New FDR Decode

reply to post by cesura

Originally posted by cesura
The misleadingly pseudonymous R_Mackey

Wait a second, is this the rather well known Ryan Mackey? Ryan Mackey's been on televised interviews and debates with Ronald Wieck on hardfire, who states that he is a rocket scientist for NASA. He also states that his recent debate partner on Hardfire, Tony Szamboti, is a mechanical engineer. Since the official investigation has now ceased and Ryan Mackey has stated in the aforementioned recent debate with Tony Szamboti as well as elsewhere that he believes there are flaws in both Bazant's work as well as NIST, it would seem that he is one of the pillars upon which the official story concerning the WTC buildings rests.

Even though I've never met him in person, I consider Tony Szamboti a friend but I didn't see his debate with Mackey until just now, although he had told me that he was going to do it. Actually, I've only seen the first 2 parts, as the third part either never occurred or was simply not posted on youtube. Here they are for anyone else who'd like to see them:

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 1st PROGRAM

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 2nd PROGRAM

[edit on 17-11-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x

Wait a second, is this the rather well known Ryan Mackey?

No, R_Mackey is someone with no credentials using the name of someone who does have.

Wow.

A couple days of work to attend to, and this is what I come back to...??!!

LoL.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by trebor451

 

Close the thread? I see none of your 'experts' have answered the simple
question about all of the devices connected to the PA static port?
You still want to believe their nonsense when they can't back up their
claims? Is it any wonder why TomK hasn't been around in DAYS?!

Sorry, the real world - the one that matters, not the delusional world of a couple of nut jobs - has a way of demanding one's attention.

Originally posted by turbofan
Still waiting for those who make ASSUMPTIONS about the 757-200 to step
forward and tell me what devices are attached to the static port instead
of making BLIND THEORIES about a system they have NO CLUE about.

I never claimed to fly 757s. I flew Cessna's & the occasional Mooney.

To that static port (if no one else has answered) are connected Air Speed, VSI & altimeter.

I know that in a 757 class jet you're required to have an emergency static port (internal) and a transducer for the flight management computer & FDR.

A list of those connections would be interesting. By all means, post it.

Of course, it doesn't change one iota the hilarious farce that you bozos are arguing that the FDR taken from the rubble proves that the plane did NOT crash into the building. That's consummately hilarious.

Originally posted by turbofan


On top of that, you still need to find evidence of at least ONE pole strike
in the FDR data. First place to look would be EGT of the "damaged" engine.

Wrong. First place to look would be eye-witnesses. And the pole.

___

By the way, you guys seem to be MASSIVELY confused about the difference between theory & experiment. The REAL experiment, the ONLY real experiment, would be to fly a real 757 at those speeds & those flight paths (including altitude). A clever, competent FDR engineer (NOT a pilot) MIGHT then be able to simulate a crash. There would be a lot of guesswork regarding voltage spikes, short circuits, EMF, etc.

Good luck getting anyone to loan you their jet...

That annoying little detail doesn't change the fact that everything else (that I've seen here) is "theory".

By the way, TF, your claim to have "proven" anything about the performance of a baro altimeter by citing the benchtop & installed performance of a radar system is pretty damn funny... Yep, them O2 & N2 molecules floating around. They're all purty much the same as photons, eh TF? LoL.


Tom

Sorry, I'm gonna be busy for awhile. Only an occasional post. You'll have to excuse my "running in fear" from your mighty knowledge. LoL.

Originally posted by cesura

Originally posted by R_Mackey
in this case, vertical distance from a linear descent angle.

Distance from an angle? Neither mathematics nor physics
recognize any such concept.

Really? MIT teaches their students (and professors?) that vectors can't be resolved into components via trigonometry? Are we being instructed that "grade" is a non-mathematical, non-physical entity then (according to MIT "mathematics nor physics")? WOW.

www.phy6.org...

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

The grade (incline or gradient or pitch or slope) of any physical feature such as a hill, stream, roof, railroad, road, or aqueduct ... Often slope is calculated as a ratio of "rise over run" in which run is the horizontal distance and rise is the vertical distance.

See also "pitch angle:"

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by rhunter
Really? MIT teaches their students (and professors?) that vectors can't be resolved into components via trigonometry? Are we being instructed that "grade" is a non-mathematical, non-physical entity then (according to MIT "mathematics nor physics")? WOW.

No. Grade makes sense. Trigonometry makes sense.

The distance from an angle to a point or velocity
or acceleration does not make sense, but you may
have guessed correctly that the fake R_Mackey was
trying to say that the vertical distance implied
by some constant grade can be computed from that
grade and the horizontal run.

That has nothing to do with s=1/2at^2, however,
so your interpretation of his sentence does not
render it sensible.

Will

Originally posted by rhunter

Originally posted by cesura

Originally posted by R_Mackey
in this case, vertical distance from a linear descent angle.

Distance from an angle? Neither mathematics nor physics
recognize any such concept.

Really? MIT teaches their students (and professors?) that vectors can't be resolved into components via trigonometry? Are we being instructed that "grade" is a non-mathematical, non-physical entity then (according to MIT "mathematics nor physics")? WOW.

I am not cesura and I have no idea what MIT teaches, but there is no such animal as distance from an angle. Pitch is a quantification (or definition) of an angle, not a distance from an angle.

Roof pitch, the ratio of vertical over horizontal measurements in carpentry
Blade pitch, a measure of the angle of attack of a propeller

Wiki

In neither case is pitch a distance. The first (roof pitch) is akin to the tangent of the angle. The second a measure of the angle. An angle can be describes as an angular measure (degrees, radians) or a unitless measure such as the ratio of two sides (adjacent and opposite). However, these are descriptions of the angle, not a distance (except when such as a nautical mile is defined as the distance covered at one minute of arc at a defined distance from the vertex). However even in this case it is not a distance from an angle.

I certainly hope they are teaching this at MIT.

reply to post by 911files


Ah, ok. Is Ryan Mackey still over at JREF? I haven't gone there in quite a while...

[edit on 17-11-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by 911files

 

Ah, ok. Is Ryan Mackey still over at JREF? I haven't gone there in quite a while...

[edit on 17-11-2009 by scott3x]

Yes, he is still posting at JREF.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by 911files]

While these clowns are busy trying to determine how they are going to recover from their math incompetence there is another little tidbit which sinks their irreducible delusions - Longitudinal and lateral G in the last frame.

Since you claim to be an expert on topography and obstacles in the area what caused those G's? A skyhook suspending a brick wall?

The G's recoded were:

LATERAL ACCELERATION (G's) -0.564
LONGITUDINAL ACCEL (G's) -1.083 (maximum recordable)

Any rational person would conclude that an impact occurred. (Now, let's hide and watch the hand waving.)
[edit on 17-11-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat
While these clowns are busy trying to determine how they are going to recover from their math incompetence there is another little tidbit which sinks their irreducible delusions - Longitudinal and lateral G in the last frame.

Since you claim to be an expert on topography and obstacles in the area what caused those G's? A skyhook suspending a brick wall?

The G's recoded were:

LATERAL ACCELERATION (G's) -0.564
LONGITUDINAL ACCEL (G's) -1.083 (maximum recordable)

Any rational person would conclude that an impact occurred. (Now, let's hide and watch the hand waving.)
[edit on 17-11-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Reheat]

There ya go, making it more complicated when they are just now learning what linear means.

Originally posted by tomk52To that static port (if no one else has answered) are connected Air Speed, VSI & altimeter.

Wrong! The static ports are configured nothing like your Cessna.
You incorrectly assumed the 757 would be the same, and therefore your
theory about "devices accessing the port and affecting the readings" holds
no water.

Of course, it doesn't change one iota the hilarious farce that you bozos are arguing that the FDR taken from the rubble proves that the plane did NOT crash into the building. That's consummately hilarious.

It's called planted evidence. Still no proof to show it came from "AA77".
The file creation date is still a mystery. The data doesn't support hitting
the light poles. The eye witness video accounts prove the aircraft used
flew nowhere near the poles. The data does not support pole strikes.
The CSV file and Animation altitudes do not relate, yet they are derived
from the same .fdr file.

Is there anything else you want to hang your hat of fantasy from?

By the way, TF, your claim to have "proven" anything about the performance of a baro altimeter by citing the benchtop & installed performance of a radar system is pretty damn funny... Yep, them O2 & N2 molecules floating around. They're all purty much the same as photons, eh TF? LoL.

The RADAR Alt. information was posted to show that the manufacturer
spec. is different from the FAA requirements. Idiot.

Please stay away, you make your GL clan look much better without your
static port theories.




[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofanThe data doesn't support hitting
the light poles.

Well now, is that so? While you're looking for a source for the static port piping, I have something that's right down your alley!

Take your dragster with it's accelerometer and go crash into a breakaway light pole, then report back with the reading. If it's not......

LATERAL ACCELERATION (G's) -0.564
LONGITUDINAL ACCEL (G's) -1.083 (or maximum recordable)

Then.......go find something more substantial (a large generator or a reinforced granite wall suspended from a sky hook might be appropriate. Report back on your findings.

Is there anything else you want to hang your hat of fantasy from?

Well? We're waiting.....

pffff...

I can get -1G by hitting the brake, and much more!

If the aircraft pulls up, or throttles down by ~ 32.2 ft/s/s, you'll get - 1G.

Go read a book re,heat. Maybe try to learn the static port config for a
757-200 so you and tommy can come back with a real excuse.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

If the aircraft pulls up, or throttles down by ~ 32.2 ft/s/s, you'll get - 1G.

If AA77 pulled up and "flew over and away from the Pentagon" as you have always claimed, you would have been able to have provided positive evidence for it 8 years ago. Instead, you're doing everything in your power to avoid doing so.

Just give us the incontrovertible evidence to prove your "flyover,"' Turbofan, and stop your persistent evasions, ok?

Originally posted by turbofan
The RADAR Alt. information was posted to show that the manufacturer
spec. is different from the FAA requirements. Idiot.

Please stay away, you make your GL clan look much better without your
static port theories.
[edit on 18-11-2009 by turbofan]

I would not know a static port if it walked up and bit me, but sounds like it is what intakes the air being measured for PA. Sounds like a reasonable discussion to discuss the system measuring the air pressure. However, the discussion is only a curiosity since R_Mackey has shown that the PA is "almost linear" in change when the physics parameters are anything but linear. You are the one who claimed that the acc values are senisitve down to three digits. Since they are contrary to the PA trends, make a choice Turbo. Are we to go by the PA, or the acc values?

If we go with the ultra-sensitive acc measurements, then PA is not responding to changes in the flight path altitude as it should be. Reheat is offering a possible reason for that by discussing the static ports. He is attempting to explain the observed data. So whether or not you like his explaination or not does not change the observed data being examined.

So no, it is you making your gang look rather silly by asserting that PA is an accurate measure of altitude changes at the end-of-flight.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by 911files]

Since you can't Google it a nonsense answer would be expected.

Originally posted by turbofraud
pffff...

I can get -1G by hitting the brake, and much more!

Apparently you hit your head the last time you did it.

Originally posted by turbofraud
If the aircraft pulls up,

A pull up would not reduce longitudinal g until after airspeed bleed-off, Einstein. Since you like to quote data where is that in the data prior to the significant longitudinal G reduction? Oh, I see it's not there = EPIC FAIL.

Originally posted by turbofraud
or throttles down by ~ 32.2 ft/s/s, you'll get - 1G.

How much reduction would that require? Is it in the data? Witnesses testified the aircraft was at full power and based on the excessive and increasing airspeed there is no doubt it was. = EPIC FAIL.

Originally posted by turbofraud
Go read a book re,heat. Maybe try to learn the static port config for a
757-200 so you and tommy can come back with a real excuse.

One would think by now that you would have learned that your silly non Sequitur diversions won't work. But, then again........

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
I think reheat is secretly envious and feels his knowledge of 9/11 is not on the level of turbofan's and therefore he is constantly trying to impress and one-up him.

Oh, I think you would be suprised if you knew just how much Reheat knows about 9/11.

Originally posted by jthomas
Just give us the incontrovertible evidence to prove your "flyover,"' Turbofan, and stop your persistent evasions, ok?

WHen you're able to start answering questions and provide solid proof
after all this time that "AA77" hit the Pentagon, look me up.

I had hoped, when I first heard of Warren Stutt's further decode, that this might be the end of the noc/soc debate. Perhaps it will prove to be on grounds of altitude but I am concerned that position seems to me, a complete amateur, to be debatable.

As I understand it, the further decode has provided 5 further long/lat positions. The first 4 are south of the navy annexe and, just, south of Citgo. However, the final postion is, I believe, some 200 plus feet north, on the cloverleaf, of where it should be for light poles and impact.

Is this sort of error just something to be accepted from the FDR or is it significant ?