Pentagon "NTSB animation" is wrong!

JDX,orJohn Lear, or other

since youre here,

I know you folks addressed this over at your site, but my cousin tried to trip me up with the old ‘automated local altimeter broadcast’ question and how he has trained many first time flyers in about 5 minutes to get it on the radio.

Did I tell him correctly what I think I remembered reading from board discussion that handy ‘Hani’ dialed in the correct field pressure at Reagan for the time period of the attack yet nobody should have been talking to him in their tower and this setting was different than the local squawked automated one at the time of his altimeter setting?

Thanx
Scrapple

Originally posted by johndoex
So Nicky.. tell us how we are liars again? I love to hear it. What have we done that is bogus? Please spell it out... 1 by 1.

1. You claim that the evidence you posted authenticates that the animation and csv file came from the NTSB. Even if the data DID come from the NTSB, the scanned letters don't prove this.

2. Putting out PBB with the implication that a faked data file and animation represent the *TRUE* flight path is completely bogus. You've taken what you admit is a falsified animation video and tampered with csv file and sensationalized what this fake data portrays -namely that FL 77's flight path was too high and off line from the official story.

It's totally moronic to claim the data from the NTSB is fake, and then use the fake data to make claims about the *REAL* flight path. I'm not sure if making such claims is being dishonest or just stupid.

The animation is fake. That's a fact. It CAN'T represent what really happened on 9/11 because it's internally wrong. Therefore it CAN'T be used to justify claims that FL 77 flew north of the Citgo and over the Pentagon.

This is why Tripper didn't want to taint the PentaCon video with ANYTHING to do with the faked animation or csv file. This is why the PentaCon divorced itself from the NTSB data right from the start -because Craig had enough sense to realize the NTSB data was faked and couldn't be used to corroborate his witnesses.

It must be difficult for you to admit that the thousands of hours of "research" and analysis of faked data was a big waste of time. It really doesn't matter how "credentialed" your experts are if they're analyzing fake data. And it's probably even embarrassing that Caustic pointed out the blatant wrongness of the "NTSB" video that you based Pandora's Black Box on. You have this production that goes into an in depth analysis for an hour on fake data. Do you really think that there was any point to Pandora's Black Box?

I.e., you didn't need an hour long video about altimeter trim settings to state the obvious that's shown in this one frame. The "NTSB" video was wrong.

If you would have actually spent as much time authenitcating the source of the animation and csv files as you did analyzing the faked data, you might actually have accomplished more than being just a small sidenote in 9/11 truth mythology.






[Edit: reduced image size]
Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by scrapple
JDX,orJohn Lear, or other

since youre here,

I know you folks addressed this over at your site, but my cousin tried to trip me up with the old ‘automated local altimeter broadcast’ question and how he has trained many first time flyers in about 5 minutes to get it on the radio.

Did I tell him correctly what I think I remembered reading from board discussion that handy ‘Hani’ dialed in the correct field pressure at Reagan for the time period of the attack yet nobody should have been talking to him in their tower and this setting was different than the local squawked automated one at the time of his altimeter setting?

Thanx
Scrapple

Scrap,

Let me make a suggestion. It's a complete waste of time doing any in-depth analysis of the csv file or the animation data because Rob, i.e., P49T, admits this data is fake. Once you know the data is faked, it can't be used to make any conclusions about what Hanjour did. Hanjour flying a real plane couldn't create faked data.

Originally posted by scrapple

Did I tell him correctly what I think I remembered reading from board discussion that handy ‘Hani’ dialed in the correct field pressure at Reagan for the time period of the attack yet nobody should have been talking to him in their tower and this setting was different than the local squawked automated one at the time of his altimeter setting?Thanx
Scrapple

Yes. If Hani had tuned in an AWOS he would have received 'last hour' altimeter 30.21. But high pressure was sweeping in and the actual altimeter at Reagan International was 30.23 or 30.24 which is what was set on the altimeter according to the .csv.

If the .csv was faked why use current RI altimeter setting? But the real issue is why set the altimeter at all? And why set the co-pilots altimeter? And why set his first?

Originally posted by nick7261

Let me make a suggestion.

I fasten my seat belt when the Captains put the light on - sorry.

Originally posted by johndoex
Anyone you can name that doesnt believe it came from the NTSB? You say you have so many people on your side...

I'm still not on your side, just I agreed to truce and Nick didn't quite so much. I still understand where he's coming from...

Originally posted by nick7261
Item 6 -Google animation provided by anonymous 3rd party. I'm surprised this "3rd" party's name wasn't Undergrouch or snowytow. Do you really think this proves the animation came from the NTSB?

Despite its perfect timing, it's convenient answering of the previous questions, and the lack of even a scanned original w/sig I've seen just yet, I don't so much have good reason to accept it as good reason not to jump to conclusions. But hey, the anonymous dude is from JREF, the most non-Pilots-friendly board around, so it's GOTTA be legit and not a ploy, right?

Sorry, just had to say that. It may or may not be legit, just again a tad shady...

So Nicky.. [...] You're a Truth seeker .. right?

From my experience, yes he is.

Originally posted by johndoex
So Nicky.. tell us how we are liars again? I love to hear it. What have we done that is bogus? Please spell it out... 1 by 1.

(Continued from Previous Post)

3. P49T cites a "math expert" who P49T claims "reverse engineered" the data from the NTSB csv file to "prove" that the heading data in the csv file was altered to show a more southern approach. Here is what's misleading, if not directly false, about these claims the P49T has made:

a) P49T didn't verify the "math expert's" credentials or expertise. The "math expert" was just somebody who seems to have a blog and statistics software. Continuing their pattern of cherry picking evidence without autheniticating the evidence, P49T simply took the "math expert" at face value because he came up with a "gobblydegook" explanation, as John Lear would put it, to explan why the magnetic heading in the animation video doesn't match up with the visual flight path shown in the animation.

b) This math expert, John Farmer, analyzed the csv data, and Rob Balsamo of P49T twisted this to claim that Farmer analyzed the NTSB animation data. The animation data and the csv data are NOT the same, yet Balsamo continues to refer to them interchangeably.

c) Farmer's conclusion that his analysis proves the csv file was tampered with is totally flawed. Nobody at P49T that I've seen has bothered to confirm or refute Farmer's conclusions. P49T just accepted Farmer's conclusions because they helped promote P49T's agenda. I would guess that Rob Balsamo doesn't have the math expertise to even comment on the "math expert's" analysis of the data. If he did, he wouldn't have needed to cite an unsolicited analysis from an amateur's blog post -he could have done the analysis himeself.

d) The claim by Balsamo that Farmer did "reverse engineering" is completely false. Farmer looked at the data files, observed a pattern that he didn't understand, and then CONCLUDED that this pattern proved that the data was falsified. This is not "reverse engineering." This is simply a layperson doing arm-chair analysis. When a legitimate scientist or researcher can't explain a pattern in the data, claiming the data is false is usually the LAST resort, not the first conclusion. Worse, Farmer readily admits in his blog post that he does not have the expertise or background to make the conclusions he's drawn. His analysis is basically, "I don't think this is how the data should look so that means it's fake." Farmer cites no references to how "real" data actually looks -only how he BELIEVES the real data should look.

IN SUMMARY, Balsamo simply takes some blog post that a guy made about the csv data that supposedly came from the NTSB and uses this guys blog post to make claims that he has PROOF the NTSB animation was intentionally altered. A better question would be which part of Balsamo's claims are TRUE, not which parts are false.

More to come on Farmer's actual conclusions and analysis...

Rob, if you'd like to attempt to explain Farmer's methodology first, as you understand it, be my guest. I'd love to hear your explanation of what r-squared means, and why it makes a difference that there is a correlation between longitude and horizontal velocity., and why the r-squared value of 0.999551 means the csv file was falsified. I'm guessing this type of analysis is out of your area of expertise, or any of your expert pilots' area of expertise, since P49T didn't do the analysis yourself when you first got the csv data.

Here's the link to Farmer's "reverse engineering" blog post if anybody wants to review Farmer's analysis independently.

911files.info...


PS Rob, just a suggestion... you might not want to try the "I'm an expert you're just a teenager" ploy this time. I'm guessing that I can discuss statistics and math at a higher level than you. And calling me "Nicky" as an attempt to minimize what I have to say is just childish and says more about YOU than me.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by nick7261]

Originally posted by johnlear

If the .csv was faked why use current RI altimeter setting? But the real issue is why set the altimeter at all? And why set the co-pilots altimeter? And why set his first?

If the csv file was faked why waste your time analyzing it?

Just asking...

Nicky,

Your comprehension skills are about as good as your research ability....

Keep going, the hole is getting deeper for you.

Once again i'll repeat what i have repeated on almost every page prior...

The NTSB information is not proof of anything that really happened. The information provided by the NTSB which they claim is from AA77 does not support the govt story. For this reason is why we have called and recorded the FBI and NTSB trying to get answers.


Read that above paragraph over and over to yourself Nicky.. then read it again.

Then you might want to actually watch our film.. or not. You do a great job digging yourself in already so why try real research now? Your claims are spun, twisted and flat out wrong. Anyone who watches the film will know this.

As a reminder...

Originally posted by Nick -

If your animation really was sent to you by the NTSB, then I will congratulate you on being the person who broke open the whole 9/11 conspiracy case.

Gotta love these...

Putting out PBB with the implication that a faked data file and animation represent the *TRUE* flight path is completely bogus

...an hour long video about altimeter trim settings

A whole hour on altimeter trim settings huh? lol...

Thats rich...

What exactly is "altimeter trim" anyway nicky?

Anything else? Keep going Nicky, this is good stuff... its going to be fun to watch you react when you get your NTSB information (but im sure Nicky will think i intercepted his mail on the way to his house or some wacky excuse).


typos







[edit on 7-6-2007 by johndoex]

Quote by Nicky,

This math expert, John Farmer, analyzed the csv data, and Rob Balsamo of P49T twisted this to claim that Farmer analyzed the NTSB animation data. The animation data and the csv data are NOT the same, yet Balsamo continues to refer to them interchangeably.

911files.info...

Keep going Nicky. .this is good stuff...

ETA: CL, are you personal friends with Nicky? Is he on any type of medication?

and yes Nicky, despite the fact that Farmer analyzed both the animation and csv file... they also both match perfectly...


read here for an example... (this link was provided many times before and also copy/pasted to this thread a few pages ago to show how they do match, but also shows the blatant cover-up between the two) See how well the animation and csv file match up here...

z9.invisionfree.com...

really Nicky, click it...


and i apologize for using the words "reverse engineering" with Famers work. We have alot of different experts working on this data. The actual data that was "reverse engineered" was the raw file... but we were unsuccessful and eventually got a decode with the proper software.









[edit on 7-6-2007 by johndoex]

Okay Nick, this is getting boring. I am a semi-retired process control engineer with a degree in mathematics. I worked for DuPont Photomasks (you can google photomask if you are not familiar with the subject, rather high tech stuff) as their lead spc engineer. I wrote the global documentation on statistical process control (spc) and developed the training program for use in all markets (Europe, Asia and North America).

Now I left in 2003 due to market conditions (lay-offs) and Toppan bought out DPI and shut down the North America facilities (moved production to Asia). However, there is still a research unit in Round Rock, Texas if you wish to give them a call an verify my past employment and position with them.

So yes, I think I'm qualified to validate data. And just in case you missed the previous entry, it is NOT "reverse engineering", but data validation. I am experienced in reverse engineering and I am attempting something to that effect with the flight path. Unfortunately, the files I have are all three different (regardless of your unsupported claims) and have obvious problems. Why is a matter of speculation and the data is not useful for my purposes. If you find it useful, then fine, but be warned that "garbage in = garbage out" and you might find yourself looking rather silly.

CL, Nick...

What was the alititude on the .CSV?

What was the altitude on the animation?

Originally posted by spcengineer

So yes, I think I'm qualified to validate data. And just in case you missed the previous entry, it is NOT "reverse engineering", but data validation.

So I take it you're Mr. Farmer? If so, I'm pleased to have you on board here. I'm looking forward to discussing your analysis with you.

I have degrees in engineering and extensive math and statistics background. Don't be afraid of talking over my head. And I'm not the person who said you "reverse engineered" the data. That was Rob Balsamo.

I am experienced in reverse engineering and I am attempting something to that effect with the flight path. Unfortunately, the files I have are all three different (regardless of your unsupported claims) and have obvious problems.

I never claimed they weren't different. I've just repeated what Rob has said over and over -that the csv file and the animation file WERE different and were tampered with or altered.

Why is a matter of speculation and the data is not useful for my purposes.

What useful purpose DOES the data serve?

If you find it useful, then fine, but be warned that "garbage in = garbage out" and you might find yourself looking rather silly.

This is pretty much the ENTIRE point I've been trying to make to Rob and P49T. They continue to promote a video called Pandora's Black Box that makes a lot of commentary and speculation on the possible *REAL* flight path of Flight 77 being on the wrong heading and wrong altitude, and their entire video is based on the animation and csv files, which serve no useful purpose.

So I'm not sure why your concern is with ME looking silly. I'm not the one using faked data to make conclusions about the *REAL* flight path.

Originally posted by johndoex
The actual data that was "reverse engineered" was the raw file... but we were unsuccessful and eventually got a decode with the proper software.

For the sake of clarity, when you say "raw file" do you mean the csv file?

Am I to take your above comment to mean that you're now admitting that you have access to software that can take a csv file and convert it into a video animation?

Which software are you using to "decode" the "raw file"?

Nick,

When researching an issue it might be a good idea to take a peek at where the issue originated.

z9.invisionfree.com...

z9.invisionfree.com...

It only takes a few minutes browsing our pinned topics in our AA77 forum to see what type of data is available...

We have 4 different sources of data.. the original csv file, the animation, the raw file, and pdf's. All from the NTSB, some from the NTSB website directly.


The raw file..

you know what.. im not gonna help you. You have blasted P4T. You have made unfounded accusations constantly. You have misquoted us, you have been dishonest and you have spun our words. As i said in my very first post here.. do your research ... or continue to look as you do now... I'll peek in from time to time to watch your progress and when you finally get all available data... i'll be looking for your retractions and apologies.

Have a nice day...

fixed links...



[edit on 7-6-2007 by johndoex]

Originally posted by nick7261
PS Rob, just a suggestion... you might not want to try the "I'm an expert you're just a teenager" ploy this time. I'm guessing that I can discuss statistics and math at a higher level than you. And calling me "Nicky" as an attempt to minimize what I have to say is just childish and says more about YOU than me.

Agreed. I'm old enough to have teenage kids myself (hypothetically) and I get the impression Nick's older and considerably smarter than me.
Farmer got it.
Nick: Did you catch famer's post following your threat to debunk?
911files.info...

Originally posted by johndoex


When researching an issue it might be a good idea to take a peek at where the issue originated.

So the "raw" file and the csv file both originated with UnderTow, who did not provide the original data files, but instead provided admittedly edited data files.

This is what I'm talking about Rob. The entire csv file that you portray as coming from the NTSB has dubious origins since UnderTow edited the files before releasing them.

You don't see a problem with that?

The csv file should be called "UNDERTOW'S EDITED CSV FILE" instead of NTSB csv file.

So you have a group of expert "aviators," led by a former Loose Change forum moderator publishing an edited csv files that maybe originated with the NTSB.

Is this correct?

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
CL, Nick...

What was the alititude on the .CSV?

What was the altitude on the animation?

Final frame CSV 173 final frame animation 180

off the top of my head. Welcome Aldo.

Originally posted by nick7261
So the "raw" file and the csv file both originated with UnderTow, who did not provide the original data files, but instead provided admittedly edited data files.

Where's that admitted?


I'm trying to follow all this...

sorry for short posts today....

WHOA!!!! I just looked over a file I got a few months ago (I can't remember where):



Check the rad alt column!!!! In the other data I've seen (and the .CSV file you're going on about), RAD ALT is considerd "INOP" (both channels) and I think even official documents stated that it was "INOP" (which I thought strange).

WHY IS IT TERMINATING AT 273 FT?! I think this is legit data, because it hasn't been tampered with to read 50ft to look like a low pass into the building. AN OVERSIGHT?!

The file is called a77.2_complete. It is a CSV file, but not like the "other" CSV file you're talking about.

EDIT: I just found this, too:



It is one second ahead of the .CSV that you're on about, and all the altitudes (barometric) are all 1 ft lower in this file than in the other. Why, if they're the same data source?

[edit on 7-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]