AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by mcMike

Indeed. That proves that the last frame is at least impact-3 seconds.

if the system works the way you think it does based on the data you see

but the plane can not crash at the last data point of 173 PA

so yes at least 2 or 3 seconds are missing, not recorded yet or being processed when the crash took place

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by beachnut

I was trying to say the position could be off by what we see, yet the gyros are good.

My navigator load the our INS with 17 south instead of 7 south, we were, 600 miles off, he got pissed and dumped it. he could of left it running and used it as a rough offset to back up his cel nav,,,,,,,,,

so if it is possible to have the nav system align offset and stay, and the pilots either entered the beginning start point 20 miles in error, but they are not using the internal navigation but the vor radio nav aids which they have to use anyway, why waste time on your computer nav this would account for the 20 mile offset

I know the nav system can be set up at the wrong initial point, my crew did it, now is that possible with this system?

Somewhat possible, but not 20 miles. When you align the the IRUs, the latitude is sensed(by the earths rotation - thats why you cant align an IRU in flight) automatically. After alignment, the present position is entered via the FMS. If the entered position is off by more than one latitude degree from either the last known position, or the sensed latitude - you'll get an error.

Quote:

I understand what you have on the go no go, and you are correct but it does no preclude setting up the wrong inial point in the nav computer, the gyros do not care, that much

Each departure gate has an IRS lat/long to make life easier. But, if the pilots fat fingered the keypad - and the entered position is off by less than a minute - the IRUs wont know or care. How far is one latitude minute. I thought it was about a mile, but maybe its more.

Quote:

our INS need 20 minutes running in one spot to work best, and yes, when you set it up 600 miles wrong, there are some problems and error modeling in the software i imagine will not work very well but the ins gyros are still good for attitude.

Yep, the principles are bacially the same between INS, AHRS, and IRS. The difference is mainly in the gyros(laser gyros over mechanical gyros) and general moderization. IRS still needs updating from navaids, as it can drift greatly - just as INS does. The vertical gyros for the ADI do not need aligment and can still be used even if the IRU has failed("ATT" mode I described earlier).

Quote:

and I think it bears more time to investigate, and I do agree with your chart, it is the chart and I do not believe it precludes the pilots setting or accepting a 20 mile offset error in the nav system

does this make sense

You also have to consider that the 757 EHSIs have moving map displays with the navaids/airports/runways overlaid. The pilots wouldve noticed Dulles being 20 miles away while they were parked at the gate!

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic4Sure

What would be the chances of a Pentagon gas station employee reporting exactly what the plane did from the Navy Annex on, being exactly the same thing that the plane did in the NTSB animation did?

Anti-sophist you seem to have it all figured out, maybe you can figure out those numbers.

Just curious have you spoke with any witnesses who saw the plane?

Did you know about the witnesses who described a plane that looked nothing like an American Airlines? Have you spoke with them?

I take it you've never bothered to research the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?


http://www.rpi.edu/~verwyc/oh13.htm

Quote:

However, there is only a small positive correlation between self-confidence and accuracy of report.
Large scale analysis of eyewitness accuracy indicates that eyewitnessess are only about 80% accurate under good circumstances.

Quote:

The Misinformation Effect: Questions asked can often contribute to the distortion of a memory.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Quote:

Confidence is neither a useful predictor of the accuracy of a particular witness nor of the accuracy of particular statements made by the same witness.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._98709930/pg_1

Quote:

It is interesting to note that the previous literature predicts that most of the eyewitness testimony should have accurately recalled the central details of the Titanic's final plunge. However, both the Senate and the Board of Trade investigators found results that were in direct contrast with current forensic evidence. ... Most of the eyewitnesses' testimony (15 eyewitnesses out of 20) is consistent with current forensic evidence...

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by apathoid

You also have to consider that the 757 EHSIs have moving map displays with the navaids/airports/runways overlaid. The pilots wouldve noticed Dulles being 20 miles away while they were parked at the gate!

I would be using the old junk

but then I did skip the new computer in the tanker too, but it did not save time

right, there would be errors not modeled in the filters, and the nav system could be upset.

you have the book answers for today, my ideas are using AF INS, from the late 70s

Still need to know where the position comes from.

So you plotted about 20 miles offset, that is about where it ended up with me.

I agree with the map stuff, some thing has to line up any integration of the HSI display,,

The errors would not be as great with an east west error in present position as would be a north south error, just thinking about errors in nav, but even that is my bs shot at nav,

I still think it is possible to set it up 20 miles off, and I agree with your stuff, wonder if you can have an old fashion HSI on the monitor and use the jet like a navy guy would!

I am just brainstorming about that 20 mile error, I know you are telling me I can't but gee I have told my kids the same and sure enough they prove me wrong and do it, red flags and all!

so I can imagine my 20 mile error, and not caring about it, or a pilot using radio nav aids, he has to anyway

you do not need the map, you do not need the computer nav

you can use the radio aid you have to use to do the departure, and if you have radar vectors you just need a compass

and even if you were 20 miles off you could fly INS direct to LA or SF from DC and center would never know you had messed up your ins, cause you would be on vectors for arrival or radio nav aids well before you were 100 miles out, and we are only 20 off

the pilot could know the airport, no need for computer crap

just my stupid pilot ideas, sorry for the crap but I feel even stronger on the 20 mile error on takeoff was a mistake or known, or ignored, or not known as a possible explanation on the error in the first place (the old INS would never get on the real position if you started that far off you would have to do some work helping it)

then thinking about KAL 007 messing up their way points or nav system and my own nav off, as in a real person as the nav, by 600 miles, it is 600 17 south vs 7 south, or so

sorry to go on, guess you did not say it couldn't happen just unlikely

I bet I am wrong but I want to know more before I let it rest

so can you use the HSI display without the nav map, and just set it up with vor course and bugs and lubber lines etc

and like you said INS errors would be detected by the software cause you are not really on the part of the earth you say you are and things happen different but I was thinking that those errors are more evident in a N-S mistake

thanks for the book answers, good job

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by apathoid

*snip*
How far is one latitude minute. I thought it was about a mile, but maybe its more.*snip*

It is exactly one nautical mile. And a nautical mile is about 1900 meters. A US mile is about 1500 meters.

Hans

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by beachnut

I am just brainstorming about that 20 mile error, I know you are telling me I can't but gee I have told my kids the same and sure enough they prove me wrong and do it, red flags and all!

I didnt say you can't! Its just that this is something I've dealt with before and have hands-on experience with. I even know a sooper special trick that the pilots dont know about that 'fixes' 99% of the align disagree errors. However, my trick only works against the last known position and not the sensed latitude.

Quote:

then thinking about KAL 007 messing up their way points or nav system and my own nav off, as in a real person as the nav, by 600 miles, it is 600 17 south vs 7 south, or so

I'm not familiar with this incedent, but if it was an overwater flight, INS/IRS is susceptible to drift over time. Depending on latitude - I think the max error is can be as much as 10 longitude minutes and 5 latitude minutes. Thats pretty substantial.

Quote:

sorry to go on, guess you did not say it couldn't happen just unlikely

Quite correct.

Quote:

so can you use the HSI display without the nav map, and just set it up with vor course and bugs and lubber lines etc

Yep.

Quote:

and like you said INS errors would be detected by the software cause you are not really on the part of the earth you say you are and things happen different but I was thinking that those errors are more evident in a N-S mistake

If you take a 757 and move it along a parallel of latitude 5000 miles or so, you can still align the IRS 5000 miles off, but you have to stay within 1 minute!

Quote:

thanks for the book answers, good job

Notta prob.

ETA: Well, I've read up on this a little and the acceptable align disagree is 1 latitude minute and/or 1 longitudinal minute for the last known(stored) position while IRS is in alignment *AND* (cosine of entered lat - cosine of computed lat) > .01234
(sine of entered lat - sine of computed lat) >.15 ..for the sensed position after alignment finishes.

Time to crunch some numbers

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

It is exactly one nautical mile. And a nautical mile is about 1900 meters. A US mile is about 1500 meters.

Hans

Ah. Thanks!

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by mcMike

Did I understood this correctly? Nobody knows (not even NTSB) when the last frame was recorded prior to impact? They just adjusted the timescale in FDR-data to match T-1 or T-0 before impact?

If this is true then there can be even 5 seconds missing from FDR and we nor JDX can't say or analyse anything for the last altitudes, accelerations etc. So the whole FDR-thingy is pointless for any argument?

The :44 frame was the last completed frame, that's why it was included in the CVS file (remember, the CVS file was meant to generate plots). The :45 and :46 frames were both partial frames. According to the NTSB, at some point during the :45 frame, there was a temp. power loss, and when it came back up, it regained synch to start the :46 frame, before then stopping completely.

JDX and them would like you state that the :46 frame is impossible because the NTSB said the impact time was at "9:35:45". We have no idea how accurate or precise that time is, nor how accurate and precise the CVS times are. They seem to think that the :44 frame started at :44.00000 according to Naval Observatory. That is, of course, gibberish.

Relative to the CVS file (which shows each frame starting on each new second), the likely time of impact is somehwere in the :46-:47 range.

[uk_dave]

You mean to say.....after 8 pages of impressively dense and detailed and incomprehensible (to me) posts, it comes down to an arguement over 1 SECOND?

[UnderTow]

Firstly, I would like to apologize to Anti-Sophist for dragging him about over and over again over and over. I'm sure it was a test of his patience and thanks Anti-S for just not telling me to STFU.

Now to clarify that I know what you've been saying and that we agree on the "implied time stamp" of a 717 frame I will make up an example.
If a 64wps frame is being recorded and starts recording at 0.000 seconds with the first word/parameter being recorded is Time (and let's say the value for this Parameter is 12:00:00 ).
A parameter which is placed in the 8th word of this frame has an implied timestamp of +0.125 seconds from the beginging of the frame. Let's say this parameter was Vertical Acceleration. Therfore, VertAcc was recorded to the FDR at 12:00:00.125 FDR Time.
Continuing, every 1/8 of a second, a new value (updated) is placed in the frame but still correlates to the value of the first word (which was Time 12:00:00) until the 64 word frame is complete and a new updated value for Time is placed in word one and the process starts over.

Now, given a word/value/parameter which we do not know the location of within the frame. It could be placed anywhere within that second. Therefore all we can say is that during that second, value X was recorded.
Also, given two different value/parameters like Altitude and Speed, even if they are placed next to each in adjacent words within the frame, thier time of recording within the FDR would still be 1/64 seconds apart. But they still were recorded within/during the time of the overvall frame of 1 second (maybe at 3/64 or maybe 60/64).

Is all of this agreeable?
If so and given an understanding that a parameter required to be recorded 8 times a second must be placed evenly throughout the frame and that a parameter recorded only once per second could be anywhere within that second.
Would you agree that the following table is correct?

(Additional Note: For each subsecond record, they must differ by at least 1/64 of second since 2 parameters can not occupy the same word unless thier resolution is small enough to only need part of the whole 12bit word. Therefore, if VertAcc is exactly recorded at 2/8ths, then LongAcc/LatAcc would both be either before or after this value/parameter/word)

[Anti-sophist]

That table is correct as long as you understand that each sample has a time error range equal to to it's sample rate. In other words, the altitude parameter is placed in 0.000-0.124 row, but the altitude's real error range is 0.000-0.999 (1 second range, equal to the sample rate). Similarly, the first V-Acc could have been recorded anytime between words 1-8 (0.000 to ~0.124), and all the subsequent V-accs would shift accordingly.

It can be misleading, in this format, to most people, who assume that the altitude, for example, was recorded at 0.000.

With that understanding, that explaination is correct.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

The :44 frame was the last completed frame, that's why it was included in the CVS file

This error has been propagating for a while, so I'll say something. It's "CSV" file, as in "comma-separated values."

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by CurtC

This error has been propagating for a while, so I'll say something. It's "CSV" file, as in "comma-separated values."

Yes, I'm well aware. The problem is I used CVS(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Versions_System) every day at work, and so I'm repeating it out of rote habit. I've editted alot of my posts to fix it, but I've missed some.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

It is exactly one nautical mile. And a nautical mile is about 1900 meters. A US mile is about 1500 meters.

Hans

On nm = 2000 yards = 6000 feet. One statute (US) mile = 1609 meters.

DR

[CurtC]

The way that I always remember it is that a nautical mile is about 15% longer than a statute mile.

And an arc-minute of latitude, or of longitude around the equator, is right at one nautical mile. For longitude not on the equator, you multiply by the cosine of the latitude.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

You mean to say.....after 8 pages of impressively dense and detailed and incomprehensible (to me) posts, it comes down to an arguement over 1 SECOND?

Or two. Yes.

Unfortunately, 1 or 2 seconds is an absolute eternity when we are talking about events that happened 1200 feet apart on an object traveling 500mph.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

It is exactly one nautical mile. And a nautical mile is about 1900 meters. A US mile is about 1500 meters.

Hans

nautical mile converts to:

• 1.852 km (exact)
• 1.150779 mile (statute)
• 2025.372 yard
• 6076.1155 feet
• 1 arc minute (within 0.2 percent)

I know we use 6000 feet for a nm

guess it depend on who we are

[UnderTow]

I just want to get this out.

I have worked the FDR binary to find repeating sync words which mark the beginging of a 1 second frame. (I can explain this later)

If my anaylsis is right, I found the following whole flight periods in the data file.

Working backward in time from the Pentagon flight the flight periods are:
86min 20sec (PentFlight)
273.6 min
260.6 min
233.13 min
251.9 min

There are more previous to this but I stopped there for now.
And OMG what happened to the color scheme here :O

[Anti-sophist]

So you found the 4 sync words you expected? Are the frame lengths as expected? The time of the flight fits.

Beyond that, I have no idea what you hope to accomplish w/o the data frame descriptor. Even reverse engineering a single parameter would be a borderline miracle.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

And OMG what happened to the color scheme here :O

phew, I thought it was me , I'm glad it's back to normal.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

There are no anomalies. This is a lie. The anomalies are solely in the minds of people who cannot interpret the data properly. That's the unfortunate reality. This is like a doctor trying to explain why witchcraft isn't going to cure cancer to a voodoo priest.

So why then is there no explanation given and why do we need to rely on some anonymous guy on the internet for the explanation versus the NTSB or Flight Data companies?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Skeptic4Sure

So why then is there no explanation given and why do we need to rely on some anonymous guy on the internet for the explanation versus the NTSB or Flight Data companies?

Because normal people look at all the evidence and have correctly concluded AA77 hit the Pentagon. I hate to tell you this, but much of life is biased towards people who think rationally and logically. Those of you who are unable to, face a struggle. I believe if a legitimate person or organization were to present a detailed hypothesis backed by detailed analysis and supporting evidence, agencies like NTSB would be forced into reviewing the case. But the ranting lunacy found on CT sites hasn't come close. There is no reason for them to spend a nickel more. Sorry.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic4Sure

So why then is there no explanation given and why do we need to rely on some anonymous guy on the internet for the explanation versus the NTSB or Flight Data companies?

Because you aren't even asking rational questions. The questions you pose are ill-formed and betray your ignorance on the issue. I'd offer you my help to actually get answers to these issues, but you aren't interested in answers. You are interested in finding the conclusions you already know to be true.

They aren't going to waste time answering such poorly formed questions, because in order to answer they'd have to teach you all the things I am trying to teach you. You'd just chalk it up to "sowing confusion" and "misinformation". At the end of the day I think you need to accept the fact that this **** is not simple. In real life a magical CSV doesn't show up at your doorstep, and it has all the answers to all the precisions. Explaining how they do what they do is long and complicated. I know you guys want simple answers that make sense, but as some point you need to learn the material in full to be able to fully understand it.

[uk_dave]

Is Undertow conceding that OS's paper was not full of the errors UT originally came here to trumpet?

[UnderTow]

Depends on which part your talking about. I still find fault in some sections, but they are minor (ambigous, terminology, or referencing a CSV fault in a sentence discussing the FDR) and dont' affect the overall summary except for what I will state now.

The CSV (with it's inherrent 1sec window of error for those parameters recorded once per second) and the Graphs are both generated from the FDR. The CSV is generated for easy viewablitity and over-all (greater then several seconds) study but is not subsecond accurate without the specific locations of the parameters within the FDR. The Graph doesn't really matter imho.

To comment on his Final Summary:

Quote:

0) Absolute Time Error
It’s probably safe to assume +/-2 seconds of error in the absolute time
False Claim: The FDR couldn’t have recorded 9:44:46, the official time of the crash is 9:44:45!

I don't know where this claim comes from and I have never stated such. But this paper is directed at 'them' and not 'me' so who knows. This Time value is there, therfore it was recorded. It's relation to real-world time before it was sync'd during the investigation is up for grabs. Time sync within the plane is most definately very strict (microseconds?).

Quote:

1) Instrument Error

I haven't even looked at this here so I don't know. I'm sure there is a different multi-page thread discussing it somewhere.

Quote:

2) Intra-frame Time Error
False Claim: The aircraft’s speed at 09:37:14.00 was 305.5 knots!

Again, don't know where this claim comes from. The 1 Second Zone I have always assumed is just that.

Quote:

3) Digital Buffering Latency
[data] from the Air Data Computer, has an enormous error range, in the vicinity of 2 seconds, although 1.5 seconds is probably a safe estimate (0.5s for the buffering latency, and 1s for the uncertainty of when the sample was actually recorded)
False Claim: The worst case scenario for the 9:14:14 frame’s airspeed is 9:14:14.00, then!

I don't know what claim is being referenced here either. But I find fault in suggesting that a parameter 'recorded' during one second (after Time.00) would be a value from Time-1.5 seconds.

Quote:

4) Simultaneity Issues
You cannot assume any two samples occurred at the same time. Any analysis that combines two columns of numbers is risking using numbers that did not happen at the same moment in time, for a calculation that assumed they did.

False Claim: The altimeter data shows you’d need positive acceleration to hit the light poles, the accelerometer is showing negative acceleration! (Did you account for the +/- 2 seconds, potentially, between those two separate data points?)

Still unsure what Claim he is referring to but whatever. The +-2seconds is also false for parameters that appear within the same frame/row of the CSV unless he's referencing his Absolute Time error which is not relevant to this Claim.

Quote:

The Bottom Line on Error
a full error range of 3 seconds

I still find this ridiculous within the scope of the parameters most concerned. Time,Accleration(s),Speed,Alititude, etc. If we are talking about unimportant parameters like a Seat Belt Light, well who cares. Every instance I have seen of Word location for the most crucial required parameters places them within the first 50 words. In our subject's 256wps frame this means these crucial mandatory parameters are recorded to FDR within .2 seconds of our .00 Time Stamp. For instance, TWA800's AirSpeed was located in Word 38. If this placement is similiar in AA77's Frame, AirSpeed would be recorded at +00.15 seconds.
But again, we don't know 'exactly' so there can be no real conclusion to any argument over this I suppose.

And finally (since I just realized I never even got to his Summary) let me state my view on that.

Quote:

Summary
1) The FDR did not record the final moments of Flight 77. There is up to 2 seconds missing.
2) The CSV file is not meant to be analyzed forensically, it is meant to be plotted.
3) The CSV data is not raw FDR data. It is not even serial bitstream data.
4) The CSV data is not meant to be broken down into 1/8th seconds and analyzed.
5) The CSV data, properly interpreted, says that there are N samples during this particular frame.
6) Without the frame description, we do not know when in a frame any one sample occurred.
7) Without the frame description, we have lost the measurement timestamps, so the time a particular word was recorded does not necessarily equate with when it was measured.
8) Given these time-shift errors, any mathematics that uses more than one data-point runs the risk of assuming that two numbers occurred at the same time, when they didn’t.
9) Many of these errors can be corrected, greatly, with the frame descriptor.
10) Any analysis must account for (or justify ignoring) these issues in order to draw any valid conclusions.

1) The FDR will record data (or 'something') up until it is detached from all power. The CSV does not show the final 2 seconds other then a Time value. Whether partial data or no data occurs in the FDR we can't say. To say that the FDR stopped recording 2 seconds Before impact, error.
2) Agreed on the first part in regards to the extreme hundreths of a second we keep talking about. The 2nd part I don't agree with but if he wants to say that s'okay I guess.
3) Of course
4) Except for those parameters which are recorded N per second.
5-7,9) Can't say I ever disagreed with these
8) I only assume they're recorded during the same second. But to think that the Altitude and Speed Measument could differ by 2 seconds in plane time, I don't think so.
10) Duly noted where applicable.

I will concede that is not Full of errors, but it does have some. Whether or not it matters to the us vs them crowd (or even AntiS) I don't know.

That is all for now.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Is Undertow conceding that OS's paper was not full of the errors UT originally came here to trumpet?

I'm not trying to be a butt-hole or anything, but why didn't uk-dave ask me.
Nevermind, I can imagine his reply to this already. "I didn't think he'd be back.."

ack

I'm not trying to be a butt-hole or anything, but why didn't you ask me.
Nevermind, I can imagine your reply to this already. "I didn't think you'd be back.."

ack

[jessicarabbit]

For the sake of humour if nothing else please listen to this phonecall where someone from pilotsfor911truth.org rings the NTSB regarding the anomolies in the flight path. They say we cannot elaborate and don't even recognise that 77 is the plane that hit the pentagon.

[jessicarabbit]

heres the link

[jessicarabbit]

http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/...a_recorder.htm

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by jessicarabbit

For the sake of humour if nothing else please listen to this phonecall where someone from pilotsfor911truth.org rings the NTSB regarding the anomolies in the flight path. They say we cannot elaborate and don't even recognise that 77 is the plane that hit the pentagon.

http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/...a_recorder.htm

This, is the CT world, is what passes for research. An anonymous person calls "The NTSB" and starts asking questions. When they don't get the answers they expect - it becomes part of the conspiracy.

These are the same folks who sent an email to a friend of someone who works at Boeing and were shocked that "Boeing" refused to cooperate.

[jessicarabbit]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

This, is the CT world, is what passes for research. An anonymous person calls "The NTSB" and starts asking questions. When they don't get the answers they expect - it becomes part of the conspiracy.

These are the same folks who sent an email to a friend of someone who works at Boeing and were shocked that "Boeing" refused to cooperate.

Its good though. The guy who signed off the report didn't even remember 77 hit the pentagon. These people investigate plane crashes, its a good job they don't have to do important stuff.

[beachnut]

the FDR data is the fact, the video map and flight path on that map are not sync exactly

not sure why, but then you would have to read this thread to find out why

Inforwars does not have any facts useful for this thread.

The phone call by infowars showed how dumb the caller for infowars was. The first term comes out of his mouth is wrong.

Infowar, what a hideout for CT

300 post behind, and infowar phone call proves what?

What about the missing data?

How many seconds are missing due to the crash into the pentagon?

These are where the thread needs help, not some real dumb call that proves infowars is a poor research place.

[mcMike]

Originally Posted by jessicarabbit

Its good though. The guy who signed off the report didn't even remember 77 hit the pentagon. These people investigate plane crashes, its a good job they don't have to do important stuff.

Maybe you could check out NTSB investigations database and see how many there actually are.

Start here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp

Try to imagine the poor guy in the phone when some "Jeff" just calls and starts asking about flight this or flight that. There are about 5000 incident reports from 2001 to 2006. You think he should remember every report and flight?

Ok. Flight 77 and Pentagon might have been top priority but since 9/11 there are 2152 reports with Fatal-status alone. Plus almost 3000 non-fatal.

I was kinda impressed he actually did call back to some individual.
And wasn't Flight 77 FBI's investigation in the first place? NTSB just did the work to them. They are in no position to release any information about other than those spesifically requested with FOIA.

[jessicarabbit]

Originally Posted by mcMike

Maybe you could check out NTSB investigations database and see how many there actually are.

Start here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp

Try to imagine the poor guy in the phone when some "Jeff" just calls and starts asking about flight this or flight that. There are about 5000 incident reports from 2001 to 2006. You think he should remember every report and flight?

Ok. Flight 77 and Pentagon might have been top priority but since 9/11 there are 2152 reports with Fatal-status alone. Plus almost 3000 non-fatal.

I was kinda impressed he actually did call back to some individual.
And wasn't Flight 77 FBI's investigation in the first place? NTSB just did the work to them. They are in no position to release any information about other than those spesifically requested with FOIA.

This Jeff character is a legend. He rang Davin Coburn after that interview with charles goyett and called him out on everything. He phoned the FBI several times. Theres nobody he won't ring.

[Anti-sophist]

Just want to say I've been moving over the past few days, and I'll get to Undertow et al. once things settle down. Another day or two.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by jessicarabbit

This Jeff character is a legend. He rang Davin Coburn after that interview with charles goyett and called him out on everything.

I haven't heard that one, but I did hear the one he did a few months ago where he called Benjamin Chertoff (of Popular Mechanics). Ben was polite, but was confused about why some dipwad had just called his office about 9/11 while he was in the middle of another task.

I wouldn't call that one legendary, more like "pathetic."

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jessicarabbit

This Jeff character is a legend. He rang Davin Coburn after that interview with charles goyett and called him out on everything. He phoned the FBI several times. Theres nobody he won't ring.

He is a rude nut case. No facts, no brain, no idea on FDR, no idea on how the ground map on the video lines up with the flight path.

This telephone call is not helping this thread.

If you have information on the FDR about how many seconds of data are missing due to the crash and how the aircraft systems work, it would be appreciated.

To lend any credence to this harassing telephone call is ludicrous.

If you were familiar with putting data from the FDR into a video, many times there is no ground map associated with the video.

In flight 77 case, it would be interesting to know how they matched the flight path with the ground map? The final heading of the FDR matches 9/11.

Infowars as a source; as good as making up evidence.

[jessicarabbit]

Originally Posted by CurtC

I haven't heard that one, but I did hear the one he did a few months ago where he called Benjamin Chertoff (of Popular Mechanics). Ben was polite, but was confused about why some dipwad had just called his office about 9/11 while he was in the middle of another task.

I wouldn't call that one legendary, more like "pathetic."

The point of the call was that James Meigs had pretended Chertoff was a junior researcher on the 911 project. During the call he admitted he was in fact a senior researcher.

The call did its job beautifully.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by jessicarabbit

The point of the call was that James Meigs had pretended Chertoff was a junior researcher on the 911 project. During the call he admitted he was in fact a senior researcher.

The call did its job beautifully.

Yep. Really opened a chink in the armor of the NWO/Illuminati/Lizard People there. Next: proof that the birdshot Dick Cheney uses is made in Germany!

[jessicarabbit]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Yep. Really opened a chink in the armor of the NWO/Illuminati/Lizard People there. Next: proof that the birdshot Dick Cheney uses is made in Germany!

It proves popular mechanics lie, hence they are discredited.

Keep up the sarcasm gravy.