New FDR Decode

Originally posted by 911files
Show how these values were derived Turbo.

cesura uses these values in this post:

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)

Presumably if cesura is content to use those figures, then he would know how they were derived, right?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Presumably if cesura is content to use those figures, then he would know how they were derived, right?

But I don't know, that is why I am asking. You saying I should submit to an 'appeal to authority' and accept them as is?

Originally posted by 911files
You saying I should submit to an 'appeal to authority' and accept them as is?

I'm not saying that at all. I don't know why you would want to almost put words in my mouth, it's pointless.

cesura used those figures, so he might be another person to ask how they were derived.

reply to post by 911files


Don't bother to ask, John. Einstein thinks those are altitudes.

They aren't, but let him figure it out.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Reheat]

Sorry Tezz, and John. I'm not at home and don't have the decode in front of me.

I simply quoted Cesura and mis-read his values as altitude; they are in
fact two sets of vert. velocities figured from the changes in altitudes.

Thanks for pointing that out Re-heat, I'll have to repost using the NTSB
data, and Warren's data tomorrow.

Until then, I hope you're studying how Accelerometers function and
looking up the Static ports on a 757-200!

P.S. Did you find any temp drops in EGT yet?

[edit on 15-11-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


My user name in this Forum is Reheat. Don't hyphenate it again.

I am quite sure I understand accelerometers quite well thank-you. I have used them for years in contrast to your drag racing exploits.

I don't believe you have static ports on your drag racing vehicle so your familiarity along with your EGT temperature must originate from some other orifice.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Reheat]

Sorry Re.Heat, I don't know what got into me. I wont use a hyphen EVER again!

Don't worry my friend; my portable accelerometer is great, and the ones
I use at work for testing flight devices...you know, "flight" as in the stuff
that goes into space? Well, they are pretty darn accurate too. Please
don't assume I'm only using accels. in drag racing applications.

Your clan has told some pretty tall tales lately, and you just happen to
follow right along. Do you agree with TomK's blind assessment of the
757-200 static port config?

Do you still agree that blasting through 5 metal poles would register
nothing on either accelerometer of the aircraft? 0.384 inches per millisecond sensitivity Mr. Reheat...

Do you think that an exhaust gas temperature sensor could not sense
a change in temperature before smoke appeared?

Please answer Reheat.

Originally posted by turbofan
Sorry Tezz, and John. I'm not at home and don't have the decode in front of me.

I simply quoted Cesura and mis-read his values as altitude; they are in
fact two sets of vert. velocities figured from the changes in altitudes.

Thanks for pointing that out Re-heat, I'll have to repost using the NTSB
data, and Warren's data tomorrow.

Until then, I hope you're studying how Accelerometers function and
looking up the Static ports on a 757-200!

P.S. Did you find any temp drops in EGT yet?

[edit on 15-11-2009 by turbofan]

Thanks Turbo, I was just trying to figure out where you were getting the numbers.

I see the rant camp had a productive and enjoyable weekend.

Originally posted by 911files
You do understand that 'linear' means "in a straight line" don't you?

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

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

John, graph the PA vertical velocities,

68, 66, 67, 71, 75, 59 (computed from pressure altitudes)

...and superimpose it on the parabola graphed by Will.

So yes, the flight path was certainly near linear till the last second. As demonstrated in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

[edit on 16-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
John, graph the PA vertical velocities,

68, 66, 67, 71, 75, 59 (computed from pressure altitudes)

...and superimpose it on the parabola graphed by Will.

So yes, the flight path was certainly near linear till the last second. As demonstrated in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

[edit on 16-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

That does me no good at all. PA was not an accurate measure of altitude at that point in flight so changes in it are moot to the discusssion.

And no, the flight path was not linear.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
That does me no good at all. PA was not an accurate measure of altitude at that point in flight so changes in it are moot to the discusssion.

What is your proof the PA was not accurate? You and the others have not been able to provide any proof that PA was inaccurate for 22 pages. Further, if you claim that the PA was "lagging", you just increased your vertical velocity for each second therefore increasing G Loads required for the pull-out.

John, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

And no, the flight path was not linear.

Graph the data John. Show us the graph.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by 911files
That does me no good at all. PA was not an accurate measure of altitude at that point in flight so changes in it are moot to the discusssion.

What is your proof the PA was not accurate? You and the others have not been able to provide any proof that PA was inaccurate for 22 pages. Further, if you claim that the PA was "lagging", you just increased your vertical velocity for each second therefore increasing G Loads required for the pull-out.

John, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

And no, the flight path was not linear.

Graph the data John. Show us the graph.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

The data has been graphed by me and others more times than I can count. So instead of wasting my time drawing a graph, is there vertical acc in the final seconds of flight? If the answer is yes, then the path is curved, not linear by definition. No need for drawing a graph.

In the meantime. It is time for bed.

Since John seems a bit reluctant to graph the data points, and understandably so given his position, I have taken the liberty to diagram the remaining altitude data for the last 7 seconds provided by Warren (this includes 3 seconds of NTSB data).




Looks pretty straight to me and consistent with "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon". Certainly looks nothing like what Will has graphed.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply to post by R_Mackey


Can you list the coordinate points used for the graph? A regression will give an r^2 value for the coefficient of determination... see how close to linear it really is...

Thanks.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Can you list the coordinate points used for the graph? A regression will give an r^2 value for the coefficient of determination... see how close to linear it really is...

Hi Tezz,

Each point is the altitude in the FDR data for the last 7 points. 7 points = 7 seconds of data. All I did was copy/paste the altitude data to a new spreadsheet and let the autochart do its thing.

What John fails to realize is that even though there were changes in vertical acceleration along that line, the changes were minimal above and below 1 G, hence the minimal change in vertical velocity along the descent. The descent is not perfectly linear, but it is certainly close, which is why I repeatedly use the term near linear, much closer than compared to Will's theoretical diagrams. And as discussed before in this thread, if we want to get technical, the curve drawn by the FDR data is the inverse of what has been posited by Will. Will's parabola(s) decrease in vertical velocity 28, 18, and 12 feet per second (rounded as I don't feel like going to look up the decimal). The FDR data shows nothing close to that, minimal changes of +/- 4 feet for vertical velocity during the last seconds.

Also, bank angle has to be taken into consideration when considering Vertical accel, You can have a perfectly linear descent with extreme changes in vertical acceleration. This is known as a Constant airspeed, constant vertical speed, descending turn. Radius of the turn will certainly change, but you can keep your vertical velocity constant and therefore a linear descent rate. Farmer failed to grasp this concept the last time he attempted to calculate G Loads in a turn.

See here and here to understand more regarding Farmer's failed arithmetic and failed understanding of flight dynamics.

Originally posted by turbofan

It's not a strawman...

LOL...of course it is. You picked it out as the most convenient thing to play whack-a-mole on. Its not even a USG nor DoD sanctioned simulation. Go beat up on something else.

Now please stop dancing around and tell us what that white trail of smoke might be, and what part of a 757-200 could produce the smoke (if not the jet engine).

That's just it, Tino. I can't, and neither can you nor anyone else. It is silly to speculate - won't stop you guys, I know, but it is still silly.

But since you're being silly, why don't you go ahead and tell me what the rate of yaw was, what the angle of bank was and what the altitude was and what the speed was when the aircraft hit the light poles.

reply to post by R_Mackey


Disclaimer... I have no idea how to read a FDR output file. I'm working from Warren's spreadsheet. I am not entirely sure if what I have done is correct, so big deal if it isn't. I'm happy for it to be explained to me. It's late at night here and I'll be in bed shortly after this post.

From Warren's output, I used the following frames and I note the Altitude (Column B) and the Ground Speed (Column CI). I'm assuming that the frames are one second apart, is this correct? If not, it screws up everything that I've done. Big deal.

I've converted everything to standard units. Screw using feet and knots, I might as well live in the middle ages. It's all metres and seconds here!

Using the initial and final ground speeds for each frame and assuming a constant acceleration within frames, I calculated the horizontal distance travelled within frames.

Frame : Altitude : Ground speed : Horizontal Distance : Cumulative HD
151361 : 121.62 : 230.98 : --------- : ---------
151362 : 93.57 : 233.56 : 232.27 : 232.27
151363 : 72.85 : 236.64 : 235.10 : 467.37
151364 : 52.73 : 239.21 : 237.93 : 705.3
151365 : 32.31 : 241.27 : 240.24 : 945.54
131366 : 10.67 : 243.33 : 242.30 : 1187.84
131367 : -12.19 : 245.90 : 244.62 : 1432.46
131368 : -30.18 : 248.47 : 247.19 : 1679.65

From this, a profile plot can be made of the alleged flight path, based on those points. Naturally, the horizontal axis is the Cumulative Horizontal Distance and the vertical axis is the Altitude.

Here's the result:


Applying a linear regression gives the following equation:
Altitude = 113.44 - 0.0864 Horizontal Distance

The r^2 value = 0.9995

That's almost a perfect fit to a straight line.

From what I've done, using Warren's data, looking at the alleged flight path from side on, it's linear.

Again, I am happy to be shown any errors, or if I am using the wrong columns for my data ... I'm not claiming this is perfect. If I was qualified to read FDR outputs, then I would be stating so with a degree of authority.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by trebor451
LOL...of course it is. You picked it out as the most convenient thing to play whack-a-mole on. Its not even a USG nor DoD sanctioned simulation. Go beat up on something else.

So, is the DoD video fake?

Seems like you don't even know what to believe, yet you fall for the
OGCT. Interesting how that works.

That's just it, Tino. I can't, and neither can you nor anyone else. It is silly to speculate - won't stop you guys, I know, but it is still silly.

Silly to speculate? Then why the constant badgering from the GL camp
to get a 'theory' from the truth movement?

We're not here to speculate, we're here to investigate. The video shows
a white smoke trail. It must have been from the plane...because that's
what the official story 'said'.

Now it's up to you to face the facts and form an educated conclusion.

From what you're telling me, it's "impossible" to pinpoint the source of
the white smoke?

Come on Trebor, it's not that difficult. If the plane hit light poles, and
the wing span allows for "grazing of pole #2" as per John, then you
can pretty much nail down what part of the aircraft struck pole #1.

Was it the wing tip? The engine? The aileron?

Of that list what could have produced white smoke? Oil? Jet-A? Hydraulic
Fluid? Some sort of coolant?

Please answer.

Since you're being silly, why don't you go ahead and tell me what the rate of yaw was, what the angle of bank was and what the altitude was and what the speed was when the aircraft hit the light poles.

I don't feel I'm being silly, I'm being inquisitive. When I get home,
I'll get you the info about yaw, bank angle, altitude, and speed.

We'll see if it matches the 'clip height' of the poles.

Oh that's right, the data shows too high and too close over the highway
to hit the poles, but we'll debate this further.

Go ahead and answer my questions, I'll be sure to report back with
my end of the deal.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I see the rant camp had a productive and enjoyable weekend.

We all feel your pain, RB.

To think you've wasted all these years when you could have simply provided us with positive evidence of any "jet flying over and away from the Pentagon" as you have always claimed.

Ranke's sock is having just as much a problem doing that on JREF as you are here.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Since John seems a bit reluctant to graph the data points, and understandably so given his position, I have taken the liberty to diagram the remaining altitude data for the last 7 seconds provided by Warren (this includes 3 seconds of NTSB data).

Looks pretty straight to me and consistent with "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon". Certainly looks nothing like what Will has graphed.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

That is not the flight path Rob, that is PA (two different animals). You just proved that the PA was anomalous with your graph. If the change slope in PA was a constant (linear), then there would be no vert acc (except g). Since there was (which as you guys have asserted is so sensitive and accurate), the actual flight path was not linear (changing slope). You just made the case and saved me the work.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by 911files]

Additional:

Since Rob has clearly does not know the difference between an air pressure measurement and the actual flight path, or what the difference between a linear and non-linear path is, I thought it wise to provide some basic definitions.

Linear is described by the basic equation:

y = mx + b (algebraic form) where y = vertical coordinate, x = horizontal coordinate, b = a constant (offset) and m = slope.

This is essentially an algebraic form of the calculus definition m = dy/dx and if m is constant, then the graph of the equation is linear (such as indicated in Rob’s PA graph). As I’ve attempted in vain to get Rob and gang to understand, PA is a measure of air pressure, which is interpreted as altitude based on various inputs to the system. Actual measures of the flight path are the actual physics parameters stored in the FDR. Acceleration is a measure of just that, acceleration.

Slope = m = speed. If m is constant, then acceleration (acc = dm/dx) is constant with no change in speed (or slope). The slope equation is for the vertical axis in this case, so if PA is actually reflecting the actual flight path at this point, there will be minimal changes in vertical acceleration.

Vert acc
1.291
1.451
1.272
1.401
1.52
0.663
0.725
0.982
1.604
1.675

The last ten seconds of vertical acc data from the Warren RO indicate that slope was not constant in any sense of the definition (no change in m would be represented by a 1 g value).

So no Rob, by the actual physics parameters the path was not linear. If you have a graph of an instrument which measures air pressure indicating otherwise, then you have an issue with that measurement device.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by 911files]

One additional note. Rob claims these acc values are 'minimal'. There are only two higher values recorded than the last two in the entire flight. At subframes 151256 and 151257, 1.689 and 1.707 are recorded. These values occurred at the bottom of the 330 degree loop. In the other 11 recorded flights, 1.295 is the highest value observed.

Rob's assertion that these acc values are 'minimal' is a bald face deception.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by 911files]