New FDR Decode

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Instead of spending your Thanksgiving on ATS ranting about the CS1, which has nothing to do with this thread nor is posted on the P4T website, thank your lucky stars you still have a job, for now. lol

Rob, you are here as well... pretending to be someone else I may add. Talking about yourself in the third party as well.

Instead of posturing here with "neener neener neerer" rants like above... using childish terms like "spank"....Show us the e-mails. Oh, and while your at it.... grow up.

Originally posted by tezzajw
underthedome appears to be some kind of forum-bot with automated replies.

Hopefully a Moderator will see this and remove his posts as Off Topic?

Thanks, Mods if you are able to do this.

There's enough confusion in the thread already, without a Gage-bot sent in to advertise his message.

I can assure you that I'm not a gage-Bot. I'm not 100% sure such technology has been perfected. but it wouldnt surprise me. Whats your beef against gage anyways? His power point presentation proves without a shadow of a doubt the buildings were brought down with explosive thermite. His proof is irrefutable.

ImaPepper/Capt Obvious/Throat Yogurt/Mr Herbert (and many others I forget off the top of my head...)

Anytime you wish to add something constructive to the topic and proof of your claims, let us know. Until then, enjoy getting banned month after month only to come back as another sock since you clearly have no real life outside of ATS.

Unlike you, I don't need to post on ATS daily.

Originally posted by underthedome
I can assure you that I'm not a gage-Bot. I'm not 100% sure such technology has been perfected. but it wouldnt surprise me. Whats your beef against gage anyways? His power point presentation proves without a shadow of a doubt the buildings were brought down with explosive thermite. His proof is irrefutable.

I can assure you that I will soon have a U2U from a Moderator telling me that this post has been branded Off Topic.

Read the topic of the thread. It has nothing to do with Gage.

You are nowhere the topic of the thread! Go away!

I know when I read my U2U, that all of your off topic posts will have been removed as well.

Learn the ATS rules, dude and abide by them. It makes life so much easier.

reply to post by tezzajw


My apologies. I should have read the rules. I will do that now.

Originally posted by underthedome

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Hey trebor/Pinch/William Paisley,

How did it feel to get spanked by Kolstad via email? Yes, I saw the emails, typical trebor/Pinch/Will Paisley. A person who never amounted to anything but a RIO and never made it to Top Gun. To top it off, a civilian washout.

Instead of spending your Thanksgiving on ATS ranting about the CS1, which has nothing to do with this thread nor is posted on the P4T website, thank your lucky stars you still have a job, for now. lol

Your pompousness is noted. May I suggest you read the works of Tony Szamboti. Unlike you, he is a structural engineer. If or when you graduate from college maybe have a discussion with him or Richard Gage or the other 5000 members of AE911truth. Until then, it best you keep your opinions to yourself. you only make yourself sound foolish.

Apparently you do not realize that the (most accurately described) pompous ass who calls himself "R_Mackey" is NOT, in fact, "Ryan Mackey". But instead, Rob Balsamo, doing a trollish imitation of Ryan Mackey.

I agree wholeheartedly that Balsamo is a pompous ass.

BTW, Tony Sz is not a structural engineer. He is, like me, a mechanical engineer.

He's just not nearly as good a MechE as I am. And his theories are riddled with nonsense.

TomK

Originally posted by underthedome
Maybe you should educate yourself on thermite before you act all haughty. Tony and Richard know thermites power. Maybe you should have the guts to contact them. Maybe you'll learn something.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by underthedome]

Oh please, please, tell me what you know about "thermites [sic] power".

Please explain to me how X-thermXte (of any flavor) could possibly have been used to bring down any building - for the first time in history...!! (As the bozos love to say.)

Explain how thermXte could have had ANYTHING to do with "rivers of molten steel", or "molten metal for months after the collapse".

Or let's just keep it simple. How thermXte can be used to cut vertical columns.

With 5" thick walls. In the requisite .05 seconds or faster.

You might want to calculate how hot a layer of thermXte equal to the MAX thickness that Jones, Harrit et al found (100 microns) would heat up a 1" thick steel plate. (I think that you'll be somewhat surprised.)

Or let's bring it down to 6th grade observations. Perhaps you could tell us how fast the towers fell...

Can't wait.

TomK

Originally posted by underthedome

Originally posted by tezzajw
underthedome appears to be some kind of forum-bot with automated replies.

Hopefully a Moderator will see this and remove his posts as Off Topic?

Thanks, Mods if you are able to do this.

There's enough confusion in the thread already, without a Gage-bot sent in to advertise his message.

I can assure you that I'm not a gage-Bot. I'm not 100% sure such technology has been perfected. but it wouldnt surprise me. Whats your beef against gage anyways? His power point presentation proves without a shadow of a doubt the buildings were brought down with explosive thermite. His proof is irrefutable.

Can I ask YOUR experience with structural engineering?

What do you know about ANY architect's required knowledge of stress, strain, creep, failure modes, etc.

You probably think that "the towers were designed to withstand an impact by a Boeing 707"... LoL.

If you do, as so many credulous folk do, you'd be provably wrong about that.

TomK

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tezzajw
Let me get this straight, 911files...

Originally posted by 911files
I do believe the government (or some agencies) are continuing to cover-up some aspects of what happened.

911Files is one of those rare "Truthers" who feel there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy. He follows the lead of a janitor better known as, and appropriately named, "Caustic Logic".

.... and they call us nut jobs. lol... too funny.

For someone who has me on ignore you sure seem to read a lot of what I have to say. But lets get this straight. The 'government' invested billions of dollars, planted poles and explosives at the Pentagon, coached witnesses, altered radar data and atc audios, just to make people beleive that plane hit the Pentagon.

Then they falsified NTSB and FDR data to make it look like the plane flew over the Pentagon, thus making all of those other deceptions moot? I guess they could have saved themselves the trouble of discrediting Turcious by altering the Citgo video

You have a few questions that are unanswered and you doubt the NTSB data, but you claim that you're not a truther even though you ask questions like you are one. How does that work?

See, I just can't win. Truthers call me a debunker and debunker's call me a truther. Asking questions and being skeptical of the answers is not being a truther by the modern definition (someone who beleives '911 was an inside job"). I call it being realistic about how government works and as my hero Ronald Reagan once said, "trust, but verify.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by tomk52
I enjoy your posts. Thanks.

Thank you. Your posts have been helpful to me.

Originally posted by tomk52
1. Best INDEX for everything is vertical acceleration.

Agreed. I've been indexing everything in (negative) seconds,
so the last vertical acceleration recorded is at t = -0.125.

With regard to your points 2 and 3: The longitudinal and
lateral accelerations are sampled at 4 Hz, but appear (in
the CSV file) with the data for the first half second.
If the raw FDR file is laid out similarly, then the data
had to have been buffered for at least one full second
before being written to flash memory. (That's consistent
with the flash memory technology available when the SSFDR
was built.) Do you agree with that 1-second buffer fill
time?

Originally posted by tomk52
4. You can use the radar height to get the best possible INDEX of all data, since it is provided at 8 Hz. Match it to the terrain.

Yes. A JREFer did a visual of this for me a month ago, after
I had calculated a rough terrain profile by subtracting radar
heights from (uncorrected) pressure altitudes. See

forums.randi.org...
forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by tomk52
5. You can calculate the second by second vertical velocity by using "difference methods" on the Pressure Altitude (PA).

Yes, and I would interpolate as you suggested (or similarly)
if I needed to calculate the vertical velocity from pressure
altitudes. I'm going the other direction: calculating the
altitude, position, and velocities from the accelerations via
numerical integration backward from t=0.

Right now my calculations are still pretty rough; for example,
I haven't yet corrected for pitch angle. Here's a crude sketch
of what I've got so far:

www.ccs.neu.edu...

With several of us using different methods to perform the
calculations independently, we'll get better checking of our
results than if we were all using exactly the same methods.
Some methods may be more accurate than others, but all should
show a similar general picture.

Originally posted by tomk52
You'll note that all those circle & hyperbolic profile assumptions are wrong. As is the assumption that the plane had to EVER "level off". It appears that it did not.

Agreed. There was considerable levelling off within the last
two seconds, but the plane never shed all of its vertical velocity.
I'm estimating about 16 ft/sec as the instantaneous rate of descent
at the end of data, but that estimate is likely to change slightly
as I improve my calculations.

Will

Originally posted by cesura
Right now my calculations are still pretty rough; for example,
I haven't yet corrected for pitch angle. Here's a crude sketch
of what I've got so far:

www.ccs.neu.edu...

With several of us using different methods to perform the
calculations independently, we'll get better checking of our
results than if we were all using exactly the same methods.
Some methods may be more accurate than others, but all should
show a similar general picture.

I notice the RA diverges from PA (raw), which compares with my study, but I must be reading the 'true altitude' (RA corrected for terrain elevation) wrong since it tends to diverge as well. I am getting the opposite result, with 'true altitude' (RA + elevation) converging wth PA at the end-of-file (EOF)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3093a441288.jpg[/atsimg]

Since there is a known offset in the INS data (~0.2 nautical miles), I found the lowest elevation within the 2 sigma radius of the RO position and used it as a lower bound for terrain elevation. Similarly, the highest was used for the upper bound. The difference between 'true altitude' and the raw PA is plotted for both upper and lower bounds and linear trend lines calculated. For both, the trend is convergence at the EOF.

In other words, the difference between PA and true altitude was ~275 feet at 16 seconds before impact, and decreased to ~135 feet by the last subframe (as elevation decreased and speed increased). As expected, there is an anomalous bump at -3 and -4 seconds (using your scale) as the plane passed over the Annex area structures.

It seems certain people have jumped off the aneroid altimeter bandwagon
as it has been proven that this instrument did not produce the PA data in
the FDR file.

Having said that, I have a few questions for those still refuting the
"Pressure Altitude Error". Now that we know that PA is measured using an
electric sensor (absolute pressure sensor) via the Air Data Computer [ADC],
and not a mechanical standby device, please explain the following:

1. PA is measured by the Air Data Computer which also supplies the
vertical speed. Both of these measurements are derived using the same
pressure sensor (PA is absolute; Vertical Speed is the rate of delta in altitude).
If PA is considered to be in error, how can you believe the Vertical Speed?

2a. If the wing span of the 757-200 can barely reach the camera mast and
pole #2 with an approximate 61 degree angle, explain the gross bend in
pole #2 and why it was not carried forward in the direction of force (flight)?

2b. Using the scale model to answer 2a., what part of the wing struck
pole #2 in order to cause such a bend?

2c. Does this continued trajectory allow to hit the remaining poles?

3. Explain the origin of the white smoke, and what system in the aircraft
might have produced this smoke.

4. What is the bank angle required to strike Pole #1/camera mast and Pole #2?

5. What aircraft did Rosevelt Jr. see immediately after the explosion which
resembled a commercial jet?

6. How do you explain all of the CIT witnesses whom have never met
drawing a similar flight path and describing a banking commercial airliner
NoC?



[edit on 26-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
It seems certain people have jumped off the aneroid altimeter bandwagon
as it has been proven that this instrument did not produce the PA data in
the FDR file.

Actually, I was never on the aneroid bandwagon, so you must be refering to someone else. However, the RA + terrain modeling has helped me refine the INS data somewhat which has enabled me to pin down a few more things. Unfortunately, that same modeling has pretty much demonstrated that PA was not performing as you had hoped.

But have a wonderful Thanksgiving sir, and try not to eat too much.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by 911files]

Thank you John, and the same to you. I was not directing the "bandwagon" comment to anyone in particular.

I'll await your altitude analysis and reason why PA and Vertical Speed
are inaccurate.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
I'll await your altitude analysis and reason why PA and Vertical Speed
are inaccurate.
[edit on 26-11-2009 by turbofan]

Scroll up. I just posted the chart that demonstrates that PA 'slipped' ~100 feet relative to RA + elevation in the last 16 seconds of flight. Or, RA could have slipped, but my money is on PA.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by cesura
Right now my calculations are still pretty rough; for example,
I haven't yet corrected for pitch angle. Here's a crude sketch
of what I've got so far:

www.ccs.neu.edu...

With several of us using different methods to perform the
calculations independently, we'll get better checking of our
results than if we were all using exactly the same methods.
Some methods may be more accurate than others, but all should
show a similar general picture.

I notice the RA diverges from PA (raw), which compares with my study, but I must be reading the 'true altitude' (RA corrected for terrain elevation) wrong since it tends to diverge as well. I am getting the opposite result, with 'true altitude' (RA + elevation) converging wth PA at the end-of-file (EOF)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3093a441288.jpg[/atsimg]

Since there is a known offset in the INS data (~0.2 nautical miles), I found the lowest elevation within the 2 sigma radius of the RO position and used it as a lower bound for terrain elevation. Similarly, the highest was used for the upper bound. The difference between 'true altitude' and the raw PA is plotted for both upper and lower bounds and linear trend lines calculated. For both, the trend is convergence at the EOF.

In other words, the difference between PA and true altitude was ~275 feet at 16 seconds before impact, and decreased to ~135 feet by the last subframe (as elevation decreased and speed increased). As expected, there is an anomalous bump at -3 and -4 seconds (using your scale) as the plane passed over the Annex area structures.

911files,

Look up "sampling theory". Or "Nyquist-Shannon sampling criterion".
Sampling Theory

(Claude Shannon, btw, is considered by many to be one of the smartest humans to ever walk the planet.)

A lot of interesting math. But in practical terms, it comes down to this: The finest detail that you can see in any data requires about 5 to 8 data points to be distinguishable. (Engineers try to "oversample" by about 8x the highest expected frequency that they are looking to represent with discrete sampling. Which is exactly what an FDR is: a discrete Data Acquisition System, or DAQ.)

If you do NOT meet this criteria, you WILL see things that are NOT REALLY THERE! Here's a couple of good examples: Look at Figure 5 on the "sampling theory" wiki page above. See the Moire pattern in the bricks? It ain't really there, as proven in Figure 6.

In the case of the altitude data, during the last 20 seconds, the plane is accelerating between 380 & 480 kts. Round off to 430 kts = (725 ft/sec). It is taking BOTH PA and RA data at 1 second intervals. You can sensibly interpolate the PA data, because the plane's flight path is, in fact, piecewise linear. You can not interpolate the RA data, so you are left with the lowest sampling freq of 1 Hz.

This means that the smallest feature that you can REALLY see has dimensions of about [OK, cheat just a bit...] 6 x 725 ft/sec x 1 sec = ~4300 ft in dimension. This is about 4/5ths of a mile long.

You WILL see finer patterns than this. You will CONVINCE yourself that they are really there.

You will be wrong on both counts...

Just as there is zero doubt that you CAN see that pattern in that "Moire brick" data (the photo). The only problem is, it ain't really there.

Sorry. Mother Nature (& C. Shannon, in this case) are real b1tches...!

TomK


[edit on 26-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply to post by 911files


You don't have to put your money on this, just have a look at vertical speed
for that segment of PA.

Surely if this was a real flight, or flight sim. the VSI and PA will relate in
proportion as they use the same sensor to produce their values.

I'm not around the decode at the moment, so if anyone can verify this
(is it even available?), that would be great.

Furthermore, I'm more interested in everyone's answer to my questions
on page 33 which cannot be ignored.

TF,

So THIS is your great big unveiling...??

Originally posted by turbofan
It seems certain people have jumped off the aneroid altimeter bandwagon
as it has been proven that this instrument did not produce the PA data in
the FDR file.

Having said that, I have a few questions for those still refuting the
"Pressure Altitude Error". Now that we know that PA is measured using an
electric sensor (absolute pressure sensor) via the Air Data Computer [ADC],
and not a mechanical standby device, please explain the following:

"... an electric sensor...", eh TF?

Boy, you know ALL those science-y terms.

As I've said repeatedly (and you've repeatedly lied about), I have never claimed to know specific construction of the static system or the ADC systems on a B757. I, like all pilots, learned in ground school about the generic performance of these systems in generic airplanes. But, unlike most pilots, I also happened to get a job designing & building aneroid sensors for a non-avionics application. That experience allowed me to learn a bunch of details about how aneroids are designed & built. Details that were never required in any pilot training.

But I'd be willing to wager a beer on the bet that the "electric sensor" you are talking about is ... (wait for it) ... an aneroid. Which converts pressure to displacement. And some fancy device like a potentiometer (aka "a volume knob") or RVDT to convert the aneroid's motion into a variable electrical signal. And then an analog to digital encoder circuit to convert volts to a digital signal compatible with the data bus on the airplane.

And, if this is the case, then ALL of the comments about aneroids, their action, their manufacture, their performance, etc, are all completely valid.

BTW, if all the above is true, as I strongly suspect it is, then your claim that "the PA is measured by an electric sensor via the ADC" is technobabble. And wrong.

Originally posted by turbofan
1. PA is measured by the Air Data Computer which also supplies the
vertical speed. Both of these measurements are derived using the same
pressure sensor (PA is absolute; Vertical Speed is the rate of delta in altitude).
If PA is considered to be in error, how can you believe the Vertical Speed?

Apparently you do not understand first semester calculus.

How can the slope of a curve be accurate if the curve itself has an error? EASY. It's called "a constant offset in two numbers that are subtracted from each other".

The answer to your question is BUILT INTO, it is the very heart of, the design of those two instruments. Your question displays a woeful misunderstanding of the very fundamentals about which you claim knowledge.

Originally posted by turbofan
2a. If the wing span of the 757-200 can barely reach the camera mast and
pole #2 with an approximate 61 degree angle, explain the gross bend in
pole #2 and why it was not carried forward in the direction of force (flight)?

Why don't you explain the precise shape of all the individual pieces when a "funny car" crashes. Until you do, I guess we'll have to consider the possibility that funny cars are sabotaged by the NWO. Using preplanted explosives...

While you're at it, don't forget to explain why parts get scattered all over the place & don't all get carried "forward in the direction of [travel]".


Arrogant AND ignorant.

That's some combo you're working on there, TF.


TomK

PS. Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Yeah, even to the moonbats.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by 911files

 

You don't have to put your money on this, just have a look at vertical speed
for that segment of PA.

Surely if this was a real flight, or flight sim. the VSI and PA will relate in
proportion as they use the same sensor to produce their values.
...

Surely, you cannot be this clueless about these instruments.

No, they most specifically do NOT "relate in proportion as they use the same data to produce their values".

Do you not know the difference between an absolute value and the CHANGE in that value?

Those two values are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of each other.

I can have a constant altitude (e.g., 4000'), and the vertical speed can be ANY VALUE whatsoever. It can be +1000 ft/sec, zero or -1000 ft/sec.

I can have a constant vertical velocity (e.g., 1000 ft/sec), and be at any altitude, whatsoever, from 50,000 ft to 10,000 ft to 4 ft.

In other words, I can have ANY altitude and ANY vertical velocity, in ANY possible combination.

This is the very definition of the fact that these two values are INDEPENDENT of each other at any given instant in time.

The real relationship between them is that the vertical velocity PRODUCES changes in the altitude OVER TIME. This is calculus 101. Somehow I'm not optimistic...

Tomk

Originally posted by 911files
I notice the RA diverges from PA (raw), which compares with my study, but I must be reading the 'true altitude' (RA corrected for terrain elevation) wrong since it tends to diverge as well. I am getting the opposite result, with 'true altitude' (RA + elevation) converging wth PA at the end-of-file (EOF)

I think that's a mere artifact, compounded perhaps by
my labelling of the curves.

On my graph, the curve that was originally labelled
"ground elevation (pa-ra)" was computed by subtracting
the "radio height" from the "pressure altitude
(uncorrected)", so it isn't the true terrain elevation.
In an attempt to make that clearer, I have changed its
legend to "ground elevation (calculated as pa-rh)".

As for the divergence between pressure altitude and my
calculated altitude: Either curve can be moved up or
down, without changing its shape, by applying a simple
additive correction (which, for the pressure altitude,
is needed anyway to adjust for barometric pressure).
So the curves can be made to coincide at either end of
the graphed interval, with the divergence at the other
end.

To tomk52:
The Nyquist criterion is double the lowest frequency
that you don't need to see or to distinguish from even
lower frequencies. The cause of the Moire effect in
Figure 5 is that our visual systems choose an incorrect
low-frequency interpretation for inputs whose correct
interpretation involves frequencies above the Nyquist
limit. Applying that to the radar height, we might
interpret a sawtoothed ridge that generally rises
in height as a smooth decline, or we might interpret
two distinct buildings as a single building, but we
won't see radar heights that aren't really there. Is
your point that the geographical elevations used by
911files may contain too much detail, and should have
been smeared before they were compared against radar
heights for his statistical analysis?

To those of you in the US: Have a nice Thanksgiving.
I'm off to cook some Texas chili.

Will