Thursday, March 01, 2007

The Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder Once More

This post popped to the top of JREF again and showed once again why Anti-Sophist is so despised by the "no-plane at the Pentagon" Deniers and so respected by Debunkers.

Labels: ,

37 Comments:

At 02 March, 2007 05:00, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

Do you have enough of an IT background to see why this is horseshit?

Refuted

 
At 02 March, 2007 05:22, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Why is her post bullshit?

She should have gone ASAP to the forum at pilotsfor911truth.org and posted it there so those professional pilots can answer any questions she has and so forth about the information they received through the Freedom of Information Act.

Why go to JREF? Why to get a bunk of debunkers to pat you on the back ?

ROFLMAO. Classic stuff.

 
At 02 March, 2007 06:07, Blogger texasjack said...

Swing, don't you go over to JREF and refute it? Oh, that's right, you don't know how to sign up on their forum. ROFLMAO. Classic stuff.

 
At 02 March, 2007 06:58, Blogger Matthew said...

bg and swing dangler,

Putting aside the fact that you obviously don't understand what anti-sophist is saying about the FDR, do you really believe that the data from an FDR found in the wreckage of a plane at The Pentagon proves that the same plane didn't hit The Pentagon?

And that's before consider all the people that saw a plane hitting The Pentagon, the lightpoles, the damaged taxi, the generator, the DNA of the passengers and the plane parts.

 
At 02 March, 2007 07:09, Blogger Alex said...

Why to get a bunk of debunkers to pat you on the back ?

Yes, why talk to a bunk of debunkers when, instead, you can talk to a cot of CT'ers with a duvet of deniers?

Don't even get me started on your "me-jane-you-tarzan" grammatical structure....

 
At 02 March, 2007 07:56, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

how many professional airline pilots are part of "Pilots for Truth?"

Last I heard it was 2.

 
At 02 March, 2007 08:16, Blogger BG said...

Matthew said...

For what Pilots for 9/11 Truth point toward to be accurate, the "black box" found in the Pentagon rubble had to be planted,

OR,

the data reported was fabricated,

OR,

from a different black box than the one recovered at the Pentagon.

 
At 02 March, 2007 08:46, Blogger James B. said...

Is "interpreting black box data" normally a required part of pilot training? I would imagine this is something rather difficult for amateurs.

 
At 02 March, 2007 08:47, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Swing is usually somewhat intelligent with his comments, which is why I cant figure out how he actually believes that the evil cabal he claims caused 9/11 would be dumb enough to plant incorrect FDR data for everyone to find out and discover. Wouldnt it be much better, and easier for the cabal to plant FDR data that matches the sotry?

come on guys...take a step back, realize what you are implying, and move on.

TAM:)

 
At 02 March, 2007 08:47, Blogger BG said...

James,

I agree that having a Pilot's license doesn't, in itself, provide expertise for making the case that Pilots for 9/11 Truth are making.

 
At 02 March, 2007 09:56, Blogger themanfire said...

The "refutation" that bg linked to pretty much amounts to saying "Nuh-uh!!!" and then pointing back at their original claims without engaging the details of what Anti-Sophist said at all.

 
At 02 March, 2007 10:19, Blogger BG said...

themanfire said...

Anti-Sophist did not offer any material arguments.

 
At 02 March, 2007 10:29, Blogger BG said...

Wait!,

There's More:

SGT Lagasse Saw Both Planes

 
At 02 March, 2007 10:40, Blogger themanfire said...

bg, did you read what Anti-Sophist wrote? Seems to me the gist of his post was, "The released FDR data isn't real-time enough to build a real-time model of the last few seconds of flight, because the sampling rate is too infrequent, the data isn't fine-grained enough, and there are significant differences in lag between readings of different sensors." He also discussed time errors and uncertainty as to exactly when the data cuts off.

Sheesh, he even summarized his points at the end for you:

"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."

 
At 02 March, 2007 12:10, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, Swingie, some of us have noticed that your fellow frauds at Pilots for 911 Lies include very few actual pilots. The ones who appear to have some credentials cannot be found and so there is no way of confirming if they really do swallow the fantasist nonsense.
Care to comment?

 
At 02 March, 2007 14:07, Blogger BG said...

Any analysis must account for (or justify ignoring) these issues in order to draw any valid conclusions."

The critical information is:

a) The flight path
b) control and g-force info

Both a) and b) can provide meaningful information (and does provide the evidence for the argument made by Pilots....) regardless of flawed time-sync issues.

 
At 02 March, 2007 15:25, Blogger Alex said...

Hey, Swingie, some of us have noticed that your fellow frauds at Pilots for 911 Lies include very few actual pilots.

Not only that, but pilots have nothing to do with analyzing FDR data. All the pilots can comment on whether or not the flight path as described would be possible to to perform in that model of aircraft, and all the honest ones agree that there was nothing impossible or difficult about the manoeuvres performed by the hijackers. What the Twoofers really need is some Avionics Systems Technicians for 9/11 Truth.

 
At 02 March, 2007 16:42, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

What was the purpose of bumping a post on JREF that was dated Oct. 16, 2006? Was it perhaps to counter the exact thing Sophia suggests in her post, plotting the data and reverse engineering the CV file as was done by a forum member at pilots?

Gentlemen, I suppose I will let John Farmer speak for the data because I'm not an FDR expert. Two, what Sophia is saying doesn't appear to need a refuting. What she didn't do was analyze the CV file from 77, but only examined the NTSB reports online which I skimmed through. I would be more impressed if she plotted the data, analysed the results, and reversed engineered the CV file from the NTSB data that was released.

Do I understand what she is saying? I believe so.

However she does point out the altitude discrepencey and can not account for the flight path that contradicts the 9/11 Commission/light pole path etc.

Now what did Sophia do?

This details, specifically, what flight data recorder data looks like, how it is recorded, how it is decoded, and what the CSV file flying around actually is (and how it was made).

I feel more educated about those things but she fails to debunk anything including 1) flight path, or 2) the altitude.

Case in point...
The remaining seconds..anywhere (?) up to 2 seconds. Not an absolute of course. Does anywhere mean 1000th of a second?
However, apparently she did not analyse the data itself, only provide general information about the CV. She also links to manuals and reports, but not to the actual data which the NTSB released to the pilots. Her assessment is also filled with possibilites, unpredictabilities, and what ifs, which I accept.

Will she be examining the raw data released to pilotsfor911truth.org and made public?

Has anyone at JREF examined, analyzed, and plotted the data from Flight 77?

Apparently not but....
Mathmatics and statics expert in reverse engineering data has analysed the data
and as Sophia said, plotted the data.

And lo and behold, we have someone who as reversed engineered the data as sophia mentions in her post.

John Farmer:

I posted a little analysis I did based on the FDR data and it suggests that my hypothetical was indeed what was done to the data. I’ve demonstrated it to my satisfaction and I’ll leave the rest in your capable hands. My guess is the simulation was done before the data alteration (that is why in the video it flies north of the Citgo station). To be honest, they really did do a sloppy job in the alteration and I would expect better from our civil servants. The guy who did the work should be fired for not doing a sanity check before releasing it.

http://911files.info/blog/?p=58
Maybe that is why Sophia's lecture on CV's was bumped on JREF?

Gentlemen, enjoy that read. I look foward to JREF's or your respond to the analysis. Hopefully I try for the forth time to join that forum and it will work. Can you guys pull some strings for me?

Ahh yes, Texas, that is the reason because I do not know how. I can build corporate webpages for a hobby, build computers, set up blogs, etc in my spare time but I don't know how to register on the forum which I have done numerous times at numerous places using the same process and format.
The third time I've tried to join JREF resulted in no return email to log in with a code. I will try again, however. I don't know how to sign up? Ok. Whatever you say, big guy. Everything including excuses are bigger in Texas, aren't they?

TAM Thanks sort of. ;)
I'm not in the businesses of thinking like the perps. That is speculation of course. Did you listen to the recorded converstation between the NTSB and the truther asking for clarification of the altitude? The guy at NTSB that they did the analysis for another agency, but doesn't name it. Can't discuss it, blah blah. FBI I suspect, but I don't know.

Now the plotting and statistical analysis by Farmer is certainly worth the read and is really the item that needs to be addressed by 'Deniers'.


Pom They have their membership listed with their names, pilot history, experience, etc.

 
At 02 March, 2007 16:57, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Correction to by above post. It does appear Sophia viewed the CV file, but it doesn't appear that she plotted it.

The final retort at this point:

Anit-Sophist is holding onto fractions of a second within 1 frame.

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.

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".

He makes a nice attempt to show confusion and chaos as most JREFers do, but the fact remains that using his logic, the FDR still conflicts with the official story. It doesnt matter what "fraction of the :44 second" the altitude was recorded as it will still need 7 seconds from there for impact.

Unfortunately.. the NTSB reports the impact time at 09:37:45

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20P...Study_AA77.pdf
Bottom of page 2.

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?


As for ground elevation errors. I have shown the factor for errors with the original use of Google Earth cross checked with the Jeppessen Airway Manuals. It is +/- 5 feet in error in the DCA area. The USGS is more accurate. It has been noted, im not surprised you missed it.

 
At 02 March, 2007 18:06, Blogger CHF said...

Pom They have their membership listed with their names, pilot history, experience, etc.

3 airline pilots by my count. Out of TENS OF THOUSANDS in the world.

Pretty sad, Swing.

It seems they're willing to accept anyone who's ever stepped foot in a plane just to reach 25-30 members.

Now for the really funny part.

Eyewitness Experts
"Merc"
"Lyte Trip"


Wonderful.

Researchers
Sofia a.k.a. "Smallstorm"
David Ray Griffin
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.


Booooooring.

 
At 02 March, 2007 18:07, Blogger CHF said...

I posted a little analysis I did based on the FDR data and it suggests that my hypothetical was indeed what was done to the data.

Well if you can't trust Swing to analyze a FDR...who can you trust?

 
At 02 March, 2007 18:29, Blogger shawn said...

Swing, are you an anarchist?

 
At 03 March, 2007 08:59, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

Are you a gigantic piece of shit?

 
At 03 March, 2007 09:43, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Swing wrote: "What was the purpose of bumping a post on JREF that was dated Oct. 16, 2006?"

Someone had started another thread about the FDR recently. Anti-Sophist's thread was bumped in response.

 
At 03 March, 2007 11:34, Blogger apathoid said...


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.


Interpolation does not work here, because the only thing that would really be steady for the last 7 seconds or so would be airspeed, and even that changed. The rate of descent could have certainly increased over the last few seconds(airspeed was increasing as well). If there are a few seconds missing, nothing could really divined from that missing period.

re: 480 MSL. I dont know how accurate it is, but PfT managed to come up with a radar altimeter value for the impact time and it was 273 ft AGL(above ground level; absolute altitude), which is at odds with the 480 MSL claim. But, as I and others have been saying - the 757 pitot-static/air data system is not calibrated for high speed, low altitude flight. The difference between the radalt and pressure altitude is easily explained by things like excessive pneumatic lag and being out of the 757s certified flight regime as far as the static system is concerned.

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".


Not necessarily. If there are, say, 4 seconds missing(273/66)- this could be that the 0937:45 frame actually held data from the previous few seconds.
What goes on inside the FDR is really out of my area of expertise, but IMO we are looking at 2 missing seconds(the CSV has two "empty" frames of data) as well as a very muddy previous 2 seconds in which data was lagging....read A-S' post again if you are confused by my use of the word "lagging".


He makes a nice attempt to show confusion and chaos as most JREFers do, but the fact remains that using his logic, the FDR still conflicts with the official story. It doesnt matter what "fraction of the :44 second" the altitude was recorded as it will still need 7 seconds from there for impact.

Wrong. Explained above...


Unfortunately.. the NTSB reports the impact time at 09:37:45

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20P...Study_AA77.pdf
Bottom of page 2.

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?

The CSV file does not match the animation. The CSV shows AA77 20 miles from the Pentagon and on a different course(see PfTs moaning about the animation being north of the Pentagon, while the CSV would indicate a southern path).

And how exactly is the barometric correction a cover up? Can someone explain this in detail for me, please? The pressure altitude is completely independant of the altimeter setting...this is a fact.

ATC instructions for time correlation to the FDR??? Explain.

As far as primary radar giving a time of impact, please keep in mind that the sweep time for approach radar(like at DCA) is around 4.6 seconds. Sweep times for ARTCC Center radar is 12 seconds.....I'm not saying the official impact time is off by that amount, I'm just saying there is some fudge factor there.

As for ground elevation errors. I have shown the factor for errors with the original use of Google Earth cross checked with the Jeppessen Airway Manuals. It is +/- 5 feet in error in the DCA area. The USGS is more accurate. It has been noted, im not surprised you missed it.

It was PfT who was perfectly happy using Google Earth for elevation, that is, until myself and Billzilla showed the terrain along the flight path using USGS terrain survey in repsonse to Jonny's mickey mouse zero-height overpass elevation theory.

 
At 03 March, 2007 11:41, Blogger apathoid said...

...(see PfTs moaning about the animation being north of the Pentagon, while the CSV would indicate a southern path).

Sorry. That should read "north of the Citgo".

 
At 03 March, 2007 17:10, Blogger Alex said...

About the 480 MSL altitude...why is this surprising? I can't find a listed height for the pentagon, but Dulles airport which is 26 miles away sits at an altitude of 313 feet MSL. If the Pentagon is at the same altitude, this would put flight 77 at about 167 feet above ground. So "at 66ft/sec" it would NOT "take 7.2 seconds longer to hit the pentagon". It would take less than 3 seconds.

I'm guessing swingy doesn't actually know what MSL means.

 
At 03 March, 2007 20:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex/b> Do you mean MSL as in Mean Sea Level? Yes I do know a little about flight instrumentation. My grandfather was a private pilot, trained pilots for WW 2 in an AT6 Texan, was a Flight Examiner, and taught me a thing or two about airplanes. Back in 1986, his credentials allowed our family to get past the civilian checkpoint at NORAD so as to be able to see the full entrance into the mountain. Quite an amazing view, I will say.

So, no I'm not an expert at FDR and CV data, I am familiar with basic pilot instruments, however.

Membership at Pilots Lets remember those are only the pilots who gave permission to be posted in the public membership roles.

Others, please go to the pilotsfor911truth.org and debate those folks there.

Here is the response from the statistician/math/reverse engineering expert on the FDR and CSV. After reading his summary, I now know why Sophia's post got bumped. It was an attempt to try to discredit the information gleaned from the the raw CSV file.
It seems someone at JREF saw the heads up on what was around the corner.
I would expect a sort of pre-emptive attack on the following information:

John Farmer-I’m not sure how trojan horse is used in this context, but bottom line is this. Anyone can reproduce my results for themselves.

1) Longitude changes with time at a constant rate during a time frame when horizontal velocity is known not to be constant.
2) Angular acceleration values do not correspond to observed heading changes.

Both of these are statistical facts that cannot be ignored and are indicative of an altered data set. Both are observed in the *fdr and *csv files. I brought this to Pilots for 911 Truth’s attention, specifically requesting they have someone in the statistics department of a local university to look at my results before using, they opted to use anyways.

Science is all about repetition of results so please do your own analysis and don’t take mine or anyone else’s word for anything. For example, some at Pilots at 911 Truth tell me that angular acceleration is associated with yaw, not a heading change. Not being a pilot, it seems indicative to me that if there is a change in yaw there will be a change in heading. It further makes no sense to me that the relationship for the first half of the flight path is correlated and NOT on the last half of the flight. But I’m a numbers guy, not a pilot, so what do I know?

I have made it clear that I am doing my own work and simply needed to know if the data set was consistent with an northern plane observed by SGT Lagasse and others for which there is video evidence of, or for a southern object which matches up with other video evidence and physical evidence from the scene. At this point, the NTSB animation seems to fit the northern object while the files seem to loosely fit the southern object.

Which is which? I don’t know. Has the government intentionally put out misinformation? Absolutely! I would go so far as to suggest that a lot of the “work” done by internet “investigators” is planted as well to discredit serious reviews. P4T has done a lot of great analysis that I have referred to in my own work. Do I take their work at face value? No! That is why I set out to do my own work, to verify for myself what they had already pretty much established.

All I would suggest is, you can’t escape the fact that there are three different records of the FDR and all three disagree with one another. All three might be wrong, or one might be the “real deal”. That is what we are trying to sort out.
In my humble opinion the *fdr and *csv files are trash. In the end, don’t take my word for anything because I’m not a pilot and as with the lateral acceleration my interpretation may not agree with someone elses. But my textbook says yaw is a change in vertical axis, which results in a change in heading by virtue of a change in the acceleration component. But that is just me.


So, in that regards, it appears the CSV file was altered to give a reading corresponding to the OS flightpath. At least according the source above. You can read more at their forum.

 
At 03 March, 2007 21:22, Blogger shawn said...

Are you a gigantic piece of shit?

It's nice to know the guy who bitches and moans about insults can throw one out when it wasn't needed.

My question was in reference to using V as an icon. V in the graphic novel (unlike in the film) is an anarchist - and is a terrorist in both.

 
At 03 March, 2007 22:20, Blogger Alex said...

Do you mean MSL as in Mean Sea Level? Yes I do know a little about flight instrumentation. My grandfather was a private pilot, trained pilots for WW 2 in an AT6 Texan, was a Flight Examiner, and taught me a thing or two about airplanes.

Then why would you assume that the pentagon is at an altitude of 0 MSL? Your comment about altitude only makes sense if:

a) You don't understand what MSL is.
or
b) You temporarily forgot that MSL and AGL are two different things.

Either way, it's wrong.

All I would suggest is, you can’t escape the fact that there are three different records of the FDR and all three disagree with one another.

I'm assuming you mean three different interpretations, not three different records. We're really going to have to work on your vocabulary.

Three different interpretations might not be significant depending on the circumstances. The relevant factors are:

1) The source of these interpretations (ie. who conducted the studies)
2) The methodology employed in the analysis.
3) The accuracy of the source data.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, FDR's are not suitable for forensic investigation. They provide a general overview when an accident occurs, but are not intended to accurately report every single minor detail at real-time rates.

Add to that the fact that the Pilots for 9/11 Lies are a politically/ideologically motivated organization, and you end up with results that are near worthless, especially when no credible groups have come forward to confirm or endorse these results.

Add to THAT the fact that hundreds of witnesses are on record as having seen an aircraft hit the pentagon, AND the fact that pieces of flight 77 and it's passengers were found on the scene, and you have a study that isn't worth the electrons it's composed of.

 
At 04 March, 2007 05:09, Blogger apathoid said...

The Pentagon lies at about 35' MSL, nearby Reagan National is at about 15' MSL.
That leaves the 480 MSL at about 445' AGL, about 180' higher than the radalt altitude. Smoking gun?.... Hardly.

About PfffTs reverse engineering "expert", I have yet to see his professional credentials and current job title. I'm thinking this guy is most probably not an engineer...much less an EE; much, much less a professional researcher who happens to be an EE; much, much, much less an FDR expert who happens to be a professional researcher who is also an EE.

Anti-Sophist has given his degree, current job, and relevant experience. None of PfffTs "researchers" have done this because they are in no way qualified to anlayze the CSV, much less the raw file. Heck, I'm an avionics technician, and I'm in no way qualified to analyze this material because I dont have experience, nor the proper training to do so. Analyzing FDRs isn't something that can be learned from Google.

Here is a discussion from the old Loose Change forum in which a professional FDR expert weighs in on the CSV.

..Simply put, an error of several hundred feet in pressure altitude is very possible at such speeds; without access to certification and test data for the aircraft you can't make any statements in more detail.

Afraid its not a complete refutation, but the data doesn't really support any conclusion in any direction. I would say there could be an error of as large as 500ft at such high speeds.


Just what we've been saying....

I have to say, its amusing that these people think gummint faked the FDR, but left in literally dozens of smoking guns(the plane being 450' above the Pentagon, 20 miles away from the Pentagon, and on a different heading than the damage path)...but only they are smart enough to see them. Give. Me. A. Break.

 
At 04 March, 2007 12:13, Blogger Alex said...

The Pentagon lies at about 35' MSL, nearby Reagan National is at about 15' MSL.

Damn. Guess I screwed the pooch on that one. I was under the impression that DC is fairly flat. Thanks for the info!

 
At 04 March, 2007 16:07, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Shawn,

Are you a gigantic piece of shit?


This is the problem with 9-11 truthers. They never back up their claims with facts. All they do is call names.

 
At 05 March, 2007 11:00, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This is the problem with 9-11 truthers. They never back up their claims with facts. .

Well if you sound like one, dumb as one, smell like one then you probably are one.

 
At 05 March, 2007 14:42, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

why would only 3 airline pilots (out of tens of thousands) be part of Pilots for twoof?

I must say that number does seem rather small.

 
At 06 March, 2007 06:23, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

CHF, do mean 3 pilots who have made their name public?

 
At 06 March, 2007 06:36, Blogger CHF said...

Gee I guess I am forgetting to add the thousands of pilots who don't speak out against the OS.

But I'm not sure why I would count them when I'm tallying up those who oppose the OS.

Care to explain how you count people who don't oppose the OS as being against the OS?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home