AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Shrinker]

Quote:

The NTSB used ATC transmissions, Radar data and the FDR to reconstruct the animation. Its in real time. The csv file matches the animation exactly (except for the cover-up of the altimeter being set on descent in the animation as it would have shown too high.. couldnt have that..lol). However, im not surprised you JREFers are unable to grasp that fact. Perhaps you think the ATC instructions, Radar and FDR are all in error by the same amount?

I'm only following the highlights of this debate so I guess my questions here are to both sides, rather than challenges to JDX.

How can he tell that the animation matches the csv exactly? Is he applying his protractor to the screen on every frame and checking it with the csv? How does he know the animation was construced from 3 sources? Wouldn't the animation be from the .fdr only? Wouldn't constructing an animation from three different sources mean that it doesn't match any of them exactly? How likely is it that all three data sources matched exactly? Where idoes he show correlation with the radar data, and the ATC transmissions? If there was a discrepancy, how was that resolved, and was that adjustment added to the animation or not?

[Shrinker]

Argh, how embarrassing. You see what happened there? I got dragged into all the contentious details, and missed JohnDope's crazy circular, inverted figure-of-eight, mobius-strip-like logic.

The csv must be a fake because the NTSB thoroughly checked it against other data. Therefore they must have faked it. Therefore they didn't need to investigate it. Therefore who the hell knows if its accurate. Therefore maybe it was at the right height after all....

[Anti-sophist]

Quote:

The True Altitude of the aircraft at the ":44 Frame" was 480MSL. At 66ft/sec it would take 7.2 seconds longer to hit the pentagon. At this rate if it were low enough to hit the poles, it would have plowed into the ground prior to hitting the pentagon. If it increased its rate (which the accelerometer shows), it would have plowed into the ground sooner.

He is confusing the issue. The above document does NOT debunk his "true altitude" calculation. This calculation is based entirely on defining the instrument error. He is absolutely right when he says the errors I'm talking about fractions of a second (well, as much as 2 seconds). If his true altitude number is correct, he is actually on to something.

The problem is the instrument error of the altimeter has been well established. No one seems to agree with his "true altitude" calculation except for him. Even other CTers have dismissed his altitude calculations as bogus. Basing his entire calculation on a precise altitude at 500 knots and a few hundred feet has been thoroughly debunked, before, and I don't need to do it again.

There is a reason he created his alternate analysis that is based on descent speed, and impact point, trying to determine the height at the lightpoles. That's because not even other conspiracy theorists believe this line of reasoning. Maybe if he shows some intellectual honesty, and admits his "Alternate Analysis for light poles, Working backwards from impact point" (http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=84&st=0&#last) is fundamentally flawed, we can work from there.

The error issues I raise in this document, specfically, attack the methodology he uses in all 3 versions of his "alternate analysis". He then says "It doesn't apply to my true altitude calculation!". Claiming that, by him, is a strawman. I'm not trying to debunk his "true altitude" calculation.. the errors in that calculation rest (almost) entirely on the instrument error.

Quote:

So, in order for Anti-Sophist to have his way.. he needs to get the NTSB to admit the aircraft struck the pentagon at 09:37:51. Or during the :51 "frame".

Only if I agree with your true altitude calculation, is that even remotely true. I don't.

Quote:

He makes a nice attempt to show confusion and chaos as most JREFers do

That's what science above your level of comprehension looks like. FDR data isn't "simple" and pretending it is would be a mistake. He wants to do simple analysis on a complicated data set. Pretending that it "should" be simple, and anyone who wants to make it "complicated" is "showing confusion" is psuedoscience and kookery.

Quote:

The NTSB used ATC transmissions, Radar data and the FDR to reconstruct the animation. Its in real time.

The animation is based on the information in the public domain. I've already established that information is incomplete and has errors compared with the raw FDR data. Why would they release an animation based on information that was still classified/sensitive? The animation is as accurate as the data it is based on... the data it is based on is accurate enough to give an idea of what happened.

No one ever claimed it had accuracy to the foot, or the fraction of the second.

[Anti-sophist]

Heh, this is great.

I don't know who Parmenides is, but he's using my graphs in an argument with JDX. JDX's response to my analysis:

Quote:

The JREF analysis you have quoted is completely inaccurate based on the Flight Data Recorder. They are not the NTSB. They are a bunch of people who spin/omit/ignore and troll Loose Change to cause chaos. That is what they do with their lives. We want answers from the Govt.. not JREFers.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=12995&st=0


And yet here is how all this started:

Quote:

JDX Challenge For JREFers
It seems the JREFer's dont want to post this on their site and debate the facts. Mainly because it shows how Billzilla Calculations have blown up in his face working back from the impact hole.

I have asked many JREF'ers to post this on their site and they refuse. I wonder why... hmmm...

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...p?showtopic=92


I guess you challenge JREFers, and once you get a response, claim you don't care what they have to say. That's one tactic.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

No one ever claimed it had accuracy to the foot, or the fraction of the second.

I don't think anyone over at LC, especially JDX, understands the terms accuracy, precision, or the difference between them.

[Anti-sophist]

Debunking more JDX claims posted recently:

Quote:

Isnt it ironic that a "CT Nutter" is using an official report from a govt agency to show facts, while the so called "skeptics" are trying to poke holes and find all kinds of errors in that official report to hold onto their "theory"?

There are no such things as "facts" when you are taking measurements. Measurements have error, by definition. All measurements have error. Assuming they do not is violating one of the most basic laws of scientific investigation. I'm not "poking holes" or "finding errors" in the data. I'm quantifying them. That's what good scientists whose work is based on measurements do.

Quote:

Now the argument is that the above video could show a descent even though it shows level with the lawn. And I agree. The gradient for the lawn and that section is roughly 300 fpm descent (43MSL at base of poles - 38 feet at pentagon base = 5 feet x 60 seconds = 300 fpm). Being that the above object is clearly level with that front lawn, it means that object at the MOST has a 300 fpm descent rate. That is in direct conflict with the 4000 fpm descent rate already shown on the FDR.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that the 4000 fpm descent you claim is a CALCULATION (not a measurement) based on data that is at least 2 seconds before the plane crashed into the pentagon. Pretending it's true during the last second assumes no acceleration. That is a ridiculous assumption. 4400 fpm was not the descent rate across the lawn. That is not what the FDR shows.

Quote:

For me and the professionals at pilotsfor911truth.org who have done extensive research, we are not convinced and want more questions answered.

Pretending pilots are experts on FDR data is like pretending that cooks are experts on farming.


Not JDX, someone else says:

Quote:

To do that, after 4000 fpm descent rate for the last two seconds, is not an easy thing to do in a B757. (it means... hardly possible)

That's just gibberish. 4000 fpm to 0 fpm, in 2 seconds, requires an acceleration of 2000fpm / second. That's 33 ft/s^2. That's a 2G pull up. (Please keep in mind, I am not saying the plane was level when it hit the pentagon. I'm just saying that it's gibberish to say it was "hardly possible". Determining the true final descent rate is near impossible given all the data).

[apathoid]

Bumped for Mr Doe..

[UnderTow]

Hey Hey, I made it on board here
/yippe

I'll get to the OP (Orignial Post) here shortly (or at least over the next few days I hope)

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Hey Hey, I made it on board here
/yippe

I'll get to the OP (Orignial Post) here shortly (or at least over the next few days I hope)

Welcome...

I assume you are the same UnderTow from the LC forum. As you may know JDX was here for bit, but got snotty with a mod who requested he fill out the registration form correctly. So he was never able to engage in any meaningful discussion about the data in this thread.

I know I was looking forward to it. Hopefully you can participate and help us come to some shared understanding of the data.

Welcome again.

[UnderTow]

That I am.
I was prepraded to discuss with AntiS there, until the LC rules kicked in.
And the rest, as they say, is history.

[Calcas]

Question for everyone re: AA 77.

First, I know it crashed into the Pentagon, regardless of an erroneous interpretation someone wants to make of the FDR.

And while there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts backing it, there is NOT ONE eyewitness that witnesses a "flyover."

Not to mention DNA, physical evidence of the aircraft, etc...the list goes on and on.

My question is what is the Governments explanation for not releasing other survelience videos of the incident? Security reasons? Didn't they confiscate cameras from a Citgo gas station or somewhere? Were the cameras on top of the Pentagon operational?

My theory is that releasing some of the additional videos that captured the event would highlight some security flaws that would not be in the best interest of National Defense.

Comments anyone?

[UnderTow]

Sincerely, since you know all of this already,
You should be commenting elsewhere or in a thread of a different subject.

And, imo, you question has nothing to do with AA77 since you already know everything about it already.

A giant cargo plane lumbered into the Nation's Capitial Airspace, took a nice lazy turn, and then flew unmolested into the HeadQuarters of the Nations Armed Forces. That is one heck of a security flaw that should not be revealed.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Sincerely, since you know all of this already,
You should be commenting elsewhere or in a thread of a different subject.

And, imo, you question has nothing to do with AA77 since you already know everything about it already.

A giant cargo plane lumbered into the Nation's Capitial Airspace, took a nice lazy turn, and then flew unmolested into the HeadQuarters of the Nations Armed Forces. That is one heck of a security flaw that should not be revealed.

More science. More analysis. Less sophistry. Less hyperbole.

I'm eagerly awaitng valid criticism, honest objection, and/or inaccuracies in my original post on this topic.

[UnderTow]

I'll try not to let you down :P

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I'll try not to let you down :P

If you don't mind me asking, what is taking so long?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Calcas

Question for everyone re: AA 77.

First, I know it crashed into the Pentagon, regardless of an erroneous interpretation someone wants to make of the FDR.

And while there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts backing it, there is NOT ONE eyewitness that witnesses a "flyover."

Not to mention DNA, physical evidence of the aircraft, etc...the list goes on and on.

My question is what is the Governments explanation for not releasing other survelience videos of the incident? Security reasons? Didn't they confiscate cameras from a Citgo gas station or somewhere? Were the cameras on top of the Pentagon operational?

My theory is that releasing some of the additional videos that captured the event would highlight some security flaws that would not be in the best interest of National Defense.

Comments anyone?

Calcas, In the FBI's responses to FOIA requests for videos of flight 77, they said they had gathered 85 videos from area security cameras immediately after the attack. On review of those videos, two showed anything relevant: the two parking lot security camera vids that we've all seen. A further FOIA request specifically asked for the release of the Citgo camera tape. That was released a month or two ago. It does not show the Pentagon or the plane.

This post from Rich at the BAUT forum addresses the Pentagon camera issue. He was (is?) a Pentagon employee.

Quote:

Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility (all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such as the one this video came from). What about the surrounding buildings. I've been to the AFFEES gas station on the hill more than a hundred times and can honestly tell you I never noticed a camera pointed towards the Pentagon... that doesn't mean there isn't one, but the filling stations don't seem to be arrainged in such a way as to provide camera coverage of the pumps and the Pentagon.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=173

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

A giant cargo plane lumbered into the Nation's Capitial Airspace, took a nice lazy turn, and then flew unmolested into the HeadQuarters of the Nations Armed Forces. That is one heck of a security flaw that should not be revealed.

Welcome, UnderTow.

What cargo plane was that?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

If you don't mind me asking, what is taking so long?

No, I don't mind.
Well, I want to be complete and don't want to just post some 'I know' statement. And, I'm not working on this full time. You know. I get on when I can and what not. And your post is a 5 page wall of text.

Plus, I'd like to give people a chance to to self-correct first

'cargo plane' is just jargon in certain circles for any aircraft carrying over X gross weight. Whether it's bodies, boxes, or booty doesn't make a difference. It's all cargo.

[Anti-sophist]

Take your time. I'm not particularly worried. Like I said, there may be errors, but I doubt honestly there are any serious or fatal flaws in anything I've said.

My main fear is that what's happening is you are going to find some trivial issues, write up a big long report attacking it on superficial grounds, so that you guys can run around waving it about as "proof". I fear that whatever you are working on is meant to be more useful as propaganda than science. Furthermore, I fear, that even getting the facts and logic correct are not a top priority.

I am, as always, open to correction.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

write up a big long report attacking it on superficial grounds, so that you guys can run around waving it about as "proof".

HAHa, I could say the same thing about your "report".

And I'm not making anything of great length, just making sure I only use source and not opinions. Also, I can't post links yet so that makes it kind of limited.

I like this smilely jaw-dropping.gif but I can't use it b/c I don't have 50 posts yet.

Hm. Maybe I post links with [code]. Nope that didn't work. Oh well that's just randy.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

HAHa, I could say the same thing about your "report".

You might want to start by getting the type of plane right.
Just a suggestion.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Gravy

You might want to start by getting the type of plane right.
Just a suggestion.

And your referring to what?

[Anti-sophist]

From JDX on colboard:

Quote:

The AlliedSignal SSFDR and SSCVRs have performed flawlessly with 100% recovery and no errors in the data. In one particular investigation the NTSB started with a download of the SSFDR contents at 9:00 am and by 1:00 pm of that same afternoon a full animation of the final moments of the flight were available for review.

If that is going to be the quality of the expected argument, stop wasting your time. You are arguing with strawmen.

I'd like to point out, simply, that my document is based entirely on misinterpreting the CSV file and the animation it is based on. No one claimed the FDR had errors. I only claimed that the CSV file is not the full FDR data, in the raw. I explained how the CSV differs from the FDR data.

I hope your arguments are of a higher quality than this tripe.

[Anti-sophist]

Also, UnderTow, it appears that JDX keeps refering to you as the "computer expert". What are your credentials that make you an expert in this particular field? Mine have been stated, so let's hear yours, as well.

Let me repeat, I won't judge your analysis based on your credentials. I'm a firm believer that analysis stands alone, apart from its creator.. and I will attack it, directly. That being said, JDX likes to quote you as his "computer expert" and I'm wondering why he thinks you are an expert.

[UnderTow]

I need to work on my post count here.

You report is tripe. It is so full of misunderstandings, misintterputations, and is total bloat. I can't believe your "waving it about as proof".

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I need to work on my post count here.

You report is tripe. It is so full of misunderstandings, misintterputations, and is total bloat. I can't believe your "waving it about as proof".

Saying it, and demostrating it are two very different actions. Talk is cheap. So far the only thing you've brought up is completely irrelevant and arguing with a point I didn't even make (the very definition of a strawman). That makes you 0 for 1 in even ADDRESSING my arguments, let alone contradicting them. Let me reiterate the main point, again, in plain English: My "report" never stated that the SSFDR data had errors.

I've worked with them enough to know that they are incredibly good at recording exactly what they are told to record, when they are told to record it.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

Also, UnderTow, it appears that JDX keeps refering to you as the "computer expert". What are your credentials that make you an expert in this particular field? JDX likes to quote you as his "computer expert" and I'm wondering why he thinks you are an expert.

I don't know why. The term 'computer expert' certainly could mean just about anything these days. Most likely because through my other work he's found me to be very adept with technology.

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

Let me repeat, I won't judge your analysis based on your credentials. I'm a firm believer that analysis stands alone, apart from its creator.. and I will attack it, directly. Mine have been stated, so let's hear yours, as well.

In like terms, I don't care about your credentials much either, and I don't see why you even put them in your report, since they are pretty loose and easily typed by anyone. Perhaps to add a bit of extra fluff to the report maybe. And since you won't judge me by mine, I feel no reason to state them.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

You report is tripe. It is so full of misunderstandings, misintterputations, and is total bloat. I can't believe your "waving it about as proof".

You're not off to a very good start UT, I hope you can do better.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

And since you won't judge me by mine, I feel no reason to state them.

Fair enough, I suppose. I'll make my own judgements to your competance when I see some analysis. Sounds like a fair arrangement all around.

[beachnut]

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.[/quote]

It looks like it would take more experts on the FDR to figure out how much time after :44 there is before impact.

The plane at :44 recorded data appears to be making another pitch down, pushing the nose down, and show signs of 6000 feet per minute descent again. He could have pushed too hard and then had to level off just in time to hit the posts and then there is just a second before impact in the Pentagon.

It would only take a six degree glide path to hit the ground in 3 seconds from the last data stored if the altitude is 300 to 400 feet above the ground. We all fly with these planes landing at about 3 degrees or less before the final flare, but the fpm are in the 500 range not 6000. But even flaring from 6000 fpm is possible, but where would 6 degrees put 77 from the base of the pentagon at attitude, and why cant the wingtip vortices from the wing rip up the light poles?

Darn CT guys now I have to look at the poles on the ground.

The FDR fits, and puts 77 at the pentagon. Plus we see how bad a pilot this guy was, he had no steady turn. How ever the video some pilot put out remarks how the terrorist should have dived from 7000 feet! Do not fly with that idiot, he will be dangerous, the turn the terrorist did was too loose altitude, guess he did not realize he could not loose that much altitude cause the dam plane glides too well and it is hard to loose altitude when you are a rookie pilot.

So how many seconds do we have to account for so the CT pilots stop misleading people?

Looked up some stuff on FDR, it has to process and compress the data before it is place in storage.

The FDR data matches what happened that day, as backed up with radar witnesses, eye witnesses, and forensic evidence.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

You're not off to a very good start UT, I hope you can do better.

I guess I have to get a couple hundred posts in before I can start acting like other Randi posters hey?
Thanks for you comment anyway I guess /sigh

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I guess I have to get a couple hundred posts in before I can start acting like other Randi posters hey?
Thanks for you comment anyway I guess /sigh

Hey, I'm just trying to help you with that post count thing

What do you think?

[UnderTow]

I'm getting there
/thanks
14 and slacking

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

And your referring to what?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=57

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

'cargo plane' is just jargon in certain circles for any aircraft carrying over X gross weight. Whether it's bodies, boxes, or booty doesn't make a difference. It's all cargo.

I'd post the specific link. But I'm not allowed. But it is right below your question.
/whistle

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I'd post the specific link. But I'm not allowed. But it is right below your question.
/whistle

I'm not a mod, and don't speak for them, but I seriously doubt they will fault you for circumventing this particular rule of posting a link when being directly asked for one by Gravvy and being well within the spirit of the rules. You could just put _'s where the '.'s go.

I am not mod a though, so follow that advice at your risk

[UnderTow]

I only said that b/c Gravy posted a link to his post which is on this very same page, and my reply was the post directly below his. So in like I would've post the link directly to my post like he did. But instead I jabbed at my post limitation again and simple quoted myself. See
/post 17

[celestrin]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

/post 17

You can post links now, so show your stuff.
http://www.thisisalink.com

[UnderTow]

For real!!




Damn, and right at the end of the day. I'll let you all sauce on that. Gotta run. /thanks Admins

[Anti-sophist]

That's an excellent graphic, as it fits perfectly into my explaination of things. My report describes the DAU (or, in this case, DFDAU), asynchronous digital data, and the digital buffering (so-called parameter pool).

Please read the fine print at the bottom. You will notice striking similiarities to what they are saying and what I am saying. This graphic is litterally proving my point for me.

Where did you get it? Is it copyrighted? Can I reproduce it for my report?