AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Shrinker]

The NTSB used ATC transmissions, Radar data and the FDR to reconstruct the animation. Its in real time. The csv file matches the animation exactly (except for the cover-up of the altimeter being set on descent in the animation as it would have shown too high.. couldnt have that..lol). However, im not surprised you JREFers are unable to grasp that fact. Perhaps you think the ATC instructions, Radar and FDR are all in error by the same amount?

I'm only following the highlights of this debate so I guess my questions here are to both sides, rather than challenges to JDX.

How can he tell that the animation matches the csv exactly? Is he applying his protractor to the screen on every frame and checking it with the csv? How does he know the animation was construced from 3 sources? Wouldn't the animation be from the .fdr only? Wouldn't constructing an animation from three different sources mean that it doesn't match any of them exactly? How likely is it that all three data sources matched exactly? Where idoes he show correlation with the radar data, and the ATC transmissions? If there was a discrepancy, how was that resolved, and was that adjustment added to the animation or not?

 

[Shrinker]

Argh, how embarrassing. You see what happened there? I got dragged into all the contentious details, and missed JohnDope's crazy circular, inverted figure-of-eight, mobius-strip-like logic.

The csv must be a fake because the NTSB thoroughly checked it against other data. Therefore they must have faked it. Therefore they didn't need to investigate it. Therefore who the hell knows if its accurate. Therefore maybe it was at the right height after all....

 

[Anti-sophist]

The True Altitude of the aircraft at the ":44 Frame" was 480MSL. At 66ft/sec it would take 7.2 seconds longer to hit the pentagon. At this rate if it were low enough to hit the poles, it would have plowed into the ground prior to hitting the pentagon. If it increased its rate (which the accelerometer shows), it would have plowed into the ground sooner.

He is confusing the issue. The above document does NOT debunk his "true altitude" calculation. This calculation is based entirely on defining the instrument error. He is absolutely right when he says the errors I'm talking about fractions of a second (well, as much as 2 seconds). If his true altitude number is correct, he is actually on to something.

The problem is the instrument error of the altimeter has been well established. No one seems to agree with his "true altitude" calculation except for him. Even other CTers have dismissed his altitude calculations as bogus. Basing his entire calculation on a precise altitude at 500 knots and a few hundred feet has been thoroughly debunked, before, and I don't need to do it again.

There is a reason he created his alternate analysis that is based on descent speed, and impact point, trying to determine the height at the lightpoles. That's because not even other conspiracy theorists believe this line of reasoning. Maybe if he shows some intellectual honesty, and admits his "Alternate Analysis for light poles, Working backwards from impact point" (http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=84&st=0&#last) is fundamentally flawed, we can work from there.

The error issues I raise in this document, specfically, attack the methodology he uses in all 3 versions of his "alternate analysis". He then says "It doesn't apply to my true altitude calculation!". Claiming that, by him, is a strawman. I'm not trying to debunk his "true altitude" calculation.. the errors in that calculation rest (almost) entirely on the instrument error.

So, in order for Anti-Sophist to have his way.. he needs to get the NTSB to admit the aircraft struck the pentagon at 09:37:51. Or during the :51 "frame".

Only if I agree with your true altitude calculation, is that even remotely true. I don't.

He makes a nice attempt to show confusion and chaos as most JREFers do

That's what science above your level of comprehension looks like. FDR data isn't "simple" and pretending it is would be a mistake. He wants to do simple analysis on a complicated data set. Pretending that it "should" be simple, and anyone who wants to make it "complicated" is "showing confusion" is psuedoscience and kookery.

The NTSB used ATC transmissions, Radar data and the FDR to reconstruct the animation. Its in real time.

The animation is based on the information in the public domain. I've already established that information is incomplete and has errors compared with the raw FDR data. Why would they release an animation based on information that was still classified/sensitive? The animation is as accurate as the data it is based on... the data it is based on is accurate enough to give an idea of what happened.

No one ever claimed it had accuracy to the foot, or the fraction of the second.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Heh, this is great.

I don't know who Parmenides is, but he's using my graphs in an argument with JDX. JDX's response to my analysis:

The JREF analysis you have quoted is completely inaccurate based on the Flight Data Recorder. They are not the NTSB. They are a bunch of people who spin/omit/ignore and troll Loose Change to cause chaos. That is what they do with their lives. We want answers from the Govt.. not JREFers.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12995&st=0


And yet here is how all this started:

JDX Challenge For JREFers
It seems the JREFer's dont want to post this on their site and debate the facts. Mainly because it shows how Billzilla Calculations have blown up in his face working back from the impact hole.

I have asked many JREF'ers to post this on their site and they refuse. I wonder why... hmmm...

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=92


I guess you challenge JREFers, and once you get a response, claim you don't care what they have to say. That's one tactic.

 

[kevin]

No one ever claimed it had accuracy to the foot, or the fraction of the second.

I don't think anyone over at LC, especially JDX, understands the terms accuracy, precision, or the difference between them.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Debunking more JDX claims posted recently:

Isnt it ironic that a "CT Nutter" is using an official report from a govt agency to show facts, while the so called "skeptics" are trying to poke holes and find all kinds of errors in that official report to hold onto their "theory"?

There are no such things as "facts" when you are taking measurements. Measurements have error, by definition. All measurements have error. Assuming they do not is violating one of the most basic laws of scientific investigation. I'm not "poking holes" or "finding errors" in the data. I'm quantifying them. That's what good scientists whose work is based on measurements do.

Now the argument is that the above video could show a descent even though it shows level with the lawn. And I agree. The gradient for the lawn and that section is roughly 300 fpm descent (43MSL at base of poles - 38 feet at pentagon base = 5 feet x 60 seconds = 300 fpm). Being that the above object is clearly level with that front lawn, it means that object at the MOST has a 300 fpm descent rate. That is in direct conflict with the 4000 fpm descent rate already shown on the FDR.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that the 4000 fpm descent you claim is a CALCULATION (not a measurement) based on data that is at least 2 seconds before the plane crashed into the pentagon. Pretending it's true during the last second assumes no acceleration. That is a ridiculous assumption. 4400 fpm was not the descent rate across the lawn. That is not what the FDR shows.

For me and the professionals at pilotsfor911truth.org who have done extensive research, we are not convinced and want more questions answered.

Pretending pilots are experts on FDR data is like pretending that cooks are experts on farming.


Not JDX, someone else says:

To do that, after 4000 fpm descent rate for the last two seconds, is not an easy thing to do in a B757. (it means... hardly possible)

That's just gibberish. 4000 fpm to 0 fpm, in 2 seconds, requires an acceleration of 2000fpm / second. That's 33 ft/s^2. That's a 2G pull up. (Please keep in mind, I am not saying the plane was level when it hit the pentagon. I'm just saying that it's gibberish to say it was "hardly possible". Determining the true final descent rate is near impossible given all the data).

 

[apathoid]

Bumped for Mr Doe..

 

[UnderTow]

Hey Hey, I made it on board here
/yippe

I'll get to the OP (Orignial Post) here shortly (or at least over the next few days I hope)

 

[DavidJames]

Hey Hey, I made it on board here
/yippe

I'll get to the OP (Orignial Post) here shortly (or at least over the next few days I hope)

Welcome...

I assume you are the same UnderTow from the LC forum. As you may know JDX was here for bit, but got snotty with a mod who requested he fill out the registration form correctly. So he was never able to engage in any meaningful discussion about the data in this thread.

I know I was looking forward to it. Hopefully you can participate and help us come to some shared understanding of the data.

Welcome again.

 

[UnderTow]

That I am.
I was prepraded to discuss with AntiS there, until the LC rules kicked in.
And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Calcas]

Question for everyone re: AA 77.

First, I know it crashed into the Pentagon, regardless of an erroneous interpretation someone wants to make of the FDR.

And while there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts backing it, there is NOT ONE eyewitness that witnesses a "flyover."

Not to mention DNA, physical evidence of the aircraft, etc...the list goes on and on.

My question is what is the Governments explanation for not releasing other survelience videos of the incident? Security reasons? Didn't they confiscate cameras from a Citgo gas station or somewhere? Were the cameras on top of the Pentagon operational?

My theory is that releasing some of the additional videos that captured the event would highlight some security flaws that would not be in the best interest of National Defense.

Comments anyone?

 

[UnderTow]

Sincerely, since you know all of this already,
You should be commenting elsewhere or in a thread of a different subject.

And, imo, you question has nothing to do with AA77 since you already know everything about it already.

A giant cargo plane lumbered into the Nation's Capitial Airspace, took a nice lazy turn, and then flew unmolested into the HeadQuarters of the Nations Armed Forces. That is one heck of a security flaw that should not be revealed.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Sincerely, since you know all of this already,
You should be commenting elsewhere or in a thread of a different subject.

And, imo, you question has nothing to do with AA77 since you already know everything about it already.

A giant cargo plane lumbered into the Nation's Capitial Airspace, took a nice lazy turn, and then flew unmolested into the HeadQuarters of the Nations Armed Forces. That is one heck of a security flaw that should not be revealed.

More science. More analysis. Less sophistry. Less hyperbole.

I'm eagerly awaitng valid criticism, honest objection, and/or inaccuracies in my original post on this topic.

 

[UnderTow]

I'll try not to let you down

 

[Anti-sophist]

I'll try not to let you down

If you don't mind me asking, what is taking so long?

 

[Gravy]

Question for everyone re: AA 77.

First, I know it crashed into the Pentagon, regardless of an erroneous interpretation someone wants to make of the FDR.

And while there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts backing it, there is NOT ONE eyewitness that witnesses a "flyover."

Not to mention DNA, physical evidence of the aircraft, etc...the list goes on and on.

My question is what is the Governments explanation for not releasing other survelience videos of the incident? Security reasons? Didn't they confiscate cameras from a Citgo gas station or somewhere? Were the cameras on top of the Pentagon operational?

My theory is that releasing some of the additional videos that captured the event would highlight some security flaws that would not be in the best interest of National Defense.

Comments anyone?

Calcas, In the FBI's responses to FOIA requests for videos of flight 77, they said they had gathered 85 videos from area security cameras immediately after the attack. On review of those videos, two showed anything relevant: the two parking lot security camera vids that we've all seen. A further FOIA request specifically asked for the release of the Citgo camera tape. That was released a month or two ago. It does not show the Pentagon or the plane.

This post from Rich at the BAUT forum addresses the Pentagon camera issue. He was (is?) a Pentagon employee.

Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility (all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such as the one this video came from). What about the surrounding buildings. I've been to the AFFEES gas station on the hill more than a hundred times and can honestly tell you I never noticed a camera pointed towards the Pentagon... that doesn't mean there isn't one, but the filling stations don't seem to be arrainged in such a way as to provide camera coverage of the pumps and the Pentagon.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173

 

[Gravy]

A giant cargo plane lumbered into the Nation's Capitial Airspace, took a nice lazy turn, and then flew unmolested into the HeadQuarters of the Nations Armed Forces. That is one heck of a security flaw that should not be revealed.

Welcome, UnderTow.

What cargo plane was that?

 

[UnderTow]

If you don't mind me asking, what is taking so long?

No, I don't mind.
Well, I want to be complete and don't want to just post some 'I know' statement. And, I'm not working on this full time. You know. I get on when I can and what not. And your post is a 5 page wall of text.

Plus, I'd like to give people a chance to to self-correct first

'cargo plane' is just jargon in certain circles for any aircraft carrying over X gross weight. Whether it's bodies, boxes, or booty doesn't make a difference. It's all cargo.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Take your time. I'm not particularly worried. Like I said, there may be errors, but I doubt honestly there are any serious or fatal flaws in anything I've said.

My main fear is that what's happening is you are going to find some trivial issues, write up a big long report attacking it on superficial grounds, so that you guys can run around waving it about as "proof". I fear that whatever you are working on is meant to be more useful as propaganda than science. Furthermore, I fear, that even getting the facts and logic correct are not a top priority.

I am, as always, open to correction.

 

[UnderTow]

write up a big long report attacking it on superficial grounds, so that you guys can run around waving it about as "proof".

HAHa, I could say the same thing about your "report".

And I'm not making anything of great length, just making sure I only use source and not opinions. Also, I can't post links yet so that makes it kind of limited.

I like this smilely jaw-dropping.gif but I can't use it b/c I don't have 50 posts yet.

Hm. Maybe I post links with

. Nope that didn't work. Oh well that's just randy.