New FDR Decode

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by 911files
What avoidance?

Your avoidance to post the 3-D coordinates of the flight path, only the last few seconds, not the entire flight.

Originally posted by 911files
You want everything put into a nice little YouTube video so you don't have to use your brain.

Completely false, I don't know why you would state that.

Originally posted by 911filesSo yes, it will take a book to go through it all and give you exactly what you are asking for. Then you can make a cartoon from it if you prefer cartoons.

It doesn't take a book to list the last few seconds worth of 3-D coordinates, with a stated origin.

Do you have co-ordinates of the wing tips and nose, or just a general position of the 'plane'? Which co-ordinate set proves that the plane hit the first light pole?

I could post those for you, but without the points leading up to them they mean or prove nothing. But you already know were the tip of the starboard wing hit. The rest is based on exactly when in the FDR did this event occurred. That is called a time correlation of the data sets. No, that goes well beyond a simple forum post. You'll just have to wait.

reply to post by 911files


Fine, I'll wait. I did allow you the time to do it.

Good luck with your research.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by tezzajw
I don't think you have a clue how far out of your league you are with 911 files.

I should stop digging your hole if I was you mate.

Indeed. When I said that a very few here may already have
run the new numbers that Warren has uncovered, 911files was
the person I had in mind.

Perhaps I can give some small idea of what is involved. If
you simplify the problem enormously by considering only the
position, velocity, and acceleration data taken from the
flight data recorder, you have what is called an initial
value problem. In this case, the "initial value" is really
the set of final values for the three position coordinates
and the three components of the velocity. Given those six
final values, you can use the recorded accelerations to run
the flight backward, following a generalization of the
process I attempted to explain earlier within this thread
with respect to the altitude alone.

You can estimate the final values from the FDR data, while
checking your estimates by comparing your computed data
against data recorded by the FDR and other sources. Your
computed values will include some error due to errors in
your final values, the use of single values to represent
intervals ranging from 1/8 to 4 seconds (depending on the
measurement), the unknown/uncertain placement of those
values within each interval, the error in each recorded
instrument, and the amplification of those errors as the
computation goes further back in time.

It is quite unreasonable to ask for an "exact flight path".
On the other hand, it is reasonable to ask for flight paths
that are consistent with the FDR and other data to within
the known margins of error.

Using the extremely crude techniques I illustrated earlier
in this thread, I was already getting altitudes within 20%
of the radio heights except for one point, where the plane
most likely flew over a building or other obstacle. That
corresponds to a point made by 911files: radio heights are
not altitudes. One of the many remaining steps I should
take is to look up the elevation and topography at each
position, use that data to calculate altitudes from the
radio heights, and compare the altitudes calculated that
way with altitudes calculated from the estimated final
values and the known accelerations. That process would
lead to refinements of my estimates and (in all likelihood)
to better agreement with the known data.

That is just one very small example of what 911files means
by "time correlation of the data sets". There are many
other data sets besides the FDR and geographical data, and
911files knows those data sets way better than most of us.
I'm looking forward to his book.

If I have anything to contribute here at all, it is to
perform a crude calculation independently of 911files,
and perhaps to explain a little of why the full story
is too complicated for 911files to squeeze into a single
post.

Will

Originally posted by cesura
If I have anything to contribute here at all, it is to
perform a crude calculation independently of 911files,
and perhaps to explain a little of why the full story
is too complicated for 911files to squeeze into a single
post.

Ulimately, it is not difficult to list a table of x, y and z coordinates for a fixed point on the aeroplane to plot a 3-D flight path, along with a fixed origin.

Yes, the process to discover the x, y and z coordinates isn't something straightforward, but the results are easy to list.

Here, I'll start the table off for you. It's a matter of fill in the blanks to display the results.

t__:x__:y__:z
==========
__:___:___:__
__:___:___:__
__:___:___:__

Of course, that depends on which point of the plane is being modelled. A plane is not a singular point. Perhaps three tables would be better, one table for the left wing-tip, one table for the right wing-tip and one table for the point of the nose cone. From there, the geometry of the plane should be known on its alleged flight path. 911files stated that there was no confusion about the plane striking light poles, so I expect that he will be able to show it with perfect accuracy.

911files wants time to compile his data, which is fair enough. I'll wait until he's done. Thanks for your contribution.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by tezzajw]

LMAO,

The essence of the Twoof Movement: Amateurs peddling ludicrous crap to the credulous.

Sell those DVDs & Tee shirts, boys.

Now let me draw for you the contrasts.

1. Structural Engineering

On the twoof side:
Particle physicist (Steven Jones) who doesn't know diddly-squat about structural engineering lecturing to credulous & adoring liberal arts students. He will NEVER drag his ignorant butt in front of a board of competent structural or mechanical engineers. He'd get laughed out of the building. And he knows it. The engineering faculty of his own institution (BYU) publicly called his theories garbage... In well constructed, dignified academic phraseology, of course.

I'm not an academic. I'm an old fart engineer. I don't have time or patience for fancy, dignified language. Jones knows the nuclear cross-section of deuterium. He don't know JACK about structures. And he is the BEST that the Twoofers have to offer.

On the NIST side:
200+ of the world's most accomplished engineers, pulled from Government labs, academia and industry. ALL working in their own specific field of expertise.
___

2. Publications

On the Twoof side:
One, count 'em, ONE paper in a pay-to-publish vanity rag (Bentham "open access") that had produced a GRAND TOTAL of (IIRC) 14 papers prior to this turd by Harrit, Jones, et al. Not one of the authors had any credentials or experience in forensics, or had ever performed the type of analysis upon which the paper was based. By their own admission, they performed tests that were NOT definitive for their conclusions, while NOT performing the well known (by experts in the field), well accepted tests that WOULD have given them a definitive answer. All kinds of explanation for this incompetence are generously provided, of course. Last count of the people who have resigned over this debacle: at least 2, including the editor of that Bentham rag.

Oh yeah, lest we forget the PRINCIPLE trove of Twoofer publications: Teenage boys producing YouTube-ology. Crappy music. Ham fisted paranoia. Lots & lots of "Just Asking Questions".

On the side of reason:
150+ papers, by competent engineers, working within their specialties, in peer-reviewed journals. The express support of the AS Civil Engineer, AS Mechanical Engineers, Structural Engineers of NY,
___

3. Investigation:

On the Twoofer side:
Teenage boy "investigoogling". Cutting & pasting crappola produced by other acne & angst ridden teenage boys.

CIT: twenty-something stoners from (Orange County?), who'd decided that "something was fishy" before they ever got to Wash DC. And proceeded to put words into the mouths of their "witnesses". Who wouldn't know a "NON-leading question" from a hole in the ground.

Bermas & Avery: a couple of film-major, college drop-outs, producing error filled crappola. Zero investigative experience. 100% fact free results.

On the side of reason:
Fully 1/3rd (about 7000 at one point) of the entire FBI's investigators. Thousands of professional police in New York, New Jersey, Washington DC & Pennsylvania. Hundreds of professional coroner's & medical examiners. Hundreds of DNA analysts. Forensic investigators. REAL ones.


End Part 1

Part 2

4. Now we arrive at aviation:

On the Twoofer side:
A tiny number of allegedly professional pilots. NOT ONE of which has ever previously performed a forensic crash analysis. In other words, complete amateurs at the task that they are attempting to perform. Their expertise is FLYING AIRPLANES. Not crash investigation.

And a bunch of arrogant punk wannabe's with 'tudes that'd choke a mule.


On the side of reason:

Pprune.org
Professional Pilots Rumour Network. One of the largest collections of real professional pilots on the internet.

Many hundreds of pilots from around the world. Who will brook none of your nonsense without ripping you a new orifice for your ignorance and callousness. In case you doubt what I say is true, I invite anyone to peruse the comments of real professional pilots regarding your idiocy.

lmgtfy.com...

As for "had to pull 10 Gs" and "couldn't hit a 208 foot wide skyscraper", LMAO at your self-delusions.

So, Turbo, Balsamo, please explain to me EXACTLY why these professional pilots - many hundreds of them - will not stand for any of your nonsense.

I invite you to present your crap to real professionals. That I'd LOVE to see.
___

From start to finish, I'll stand on the side of professionals every time.

Tom

Originally posted by tomk52
Twoof Movement:

Twoofers have to offer.

Twoof side:Twoofer publications:

On the Twoofer side:

That's enough to score you at least five Moderator Warnings for abusing the term 'truther'.

Moderator Semper has made it clear in a couple of threads that this will not be tolerated.

Originally posted by tomk52
CIT: twenty-something stoners from (Orange County?),

Craig from CIT is a member of ATS, so that's enough to earn you another Warning by personally insulting him. Furthermore, drug references are not tolerated on ATS.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tomk52
Part 2
On the Twoofer side:

There's another Warning, right above!

Check it out, right here:

Originally posted by semperfortis
Attention Please....
The word/term "TRUTHER" is an acceptable idiom.
However the bastardization of the word "Truther" is an insult and from here on will be treated as such.
I am not going to go back and take any action on past offenses, but any future instances and action will be taken.

Originally posted by tomk52NOT ONE of which has ever previously performed a forensic crash analysis.

Stop the lies "TomK". Jeff Latas has signed off on many P4T papers and
FDR studies. His credentials can be verified. Here is a short list of what
he did/does:

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Notice the bold part? Care to get Mr. Latas on video/audio stating
otherwise "TomK"?

By the way, what's your last name "TomK"? Do you have a resume, or
some method of verifying your garbage?

From start to finish, I'll stand on the side of professionals every time.

Pprune has been approached and there have been many threads on that
forum. Several of their pilots visit P4T. Since their policy no longer allows
for 9/11 type discussion, you would have to grab a few of your "pros"
to debate P4T's pros.

As for you "TomK" it seems the cat is out of the bag. Your knowledge of
the 757-200 altimeter is sub-par at best. Now that you're certainly aware
that the standby aneroid type altimeter does not record the FDR values
as you so thoughtfully tried to push on everyone, you have no recourse
(and likely the reason for your derail).

Now TomK, why don't you tell everyone how PA is measured on a 757-200
and what DEVICE is used to accomplish this? Also tell John Farmer and
Reheat what other parameter uses the SAME DEVICE to measure Vertical
Speed.

Why is that important? Well, let's see:

If PA is 'in error' because of the DEVICE and "added tubing" (< LMAO _),
then Vertical Speed is in error because it's measured from the same
port using the same DEVICE.

WHich set of data do you want to throw out? They both use the same
port and 'tubing'

Come on "TomK", I know you can figure out the colour coded diagram.
"Waypastvne" is starting to see the light.

BTW: the latest decode from Warran Stutt shows no evidence of pole
strikes, or origin of white smoke.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by tomk52NOT ONE of which has ever previously performed a forensic crash analysis.

Stop the lies "TomK". Jeff Latas has signed off on many P4T papers and
FDR studies. His credentials can be verified. Here is a short list of what
he did/does:

So, we are just supposed to take the word of a known liar (see previous posts) that this has occurred.

Originally posted by turbofan
Jeff Latas
--USAF Accident investigation Board President

As with most of what TF brays about he has not a clue what this entails. This is an ADMINISTRATIVE position, NOT an investigative one at all and certainly not forensic in nature. Where is the evidence that Latas has Accident Investigation Training? He's a Fighter Weapons type (as evidenced by his assignments), therefore very likely has no Accident Investigation Training. Therefore what Tom said is % 100 correct based on evidence.

Originally posted by turbofan
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

So what? At least he has more qualifications than YOU to comment. That doesn't mean he's correct. You have NONE=NADA.

Originally posted by turbofan
As for you "TomK" it seems the cat is out of the bag. Your knowledge of
the 757-200 altimeter is sub-par at best.

Says someone with ZERO knowledge or credibility related to aeronautical issues, unless an obnoxious bad attitude counts!

Originally posted by turbofan
BTW: the latest decode from Warran Stutt shows no evidence of pole
strikes, or origin of white smoke.

says a person not qualified to even have a valid opinion.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by turbofan
Notice the bold part? Care to get Mr. Latas on video/audio stating
otherwise "TomK"?

Has Captain Latas said anything about Warren's data?
So far as I know, he hasn't said much about this stuff
since he pointed out that Rob Balsamo's calculation of
11.2g was incorrect.

Originally posted by turbofan
BTW: the latest decode from Warran Stutt shows no evidence of pole
strikes,

How, then, do you account for the drop in longitudinal
acceleration during the 1/4-second interval just half
a second before the longitudinal acceleration pegged
at its most negative value?

For the previous 30 seconds, the smallest longitudinal
acceleration had been 0.124g.

Will

Question for the pilot types out there. After a little work with the acc values, it is starting to look like they might be given relative to the plane's coordinate system, not real world.

In other words, vertical acc is a measure of acc along the plane's z axis, not relative to the horizon. If this is the case, then roll and pitch angles will be critical values to know when discussing altitude changes.

FYI: All of the online definitions have the value defined as relative to horizon, not the plane. I'll try both approaches when Warren gets the roll angle added.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by 911files]

reply to post by 911files

In other words, vertical acc is a measure of acc along the plane's z axis, not relative to the horizon. If this is the case, then roll and pitch angles will be critical values to know...

I do not know the details of just what the SSFDR measures in terms of accelleration forces, I don't know if it measures on all three axes...maybe you can help, there.

Just to clarify, though, and keep it in pilot-speak, we should be certain that we agree on "z axis"...to me, since you said "vertical acc", then then you are referring to the 'vertical axis'...when we refer to "pulling Gs" (positive) or "pushing over" (negative) that will describe what is felt by the occupants in "their seats". IOW, the level-out from a shallow dive will be a positive G force. You are correct, it will not be in reference to the horizon...the fact that the environment is a constant 1G should not be confused with the centripetal forces of aircraft motion.

For all laypeople, knowing a little about the dynamics of flight will help --- any stable (same altitude, same airspeed) turn will result in an increase in the G-force felt by the occupants. It increases exponentially with increasing angle of bank. It is not a straight-line graph. Without going into the math, examples are: A 20-degree bank will increase G by just 0.06g...while a 60-degree bank will double Earth-normal. So, when you are traveling on a normal jet, and they turn at about 25-degrees bank, which is standard...you barely feel it. Just increasing to 40-degrees brings the G up to 1.31. Those interested in learning more can view this resource: pilotsweb.com...

OK, lesson over...except to say that I will assume, '911files', that the 'x'-axis will correspond with the airplane's "longitudinal" axis (nose-to-tail) in your discussion, and therefore the y-axis would be the "lateral" axis?

To make sure we stay on-page also, the airplane's motions about these axes are described as:

Longitudinal axis = 'Roll'
Lateral axis = 'Pitch'
Vertical axis = 'Yaw'

Purely guessing, but I would think that the FDR would only bother to record vertical and longitudinal acc---'side' loads laterally might not be very useful in what the FDR was primarily designed for: Accident investigation.


One more thing --- lest some confusion creep in. The INS (Inertial Nav System). Three independent systems, each has three internal accelerometers...those AFAIK don't send data to the FDR, they are simply used by the devices to calculate the airplane's motion in three dimensions, from its starting initialization position. Should note that they do not actually know their altitude relative to Sea Level - they just determine Lat/Long coordinates. Some Nav systems (like ADIRU) have the ADC (Air Data Computer) info combined into the positional info...but, this was not the case on the 9/11 airplanes, that was just background information.

Having said all of that (and hopefully not muddying it up) the rool AND pitch attitudes will be critical, and it gets very complicated because you must account for the trend of flight as well...that is, what is the pitch attitude going to affect in terms of the direction of flight? Because G along the vertical axis is a function of motion about the lateral....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
For all laypeople, knowing a little about the dynamics of flight will help ---

Exactly weedwhacker. I tried to explain this back on page 22, but it appears to be a tough concept to grasp among those who make excuse for the govt story.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
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.

I haven't bothered to read the last 5 or 6 pages since I was last here, but after reading Turbofan's post above, I see that proof has still not been provided for the claims of error in PA, proof of the object(s) from which the RA is measuring, nor proof that N644AA caused the damage at the Pentagon.

I'll probably stop by in another 5 pages of rants to see if proof has been provided by then.

Also, for those who wonder why some people get banned at P4T forum, I gather it's due to the debate style you see in post's like TomK's above.

Finally, here are a few more Aircraft Accident Investigators listed on the Pilots For Truth website.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation,
including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters
Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation.
Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.

Captain Hadi Rizvi
Flying 43 years
Courses on Accident Investgation
22 Years with Pakistan Air Force as fighter -Total about 3500 Hrs,
Types Flown: T-6G; T-37; T-33; F-86F/E, F-5; MirageIII/V; MIG-15; MIG-19, QFI
21 Years with PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) ~13000 Hrs
Types Flown: F-27; Boeing 737; Boeing 747; Airbus 310

That should be good for now. They also have A&P's, Avionics Techs and FDR Experts.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just to clarify, though, and keep it in pilot-speak, we should be certain that we agree on "z axis"...to me, since you said "vertical acc", then then you are referring to the 'vertical axis'...when we refer to "pulling Gs" (positive) or "pushing over" (negative) that will describe what is felt by the occupants in "their seats". IOW, the level-out from a shallow dive will be a positive G force. You are correct, it will not be in reference to the horizon...the fact that the environment is a constant 1G should not be confused with the centripetal forces of aircraft motion.

Thanks for the feedback weedwhacker, definitely useful stuff. Yes, in physics 'speak' z is the axis perpendicular to the x, y plane (horizon). It all depends on how the coordinate system is defined, but you are correct that in 'real world' z would equal altitude. Vertical acceleration would be d2z/dt2 in my little world. Right now I'm just trying to verify that in the FDR data that the z axis does indeed equate to altitude. For the 330 degree turn I am getting some extremely high values which are not even close to the altitude values, so I am suspecting that altitude is a vector component of z in this case (a 40 degree bank will certainly skew the numbers which is what I am seeing).

Warren is adding roll angle to the RO, so I should know soon enough.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Farmer failed to grasp this concept the last time he attempted to calculate G Loads in a turn.

Wrong Mackey imposter. I defined g-loads in physics terms of vector components and you got hung up on the unitless g-factor without understanding the difference. You are refering to a series of math posts at JREF done from a PHYSICS perspective and clearly defined as such and clearly started with the understanding that I would NOT be using aviation terms.

The math/physics was 100% correct. You just did not know what they were and/or meant. Sorry if you are unable to read the definitions which were clearly stated in the equations. I was not calculating g-load/g-factor, I was calculating vector components. However, once the components were known g-load was an easy equivilent, but as stated in the posts, aviation equivilance was not the goal.

I am familiar with the impact of roll, yaw, and pitch on the values. My question stems from the aviation terminology definition which defines vertical acc as being relative to the horizon. The question is whether it is stored in the FDR as the aviation defined vert acc, or is it an uncorrected value (relative to the plane's axis)? The data right now is suggesting the later.

Figured out where you went wrong with the 11.2g thing yet?

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Finally, here are a few more Aircraft Accident Investigators listed on the Pilots For Truth website.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation,
including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters
Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation.
Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.

Captain Hadi Rizvi
Flying 43 years
Courses on Accident Investgation
22 Years with Pakistan Air Force as fighter -Total about 3500 Hrs,
Types Flown: T-6G; T-37; T-33; F-86F/E, F-5; MirageIII/V; MIG-15; MIG-19, QFI
21 Years with PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) ~13000 Hrs
Types Flown: F-27; Boeing 737; Boeing 747; Airbus 310

That should be good for now. They also have A&P's, Avionics Techs and FDR Experts.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Darn, all that talent and you guys can't even figure out that GOFER06 departed from Andrews AFB on the Camp Springs One departure even though the pilot says himself that he departing on it.



When you guys get that one figured out, come and talk to me about the FDR. In the meantime I find it hard to take you very seriously.

Originally posted by 911files
Darn, all that talent and you guys can't even figure out that GOFER06 departed from Andrews AFB on the Camp Springs One departure even though the pilot says himself that he departing on it.

When you guys get that one figured out, come and talk to me about the FDR. In the meantime I find it hard to take you very seriously.

Dang....you stole my thunder, 911!

Add to this mix that not only does PfT say Gopher 06 did not depart on the Camp Springs 1, but they claim it was vectored north then west to fly right along the very southern edge of Prohibited Area 56, something that no aircraft - US, military, civilian, anything - would *never, ever* be allowed to do or be vectored to do.

Take them seriously? When they claim all these military people and they can't work out the Camp Springs 1 departure? When they claim all these military people and they still believe there were SAM missiles at the Pentagon?

Bottom line? PfT must have ended up with the dumbest bunch of former military pilots in the world.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by trebor451]

reply to post by 911files


Yes, as you well know, it is the 'components' that matter, in the physics of aerodynamics.

I was calculating vector components.

It seems some folks wish to confuse the readers by picking apart an aspect of your presentation, and a point in your post, then 'translating' it sideways into something that you never meant to imply. Thus, clouding the issue.

I know that '911files' knows this, but here is a visual aid to help illustrate the concept of the vector diagram as it involves an airplane in a turn:

en.wikipedia.org...

(scrool down near the bottom).

The math is pretty advanced, but it's all right there and can be useful for those who wish, and are able to, do the calculations for themselves.

Originally posted by 911files
There is only confusion among CT forum 'experts' who have no clue what they are talking about.

Well, I'm confused. I don't know how to read a FDR. I stated so pages ago and I'm happy to admit it.

However, judging by the two quotes below, it looks like I'm not the only one who is confused.

It looks like I'll be waiting a little longer for the coordinate points of the wing-tips and nose cone to nail down the exact geometry of the aeroplane's last few seconds.

Thanks, 911files, for making it clear about who gets confused and who doesn't.

Originally posted by 911files
Question for the pilot types out there. After a little work with the acc values, it is starting to look like they might be given relative to the plane's coordinate system, not real world.

FYI: All of the online definitions have the value defined as relative to horizon, not the plane. I'll try both approaches when Warren gets the roll angle added.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I do not know the details of just what the SSFDR measures in terms of accelleration forces, I don't know if it measures on all three axes...maybe you can help, there.