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.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Yes, PA is off, but if you compare the slope of the change curve for PA with acceleration and RA values, it is clearly anomalous.


That is not the only issue which is "anomalous".

The NTSB Flight Path Study concludes 09:37:45 as the "impact" time. This coincides with their provided csv file. This conflicts with the data provided by Warren.

Further, the calculator you offered to "debunk" P4T calculations is the wrong calculator and has been confirmed by an MIT PhD.

I could go on, but I think that is enough, for now.

It appears, you, Farmer, and some guy from Australia, know more than NASA, the NTSB, Langley Research, Centennial Of Flight, numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators, and 757/767 Capts from United and American Airlines, whom I might add, have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

We won't get into the fact you calculated the wrong vector for G loads. (yes, I read that thread at P4T. Very entertaining)

And since you still call me "Rob", why is Will in conversation with me when he has already repeatedly claimed he doesn't want to discuss this issue with Balsamo? Yes, we know, everyone who has an aptitude to attract MIT PhD's for argument must be Balsamo, right?

Farmer, it appears Will, a PhD from MIT, disagrees with you at every level of your argument. I'm not surprised.

Although, I do admire your attempt to save face. You might be better off just deleting all your posts as you did your website, twice.

For anyone who wishes to hear "911Files" on tape, click here.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

TF, don't bother replying to people like trebor. For one, he has already lost quite a bit of credibility on this board, and two, it's clear he cannot debate the topic of this thread and instead attempts to bait the opposition using unsourced, off-topic strawman arguments in every-single-one of his posts.


Meanwhile, back in Rob Balsamo's cockpit, we have his claim, complete with animation to illustrate it, that the "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon." After several years of asking Rob for positive evidence of ANY such flyover, we get nothing from him, not an ounce of evidence. And when confronted with the implications of any flyover, something he realized he had never thought of until we pointed out the obvious, he has avoided - and banned on his forum anyone who brings it up - the point that he has no positive evidence of any such flyover.

As his new "press secretary," R_Mackey, you can try to protect Balsamo from the implications of his own claims all you want, but he's caught in the twilight zone of his own making, unable to demonstrate the very claim of a "flyover" he made.

So ask your boss to come out of hiding and support his claim that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon" as represented in his own animation and illustrated in my avatar.

Or tell us why you can't.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by cesura
It sounds as though neither you nor turbofan have even read
my review of the PfT/CIT video and Rob Balsamo's physics of
conspiracy:


I looked through it. I quoted it on the last page.

You're doing something wrong Will. This is why I personally will not spend too much time on you and your "paper" and certainly will not spend the amount of time you spend on Balsamo.

Again, let us know when you confront Balsamo with your claim and his reply. But you may want to first check your work, or have someone else do it for you.

Edit: Here is a reply from Balsamo based on the above "paper" someone posted at their forum.




Hi Swing,

One of our forum members sent me an email awhile ago with the above link. Although the above paper appears to be intended as mostly an ad hom attack and as such, the author refuses to confront us directly, basically, the above paper shows what we have already demonstrated in our presentation, that it is possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon when removing all the variables. See the 6 minute mark here.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

What the above paper fails to address is that our analysis was based on topography, obstacles AND data. The above paper does not account for data and the near linear trends provided and plotted by the NTSB.

Hope this helps.

Source
Looks like you wasted a boat load of time trying to prove something wrong which is already covered Will.
[edit on 11-11-2009 by R_Mackey]


Ryan, since you quoted from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum, why don't you join and debate and confront them there with your claims? They have offered the invite numerous times.

They are extremely cordial to those who act the same way towards posters there. That way you and the certified experts can sit down and hash this out together. Well as least review it as they have already hashed it out and shown the discrepancies with the FDR and the official story.

We look forward to your presence at the pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.


Oh yeah, Balsamo, with all this PA smoke blowing around, it's almost hard to tell that P4T hasn't yet been right about a single point of any substance or consequences.

Almost.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by .Sol.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.


Oh yeah, Balsamo, with all this PA smoke blowing around, it's almost hard to tell that P4T hasn't yet been right about a single point of any substance or consequences.

Almost.


Attack of the character noted and logged. Define substance and consequence in this case, please.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Attack of the character noted and logged. Define substance and consequence in this case, please.


Uh, errr, hmmm....

How about: any logical reason to think that the FDR data found in the Pentagon proves AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Please read this statement again.

Okay. Here is Rob Balsamo, at 6:02-6:09 in the "G Forces"
video, which is an extended excerpt from the longer PfT/CIT
video I reviewed at
www.ccs.neu.edu...



From Rob Balsamo's narration at 6:02 in the G-Forces video:
The parabola scenario does present a possible descent through obstacle and topography, albeit not consistent with the FDR trends.

I love that sentence, and wish I had quoted it in my review.
It directly contradicts the video's primary thesis: that
"g-loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the
VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757." It also encapsulates
the bait-and-switch at the center of Balsamo's argument:
What he is really claiming is that his own favorite flight
path is impossible.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
You claim P4T only analyzed one "favorite" path, the one that is "impossible". This is false. P4T analyzed several paths all with varying variables, even those that are possible.

Actually, PfT misanalyzed several flight paths. For example,
the sentence quoted earlier is embedded within talk of a 4g
load for the parabolic path, when the correct g-load is less
than 2g.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
Your formula does not consider initial velocity, therefore your formula is also the wrong one to use...

No, my formulas are correct and appropriate. Pardon my
interruption:


Originally posted by R_Mackey
...based on the premise/objective of "9/11 Attack On The Pentagon" which is based on topography, obstacles and data.

No, the objective of "9/11 Attack On The Pentagon" was to mislead
people who cannot distinguish technobabble from real mathematics.

I'll conserve readers' patience by ignoring several points
that have already been refuted by others here.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
As for your rounding errors, I just plugged your numbers from your paper using your formula into a calculator and rounded the final result.

a = 2(271)/4.4^2

a = 542/19.36

a = 27.9958677685950.....

not 28.3

Anyone can do it, and they don't even need to take a course in calculus. Being an instructor, I'm sure you're familiar with this term? K.I.S.S.

I have already explained that my calculations were performed
using full IEEE double precision, rounding to a single decimal
place in my review. As to whether I understand rounding issues,
which can be surprisingly technical, a Google search on
"Clinger"+"floating point" may prove informative.

You have told a couple of lies about me that I should correct:


Originally posted by R_Mackey
Further, the calculator you offered to "debunk" P4T calculations is the wrong calculator and has been confirmed by an MIT PhD.

I have used the calculator. It seems to work fine, and can
confirm correct solutions to the acceleration problem we
have been discussing. The calculator was not designed to
solve our specific time-restricted variant of the problem,
however, so correct usage of the calculator requires a tiny
bit of mathematical sophistication, which the fake R_Mackey
apparently has not got. That should not be blamed on the
calculator.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
And since you still call me "Rob", why is Will in conversation with me when he has already repeatedly claimed he doesn't want to discuss this issue with Balsamo? Yes, we know, everyone who has an aptitude to attract MIT PhD's for argument must be Balsamo, right?

Although I shouldn't say I have actually enjoyed my conversations
with Rob Balsamo, I wish he had been present for this one, and
I'm kind of surprised he never showed up.

The fake R_Mackey appears to be heavily influenced by Balsamo,
however, even to the point of imitating Balsamo's mistakes and
rhetorical style. I can understand why others in this forum
might have forgotten that they were conversing with R_Mackey,
not Rob.

For a while there, I thought the fake R_Mackey might have been
making an honest attempt to understand the mathematics. His
attempts to use the calculator and to check my rounding were
encouraging. Alas, he was interested only so long as he thought
he might find mistakes in my calculations.

As I gave up on Balsamo, I am giving up on the fake R_Mackey.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
Farmer, it appears Will, a PhD from MIT, disagrees with you at every level of your argument. I'm not surprised.

No, I respect John Farmer's research and agree with him at every
level of his argument with which I am currently familiar.

William D Clinger, PhD
(MIT, 1981, mathematics)



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
TF, don't bother replying to people like trebor. For one, he has already lost quite a bit of credibility on this board...


Balsamo lecturing me about credibility...now *That's* Entertainment!

Your flailing around with the FDR data in this thread is eclipsed only by your inability to discuss with any logic the other subjects I brought up - specifically the radar-proven CS1 departure, the SAMS at the Pentagon, your claim that Gopher 06 was vectored up along the hairy edge of P-56, the wings will rip off wait no they won't, etc so on and so forth.

As far as your claim that someone "cannot debate the topic of this thread", it certainly hasn't stopped you or Tino, I see.

Hopefully you'll still have DVDs to pimp 30 years from now, because at the rate you guys are going The Trials will NEVER come about and you'll have to have some means of support since you aren't flying anymore (as per your DU posts).

As far as cruising above MCrit, you seem to be taking your lead from another ATS member by making up something and lying by stating someone else said it: These are your words:


"...a NASA Scientist claiming .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757..."


Since everyone knows you and your PfT boys hang on the real "NASA Scientist" at JREF like a hobo on a ham sandwich, there is no excuse for your twisting Mackey's comments. It is therefore important to see what the the real R_Mackey, not some fake wannabe, said about cruising above critical mach:


This "flutter" argument is even stupider, if that's possible. Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number. They're designed to do it. Up at altitude, they cruise around 0.8 Mach or so all day long. This is done using supercritical wing design, boundary layer control, large and carefully thought control surfaces, etc. So the idea that AA 77 suddenly became uncontrollable when it hit 0.72 Mach on the deck is... bewildering.


I bolded the important part for you PfT readers. Notice it says 0.8 Mach and not .70M - .72M.

Not once, anywhere, did the real Mackey ever say ".70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757". That is an invention of your own, an intentional untruth meant to deceive, a tactic you boys seem to be getting a fair bit of mileage out of these days.

Bottom line, it is interesting how you can't keep mach numbers and critical mach straight, yet...you expect us to believe you. Uh-huh.

Where were those SAMs at the Pentagon again?

[edit on 12-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


It would seem that the fake R_Mackey and his protege TF just can't stop digging in an attempt to cover up their mistakes regarding their analysis of the FDR data and other issues surrounding their supposed expertise!


I wonder if they are planning to bury their steaming pile of crap in that hole?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by cesura
 


Then why not discuss the issue with the pilots 4 truth at their forum instead of attacking them here?


That is what I don't understand...people will attack an organization at their own site, here, etc. but never at the pilots for 9/11 truth forum located here: pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Maybe because doing so results in being banned.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Ryan, since you quoted from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum, why don't you join and debate and confront them there with your claims? They have offered the invite numerous times.

They are extremely cordial to those who act the same way towards posters there. That way you and the certified experts can sit down and hash this out together. Well as least review it as they have already hashed it out and shown the discrepancies with the FDR and the official story.

Swing, you have been misled. The person who has been
posting here as R_Mackey is not the real Ryan Mackey.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Then why not discuss the issue with the pilots 4 truth at their forum instead of attacking them here?


That is what I don't understand...people will attack an organization at their own site, here, etc. but never at the pilots for 9/11 truth forum located here: pilotsfor911truth.org...

When you figure out the probable identity of R_Mackey,
you will be well on your way to answering your other
questions. I wish you success in your search for Truth.

Will



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cesura
No, I respect John Farmer's research and agree with him at every
level of his argument with which I am currently familiar.


I suspect that Rob fails to understand measurement error and considers a slighty different result as 'disagreement'. What many lay people fail to understand is that solutions (or at least in engineering) are given with a confidence band (95%). There is rarely an 'exact' solution, but a set of solutions for which there is a reasonable confidence level. In my case, I use 2 sigma for rough, but I think most technical folks understand that 3 sigma (99.7%) is a better range. So, with an estimate of 6 seconds with a 2 sigma of 2 seconds, 4 seconds is within the expected confidence range. Not understanding this aspect of estimates is the first sign that the person you are dealing with has no real clue regarding engineering mathematics.

The good news for Rob is that I have done the time correlation between the radar and INS. The IAD ASR is the closest 'true' time standard (within the 2 second error band). Using the IAD timeline, the INS positional data is shifted to the west by ~0.2 nautical miles. That is what has pushed Warren's findings (4 seconds) to the lower end of the range.

In other words, no disagreement here except in the minds of a few who fail to grasp measurement error (such as rounding).

[edit on 12-11-2009 by 911files]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Then why not discuss the issue with the pilots 4 truth at their forum instead of attacking them here?


Why don't these "pilots 4 truth" discuss JREF issues at their forum instead of attacking them here? All this cross-forum junk is nothing but childish trash talking.

Of course perhaps it's come to that since the responses on this thread make no sense. If the plane "flew over" there would be no FDR with data from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon!

It's funny how people will hold on to the tiniest little tidbits of their argument rather than admit they were wrong and move on with life.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cesura
I love that sentence, and wish I had quoted it in my review.


I suppose if you had viewed the presentation thoroughly, you would have had the chance.



It directly contradicts the video's primary thesis: that
"g-loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the
VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757."


The objective of the presentation is clearly spelled out. Can a 757 perform the maneuvers required to hit the Pentagon based on topography, obstacles and data. The answer is no. K.I.S.S.


No, my formulas are correct and appropriate.


You admit your formula doesn't take into account initial velocity. Your formula is only appropriate to your agenda. Your formula chosen is not consistent with the premise of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" nor the argument/debate which lead up to the analysis.


I'll conserve readers' patience by ignoring several points
that have already been refuted...


As will I, along with ignoring ad hom attacks from you and the rant camp.



I have already explained that my calculations were performed
using full IEEE double precision, rounding to a single decimal
place in my review.


Perhaps I missed this explanation in your paper? You may want to add it as your numbers offered the way they are do not add up.


The calculator was not designed to
solve our specific time-restricted variant of the problem


Exactly, therefore it does not take into consideration forward (horizontal) velocity. Just as explained in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

It was the wrong calculator to use for the analysis being performed. Plain and simple.


That should not be blamed on the
calculator.


No one blamed the calculator, rather, those who offered it to use in this analysis which is time constrained due to a horizontal velocity vector. Garbage in - Garbage out.

The proper analysis which incorporates all the variables as outlined in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon", is circular motion. a = v^2/r. This according to an Aeronautical Engineer and Fighter pilot who has applied this formula in all his training and real world exercise. Including Air Combat.

If you use anything different, you are not consistent with the premise of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" as you no longer are analyzing all the variables.

@ .70-.72 argument.

Ryan Mackey claimed the static system was experiencing compressibility errors which is why the PA shows too high.


When air approaches the speed of sound, however, "compressibility" sets in. What it means is that under the right conditions, we can no longer assume density is constant, and thus neither can we assume static pressure is constant. .... But why does it happen?

Why is because the aircraft shape accelerates the flow. If the aircraft is traveling at the critical Mach number, which can be as low as about 0.6.. When that happens, we can no longer treat the air as constant pressure, or constant density.

Source


Since Ryan feels the static system was experiencing Compressibility issues, he must also think .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757.

To understand what Mcrit is on a 757 as told by real 757/767 Pilots from American and United Airlines, click here.


[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Since Ryan feels the static system was experiencing Compressibility issues, he must also think .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757.


You truthers like to do that alot - impart upon someone else what *you* think.

CIT says Lagasse didn't see the impact - he "deduced" it. CIT says Boger didn't see the impact - he "deduced" it.

Now, since you were flat busted in making up something the real NASA scientist didn't say, you need to say you *think* he said it.

Beautiful.

Next, I took your advice from your post to try and see what your insane pilot posse says what Mcrit is on a 757 as told by "real" 757/767 Pilots from American and United Airlines.

So, I clicked there.

So what is Mcrit on a 757? Clicking on that link won't tell you. The only numbers in that post was "757/767" - no mach number, no speed number, no nothing, no definition of Mcrit, no explanation of critical mach, no explanation of where Mcrit is with regards to a typical cruise speed of .80-.82 mach. Nothing.

Which is typical fodder from PfT.

When are The Trials?

[edit on 12-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
trebor,

How can the static pressure system experience Compressibility issues as claimed by Ryan, if .70M - .72M (as the data shows), is below Mcrit?

According to Ryan, Compressibility issues start at Mcrit. Click the source link above.

There are only two possibilities here.

1. Either Ryan has to admit .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757

or...

2. He will have to abandon his Compressibility theory causing static pressure error.

It's not what we think, It's what Ryan has claimed. There is no other alternative.

As for the P4T link and Mcrit. Scroll up, scroll down and read closer. It's there.

First post

IIRC, Mcrit (Critical Mach, or... Mach Critical) on a 757/767 is near .89-.91 Mach. Usually Mmo is structured around Mcrit. I'll double check with our 757/767 Capts.


Second Post

Rusty also verified my recollection of Mcrit for the 757/767... the purpose of the call...


[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
"R_Mackey", can you please ask Rob Balsamo and his "Core group" if they still believe this:


Captain Bob Balsamo

"It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC."


"Its very possible the attack on the pentagon was some type of bombing run with some type of MOAB."


Thank you,

Dr. P



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by .Sol.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.


Oh yeah, Balsamo, with all this PA smoke blowing around, it's almost hard to tell that P4T hasn't yet been right about a single point of any substance or consequences.

Almost.


Attack of the character noted and logged. Define substance and consequence in this case, please.


The substance is that AA77 hit the Pentagon and you were going to show us otherwise. Several years ago.

Last time I saw your around, Swing, you promised to bring us loads of eyewitnesses who were among the hundreds all around the Pentagon on 9/11 on the freeways, bridges, Pentagon parking lots, and in surrounding buildings, in a perfect position to see a "jet fly over and away from the Pentagon," had one occurred

That was a 2 or 3 years ago and we haven't heard a word from you. Not even a progress report. Of course, Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo flunked that test long ago, and you were going to "save" them.

So, SwingDangler, did your Crack Investigation Team fail to find any "flyover" eyewitnesses, too?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
"R_Mackey", can you please ask Rob Balsamo and his "Core group" if they still believe this:


Captain Bob Balsamo

"It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC."


"Its very possible the attack on the pentagon was some type of bombing run with some type of MOAB."


Thank you,

Dr. P



Hi Dr. P.

Although off-topic as usual, I am interested in this so I will reply.

Do you have a source link? I cannot find such statements on the P4T website, and we know from experience many people attempt to make things up which P4T never said.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join