FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

[jaydeehess]

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

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

 

[jaydeehess]

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

topic derail

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

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

topic derail

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

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

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

 

[uk_dave]

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

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

 

[Reheat]

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

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

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

 

[beachnut]

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

The INS system on 77 in 2001 was accurate to 1000 to 3000 feet. We would have to look it up to be exact, but as Reheat said, the starting position as the plane taxied out was off, as in this photo.

1/4 mile error in the INS was common; without GPS updates. It is different for new planes and systems.

 

[Reheat]

Yes, that's the photo. Thanks beachnut!

 

[uk_dave]

Cheers Reheat & Beachnut.

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

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

 

[Reheat]

Cheers Reheat & Beachnut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TC329]

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

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

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

 

[DGM]

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

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

 

[TC329]

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

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html​

Patience.​

 

[DGM]

Patience.​

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

 

[nicepants]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reheat]

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

You can take Robbie's Video and shove it!

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

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

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

 

[beachnut]

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

The only thing jdx proves is he is not a FDR expert. It may sound like something to someone who does not fly and has zero knowledge on the FDR, but jdx only shows his lack of experience and total inability to generate rational thoughts on 9/11.

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

 

[TC329]

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

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


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

 

[DGM]

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


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

Nice spin! Except they don't specify the mistake or directly point out how it effects the paper.. Nice try though.

 

[nicepants]

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

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

 

[Anti-sophist]

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

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

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

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

 

[celestrin]

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

IIRC, the last DME data in the csv file is in fact 1.5NM. There is actually no data for the other Nav set. That's because DME data got updated every 8s, but the offset between both Nav sets was 4s. During the last csv second, the first Nav set just got updated, while the other one was still showing the data from 4s ago. That's what's causing the difference between 1.5 and 3.2. I don't think the Guides That Are Selective With Truth can be blamed for using 1.5.