up in a tiny fraction of a second, then of course you get unreasonably high g-loads. That's because it's a stupid assumption. Nobody in their right mind would propose such a flight path. The aircraft was pulling up well before that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Care to show me the data trends which reflect your 4.0G calcs? Please
don't lie and tell me the recording stopped prior.

We all know that's false, and we all know you are either lying or covering
up your error. Which is it?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Hey Turbo, you and I have a little unfinished business here Champ.

I am absolutely astonished that you are asking for support for anyone's calculations when I and numerous others have REPEATEDLY asked for the following:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

Enough BS, Turbo, give us the support. Now. Or STFU.

 

[beachnut]

Maybe you should take more time researching the NTSB data then.

You don't. You need to gain knowledge to understand the NTSB data, you ignore the facts and make up the lie 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Need I remind you that the impact time is 09:37:45 according to the NTSB.

If you researched the NTSB data and used the RADAR data, you can see the time of impact is 13:37:50, or very close. You are wrong, try using research. To blindly use any number is a mistake, you made a mistake.

Need I remind you that the data (which is not a working copy)shows nothing to support your calculations whether peak, average, or

'magical'.

You have no clue what Mackey's work is for.

Let's not forget DME recorded 1.5 nm with an error of +/- 0.1 nm. No Beachnut, your guesstimate is WAY outside the tolerance of error. It

doesn't even fly (pun intended).

FACT 1. DME is stored at the resolution as follows X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8. This is like your car odometer storing only X.0, X.25, X.5, X.75. So as you drive the best you can tell some one how far you are from some point is 0.25 mile. Resolution even today required by FAA is 1 mile!

The DME system errors for planes in 2001 like Flight 77 were averaging 0.23 nautical miles. This is backed up by AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual), DME errors less than ½ mile or 3 percent of the distance whichever is greater. FACT 2.

Take this accuracy and storage resolution and you get 1600 to 3000 feet errors possible with DME. How can I check this for making sense. OH, yes, take the INS, it is updated with VOR and DME, the best accuracy you can expect in the INS is ¼ mile and 3000 feet. This is confirmed with actual data in the FDR, on take off the FDR shows 77 2000 feet south of the runway. Thus accuracy and resolution in the FDR combine to give us up to ½ mile uncertainty in DME. Mackey can correct my quick engineering and flight experience look, with some ideas on the resolution storage. But moreover, looking at the DME storage in 2001 for DME, leads you to use DME as a gross indicator or position. Study the data turbofan, show me based on DME were 77 is. I have studied it. You have not.

Folks, the .1 nm resolution is for the test equipment used for DME and the transmitter errors. You can see why a moving plane, and the aircraft DME receiver add more accuracy errors; if you can't understand this, you need to study more.

Altitude too high. Pressure and RADAR altitude confirm each other. 4600 fpm decent when data stops.

Too high. 77 is over 6 seconds away from impact. RADAR Alt read 273, the ground is 130 feet. We have 403 feet MSL. Over 6 seconds to go. At 4,000 feet per minute we impact in 6 seconds at sea level, 40 feet below the Pentagon. lol – good job proving you are wrong on being too high.

Nobody here has even touched the surface on a plausible explanation of why the FDR 'might have stopped' before an impact.

Many FDR with missing data, 77 is too. Do you know all the reasons data stopped on all the other FDRs? No. Good job making up nothing here. The FDR and RADAR data proves 77 position is over 6 seconds from the Pentagon, you p4t guys can't put a dent in that.

I'm surprised that someone with your background can't figure this out, and would rather hide behind the screen than come forth and push for

an investigation.

Slinging Balsamo type insults will not work, tell Balsamo he is a terrorist loyalist, making excuses for terrorist and spewing implication of lies.

 

[Turbofan]

It bears pointing out, at this stage, that the 9/11 Commission Report has the impact times for WTC 1 and WTC 2 verifiably off by approximately ten seconds. An error of six seconds in the NTSB report, with far less data upon which to base a conclusion, is not at all surprising.

Not surprising, the OMISSION REPORT is not a first line 'investigation' of
Flight Data.

Poor Analogy. Had you said the NTSB was off by 10 seconds, you'd have a
point.

ETA: The FDR data did stop. Since the FDR shows the aircraft well above the impact point, there can be no doubt that it did not record all the way to impact. And if there was no impact at all (as the no-planers will argue), there's no reason for it to stop at all. Very simple.

That would be fine for those fooled into believing the OGCT.

So, you just said...

IF there's NO IMPACT AT ALL, THERE's NO REASON FOR IT TO STOP AT ALL!

LMAO!!!

HOly COW!!!

So tell me, why did it stop 6 second back if there WAS NO IMPACT!

Got ya buddy! Explain it!

ETAII: I'm referring to the picture linked above -- that's your picture?? I had thought it was made by someone refuting you... It clearly shows your error. If you assume the aircraft travelled in a straight dive, and performed its entire pull-up in a tiny fraction of a second, then of course you get unreasonably high g-loads. That's because it's a stupid assumption. Nobody in their right mind would propose such a flight path. The aircraft was pulling up well before that.

That picture was taken from the video, or a screen shot of the video.

I'll call it mine, or a close cousin.

Thanks.

Get to the math and your point Mackey. You are swimming in your lies
and I just caught you in a BIG contradiction.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yawwwn...

The NTSB has the impact time at :45

Are you trying to tell me the clock sync is 6 seconds off?

Damn, I'd love to get you in a live debate.

Could you post a link to the NTSB's statement on the impact time? Just for clarification. Thanks.

 

[The Big Dog]

Get to the math and your point Mackey. You are swimming in your lies
and I just caught you in a BIG contradiction.

Uh, Turbo, what the hell?

You are asking Mackey for his math when this question has been outstanding for MONTHS???

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

C'mon, you don't want to look like a hypocritical coward who refuses to justify their positions because they can't because the CIT's entire freaking story is a con-job by morons.

Get to the math and your point Turbo. You are swimming in your lies.

 

[R.Mackey]

Not surprising, the OMISSION REPORT is not a first line 'investigation' of
Flight Data.

Poor Analogy. Had you said the NTSB was off by 10 seconds, you'd have a
point.

Not really. The fact that the NTSB number ends in a "5" even suggests that it's an estimate.

What were the requirements on that number, I wonder? +/- 15 seconds? +/- 5? +/- 0.1?

Simple fact is, most people do not care about split second timing. This is just another sad example of taking results out of context. Unless you can put error bars on the NTSB figure, they are better than +/- 1 second, and this can be verified, you cannot use this as evidence. This is a basic principle of experimental technique.

That would be fine for those fooled into believing the OGCT.

The "Original Gangster Conspiracy Theory?" What does Dre have to do with this?

So, you just said...

IF there's NO IMPACT AT ALL, THERE's NO REASON FOR IT TO STOP AT ALL!

LMAO!!!

HOly COW!!!

I believe even you understand that the FDR stopped functioning due to physical damage, yes?

So tell me, why did it stop 6 second back if there WAS NO IMPACT!

Got ya buddy! Explain it!

There was an impact. Your question is nonsensical.

Regarding the six-second (approximate) loss of data, as I already indicated, there is a 60+ page thread that explains this in grim detail. But in brief:

• Sensor polling, debounce, message packetizing, transmission, and write operations all take a non-trivial amount of time
• Partial frame loss, caused by impact during a write operation, will invalidate the current frames, leaving the last bits of data "missing"
• It is possible but difficult to prove that events on board prior to final impact interfered with the FDR, such as electrical system spikes caused by maneuver, ingestion of tree branches, or light pole strikes
• It is also possible that the media itself was damaged, interfering with that part of the data record, but I have no way to test this

But you'll note that's not quite what I said. What I said was that losses of the last few seconds are common. There are prior examples of recovered FDRs that lose several seconds of data leading to impact.

And again, even if this "shouldn't" happen, but did, all it proves is that the FDR wasn't up to spec.

This entire argument misses the point. We need to work with the data that we do have, not complain about data that we don't. The FDR data that we have is consistent with a plausible approach and impact flight path. It is also, I must add, totally inconsistent with the graphic you threw up, and its ridiculous hockey-stick trajectory hypothesis.

That picture was taken from the video, or a screen shot of the video.

I'll call it mine, or a close cousin.

Thanks.

Get to the math and your point Mackey. You are swimming in our lies
and I just caught you in a BIG contradiction.

I am "swimming" in your lies? Disgusted by them, yes, but not swimming in them. Never mind, I see you fixed this. But whatever "lies" you're talking about are merely bare assertions of yours. I don't even know what you're talking about.

I gave you the math six months ago. I also remind you, this math was based on boundary conditions that you provided. I've also invited you, including you personally, to come up with new ones. You haven't followed up. Just lay out the constraints and we'll find a flight path that works.

 

[Turbofan]

Don't worry Mackey, I'm already onto your 60+ page full of lies.

Sorry to say, but you don't know how flash memoery operates. You don't
know the process of writing, reading and erasing data from an EEPROM.

Too bad nobody told you that it takes electricity and address lines to wipe
out data on flash memory IC's. You should also know the data is erased in
blocks and pages.

A couple of cells, words, or seconds is FAR from it my friend.

So now you're changing gears, and I'm going to throw this in your face
(Along with Anti).

All of your excuses are getting exposed and soon you'll have nothing left.

Do yourself a favour a read up on erasing flash memory before you waste
your time writing 60+ pages of garbage.

P.S. Why are the speeds and start of 330 deg turn in conflict with the people you SOURCE?

You do know the Omission Report sources the NTSB Flight study which
has the correct time (already linked above for Johnnyclueless).

I love bringing your lies to the forefront. Keep making excuses so I can
show everyone your poor research skills.

16.5 - I already told you I don't believe your silly flight path, and I'm not
going to calculate a single digit to play your game. THat's not what happened,
and it doesn't follow the FDR data. Period.

 

[R.Mackey]

Don't worry Mackey, I'm already onto your 60+ page full of lies.

Sorry to say, but you don't know how flash memoery operates. You don't
know the process of writing, reading and erasing data from an EEPROM.

All of the issues I summarized above are true regardless of the storage media used. Most of them are wholly upstream of the recording device itself.

Too bad nobody told you that it takes electricity and address lines to wipe
out data on flash memory IC's. You should also know the data is erased in
blocks and pages.

Physical damage also does a pretty good job. But that's incorrect. An individual bit may be so, but since compression and EDAC is in play here, along with rigid packet definitions, damage to part of the data record may render other parts of it unusable.

A couple of cells, words, or seconds is FAR from it my friend.

So now you're changing gears, and I'm going to throw this in your face
(Along with Anti).

All of your excuses are getting exposed and soon you'll have nothing left.

Do yourself a favour a read up on erasing flash memory before you waste
your time writing 60+ pages of garbage.

The argument would be the same if it was an SSDR, more basic Flash, digital tape, or even analogue. You're off in the weeds on something you clearly don't understand.

P.S. Why are the speeds and start of 330 deg turn in conflict with the people you SOURCE?

I have no idea where you're going with this.

You do know the Omission Report sources the NTSB Flight study which
has the correct time (already linked above for Johnnyclueless).

How do you know it's correct? To what accuracy? This is crucial to what remains of your argument.

I love bringing your lies to the forefront. Keep making excuses so I can
show everyone your poor research skills.

I still can't even identify what it is you think I've lied about. You're just going off on irrelevant tangents about (nominal) EEPROM behavior. And, I might add, ignoring questions put to you:

• What is the accuracy of the NTSB impact time estimate?
• What are the constraints you use for your (hockey stick) flight path?
• Why does your flight path radically conflict with the FDR data?

 

[twinstead]

Jesus, Turbo, a little less arrogant bluster and a little more substantive debate would be nice. You DO see how patient and polite R.Mackey is being, right?