Flight Recorder Analysis - Wikipedia Displays Blatant Disinformation Again

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Wikipedia Displays Blatant Disinformation Once Again
Flight Data Recorder Analysis

03/19/09 - Wikipedia, a primary on-line resource for diverse information, allows anyone to edit their 'wiki' pages. Many are aware through articles published by Reuters and other news organizations[sup][1][/sup] that Wiki is a haven for intelligence agencies who also use it as a means of distributing false and misleading information. Recently it has come to our attention that an edit was made to the "9/11 Conspiracies" page containing factual errors and disinformation regarding Flight Data Recorder (FDR) analysis.

The original entry is as follows:

A June 2007 video, attributed to researcher Calum Douglas of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, presents an analysis of alleged Flight 77 black box data,[141] said to have been obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under a Freedom of Information Act petition. It states that the approach path and altitude on the Flight Path Animation differs from the mainstream account of the path of Flight 77.

The updated edit and disinformation is as follows:

However, this is likely due to the fact that the NTSB animation which has been released is a working copy, in which the post-added animation is incorrectly calibrated to end the animation at the moment the plane hits the Pentagon. Similarly, the last piece of data from the FDR for United Airlines Flight 93 ends 4 seconds before the plane crashed into the ground, when it was still at an altitude of 2,182 feet.[142] A paper written by NASA scientist Ryan Mackey on Flight 77's FDR data suggests that the last piece of data from the FDR was likely from approximately 4 seconds before the aircraft struck the Pentagon, explaining why the last piece of data on the FDR shows the plane at an altitude of 180 feet, even though the NTSB concluded that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon about 6 feet above the ground at a descent rate of about 39 feet per second.[143] In June 2007, the National Transportation Safety Board stated regarding the inconsistency between the FDR data and the reconstructed working animation that, "This working copy was never used for an official purpose; instead, the Safety Board is notifying all recipients of this animation that the record includes an erroneous annotation."[144]

The editor begins the wiki entry with pure speculation as defined by the words, "...this is likely due to...". The editor also fails to acknowledge that the NTSB has released more than an animation. The NTSB have also released CSV files of data and a NTSB Flight Path Study. Neither of which the NTSB contends are "working copies" and both show the aircraft at an altitude too high to hit the light poles and Pentagon. The Wiki editor also conveniently omits pertinent facts when quoting "an erroneous annotation". The reason the NTSB added the disclaimer of "working copy" to their animation is not due to "missing seconds" as deceptively intended by the Wiki editor, the disclaimer is due to an error in their clock annotation which was erroneously labeled as "EDT" instead of "UTC". The NTSB also states their goal is to send the "most complete, accurate information possible" when distributing data through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). The NTSB does not account for, nor claim, any "missing seconds" from their data provided through the FOIA.

Full Article

Well isnt that a surprise. An edit got past their staff. I mean how hard can it be to get it past them? With a topic for EVERYTHING, I'm sure they read all of them.

That edit though is interesting if you read between the lines.

More from article cont...

Positional Data and plot as provided by the NTSB confirms the fact that there aren't any seconds missing from the NTSB plotted and provided data west of the Pentagon wall. Further inquiry with the Flight Data Recorder manufacturer as explained and recorded in Calum Douglas' presentation referenced above, is further confirmation that such FDR's cannot be missing more than 0.5 seconds. Also, in a poor attempt to set precedent, the anonymous Wiki editor references United 93 Flight Data Recorder for comparison to American 77 FDR explaining that UA93 data stops at 2,182 feet and therefore is also missing 4 seconds of data. However, according to the UA93 data provided by the NTSB, the vertical descent rate is exceeding 1,000 feet per second for the last second of data. If the data were missing 4 seconds as claimed by the anonymous Wiki editor, the data would have stopped near 6,000 feet, not 2,182. The wiki editor fails to understand that, when corrected for local barometric pressure, 2,182 is the ground elevation of the field in Shanksville where UA93 was alleged to have crashed. Anyone with Google Earth can cross check this for themselves. Although there are many other issues with UA93 events as provided by the NTSB FDR data, neither AA77 or UA93 data are "missing [any] seconds".

The editor goes on to source a third party internet forum post as a "paper" and attributes this to the NTSB by stating, "..even though the NTSB concluded that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon about 6 feet above the ground at a descent rate of about 39 feet per second...". The NTSB makes no such conclusion and is further proof the anonymous wiki editor prefers blatant disinformation over actual source. The third party forum post was written based on a hypothetical scenario in response to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles article, it is not consistent with any flight data whatsoever, and is certainly not from the NTSB as claimed by the anonymous wiki disinformation editor.

For further references on debunking the disinformation regarding FDR analysis and other topics, please visit pilotsfor911truth.org....

Looks like the wiki edit was done by Rkowens4. Myspace page.

More discussion here.

Too bad young Ryan desnt understand that 2,182 feet is almost 300 feet under ground at Shanksville. Just like AA77 data is 300 off. And then needs to be adjusted to local pressure. When adjusted, its within FAA regulation margins for ground elevation as stated in the article.



[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

Isnt he the same guy who has all the "debunking" video's on youtube?

reply to post by RockHound757


RockHound757.....

Again, disingenuous use of outside sources, that, very conveniently, reference back to 'PilotsFor911truth.org', and such.

Circular logic, and I am not being facetious.

(reference to AAL 77, and the Pentagon attack...I apologize, that seemed in bad taste at first glance, but it goes to the concept).


I would like the 9/11 controversy to stay free of emotion, for once. We are over seven years hence, it's time to stay solid.

Of the four airplanes used on 9/11, only two.....UAL 93 and AAL 77 had usable CVRs and DFDRs recovered for examination.

I am assuming THIS thread is going to focus on AAL 77 and the Pentagon?

Because, it's best if there is no cross-talk....pick one instance, and focus on it.

So....I hope the OP will use all available info, with an open mind, as we all should have....there are many, many possibles....but only one truth.

reply to post by TinFoilBat


RKOwens also worked with Rick Siegel, the cameraman who recorded the collapses of the three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) from a pier in Hoboken.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Of the four airplanes used on 9/11, only two.....UAL 93 and AAL 77 had usable CVRs and DFDRs recovered for examination.

Wrong... AA77 CVR was recovered but unusable according to the FBI.

I am assuming THIS thread is going to focus on AAL 77 and the Pentagon?

This thread is about "Flight Recorder Analysis - Wikipedia Displays Blatant Disinformation Again"


[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by TinFoilBat
Isnt he the same guy who has all the "debunking" video's on youtube?

here is a link to his page on Youtube, he does a GREAT job debunking the fantasy.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by RockHound757


So, RockHound757, seems your focus is going to be all about AAL77.

Clear?

Good. What I would like to learn is this:

We well know that the TRACON RADAR tracks could be subject to distortion...not the term I was going for, but you get my gist.

The 'eyewitness' reports are contradictory, inasmuch as seeing where the airplane came from before impact. That is understandable. (the 'Citgo' gas station.....the one that civilians cannot use....THAT is the crux of the 'eyewitness' argument???)

So....news to me, no CVR data from AAL77. Yet, the DFDR is good....why? They are mounted right next to each other.....

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by TinFoilBat
Isnt he the same guy who has all the "debunking" video's on youtube?

here is a link to his page on Youtube, he does a GREAT job debunking the fantasy.

www.youtube.com...

Great job? The kid doesnt even realize 2,192 is ground elevation of Shanksville and thinks UA93 has missing data due to altitude.

Yeah.. really great job there...

weedwhacker, once again... this thread is about "Flight Recorder Analysis - Wikipedia Displays Blatant Disinformation Again ". Since the wiki edit and above OP article also has UA93 reference, no, its not only focused on AA77. Are we clear?

So....news to me, no CVR data from AAL77. Yet, the DFDR is good....why? They are mounted right next to each other.....

Good question. Why not ask the FBI?

Originally posted by CameronFox

RKOwens also worked with Rick Siegel, the cameraman who recorded the collapses of the three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) from a pier in Hoboken.

Is that supposed to give him credibility??

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


The man that filmed the collapses in the video said that it was wind that made the sounds that some say are explosions. Yeah, I would say it gives him a little.

Try to stay on topic CF. This thread isnt about Seigel or WTC collapse, explosions or wind (next thing we know.. CF will be perhaps touting rkowens debunks of UFO posts on this forum by claiming swamp gas).

Back on topic...

What say you when Rkowens compares UA93 FDR to AA77 FDR in a poor attempt to set precedent on Wikipedia regarding "4 seconds missing" by using 2,182 from UA93 altimeter data provided by NTSB?

We noticed you prefer to ignore such "Great work" from Ryan. Why is that? Do you think he's right or wrong?

[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by RockHound757


I apologize for off the topic posts. Please have the mods remove them if need be.

I watched several of his videos and I found them rather informative. Regarding the questions you raised, admittedly I have not looked at all into it.

Originally posted by CameronFox


I watched several of his videos and I found them rather informative. Regarding the questions you raised, admittedly I have not looked at all into it.

Do you have Google Earth?

If so, let us know the ground elevation at the crash site in Shanksville.

Then let us know if you prefer to only research to your bias.

CameronFox,

No reply?


Need a link to Google Earth? (perhaps you dont have it yet?)

Let me know if you need something more accurate as USGS.

Or do you prefer to ignore disinformation?

Those are the only 3 possibilities i can think of at this time.. off the top of my head.. for you refusiing reply.

Yes, we know CF...

reply to post by RockHound757


Rock....I looked at the link provided by CFox....and it has nothing to do with Shanksville, yet your next immediate comment was disparaging to both CFox, and the 'kid', as you called him.

Rock, the entire premise of your 'OP' is something that you cut and pasted from 'PilotsFor911Truth.org'. Verbatim.

I linked, and linkyed....got an NTSB CVR transcript for UAL 93. I'll look again, on THEIR website, for the DFDR path data. I have a print-out of an analysis of DFDR UAL 93 showing the various AutoPilot and FMS modes, along with times and altitudes and airspeeds, etc. It co-incides very well with the CVR transcript times, allowing for the fact that it only is timed to a standard of one-tenth of a second....as the tightest resolution.

(a lot can happen in ONE second.....at the speeds we're discussing).

As to the elevation of the ground at Shanksville....ermm....red herring.

When I land in Denver and the Jeppessen Chart says the runway elevation is 5330'.....then, the altimeters all will, within a certain margin of error, all read 5330', as long as they are all corrected for local barometric variation. IF they are still set to 29.92, and the local Altimeter setting is reported as, say....30.32....will, there will be a 400' discrepancy, now...wouldn't there?

reply to post by weedwhacker

Again, disingenuous use of outside sources, that, very conveniently, reference back to 'PilotsFor911truth.org', and such.

Your opinion only, some of us see it differently, you see what you want to see, not everyone in here is close minded.

Circular logic, and I am not being facetious.

Really, what are you being.

I would like the 9/11 controversy to stay free of emotion, for once. We are over seven years hence, it's time to stay solid.

Really, does that include your emotions as well.

Of the four airplanes used on 9/11, only two.....UAL 93 and AAL 77 had usable CVRs and DFDRs recovered for examination.

There has “never” been any proof that the so-called CVRs, and the DFDRs belong to said planes. We want to see some serial numbers that prove that these instruments came out of said planes. We have been lied to enough, if you want to believe in a government who has been lying to you, that’s your privilege, but do not expect the rest of us, to take their word on anything any more. We have a right to question those in power who lie to us all the time. We want hard facts, not hear say.

....but only one truth.

That’s right and it is “not hear say” from the FBI, and the government.




[edit on 30-3-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Thanks for your post, "New Member" impressme....

Forgive me for being slightly suspicious....just signed on yesterday, yet pulling apart others' posts like an old pro....fascinating.

So much to respond to, where DO I start....hmmmm.....

Well, how about that old chestnut, the 'S/Ns' of the CVR and DFDRs.....

'impressme', why not 'impress us', and do some research. Write to Sundstrand and Boeing....and don't forget Fairchild!!!....and get their records for the CVR and DFDR for the two airframes that comprised AAL 77 and UAL 93. The originals were installed at the Boeing factory, after all.

THEN, check both AAL and UAL maintenance records, and look for when or if any of the devicdes were removed and replaced, or removed and changed out with another unit.

Here's a hint....we are required to pre-flight the CVR, first flight of day. IF a unit has failed, and if it's bad enough, it will be replaced. So, why not pick one airline's maintenance records, and track all of the possiblities of the CVR being replaced through the life of the airframe, since delivery.

Again, do the same with the DFDR history....THEN come back with the S/N data. It's bound to be buried somewhere in the Airline's records, whether they be on microfiche, or digitally stored......

Impress us!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.
Defendants motion reads in part:
"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . . (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis. Full Article

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Forgive me for being slightly suspicious....just signed on yesterday, yet pulling apart others' posts like an old pro....fascinating.

Some of us like me have been reading these threads for years, and are well informed. Pulling apart other peoples post is easy, after watching how you and others go about it. (What so hard about it?)

'impressme', why not 'impress us', and do some research. Write to Sundstrand and Boeing....and don't forget Fairchild!!!....and get their records for the CVR and DFDR for the two airframes that comprised AAL 77 and UAL 93. The originals were installed at the Boeing factory, after all.

Yes let me “impress” you with this little fact, there has never been any evidences that confirms that those instruments came out of those airplanes on 911, which is a fact.
Furthermore, you are only parroting what the government reports are which I might add are mostly made up of pseudo science, and just outright lies. I want to see the real evidences that the FBI refuses to allow the experts to see, (what is the FBI hiding) maybe the fact that those instruments, and airplane parts do not belong to said airplanes.

All you have presented in here today is nothing but “HEARSAY”.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by impressme]