It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Balsamo wrong again - NTSB map rotation

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by johndoex
Beachy, i know you're an old timer and all, ...

4: What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being
generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to the
protected memory of the recorder?
L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds,
5: Is the size of this recording delay regulated by industry or just
minimized by good design?
L-3 Response: Regulated per ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance
Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems.

You refuse to call L3 and/or email them, instead you elect to believe the above is "hearsay". Nor are you able to look up the regs yourself. Got it.
Beachy, do us all a favor and just keep thinking its "hearsay". The rest of us will get on with our work.

You can not produce the standards and quote substantial portions? Why? Did you check the hearsay from your FDR expert, the salesman?

The hearsay you posted relating to standards that are out of date now. Why not quote substantial sections, of these out of date regs, and prove the salesman is close to the truth, explaining it correctly. Do you understand calling me an old timer is cool, but you still have hearsay? Do you understand until you produce proper analysis, this is hearsay?

Please post the paragraph from 55 not hearsay from your expert FDR. Post the part of 124, source it, and post a source for 55. Should be simple for you to do, you would not take the hearsay word of a salesman; Would you?

I like your hearsay stuff, but you lack analysis. What does it mean for 77? Why can't data be missing from 77's FDR when data is missing in many accidents from FDRs? Expand on these issues on your own, without the hearsay stuff.

You are unable to post the standard, or source the standard. Your hearsay, from a salesman is cool. Relax, it makes your implied conclusions shaky. But who cares what it means, p4t does not make conclusions, or try to. That is what your web site says. Cool.

The hearsay of .5 lag is cool (I believe your salesman), but since the lag can refer to the internal data collection inside the FDR system, and not have a thing to do with whatever your non-conclusion is, you need to expand on this topic and clear up the ambiguity.
I guess you will not research this, the hearsay from a salesman is good enough for you and 9/11 truth. You make no conclusions.

We do not offer theory (p4t)

You do not even have a theory! No conclusions, no theory. Gee, the hearsay is cool.

Do you need help on the rotation of the Pentagon patch? Do you understand why it was easy to move the runway patch 3000 feet, and have the animation on a runway? That is cool how easy it was to place a patch of runway under the animation, in spite of the fact the nav data place the animation plane 3000 feet south of the runway in the dirt. You can use some help I have seen a few of your errors, and I can help. And I noticed, it is a month since you posted the massive errors in physics at p4t. Do you need a copy of Mackey's work? You can just use it instead of keeping errors up on your web site.

Good post, thank you for posting.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by beachnut]

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:23 PM
Rob said elsewhere just the other day:

"The only "massive perspective error" being posed by Larson is the fact he continues to compare a perspective view to an orthogonal view."

Yeah, I don't know all the formulas to correct exactly between the two, but you saying it can't be done? How did you decide the map was rotated looking at that perspective view? Does this supposed error on my part have anything to do with anything? If not, why mention it? If so can you explain it?

Lemme guess: it's not worth your time, I'm an idiot, I'm wrong again in some vague way and that's it?

And Rob, what does this mean? (old quote)
"The grid on the ground correspond to lat/long lines in terms of true north and are accurate at the runway and at the pentagon/map in terms of angles/parallels."

So it's NOT oriented to magnetic and square-based?

Map not rotated - heading altered - csv altered with it...

I'm confused. Are you standing behind these findings or not? Please be as clear as you can manage. Thank you.

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:12 PM

just wanted to say it one more time as i dont think Beachnut said it enough.

Anytime you want to contact L3 Beachy, they are available. Let me know if you need the number.

(This is almost as good as when CL refused to contact the NTSB when he accused us of fabricating the animation)

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by johndoex

(This is almost as good as when CL refused to contact the NTSB when he accused us of fabricating the animation)

Yes, it is clear, you will not support your hearsay from a salesman with actual quotes for ED-55, or 124. Have you read 124 and ED-55 to check the hearsay statement from a salesman?

Without the sections from 124, an FAA directive, saying the conditions for complying with ED-55, a European directive, you are willing to use hearsay? How do we know the date 77's FDR was installed is covered by ED-55, and directed by 124, when we have no selection from these directives posted by you?

What is the point, what does it means to 9/11? Your claim, made with hearsay, what does it mean in the big picture of 9/11.

Since there are numerous examples of FDR loosing data, what does you statement mean? Like saying the Titanic is unsinkable, are you trying to say the FDR can not loose data?

You just don't make sense. Please get some more evidence and a much better analysis of this topic. It is systemic of your problems with G force errors on your web page, and your errors on this map rotation.

I have offered help for you to correct your major faux pas in physics; just as you have received help in this thread on the map rotation.

Good post, thanks for the update on the hearsay. I know when you get time you will correct your errors ( I bet the government is bombarding your with p-rays to keep you from getting your physics correct, check with John Lear, he knows a lot about the top secret alien work in the government; I have heard him on "coast to coast", he knows about these things)

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:00 PM
Does it even matter? What is the point in arguing what the FDR shows or what standards it was subject to when we have decoded radar data leaked that has shown the plane was too high? More specifically 273 feet above the ground(pretty close to what was found from the fdr anyway). Or are we to assume, since it was unknowingly handed over, that it too is inaccurate?

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by PplVSNWO

yes it does matter. that altitude was recorded, the question is where. positional data shows it well away from the building still, over higher ground. johndoex says it had to be recorded less than 1 sec from impact so it's too high. if it was recorded somewhere else, it could have corrected between and then hit w/all the right values, but unrecorded. fdrs lose a couple seconds of data in crashes all the time, and i've been suspecting as much as 8 or 9 seconds could be missing, but maybe not.

sorry my keyboard's broke btw...

and all this is not on the original topic, but it makes sense to go here next - pft's north path claims are admittedly unjustified by johndoex and proven nonexistent, so how about his other fdr claims? is is a problem the plane is too high to hit the lamp poles if it's still a mile away at the time? so this is the discussion - how many seconds are missing/where was it at 9-37-45?

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:46 PM
Are you saying the radar data is wrong or that it stopped recording at the same time the fdr did?

[edit on 22-4-2008 by PplVSNWO]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by PplVSNWO

no. even if the positional data for last frame is accurate, it stopped about 1.3 miles short of the pgon while radar coverage stops shortly before this spot - perhaps 1.5 miles, haven't measured it. reason - it descended too low. radar was still recording but the plane was underneath the radar - i'm sure you're familiar with that term, this is it literally in action.

so there's a period of time neither radar nor fdr can tell us anything about, and then the time marked by the light poles and the impact, and in between lots of witnesses, none of whom saw it do anything other than impact.

btw have you looked over the case for grid/map rotation as shown on page 1? and also here -
or jdx's claims as listed here -
any comments on all that?

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:27 AM
reply to post by johndoex

(This is almost as good as when CL refused to contact the NTSB when he accused us of fabricating the animation)

For the record, I contacted the NTSB pretty quick actually, since I'd been questioning the animation's link to them and been shown wrong, I felt I'd better do so - talked to Ted Lopatkiewicz (pronounce lo-pat-ke-wikz) on the phone - he's the director of public affais, dunno why but he answered the phone, not some subordinate. You know him as 'the Joseph Goebbels of the NTSB.' I got tongue-tied, and followed up w/e-mail at his request. In part I said:

The website explains Public Affairs “Provides […] point-of-contact liaisons for news media representatives.” I’m not exactly news media but am a journalist of sorts in that I run a 'blog and am active in discussion forums and generally respected within my narrow field of focus.

The issue at hand, and the reason I contact you, is that there are some questions about apparently erroneous data attributed back to the NTSB that is causing a lot of confusion in the public at the moment. I believe it’s in the Safety board’s interest to actively help me, and the public, sort this out a little bit. I’m not looking for an explanation, just any additional information that can be had to help shed light on the situation.

I’m also doing what I can through normal FOIA channels, but there is only so much I can actually find out that way, and so am exploring this possibility as well.

And as Rob and Jeff Hill and others found, they aren't answering questions. Ted told me:

Mr. Larson:

As I explained to you when you called me yesterday, the National Transportation
Safety Board provided technical support to the federal government's
investigation into the terrorist attacks on September 11, which was conducted by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Among the assistance we provided were
identification of aircraft parts and read-outs of flight recorders recovered
from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania sites (we understand no recorders were
recovered from Ground Zero). Because this was not a Safety Board investigation,
it would be improper for us to discuss investigative findings. We did release,
under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, some of the factual
information that we provided to the FBI; as you are aware, that information is
available on our website. Any interpretation or explanation of those data would
have to be rendered by the FBI.

Thank you for contacting me, and good luck on your project.

Ted Lopatkiewicz

NTSB are the ones who made this messed up data, but since they turned it ver the FBI, FBI, who know nothing about how it was rendered, are the ones to ask.

So my first approach - rise above the FOIA and get a person, a friend inside, to help navigate and clarify - failed. Then I filed normal, for good form since I already had copies of everything, but did ask for 'any and all animations/video recreations' hoping for something new. THEN I got the same letter talking about the same enclosed discs only without the discs, and THEN I'm like, screw this... and then I just looked at it and figure out the part that most interested me, the north flight path, and this thread answers how that came to be. With no help from either NTSB or PFFFT.

And it's gone quite well I think. I'd like to note that Rob and I are now in agreement on the issue of map rotation being the cause of the north path, it's no big deal, nothing they're arguing. They did argue north data aggressively for a while, as Rob denies and I've documented, and I understand the reasons for that, and am content to let Rob retain his silence on that. That's all the confirmation I need. Thanks all for reading.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:38 AM
oops, to not be deceptive, I'd better add this clarification. While I maintain that the map is rotated, and had somehow gotten the idea that Rob agreed with that, I had said here that Rob and I agree on that. However as he says at the CIT forum:

Adam has some serious issues and perhaps should seek professional help for his obsessive compulsive disorder.

He also thinks i "agree" with him. Not only does he have a problem with obsession, but he is clearly delusional.

source for this and other stupidity

Oops, my bad. So he's still rejecting these findings even though they're obvious, because I guess I'm the one pointing them out. so I guess he is standing behind his original findings he spent a year harping on, then. Or something. This guy cannot be read or make sense but boy he does know his psychoanalysis, very helpful, and as for pilot creds, how about that evasive maneuvering? You don't learn that in high school.

I say we do what everyone else does... ignore him.

Good timing! so you got tired of ignoring my points and focusing on me, and now you're ignoring me, which means you're back on the issues? No, didn't think so...

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:57 AM

Originally posted by beachnut
Yes, it is clear, you will not support your hearsay from a salesman with actual quotes for ED-55, or 124. Have you read 124 and ED-55 to check the hearsay statement from a salesman?

Translation of above quote -


too funny

Admin Edit - Removed most of the comment because of borderline insults and really, really poor humor.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by johndoex

Is that a no, you will not be showing us the applicable portions of 124 or 55? You are content to present hearsay from your FDR expert, a salesman. I believe him, now show the portions and explain what you mean about the transport lag.

I thought you actually looked up 124 and have the parts that tell us the FDR on 77 had to comply with the European standard ED-55. But you will not!?

Summary; p4t will not be presenting supporting evidence to accompany their hearsay information on the FDR. P4t have a few quotes from a salesman; that is hearsay. I have no idea why p4t has problems with math, physics and supplying support for their own hearsay.

Have you fixed the physics error from last month? I have offered to help you correct it. What is up with all the expert core members you have, not one can help you fix your physics problems. You could also help CIT, your crack research team, with those ridiculous flight paths they have been posting.

Thank you for posting. You are not going to back up the hearsay with selections from the standards, or give an analysis of what it means in support of your non-theories, and non-conclusions.

With no theories and no conclusions, why present 124, or 55.

So is the rotated ground section of the Pentagon sorted out? You know how they were able to place the runway under the animation correctly, but not the Pentagon?

Translation: p4t will not present hard evidence, they prefer hearsay. jdx, did I get that right?

[edit on 25-4-2008 by beachnut]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in