New FDR Decode

Originally posted by R_Mackey




1. The author of that post is "johndoex", not "Rob Balsamo".

So, are you going to now lie and say johndoex is NOT Rob Balsamo? johndoex IS Rob Balsamo. You know this, as does everyone else.

2. It's from Oct 2006. More than 3 years ago. P4T was barely founded at that time. How can it be the opinion of its Core Members?

You were in fact there. I never said it was the Core Members opinion. I ASKED it it were. Please pay attention.

3. Are you seriously attempting to attribute a single post from more than 3 years ago on a forum which encourages discussion of theory (and is now closed) to an organization who clearly states on their home page, "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time"...?

I simply asked if this was still your opinion.... well is it? Oh, and although your homepage may state that, you said this in the same thread:

I rarely get into speculation or theory.. but i figure since others here push theirs so much.. i may as well introduce my opinion based on ALL the facts.. the Physical damage.. FDR and eyewitnesses. Not just one...

Um? Bob?

Come back when you see it posted on P4T as an official statement. Until then, it's clear what your motive is, to drive this thread off-topic using a post from more than 3 years ago on a forum which is now defunct. Get real.

Bob, this thread is regarding the FDR is it not? YOU said three years ago that the FDR shows a possible bomb run.



[edit on 13-11-2009 by ImAPepper]

reply to post by ImAPepper


From the same page that you linked to, ImAPepper:

Originally posted by johndoeX
By the way... any speculation i offer is my own personal opinion and exploration of the possibilities... it is not representative of Pilots for Truth.

What's your point, ImAPepper?

reply to post by tezzajw


Mr. Tezz, please read my posts. I asked if it STILL was an opinion of Balsamo that a MOAB could have caused the damage to the Pentagon as he said a few years ago.

So far, all he has done is dodged and weaved.

Thank you for your concern.

Dr. P

Originally posted by tezzajw
What's your point, ImAPepper?

It's clear what his point is, he wants to drive this thread off-topic using a post from more than 3 years ago.

Clearly if Balsamo felt the same way today, Dr. P could find more recent posts or even a statement on the P4T website?

Please, this is a joke.

Dr P. I suggest if you want to further discuss this matter, register at P4T forum and ask. Or contact P4T, the Contact link is left margin of home page.

You are derailing this thread.

This thread is about the "New FDR decode", not a post made by "johndoex" from more than 3 years ago.

I will be ignoring any further inquiry into this matter on this thread as to not encourage the derail.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey


I will be ignoring any further inquiry into this matter on this thread as to not encourage the derail.

Keep in mind this thread is about the FDR. How many FDR's were found at the Pentagon? JohnDoex AKA Rob Balsamo did in fact state that due to the information he read off the FDR, it lead him to believe that the damage was done by a MOAB.

Sorry that you are incapable of responding honestly to my question. Pretty typical of you though.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The assumption of a final vertical velocity component of zero, means that the plane only achieved level flight at the instant it reached the Pentagon (the vertex of the parabola).

Yes. That was a simplifying assumption, adequate to demonstrate
that Rob Balsamo's calculation of the g-loads required to impact
the Pentagon in level flight after clearing the VDOT antenna were
off by a factor of 5. Although it did not simplify things enough
for the fake R_Mackey to understand the physics involved, I think
it has made the calculation easier for some people to follow.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Doesn't this contradict the Pentagon Security Camera images, where official government story believers allege that the plane flew level across the lawn into the Pentagon?

Approximately level, anyway. That's a simple adjustment to
the calculation. If you think the last 300 feet were level,
for example, then you can just subtract 300 feet from our 3416
and repeat the calculation. For Rob's favored approach over the
VDOT antenna, that changes the 1.9g to a little over 2g. For
the more plausible approach over the Navy annex or beside the
VDOT antenna, the g-load changes from 1.6g to 1.7g.

The important thing is to understand how to do the calculation.
Then you can plug your own numbers into the equations, and play
what-if games.

When Rob and I did our calculations, we didn't know the final
seconds of the FDR decode. (Rob insisted he did, but he was
wrong.) Thanks to Warren Stutt, we can now use real data
instead of simplifying assumptions. That doesn't make it
easy, because real data still contain noise and uncertainty
(as can be inferred from the vast discrepancy that remains
between the fake R_Mackey's interpretation of the pressure
and radar altitudes and the interpretations of others here).

Earlier, R_Mackey listed the vertical velocities for the last
few seconds, as computed from the pressure altitudes. Let's
compare those with the vertical velocities computed from the
radar altitudes:

68, 66, 67, 71, 75, 59 (computed from pressure altitudes)
79, 40, 50, 94, 32, 53 (computed from radar altitudes)

It's important to realize that the last velocity in each
row represents the vertical descent during something like
the next-to-last second. We don't know the altitude after
impact, so we can't subtract it from the altitude from one
second earlier, so we don't have direct knowledge of the
distance descended during the last second.

Despite their discrepancies, which may be explained in part
by obstacles and terrain, the two altimeters agree that, in
the next-to-last second before the end of data, the plane
probably descended over 50 feet. Integrating the vertical
accelerations recorded for the last 2 seconds, we get a
reduction in velocity of almost 55 ft/sec, which is enough
to attain approximately level flight. The average g load
during those last two seconds is about 1.8g.

It looks as though the pilot waited a little too late to
pull up, and then had to pull a higher g-load than would
have been required by a smooth transition to level flight
from a path that goes over the Navy annex or beside the
VDOT antenna (about 1.6g, as many of us have calculated).

The last radar altitude recorded was only 4 feet, and the
last longitudinal acceleration that was recorded pegged
the corresponding field of the FDR data. It looks like
the FDR recorded an impact, possibly with the generator
trailer.

Will

Originally posted by cesura
Earlier, R_Mackey listed the vertical velocities for the last
few seconds, as computed from the pressure altitudes. Let's
compare those with the vertical velocities computed from the
radar altitudes:

68, 66, 67, 71, 75, 59 (computed from pressure altitudes)
79, 40, 50, 94, 32, 53 (computed from radar altitudes)

Will, the only way you can accurately measure RA, is to know the object from which it is measuring, topography alone is not sufficient. Please provide proof for each object for each data point in the RA and familiarize yourself with Radar Altimeters and their specs. Turbofan could perhaps help you out in this area.

We know PA is measured from the standard datum plane, therefore can easily be adjusted to True Altitude which is measured from Mean Sea Level. In other words, we have a "solid fix" from which to measure such data, unlike RA.

Your data/analysis states the aircraft experienced a 28.3, 18.8 and 12.5 decrease in vertical velocity per second. This is wrong when compared to the data.

Will, you implied in your paper (and Farmer attempted to back you up), that it is implausible to think the flight path for the last 4 seconds was near linear as demonstrated in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon". The data proves you wrong.


In closing, your evasion of the following noted.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by cesura

Originally posted by R_Mackey
You admit your formula doesn't take into account initial velocity.

Untrue.

Please show us, using your formula, a = 2s/t^2, the acceleration based on an initial velocity of 75 f/s, a vertical distance of 271 over a 4.4 second period.

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

Untrue.

Please show us the acceleration, based on a 75 f/s initial velocity, 0 final velocity, with a vertical distance of 271 feet in a 4.4 second period using this calculator.

tutor4physics.com...

The rest of your post is pure speculation.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by ImAPepper
z15.invisionfree.com...

So, i will ask again. Is it STILL the opinion of the Core Members and or Bob Balsamo that it was possible that the Pentagon was attacked by a MOAB?

1. The author of that post is "johndoex", not "Rob Balsamo".

You'll want to explain this and other archived posts on ATS, R_Mackey:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting that johndoex would use "Rob Balsamo" as his sig, eh?

Interestingly, johndoex uses the same avatar as Rob Balsamo does on other sites.

There might be an issue here with johndoex representing himself as Rob Balsamo, or vice versus, or they are in fact the same person.

So, what's the true story, "R_Mackey?"

reply to post by 911files

To both sides of the debate:

Who found the FDR and where it was found is quite frankly meaningless.

The individual/s who provided the data to the agency that decoded which then released the FDR data/animation/etc. to the public based upon the raw data they received is the issue.

Does anyone know the name of the person/s who decoded the raw data at the NTSB which then gave it to the FBI and thankfully the public?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
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...

Don't pretend to be naive, Swing. Robby Balsamo banned most of us for daring to ask questions about his claims. I was "suspended" last year:

The error returned was:
Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on Aug 4 2011, 02:13 PM.

I figured by then Robby figures people will be focusing on the how "the Bush Administration planned the end of the world in 2012 and 9/11 was just a diversion" and won't be asked to support his claims anymore, eh?

LOL. Yeah right. Just like Ron "Pommeroo/Hardfire Host" Weick was banned? Oh yeah, he wasn't

If what you say is true, JT, please CnP the post that you made and what rule you violated. Thanks.

Originally posted by jthomas

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?

Actually JT, if you could repost that promise I would appreciate it because frankly I think your lying. I've never made that claim. No need to put false words into my mouth in a character attack.

I can provide you a reason why there weren't hundreds who witnesses a fly over. It is called perceptual blindness. Study it. Research it. And learn from it. It might just save your life.

This is exactly why Roosevelt Roberts saw a large passenger plane leaving Pentagon airspace seconds after the explosion.

I'm still waiting to press accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the impact confirmed in person and on video. I have yet to see that. Got any of that?

Originally posted by cesura
Approximately level, anyway. That's a simple adjustment to
the calculation. If you think the last 300 feet were level,
for example, then you can just subtract 300 feet from our 3416
and repeat the calculation.

But it's not my job to do that. I should not have to propose a number of feet that the plane was alleged to have travelled at level flight.

The entire burden of proof for that flight path is upon the official government story believers.

If the Pentagon Security Cameras depict a level flight across the lawn, then it is pointless using the Pentagon as a vertex. The number of feet, for level flight across the lawn, should be known by the official government story believers and this should be included in their calculations.

Why do you think that it is 300 feet of level flight? How did you determine this?

Originally posted by cesura
Thanks to Warren Stutt, we can now use real data
instead of simplifying assumptions.

I asked earlier in the thread and got no answers... why did the NTSB fail to do what Warren Stutt did? Why did an Australian manage to investigate the data better than the NTSB? I don't know that back-story behind this, so a short explanation from anyone will be welcomed.

I just find it amusing that an Aussie, presumably with no investigative role in 9/11, was able to outsmart the people assigned to investigate it, NTSB. Correct me if I am wrong, as I don't know the story and I will be happy to read otherwise.

Originally posted by cesura
We don't know the altitude after
impact, so we can't subtract it from the altitude from one
second earlier, so we don't have direct knowledge of the
distance descended during the last second.

This comes back to my earlier point. The final moments of the plane were allegedly recorded on the Pentagon Security Camera.

Have the images been analysed to calculate an approximate descent distance? I can't remember the facts about the Gate Camera, I'm not sure if it was five frames per second, or two frames per second... someone correct me, please?

My point is, that the Security Camera images should exactly gel with the data from the alleged FDR.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Anything over 1 G will most likely tear the airplane apart at such speeds over it's Max Operating if the speed alone hasn't already done so.

That's an alarming revelation for any would-be air travellers. I hope you're exaggerating a little for dramatic effect here

I used the 1 second figure simply because there's the bulk of 1 second's worth of data following the last recorded altitude but I'm open to suggestions. How many seconds of flight would you estimate followed that last recorded PA of -99ft in Warren's data (and RA of 4') prior to reaching the building?

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
LOL. Yeah right. Just like Ron "Pommeroo/Hardfire Host" Weick was banned? Oh yeah, he wasn't

Although off topic once again. I think this should be addressed swiftly.

Swing, anyone reading through this thread alone will realize the reason for those who claimed to have been banned by P4T, have been banned.

Almost every single post by such people on this thread alone are mostly ad hom, personal attacks, off-topic rhetoric, and filled with spin.

Those who refuse to sign up/confront P4T directly, such as 911Files/John Farmer, cesura/Will Clinger/MIT PhD, etc, follow the same pattern. You don't even need to visit any other thread here on ATS to observe their debate tactics. You can read it right here in this thread.

It is clear why those who have been banned from P4T are in fact banned, and why those who refuse to confront P4T directly, refuse to do so.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Anything over 1 G will most likely tear the airplane apart at such speeds over it's Max Operating if the speed alone hasn't already done so.

That's an alarming revelation for any would-be air travellers. I hope you're exaggerating a little for dramatic effect here

keywords : "At such speeds over it's Max Operating"

Pilgrim, do you know any pilot who would operate their aircraft at more than 130 knots over the Max Operating limit? If so, you may want to inform the company, regulating authority, drug screeners and the passengers.

Hint: if a pilot busts 10 knots over Max Operating, he fails the check ride. If he does it again, he will be fired at most major airlines and his/her career is over.

I used the 1 second figure simply because there's the bulk of 1 second's worth of data following the last recorded altitude but I'm open to suggestions. How many seconds of flight would you estimate followed that last recorded PA of -99ft in Warren's data (and RA of 4') prior to reaching the building?

According to Will, no more than 1.5 seconds. This is the upper boundary. Which still exceed the capabilities of a 757.

Again, this is speculation. If those who make excuse for the govt story wish to use the upper boundary of error, please do not forget the lower boundary. You all seem to forget such limits which conflict with your incredulity.

Originally posted by tezzajw
But it's not my job to do that. I should not have to propose a number of feet that the plane was alleged to have travelled at level flight.

It's not my job to tell you to do anything you don't
want to do.

If you were a freshman taking calculus and/or physics,
however, then checking PfT's calculations might offer
a welcome alternative to the textbook's problems 3-4
and 3-16(b). That has more to do with my job.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Why do you think that it is 300 feet of level flight? How did you determine this?

Google Maps, hasty eyeball, rounding to a multiple of
100 feet. It was just an example, and there's no reason
for you to trust it.

Originally posted by tezzajw
This comes back to my earlier point. The final moments of the plane were allegedly recorded on the Pentagon Security Camera.

Have the images been analysed to calculate an approximate descent distance? I can't remember the facts about the Gate Camera, I'm not sure if it was five frames per second, or two frames per second... someone correct me, please?

My point is, that the Security Camera images should exactly gel with the data from the alleged FDR.

The gate camera apparently recorded only one frame per
second. The aircraft shows up as little more than a
blur at the extreme right of one frame. The very next
frame shows a fireball at the Pentagon wall. All that
means is that it took less than a second for the plane
to cross the lawn, but that's exactly what you'd expect
from a plane moving 750+ ft/sec across a 300-foot lawn.

It's hard to tell anything about the altitude of the
plane except that it's pretty low. The animation by
Mike Wilson matches up to the gate camera and that one
frame, so you might start there if you're interested:
www.mikejwilson.com...

Will

Lets summarize here.

censura/Will Clinger?MIT PhD/current professor at Northeastern, spent quite a bit of time writing a paper to debunk Rob Balsamo of P4T, a State University alum, certainly nothing as fancy as MIT. Certainly not quite as expensive. Clinger refuses to directly confront Balsamo, yet many here allege I am Balsamo, unproven of course.

PROVEN -

It has been proven that the calculator used by those who make excuse for the govt story is not the proper calculator for the objective/premise of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon", based on Topography, obstacles and data.

It has been proven that the calculations/analysis performed by censura/Will Clinger?MIT PhD/current professor at Northeastern chose the wrong formula based on the original premise/objective of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

It has been proven that the implications made by censura/Will Clinger?MIT PhD/current professor at Northeastern and John Farmer/911Files alleging a linear flight path is "implausible", is in fact not "implausible", and is in fact what is reflected in the data provided by the NTSB and further, Warren, the purpose for this thread.

It has been proven the "rant camp" see their most prominent figures going down in flames and therefore attempt to derail this discussion through use of a forum post made more than 3 years ago, in a poor attempt to discredit, instead of contacting the organization directly for answers.


NOT PROVEN -

Those who make excuse for the govt story have not been able to prove, up to this point in time (more than 8 years after 9/11), that the PA is more than 150' in error as required for their theory.

Those who make excuse for the govt story have not been able to prove possible "Compressibility" errors with respect to the static system as they would also have to admit .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for a 757.

Those who make excuse for the govt story have not been able to prove that the parts/NTSB data/Warren's data?etc are from N644AA.

Just off the top of my head. Feel free to add your own.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
It has been proven that the implications made by censura/Will Clinger?MIT PhD/current professor at Northeastern and John Farmer/911Files alleging a linear flight path is "implausible", is in fact not "implausible", and is in fact what is reflected in the data provided by the NTSB and further, Warren, the purpose for this thread.[edit on 14-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

I don't recall a discussion of a linear flight path. You do understand that 'linear' means "in a straight line" don't you?

Definition

So yes, the flight path was certainly not linear.
[edit on 14-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 14-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


I can provide you a reason why there weren't hundreds who witnesses a fly over.

No you can't.

It is called perceptual blindness. Study it. Research it. And learn from it. It might just save your life.

Neither you nor anyone else can claim to know what hundreds of individuals could or could not see all around the Pentagon. You have no ability to do so. Not even Craig Ranke does that. In fact, he shows how easily it would have been to see a "jet fly over and away from the Pentagon:"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85c6f658630a.jpg[/atsimg]

This is exactly why Roosevelt Roberts saw a large passenger plane leaving Pentagon airspace seconds after the explosion.

Wrong. If Roosevelt Roberts had actually seen a flyover so would scores of others who were amongst the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon. In any case, CIT got nailed on their claim easily:

www.veoh.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm still waiting to press accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the impact confirmed in person and on video. I have yet to see that. Got any of that?

As you already know, none of us need that. We have all of the other evidence that converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

So, SwingDangler, when are you going to present us a eyewitnesses statements from anyone claiming to see a "jet fly over and away from the Pentagon" as YOU claim.

See www.abovetopsecret.com... for a reminder.

You are just as stuck in your fairy tale as you were 3 years ago, completely unable to make any case for a so-called "flyover."

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Pilgrim, do you know any pilot who would operate their aircraft at more than 130 knots over the Max Operating limit? If so, you may want to inform the company, regulating authority, drug screeners and the passengers.

Hint: if a pilot busts 10 knots over Max Operating, he fails the check ride. If he does it again, he will be fired at most major airlines and his/her career is over.

Passenger comfort and aircraft safety was not a factor in this tragic event. No pilots I know would knowingly exceed strict limits and none of them would purposely destroy themselves, the aircraft and the passengers. Suicidal hijackers have very brief careers with no prospects for promotion to worry about.

According to Will, no more than 1.5 seconds. This is the upper boundary.

I just wondered what time you would use and why or is that a problem because, in a way, you'd be committing to the idea of a collision having taken place.