It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon "NTSB animation" is wrong!

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
MoD is starting to get it...

nicky.. you're not even close.. keep trying.




posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

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




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?


Thanks, MoD, great catches. I'm pretty sure that's from the readout 2 of the (original L3 file?) - it's got an odd story.
According to the Specialist's study, Rad Alt was inooperative/not validated, whatever.
So where this readin is coming from I don't know.
Did you download that from here?

If so read the read me file for the story behind it. Mr. X. Corporate laptop untraceable shadiness



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Yeah......... that looks like it.

Does it have dubious origins, too?

EDIT: Yeah - that's it.

Source

AA77 (and/or like models) do not have GPS. 'besides, all that's used for is the in flight map for the seats' -- host

GPS (where equipped) is used by aircraft nav systems, in ADDITION to IRS.


Lat/Lon is by interia systems. The 20Minute NTSB error was discussed. Possible with violent airframe events to knock the interia out of sync. But this could not affect the entire flight. i.e. any violent movement can not error Lat/Lon data prior to itself. (unless it occurred in a previous flight, and was un-fixed for this flight) I couldn't map the corridantes right there, but they looked close. What a surprise this gave me later on.

The IRS is aligned before EVERY flight. This eliminates any error in accuracy between flights (max IRS flight-time before it can't be used for primary nav is 15 hours, assuming no faults/failures).

...........unless this is technical inaccuracy or mis-quoting by a non-technical person, it doesn't look too good for the source.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

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....


The thread Rob referred me to at P49T has a link to the files labeled "edited." The reason they gave was because they took out personal information like name, street address, etc.

This may very well be legitimate. However, it also is an important detail to note that the csv file put out by undertow was NOT the actual, original file sent by the NTSB. Again, I'm not saying undertow tampered with the data. However, the fact that he edited the file himself invalidates and certainty that the file and its contents originated at the NTSB.

IF undertow wanted to tamper with the data himself, he would have to cover up the change in the time and date stamp on the file that came from the NTSB. By editing the file himself, there is a built in explanation for the time and date stamp being different from the original time and date stamp sent by the NTSB.

Again, I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying that undertow's admission that he edited the data file prevents any claim that the data as portrayed can be verfified as coming from the NTSB.

PS. I DO have teenage kids.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261


to note that the csv file put out by undertow was NOT the actual, original file sent by the NTSB.


Wrong


Again, I'm not saying undertow tampered with the data. However, the fact that he edited the file himself invalidates and certainty that the file and its contents originated at the NTSB.


speculation.. and wrong


IF undertow wanted to tamper with the data himself, he would have to cover up the change in the time and date stamp on the file that came from the NTSB. By editing the file himself, there is a built in explanation for the time and date stamp being different from the original time and date stamp sent by the NTSB.


speculation and wrong


Again, I'm not saying this is what happened.


Of course not. You just like to speculate with words that throw legit researchers under the bus instead of doing your own investigation prior to comment.


I'm saying that undertow's admission that he edited the data file prevents any claim that the data as portrayed can be verfified as coming from the NTSB.


You can verify it.. you just dont want to. You can do it right now matter of fact. If you knew how to do your research.


PS. I DO have teenage kids.


My question is, how did you become an engineer with such poor study habits?

Anyone who wants me to clarify on how Nick is wrong in detail. .feel free to email me. Nick will find out how he is wrong in time.... its a long process for him.. i know...

Cheers!
Rob



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
MoD is starting to get it...

nicky.. you're not even close.. keep trying.


Rob,

I'm starting to "get" it. Undertow's csv file was edited by undertow. Did I get that part right at least? Is there an unedited version of the csv file available for download?

Also, I'm curious why John Farmer would post this comment on his blog:



"Also, the animation was not sent to all of the FOIA requestors, but to only one individual. This leads me to believe that it was an inadvertent disclosure (or something else I won’t discuss at this time).

911files.info...


Is it really true that the animation was only sent to 1 FOIA requester, and that was snowygrouch? Do you have any idea what the "something else" is that Farmer doesn't want to discuss?

Oh... and just a reminder, you avoided my question about whether or not you actually have software to decode a csv file and turn it into an animation of the flight path. Do you? If so, what software are you using?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Ok.. im gonna throw Nick some hints (notice i said Nick and not Nicky) since im starting to feel bad for him and he was rather pleasant in his last post...

Hint - Check dates of Farmers blog, Snowygrouch's cover letter, Mick Harrison's cover letter which specifically notes 'animation', and JREFer SLOB's google video upload date which was uploaded a few days after receipt.

Hint - There is an unedited csv file, an unedited .fdr file and an edited .csv file which was decoded from the .fdr file.

We have never created any animation of the flight path from any csv file from AA77 information provided by the NTSB.

You are thoroughly confused.. nothing personal.. but you're getting there...

typos

[edit on 7-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Ok.. im gonna throw Nick some hints (notice i said Nick and not Nicky) since im starting to feel bad for him and he was rather pleasant in his last post...


Thanks! I was sort of getting used to Nicky, but it's ok. I like Nick too.

I looked for the unedited csv files but couldn't find them. I didn't notice that they were labeled edited vs. unedited anywhere. I'll keep looking.

Also, if you didn't create your own animation from the csv files, what did you mean by "decode" the csv file? You referred to software to decode the csv file. What software did you use?

I also remember Craig saying something about you guys being excited about getting the csv file and that you were trying to decode it, but then the NTSB animation came which basically "decoded" the csv file for you. Is this correct?

Since there were obvious problems with the animation, did you ever try "decoding" the csv file yourself and make your own animation to compare it to the "NTSB" animation?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Also, if you didn't create your own animation from the csv files, what did you mean by "decode" the csv file? You referred to software to decode the csv file. What software did you use?

I also remember Craig saying something about you guys being excited about getting the csv file and that you were trying to decode it, but then the NTSB animation came which basically "decoded" the csv file for you. Is this correct?


No thats not correct...

read again...

"an edited .csv file which was decoded from the .fdr file. "



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by nick7261
Also, if you didn't create your own animation from the csv files, what did you mean by "decode" the csv file? You referred to software to decode the csv file. What software did you use?

I also remember Craig saying something about you guys being excited about getting the csv file and that you were trying to decode it, but then the NTSB animation came which basically "decoded" the csv file for you. Is this correct?


No thats not correct...

read again...

"an edited .csv file which was decoded from the .fdr file. "


How can I "read again" when this isn't what was written by Craig in the first place? Where are you coming up with this quote about the .csv file being decoded from the .fdr file?

I was referring to what Craig posted about the chronology of events. Craig said:



"The NTSB released the FDR data AND the animation BEFORE we had obtained the citgo station witness accounts and BEF0RE we even made our first trip out to Arlington with Dylan and Russell.

And no they did not send them to Rob.

Rob and Merc were both Admins on the old Loose Change forum.

Chris (undertow) obtained the FDR data via FOIA and shortly after Calum Douglas (snowygrouch) obtained the animation.

Everyone was excited about the data but reserved because we knew it would take a while to decode it.



So my question still stands -what is the process you were planning on using to "decode" the csv files from the NTSB? Why don't you just post a brief chronology of what happened, along with the links to the corresponding data files, making sure to note which file are edited and which are not edited.

When Craig did this is cleared up a lot of confusion. If you have nothing to hide, it would be in your interest to do this. Otherwise, all the evasive, condescending, and insulting comments you post make it look like you're hiding something. You claimed not to have time to explain things, but you have time to make insulting personal comments. This makes little sense. Why not just take the time to clarify the sequence of events like I described above?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I haven't been around here lately, but I figured I would drop in.

Whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon I still can not figure out why they only released the one angle video they did. It is very frustrating for pros and cons.

Why not release all the angles from every single camera on the pentagon that day?

We all know there were multiple cameras on that side from the many still pictures here on ATS.

Just lay all the cards on the table, instead of selecting what they did.

Wouldn't everyone like to see all the footage? I know I would.

Great thread BTW and excellent research and info on both sides. I have really enjoyed reading all of it.




posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Craig is not using proper terminology... (not really his fault)

He should have used "it would take a while to interpret it..."

The csv file is already a decode of another file.. the .fdr file.

Ok here.. let me spell it out... since this you really cant find through research (although it is in many radio interviews that can be downloaded from our site)

We first got the original .csv file from the NTSB (through Undertow) in early august 2006 (rouglhy.. i dont feel like looking up exact date). It was never edited and can be downloaded from our forums and 911/myths.com (they got their own).

Then we set up a private forum at the old loose change forums to interpret the csv file thinking "wouldnt it be great if we can get this into an animation.. would make our life so much easier". Undertow (UT) was going to stick the parameters into XPlane. From what i understand.. Xplane has ability to do this...

2 weeks later.. a UK Researcher named Snowygrouch comes along and says he got a FOIA package from the NTSB as well (it seems the NTSB released all their FOIA packages around the same time.. Geo Wash University, UnderTow, Snowygrouch, and 911myths all got their data around the same time, Aug 2006).

But with Snowygrouch, they also dropped in an animation for him.. we were ecstatic.. yet a bit skeptical (as you are) that it really did come from the NTSB.

So one of our team members looked up the phone number to the NTSB and called em and asked if they were sending out animations as well. Yes they said.

We were still a bit skeptical...

Then i cross checked it with our csv file we had from UT and it all matched in terms of time, altitudes, headings, airspeed.. etc. (i checked many points.. not ALL of it initially, as an engineer im sure you can appreciate this), all samples matched.

So then i thought, well what if UT and Snowygrouch (SG) were "in on it together" since UT and SG data matched... so i downloaded from 911myths the csv file (a site who defends the govt story) and that matched as well.

Then i went further into Geo Wash University data.. and that matched.. then i went to the NTSB site and downloaded their data.. and that matched..

So yep.. it came from the NTSB.

Then we proceeded with our analysis..

We noticed the flight path right away that it was off in the animation. We didnt pursue it initially because i had thought the NTSB may have screwed up a bit and rotated the map a bit. So we proceeded with altitude and the like... remember.. its late august 2006.

Then i made a video regarding the final maneuver and lack of intercept... you probably seen it.. many have. .Dated Aug 24, 2006.

www.youtube.com...

(note, we arent even worried about the flight path at this point because we think the map is rotated)
I started pilotsfor911truth.org.. started the forums.. and Glen Stanish (the other Co-Founder) and i started to get pilots to join...

We wrote up the altitude articles, even did a flight path based on the heading...



(note: we updated that image with a note after John Farmer did his analysis)

When UT got his csv file, he also received a raw .fdr file.. can be dowloaded here...
z9.invisionfree.com...

When we called the NTSB to ask what it was since it was in code when we opened it.. they said we werent supposed to even have it (did someone slip it in? a whistleblower from the NTSB perhaps?)

In order to decode that file, you need software that is worth over $100k. It is the raw file directly from the recorder. The only people who have that type of software are the NTSB, some FDR corporations, The US Govt and some major airlines/manufacturers...

cont below...

edited to close img tag


[edit on 8-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
So, we asked Boeing to decode the raw file... they refused...

z9.invisionfree.com...

We asked several others to decode the raw data file and were trying to raise money to have it decoded (cost anywhere between 3-5,000). They all were interested at first.. but turned us down when they found out where it came from...

meanwhile.. Craig and Aldo were working on their research. .went to DC.. etc. They came back and said "We have a witness who places the plane North of the Citgo!"..

And i said.. well great.. now the flight path goes into the rest of the conflicts with official story.. and a new video was born...

www.youtube.com...
Dated Oct 20, 2006.

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two released Jan 12, 2007 covers The money and cover-up (2.3 trillion missiing), Air Traffic Control and Radar, NORAD response Hani Hanjour, phone calls with FBI and NTSB, and of course the FDR.

The FDR portion (about the last 30 mins) covers altitude, vertical speed, what happens if trends were continued based on altitude and vertical speed.. and of course the flight path.

The whole film is not just about the flight path.. nor altimeter.

It shows the blatant cover-up between the csv file altimeter setting on descent vs the animation.

It does not show that is what really happened. It shows that this information came from the NTSB and it shows the conflicts of the NTSB information with respect to the official story... We dont say its fake.. we dont say its real. We show the facts and let the viewer decide.

The raw decode we eventually got through UT and a connection he had. We were able to get the radar alt from that. The original csv file that the NTSB provided said the rad alt "wasnt working or unconfirmed". We now know why they omitted it.. it is because it shows 273 feet at last data point.

After all of the above.. John Farmer came along and told us about his work.. from there you pretty much know the rest...

So.. there you have it in a nut shell, the timeline, files, how they were obtained. the making of small video clips on youtube.. the introduction and reasons why to start questioning the flight path instead of thinking it was an error.. and the making of our film.

Geeeze. . i really hate typing..

added release date for PBB2

[edit on 8-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
So, we asked Boeing to decode the raw file...
So.. there you have it in a nut shell, the timeline, files, how they were obtained. the making of small video clips on youtube.. the introduction and reasons why to start questioning the flight path instead of thinking it was an error.. and the making of our film.

Geeeze. . i really hate typing..


Rob, thanks! I really appreciate the time and effort you put into typing this out. This clarifies a lot of the confusion about the specifics.

So is it correct that SLOB also appears to have received the same animation that was sent to snowygrouch? And nobody else has ever received the "raw" .fdr file that you know of?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I only checked the last few minutes of SLOB's animation on google video... the flight path plot (north side) and altitude match... its the same animation..

So is the animation that Mick Harrison got in late March early April 2007 (cover letter dated March 22, 2007 which noted the animation directly and the clock annotation error).

Mick Harrison actually didnt want me to black out his name.. but i had already done it. He is an Attorney in Bloomington, IN and is part of the Bloomington 9/11 Truth Group..

Nick, what bothers me so much is that you did not contact us prior to your comments/claims. If you had, it would have never escalated.

Everything i have typed above can be found on our site in a simple radio interview download.

Does this mean i have to type this out for every Nick that comes along in the future when it is all readily available if people take the time to look for it and click some links? What would you do Nick? Would you ignore the next Nick? Or type all this out again for him...

ETA: no one else has received the raw file that i know of... nor can we use the raw file to argue with the NTSB because we arent supposed to have it... all they have to use as a rebuttal is that we werent supposed to have it and it wasnt ready for public distribution...


[edit on 8-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   
So with NTSB requests only pending, I'm back in the discussion.

Re: "edited" data
First, The L3 is the "raw" file if I'm not mistaken, file extension .fdr. It opens as a bunch of symbols on my computer. This is what reading 2 was taken from, right? Can anyone else point me to reading 1? Is that also a CSV? Is it THE CSV? And how was it read?


Originally posted by nick7261
The thread Rob referred me to at P49T has a link to the files labeled "edited." The reason they gave was because they took out personal information like name, street address, etc.


?? What names and addresses are on a FDR data file? I don't think they stamp the "send to" address onto the data sets. I need a link. But if this gives an opening to legitimately alter the file a bit, it could have opened the door to deeper tampering. Theoretically.


This may very well be legitimate. However, it also is an important detail to note that the csv file put out by undertow was NOT the actual, original file sent by the NTSB.

I've wondered. In my FOIA request I asked for two different CSV file names - "AAL77_tabular.csv" like Undertow has gotten and passed on, and "DCA01MAO64_tabular.csv" as listed in the Specialist's Factual Report PDF I have, on the off chance they were two different things or whatever.


Again, I'm not saying undertow tampered with the data. However, the fact that he edited the file himself invalidates and certainty that the file and its contents originated at the NTSB.


And isn't certainty just so easy to invalidate? Something to remember, that's why I doubt everything. I'm seeing the need to be real careful on my treasure hunt as well. We live and learn. Sorry UT.


PS. I DO have teenage kids.


Sorry they got a loony CT dad who's online too much!
(just kidding)

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Nick, what bothers me so much is that you did not contact us prior to your comments/claims. If you had, it would have never escalated.

Everything i have typed above can be found on our site in a simple radio interview download.

Does this mean i have to type this out for every Nick that comes along in the future when it is all readily available if people take the time to look for it and click some links? What would you do Nick? Would you ignore the next Nick? Or type all this out again for him...


Rob,

I appreciate you taking the time to clear up a lot of the confusion.

Since you asked, what I would post a detailed narrative, with links, that describes the history that you just posted. Maybe even make a summary report and have it on your site as a pdf.

I would also be less bold in your claims that you *know* the animation and csv files really came from the NTSB when it seems like you're relying in large part on snowygrouch and UT NOT to have edited/created the files themselves. As far as I can tell, you still can't directly prove that the animation and csv files came from the NTSB. Maybe it will help when additional unbiased 3rd parties are able to corroborate the NTSB files.

But getting back to the original topic of this thread, how can the magnetic heading on the animation show 70 degrees when the map clearly shows a visual heading somewhere greater than 80 degrees? If the animation software is reading a csv file to create the animation, it doesn't make sense that the graphics wouldn't line up with the edited csv data. The csv data should be what creates the graphics.

If the animation map graphics were rotated so that the image of the Pentagon and the flight path lined up at 70 degrees, wouldn't by definitition the animation reflect the "official" flight path? Even then, the Dulles runway wouldn't line up with the Pentagon.

So this means that something is drastically wrong with the animation video. The runway and the Pentagon don't line relative to the heading that's being shown. I'm not even sure how this could happen unless the map was rotated at different sections in the animation.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Nick,

All the above is on our site. You are the first in a LONG time i have had to deal with regarding this information as being authentic. You are THE first who has been the most stubborn and wants to be spoon fed (and yet still refuse the spoon eg. FOIA request link to NTSB site provided 3 times before you started a thread asking for help). Not even the JREFers put up this kind of fight and they are known for spin and misleading comments.

Basically, and nothing personal.. but i have found a new definition for the term amature researcher. I first thought the JREFers were pretty amature.. i spent maybe 2 days and about 15 posts with the JREFers intially regarding the same arguments you raise now. They took the initiative to find out for themselves instead of being spoon fed. (although they do want to be spoon fed many times).

I have no idea when you first started 'waking up'. I have no idea what your agenda is if any. I have no idea what you expect from perfect strangers who you do not contact first, yet make claims and comments to an extent you have to apologize later after they they spoon feed you.

The only reason i am here is because i have some time on my hands waiting for information. We also spent some time having some fun with the JREFers... z10.invisionfree.com...


pilotsfor911truth.org is not a govt agency who has to answer to the public. We are an organization of professionals seeking answers from our govt. This is something you need to understand. You need to realize the difference. We offer our analysis publicly for those who wish to follow along and/or donate. We are not here to answer to you.

You can call us liars, bogus etc because we refuse to spoon feed you. But the time it takes us to spoon feed you because you wont download some radio interviews and click some links, or even watch our film, is the time that could be better spent trying to figure out how to pressure the govt to give us answers. Nick on ATS forums is not our concern. That is what you have to get through your head. Consider yourself lucky we (CIT and P4T) are taking the time to address you. As i said.. not even the JREFers (who absolutely despise P4T and CIT) use your type of argument. Its ludicrous for those who take a little time researching.

Further.. i have since acquired my own information directly from the NTSB. Not that i needed to question UT or SG since i verified their information within the first few days after received and after seeing their work since. But i have gotten my own. Its called being a responsible researcher prior to making any accusations so i wont have to apologize in the future.

Cheers!
Rob



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Rob, a few constructive Qs if you have time, or could pass them onto Undertow:
Undertow's CSV file offered at your site (and thanks, interesting reading!)
- was this .csv file sent directly by the NTSB?
- If so is it, I'm guessing, attachment II in his packet of SSFDR data?
- If not, is the CSV the one decoded from the raw file?
- And the raw file, when it came from the NTSB, was I presume the file on the CDR of "FDR plots that the Safety Board used" in writing the specialist's Report?
- And the report itself was printed I presume, with doc ID DCA01MAO64?
- Does it differ in any meaningful way from the PDF verion of the study w/first two attachments offered at the NTSB site?

Thanks.

ETA, oops: I meant I would guess the CSV was on the CDR along with the raw fiile - that's listed in the report as attachment III, electronic, so on the CD. Attachments I and II are printed in the report. Sorry.

ETA again: Thank you for taking the time to address us. I'm sorry for any aggravation for my part, nothing personal. I don't need to be spoon fed either, just if you're bored or whatever...
[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
UT and SG are well aware of this thread (and your blog CL). UT is busy with his family to sign up for ATS. He thinks im an idiot for even being here. I think he's right.

SG has replied to your blog. He also has said you have never emailed him. He is not too concerned with ATS. He is getting ready for a big presentation in London coming up of which i have been helping.


Sorry this doesnt help you much.

typos

ETA: Thank you for your apology CL.. accepted.



[edit on 8-6-2007 by johndoex]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by johndoex]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join