Need debunk for Pentagon FDR. Thanks.

[TheGrunion]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[R.Mackey]

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

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

 

[weedwacker]

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

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

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

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

 

[weedwacker]

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

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

 

[Dog Town]

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

 

[R.Mackey]

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

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

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

Not really, because you yahoos would just say it was "faked," or a hologram, or something...

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

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

And your math is still wrong.

 

[R.Mackey]

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

John Doe X is assuming a straight line trajectory.

It's wrong. QED.

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

 

[Anti-sophist]

This quote says it all by Anti-Sophist.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[weedwacker]

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

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

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

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


Good day all.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Using a more accurate descent rate based on G Force.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anti-sophist]

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

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

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

 

[R.Mackey]

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

You're being handled roughly because you're defending a derivation I could have dismantled in third grade. Since you've added no critical thought, you appear to be a cheerleader for John Doe X. This does not endear you to us, since his clumsiness and fabrications are his excuse to falsely accuse thousands of people, and stain the memory of hundreds who died.

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

 

[R.Mackey]

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

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

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

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

 

[bignickel]

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

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

Looking forward to your critique.

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

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

 

[Anti-sophist]

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

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

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

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

 

[jhunter1163]

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

 

[R.Mackey]

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

Exactly. I brought that point up to Skeptic4Sure when that particular sock^W^W^W he was conversing with John Doe X, but John Doe X's answers suggested that he didn't understand what I was talking about.

Big surprise.

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

One F-15S (the IFCS) is housed at Dryden. I worked with one of its project managers, Mike Toberman, last year. Neat plane. Fly-by-wire, F-22 engines, vectored thrust and steerable canards made from F-18 (I think) tailplanes, adaptive control system. I might be lucky enough to experiment on that bird someday, if we can figure it out.

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

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

 

[LashL]

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

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

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

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

 

[Obviousman]

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

Loral Fairchild SSFDR Model F-2100

 

[pgwenthold]

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

Can someone please answer the obvious question, then?

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