It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 77
12
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


The problem is that the North witnesses weren`t shown pointing North until well after 9/11. Memory changes over time. I`ve sat around telling about things that happened several years ago, only to be corrected. My memory of it had changed, sometimes a lot.




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gamolon

weedwhacker,

Is there other flight information out there that people can look at to see similar inaccuracies for comparison?

It sounds like this would be a common thing yes?


Gamolon,

It is not only "common". It is universal.

The error that those who interpret everything literally make is to "ignore errors".

This is a physics professor at MIT. This point was hammered into us when I was an engineering undergrad. And it's been reinforced for me thru 35 years of engineering experience.
Errors in Measurement


"There is an uncertainty in every single measurement. Unless you know the uncertainty, you know absolutely NOTHING about your measurement."

The problem is that, when you attempt to do these reconstructions, errors start to accumulate. Even small, round-off errors.

One of the posters here (censura, with a PhD in Math) has done some modeling of the data, starting from the End of the Data, and trying to work backwards just 2 minutes or so. Over just that period of time, the data & the model start to diverge significantly.

He is doing exactly the same math modeling techniques ("numerical integration") that is done inside a program to reconstruct the flight paths. The fact is that using recorded data "open loop" (i.e., without error correction feedback) might put you off by a hundred meters (or more) is a surprise to nobody except abject amateurs.

Abject amateurs exactly like PffT.

TomK


[edit on 9-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by Gamolon
With all the "North of the Citgo" eyewitnesses placing the plane "North of the Citgo", can anyone please tell me which of those eyewitness are incorrect about the flight path up to the "North of the Citgo" point the jet was supposedly visually seen at by all of them?

I have looked at the top down picture of the Pentagon with the flight paths of the witnesses drawn in yellow. How come the incoming flight path for most of them do not match?


Simple. Variances in depth perception.

You will notice however that not one eyewitness puts it south of the Citgo on followup interviews.


I'm sorry, but left and right location is not depth perception. I can look at something from a distance and tell you if it is left or right of a certain object. If I have one hand over my eye and look at the same object, I'd have a hard time with distance.

These flight paths differ left to right from viewpoints in line with the incoming flight path. The viewpoints are not perpendicular to the flight paths, which would affect depth perception and actual placement.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


JFK, are you "JohndoeXLC" over on YouTube???

For everyone's amusement, again. Here's an example of the NTSB video re-creation from the FDR. This was solely a representation, not intended to be accurate to the centimeter.

What is amusing about it, you ask??

It is the stupid and inane text screens inserted as 'commentary' throughout. At :09 --- the airplane is about 8000 feet, just a few miles from the Pentagon...and the genius who posted this asks "Why not just push straight down, into the Pentagon straight ahead?" Every pilot on this forum knows why that would not have worked.

Well, the rest of the 'commentary' is equally laughable, and just shows ignorance of reality.

Oh, and do be sure to, as "JohndoeXLC" suggests, to watch the 'yoke' (that's the ocntrol wheel depiction). It does show a guy flying the airplane, not smoothly at all, but rather dramatically moving the control column in spasmodic jerking motions, just as you'd expect froma rather inexperienced pilot.

Who, BTW, despite another idiotic text frame, DID have "time in type"...in a simulator, at least.





BTW, Weed, these are "the impossible Top-Gun maneuvers", as claimed for years by Lear, Bowman & Stubblebine.

LMAO.


Tom



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by Gamolon
 


Actually I was looking at it to prove that it is real.


Since I am no expert on FDR data or planes, please excuse me if this is a dumb question.

If you are looking at location variables in the decode, what would you use to compare those location variables to in order to determine if it was real or not?

Or are there other variables that you are trying to find that are incorrect in the decode other than location variables/data?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by thomk
 


I have never made a single penny off my 911 research nor the thousands of dollars worth of DVD's I have given away over the years.

I intend to keep it that way.

For your insinuation you have earned the right to join farmer and the other idiots in my ignore list... Have fun in there guys.




Funny that...

I never uttered the tiniest of suggestion that YOU ever made any money off of trinket sales. I clearly said that Robby has.

(In fact, right here, about 7 days ago, Robby "proudly" announced his bump in DVD sales as a result of this whole pile of "closed cockpit door" crappola.)

And yet you transferred my observation of Robby's "moichandising" to yourself. Right after assuring us that you are not Robby.

What's a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic to believe ...

That's OK, JFrickenK. You put me on "ignore". Somehow [sniff], I'll try to struggle thru.

I'll console myself by constantly making fun of your silly assertions. Knowing that you'll be none the wiser.

LoL.

Tom



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Cool. Then by extension of that reasoning it could have easily been North of the Citgo and no one would be the wiser.


I did not think a more thorough and rational explanation was needed, as it should be obvious to most.

However, a startling lack of clarity seems to infest when trying to write, in a forum. So, if others will bear with me.....

I will reference to a good point made, already, by Zaphod58.

He was talking about INS, but the difference is minor. Concept in practical, is same.

The accumualtion of errors over time will lead to the 'drift' as mentioned.

EVEN being off by a few hundred feet, during the alignment process, will add up.

Let me explain: Say you're setting up the cockpit, and you've just turned all three IRS selctor knobs to the 'NAV' position. This initiates the alignment process.

The amber "ON DC" lights should all come on briefly, then go out. That is the self-test of each unit's ability to access DC buses, should AC power be lost.

The "ALIGN" lights then illuminate, in white. Alignment takes no more than 10 minutes nominally, usually less.

First, the "gyros" spin up (unlike bulky early INS, these are laser-ring gyros, no moving parts).

There is a 'flux-valve' (no, not from Doc Brown's DeLorean...it is a fancy term for magnetic compass) which provides heading data...the three ring gyros align, stabilize for attitude reference.

If not input after a certain few minutes, the CDU will prompt for Lat/Long location input, by the crew. Crew gets the Lat/Long from their Jeppesen page, usually (or, some airports, they are printed on a board mounted on the terminal).

The key sequence is (typical): N3645.2W11834.1 (for example).

As those keys are typed, they appear at the bottom of the screen, in the 'scratch pad'. Pushing the line select key next to the empty boxes (4R, where it says 'SET IRS POS') transfers the above Lat/Long to the boxes, and all three units are linked, and take the data at same time. (INS units typically do not link together in that manner...but, depends on manufacturer and system).

The accelerometers in the units are sensitive to the Earth's roatation...so, they can be in the ballpark as to latitude (although can't tell from N or S) AND there is memory from where unit was last shutdown. Any gross difference causes an alert message, and pilot action to verify the inputs.

Now, back to the Lat/Long inputs. Look at "N3645.2" for instance. See how it is only accurate to 1/10 of a minute? (It is decipered as "North 36 degrees, 45.2 minutes"). That distance (1/10th minute) will vary, depending on latitude. At the equator one degree of longitude is 60NM, so one minute is 1NM, 6,067 feet. 1/10th of 6,067 is, of course, 607 feet (rounded up).

The gate co-ordinates, printed on the Jepessen pages, is accurate only to the 1/10th minute (six seconds) as explained, and even those data may be off, due to rounding, or not having been updated for years.

BUT, like in horseshoes, close is good enough for the purposes intended by the Nav System. It receives radio updating when inflight, and depending on installation, it should get a POS update when the AutoThrottle TO/GA button is engaged, at start of takeoff roll, because it knows which runway you are using, since you've programmed it in to the flight plan information.

Now...I've seen somewhere that the FDR ground trackinfo was off a bit, offset from the departure runway at IAD. SO...American Airlines may not have had the Pegasus program that accomplished the TO/GA POS update, or it was slow to reflect in the recorded data.

OK...all of that was background explanation to show why the position relative to geographical co-ordinates can be off by such a margin as to be unusable for exactness when locating the light poles near Rte 27.

HOWEVER...the heading information IS accurate, to a standard of 1/10th degree...far more accurate than needed, or that a pilot could read. THAT information, the mag heading, is the key. Working back from the impact area, it greatly narrows the ground track possible for the airplane.

IRS is just icing on the cake, if it supports. Also, at those speeds, there is bound to be some lag in the positin calculations anyway...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gamolon
 


I have a copy the Boeing 757-200 AMM ( Aircraft Maintainance Manual ) and SSM ( System Schematic Manual ) for a fleet of 36 Boeings the newest of which has a serial number approximately 400 prior to flight 77's which I am using to reference the origin of the data recorded.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gamolon

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by Gamolon
With all the "North of the Citgo" eyewitnesses placing the plane "North of the Citgo", can anyone please tell me which of those eyewitness are incorrect about the flight path up to the "North of the Citgo" point the jet was supposedly visually seen at by all of them?

I have looked at the top down picture of the Pentagon with the flight paths of the witnesses drawn in yellow. How come the incoming flight path for most of them do not match?


Simple. Variances in depth perception.

You will notice however that not one eyewitness puts it south of the Citgo on followup interviews.


I'm sorry, but left and right location is not depth perception. I can look at something from a distance and tell you if it is left or right of a certain object. If I have one hand over my eye and look at the same object, I'd have a hard time with distance.

These flight paths differ left to right from viewpoints in line with the incoming flight path. The viewpoints are not perpendicular to the flight paths, which would affect depth perception and actual placement.


No, but those lines were drawn based upon the perception of the depth of each individual witness interviewed...

If all the witnesses placed it upon the exact same trajectory I would be suspicious.

The majority of the witnesses were either port or starboard of flight 77 as it passed, therefore it would require depth perception to guage the distance at it's nearest point of passing.

With that in mind I would not be surprised at all if for example the person who drew the path which most resembles a V is farsighted.

Regardless they all have placed the plane North of the Citgo.

But yet again, this is off topic as this thread is about the data.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Regardless they all have placed the plane North of the Citgo.


More untruthiness.

Not "ALL" saw the ridiculous NoC claim.

If you ever came here, and stood there by the statioon (it's changed names, you know) you would see that, based on the heading of the airplane, it could NOT have passed North of the station, as claimed.

Also, one look at the Annex building should but that to bed, too.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
77 pages and still no proof the door was opened in flight for a hijack to occur, no proof N644AA was the aircraft responsible for the damage at the Pentagon, no proof the PA is in error, no proof of the object from which RA is measuring. Just more and more proof that those who make excuse for the govt story have nothing better to do than bicker with people they think are nuts, from behind their screen. Sad.

Hey guys, check out the traffic at P4T today! We blew away our last record! Over 3800 reading the forum!

Also, guys, if i wrote the article to make money, i would have posted a direct link to our store on the article when i sent it out to our media contacts, instead i posted our member list and join form. Over 70+ new applicants and they're still coming in! This will be our largest update to the Core Member list ever!

Feeling allitle boxed in are ya? And some claim the Truth Movement isnt growing... right Pepper/Capt Obvious/Throat Yogurt/Mr Herbert/10 different other socks so you can satisfy your obsession with truthers....?

@767Doc

Figured out if both comparators are required for flight yet? Why dont you want to inform your cohorts? Afraid to look it up?

By the way, why would data from an alleged American Airlines aircraft be recording tank density, if American Airlines removed Tank Density from their Frame and put Corrected AOA in its place? Hmmmm....

Funny that Will is trying to correlate Flight Director/pitch data with PA. Many of our pilots got a kick out of that....lol

Enjoy the rest of the week folks!



[edit on 9-12-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I agree, those videotaped on location interviews should have been done immediately after 9/11...

I don't know about you but immediately after 9/11 I was busy angrily calling for the execution of the ragheads which had anything to do those heinous acts...
And even ones which had nothing to do with it.

I was wrong for doing that.

We now have what we have. < shrugs >

It is sad to see so many people throw these eyewitnesses under the bus like they have.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah I know it has changed names since... And before.

And I have been there... Many years prior to 9/11.

WTH was it back then ? Amoco or something ? < scratches head >



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Ok.

You have three scenarios for the FDR data.

1. It was manually generated before the attack, stuffed into an FDR, and planted at the scene.
2. It was generated from a live flight, one that flew north of the light poles and south of the Citgo station, over the Pentagon, and then that data was put into the FDR and then planted at the scene.
3. The data was generated after the attack, put into the FDR, and planted at the scene.

If it was #1, how in the world did they get the debris supposedly hit by the plane incorrect? They would have had the FDR data ahead of time to plant the evidence such as the light poles in the CORRECT location to match the FDR data.

If it was #2, why did they STILL plant the FDR with the incorrect data when they knew it would not match the staged flight path?

If it was #3, why did they generate incorrect data that conflicted with the staged flight path debris?

[edit on 9-12-2009 by Gamolon]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
The majority of the witnesses were either port or starboard of flight 77 as it passed, therefore it would require depth perception to guage the distance at it's nearest point of passing.


So if they got the incoming flight path incorrect due to depth perception, why are they assumed to have the correct position of the jet as being "North of the Citgo"?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by R_Mackey
 



77 pages and still no proof the door was opened in flight for a hijack to occur, no proof N644AA was the aircraft responsible for the damage at the Pentagon, no proof the PA is in error, no proof of the object from which RA is measuring. Just more and more proof that those who make excuse for the govt story have nothing better to do than bicker with people they think are nuts, from behind their screen. Sad.


Sad, indeed. So, so sad.


R_Mackey...have you not understood, yet, what has been posted here?

It is plain as can be....the assertion of the FLT DECK DOOR parameter is bunk. It is hogwash. It is yet another in the epic fails, and the untruths shown by the seekers of "truth" keep stepping on the wanks over and over again.

IN the EAA-mandated 25 hours of SSFDR recording time, Mr. Bals....ermmmm 'Mackey'....for the assertion to hold any validity whatsoever, you would have to show one...just ONE instance of the FLT DECK DOOR 'OPEN' state in the data.

Can you find one instance???

In case someone hasn't been keeping up, here's the reality in the big world of real airlines, and real airline pilots (and all the supporting personnel).

When the airplanes overnight at a maintenace station (and, by the posts conveniently offered here from PFT) we see instances of overnights in LAX and MIA and IAD. ALL major AAL MX facilities.

rob...er....'mackey'....

You see, mechanics do stuff on airplanes overnight, in MX bases. They run the engines. They taxi the airplanes. They can't always keep the airplanes on the gates, they are a busy, busy airline and need to move the equipment constantly. They taxi to the hangars. See? They taxi back in the morning, staging everything for the next day.

Honest...I just don't understand how anyone doesn't understand this simple fact. IF the FDR actually recorded whether the cockpit door was latched or unlatched, then it would have shown up in the data!!!

But, leaving MX aside for a minute...ask the thousands of airline pilots at PFT...oh, there aren't thousands??? Well, try to find one at least, and ask him/her to walk you through a pushback scenario.

For everyone else, here's a typical routine: When we're ready, all doors closed, jetway pulled...the beacon is turned on, this indicates imminient aircraft movement. The F/As are still sorting out the cabin, after the loading process. The headset guy on the ramp calls, "Are you ready?"

We run the BEFORE START checklist. We get clearance to push, ramp control or ATC ground control. We check with the F/As, that all pax are seated. They might still be doing the final head count, but we push, and begin to start during the pushback. AT THIS POINT, the door is still open, the engise are started and running and 'Haaaazaaaah!!' the FDR is operating, too! Start engine #2. Right around then, maybe even later...the F/A has the passenger count. She/he asks, (usually), "Anything else"? No? OK, she/he closes the door at that time. BEFORE we taxi, the ramp dude (dudette) disconnects the headset, they salute (meaning the area is clear of obstacles) and we ensure the FLT DECK DOOR is closed. It is on the AFTER START checklist. We call 'Checklist Complete' AFTER every item is done. THEN we taxi.

We could sit there for five minutes, more, less, whatever, with engines running, and door open. Happens all the time.

SO, there is no amount of bunk that can be spread around by the PFT, it is all nonsense and anyone with any little bit of knowledge or experience knows it.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Yeah I know it has changed names since... And before.

... Many years prior to 9/11.

WTH was it back then ? Amoco or something?


It was Amoco when I moved here, changed to Citgo, now it's 'NEX'.

I don't know how to frame grab a Google-Map image, but go to street view on Joyce Street. (801 S. Joyce Street works well).



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gamolon
 


Because some of the witnesses were on the north side of the jet, and some were on the south side of the Jet as it passed.....

Guess what !

They corobrate each others testimony as to the question of whether the jet was north or south of the Citgo.

But again this is off topic as this thread is about the data.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Just remember it's not about me, or you, or anyone else posting in this thread.

Agreed. But if you are gong to offer your opinion based on your expertise you claim to have, you may want to put a name behind it for some weight so others can verfiy.


On the other hand, is it proper for you to have two different accounts with two different "handles" here, Rob?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well if it was Amoco during the time of the cherry blossom parade in 1988, then my memory is better than even I thought.




top topics



 
12
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join