| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | With a hat tip to David James....
A rare pic of Johnny D at work. |
lol.. you're like a sniveling little side-kick wannabe. Do you even respect yourself? Its obvious not many others do...
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to offer a warm welcome to my new UK friends who signed up over at our forums. Its great to have you. We look forward to seeing more of you there sharing research.
Cheers!
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: |
I said 3 Gs under certain conditions. You asked how a plane diving at 4000fpm could go to 0fpm in 1 second. The answer is a 3G pullup. You never proved those numbers were actually correct, and I am positive that they are not. You did not account for the time-slip error in the altimeter nor the fact that CSV file runs out of data well before the actual crash-time. When you correct for those mistakes, you get an upper bound of close to 3 seconds for the pull-up to occur. That lowers the necessary G-Force down into the 1.66 range.
|
Its obvious A-S still doesnt know the reported impact time. A-S, please study the NTSB reports before you make more of a fool out of yourself. The NTSB reports the impact time as 09:37:45. Many parameters record up to that time. Vertical accelration is one of them.. recorded 8 times per second in that frame. Altitude is recorded once per second. The last recorded altitude was 173' (180 in the animation based on the RAW FDR data, Radar and ATC.. as you see the altimeter in an analog fashion) and was recorded 1 second prior to reported impact.. it was recorded in the :44 time frame (unless you think the recorder stopped recording at :42 and the NTSB time stamped the last recorded altitude at :44. I wouldnt be surprised if you thought that...lol.. dont disturb your theory now..  ). And even if you did think that. .you still need 3 MORE seconds based on current trends. You need 6-7 seconds to account for the descent from 480MSL to 38MSL with a 66ft/sec vertical speed. If you think you only need 3 seconds.. then you also think the vertical speed increased to 132 ft/sec in the last 3 seconds and that is almost 8000 fpm at less than 500 feet from the ground..  yarite... lol (i wouldnt be surprised if you thought this as well.).
Also..the vertical accelration accounts for the changes in vertical speed directly in the csv file as shown. It does not account for the last second :44-:45 as being shown less than 1 G at 4000 fpm descent which conflicts with the DoD video showing something level across the lawn (i see you havent found out the lawn gradient.. so i'll tell you.. its 300 fpm for that time/speed calculation). All changes in descent rates prior to that are accounted for in terms of vertical accelration. I have told you this many times. I dont expect you to get it now.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=97&vie w=findpost&p=4325209
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: |
Its obvious A-S still doesnt know the reported impact time. A-S, please study the NTSB reports before you make more of a fool out of yourself. The NTSB reports the impact time as 09:37:45.
|
Yes but it's not 09:37:45.00000 like you think it is. All measurements have error. What is the error of this one?
| Quote: |
Many parameters record up to that time. |
All parameters are recorded up to that time. That's the last completed frame.
And, as a point of clarification, being recorded at a particular time doesn't imply that it was measured at that time. Therefore the altitude recorded in the :44 frame wasn't necessarily measured at :44.00000 or whatever nonsense you believe to be true.
| Quote: |
You need 6-7 seconds to account for the descent from 480MSL to 38MSL with a 66ft/sec vertical speed. |
If I accept your elevation calculation, anyway. Everyone, including CTists, have laughed at it.
| Quote: |
Also..the vertical accelration accounts for the changes in vertical speed directly in the csv file as shown. |
Wrong. It is not simultaneous as even the most basic analysis can show. Have you not seen the graphs I've made? You can make them yourself. There is an OBVIOUS time-slip error. All you need to do is take the second derivative of the altimeter, and compare it with V-Accel. It's a trivial calculation for anyone with the most basic training.
| Quote: |
It does not account for the last second :44-:45 as being shown less than 1 G at 4000 fpm descent which conflicts with the |
Measured != Recorded. This is FDR 101.
| Quote: |
All changes in descent rates prior to that are accounted for in terms of vertical accelration.
|
Still repeating this debunked claim. Stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the basic science. Measured time does not equal recorded time. When are you going to figure this out, JDX?
Send an email to any DAU or recorder manufacturer. Ask them about buffered digital data. Ask them whether the recorded time equals the measured time. I've already proven they aren't simultaneous, which adds credence to my side of the story. Now if you just account for the digital buffering delay, too, you'll see how wrong you are.
Ask them, anyway, though They will tell you, themselves. This isn't even complicated, if you ask teh right question. I'm trying to help you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | johndoex wrote: |
Its obvious A-S still doesnt know the reported impact time. A-S, please study the NTSB reports before you make more of a fool out of yourself. The NTSB reports the impact time as 09:37:45.
|
Yes but it's not 09:37:45.00000 like you think it is. All measurements have error. What is the error of this one?
|
I dont think that. .you just keep saying it. I dont care if it was :4500000001 or :4599999999. It still wont account for your "3 seconds". Im just glad you now acknowledge the reported time of impact. Now how do you account for 473'MSL at 1 second prior (or 2.. who cares... A-S likes to use the maximum of possible error to fit it into his theory.. but even the max wont fit..lol)
The G's arent an immediate direct relationship on ANY aircraft in terms of altitude change. You pull the G's and then the altitude changes. But, vertical speed change corresponds to each and every vertical accelration recorded for each specific time frame... i suppose its coincidence? lol
Again. .if you think there is a time slip error.. how do you account for the take off roll..rotation..altimeter movement at time of rotation along with airspeed and pitch... the direct correlation to airspeed vs. thrust setting or pitch. Yoke movement in direct relationship to pitch and roll (along with altimeter and heading changes).. the changes in altitude and heading as instructed by ATC.. in the animation. I suppose there is no time slip there..? but only for the last minute with vertical acceleration vs. vertical speed so as not to disturb your theory?
Weak A-S.. weak...
I also read he says "even CT's laugh at it". Who exactly A-S? (i also notice you skipped over the other claims that CTists debunked the PA calculations... not too smooth there A-S... your spin is showing...lol)
A-SS.. you are the CTist.. we have facts.. you are holding onto "possible" errors of a production done by experts who do this stuff everyday.. The NTSB.
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It still wont account for your "3 seconds".
|
My 3 seconds? Gibberish talk much?
| Quote: |
Now how do you account for 473'MSL at 1 second prior (or 2.. who cares...) |
Yea, who cares about doubling the time! Hahaha.
More importantly, however, that is the same calculation that got you laughed at on the Loose Change forum, and you are still repeating it. If you can't convince other Conspiracy Theorists of this nonsense, how do you expect me to accept it as true
| Quote: |
The G's arent an immediate direct relationship on ANY aircraft in terms of altitude change. You pull the G's and then the altitude changes. |
Oh my god. Please tell me I didn't just read that psuedoscientific gibberish. Newton's laws explain, perfectly, the relationship between acceleration and position. The data is in conflict with what Newton predicts. Why? Because there is a time-slip error. If you adjust for this, the data falls into place nicely. That's what real engineers do. We try to minimize the error that is found in all measurement. We don't assume our sensors are infinitely precise and always correct.
You can't "rationalize" away Newton's laws. You can't put together a string of unprecise gibberish talk, like above, and pretend it makes the issue goes away. Don't tell me how you "think" acceleration and position are related. Show me the math (or claim Newton is wrong).
Just in case you missed it, to prove my point, do it yourself. Take the second derivative of the altimeter, and compare with the V-Acc. Plot the two. It couldn't be easier.
| Quote: |
Again. .if you think there is a time slip error.. |
I don't think it. I've _PROVEN_ it with the data using the basic kinematic equations that are taught in every single physics high school course in the country. There is a huge difference. One you are yet to grasp.
| Quote: |
A-SS.. you are the CTist.. we have facts..
|
No, you have guesses. Where is your math? Where is it? Where is your error calculations? Where are your tolerances? Assumptions? Parameters? Where is your confidence intervals? Do you even know what an actual reconstruction would normally look like?
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What you have a CVS file that you have misinterpretated at every single step along the way. You are just making this nonsense up as you go... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | johndoex wrote: |
Its obvious A-S still doesnt know the reported impact time. A-S, please study the NTSB reports before you make more of a fool out of yourself. The NTSB reports the impact time as 09:37:45.
|
Yes but it's not 09:37:45.00000 like you think it is. All measurements have error. What is the error of this one?
|
I dont think that. .you just keep saying it. I dont care if it was :4500000001 or :4599999999. It still wont account for your "3 seconds". Im just glad you now acknowledge the reported time of impact. Now how do you account for 473'MSL at 1 second prior (or 2.. who cares... A-S likes to use the maximum of possible error to fit it into his theory.. but even the max wont fit..lol)
The G's arent an immediate direct relationship on ANY aircraft in terms of altitude change. You pull the G's and then the altitude changes. But, vertical speed change corresponds to each and every vertical accelration recorded for each specific time frame... i suppose its coincidence? lol
Again. .if you think there is a time slip error.. how do you account for the take off roll..rotation..altimeter movement at time of rotation along with airspeed and pitch... the direct correlation to airspeed vs. thrust setting or pitch. Yoke movement in direct relationship to pitch and roll (along with altimeter and heading changes).. the changes in altitude and heading as instructed by ATC.. in the animation. I suppose there is no time slip there..? but only for the last minute with vertical acceleration vs. vertical speed so as not to disturb your theory?
Weak A-S.. weak...
I also read he says "even CT's laugh at it". Who exactly A-S? (i also notice you skipped over the other claims that CTists debunked the PA calculations... not too smooth there A-S... your spin is showing...lol)
A-SS.. you are the CTist.. we have facts.. you are holding onto "possible" errors of a production done by experts who do this stuff everyday.. The NTSB. |
This is all a giant steaming pile of horsesh!t. If you, JDX, are correct then AA77 blew past the roof of the Pentagon at 530mph and went...where?
While you are busy quantifying vague "errors" on AA77's flight recorder, there remains a giant purple gorilla in the room that no one seems very interested in. Where are the witnesses who saw AA77 miss the Pentagon? Why are the bodies of the passengers of AA77 present in the Pentagon? Why is the physical wreckage of AA77 (including the black box you guys are fussing over) present in the Pentagon? If AA77 missed the Pentagon, where is it?
Also JDX, what is the point of your argument? Where are you going with it? If the black box was planted along with bodies and other AA77 wreckage then why wouldn't the evil government conspiracy make sure it's data perfectly followed the coverstory? Also if it is your contention that the blackbox was planted, then why debate its contents at all?
While it may be fun to ponder the population of angels on the head of any given pin; it's alot more useful to look at the big picture. So let's stop this nonsense and let JDX have his way. He contends AA77 blew over the Pentagon missing it by at least 200 feet. Okay...so now what?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: | I'd like to offer a warm welcome to my new UK friends who signed up over at our forums. Its great to have you. We look forward to seeing more of you there sharing research.
Cheers! |
Of all CT delusions, my very favorite is the misguided belief that what you're doing is "research"!
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | johndoex wrote: | I'd like to offer a warm welcome to my new UK friends who signed up over at our forums. Its great to have you. We look forward to seeing more of you there sharing research.
Cheers! |
Of all CT delusions, my very favorite is the misguided belief that what you're doing is "research"!
Cheers! |
A close second is when they claim (as JDX did in an email campaign to his representatives) that this "research" was performed by "experts".
Cheers!
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: |
My 3 seconds? Gibberish talk much?
|
Yes.. YOUR 3 seconds.. you wrote it.. not me. Go read.
You keep saying "CTists" laugh at my claims. I have just realized what you mean by that. The JREF CTers who beilieve in the official fairy tale that come over to LC...lol
Your argument is weak. You are not addressing any of the issues i wrote above.. flight path.. CT debunks of PA, time slip errors that do not occur in the parameters i have listed.. the reported impact time vs. your "time slip error", The original alternate analysis that was done by Billzilla that i had to correct.. that you seem to think you debunked.. the list goes on and on...lol
You are using a classic disinfo, distraction technique. Ignore the obvious and try to side-step the issue by making statements without source (ie: this has been debunked, this is being laughed at... etc etc)
http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#2
#7
Basically.. lets do this.. neither of us will convince either. You are holding onto "possible" errors to not disturb your belief in the official story. You think you have more expertise than the professionals at the NTSB who produced this information. You are some guy on the internet that constantly spins and ignores issues you cannot address. You havent debunked anything except to hold onto fractions of a second.
Again... if you want.. answer these... make sure its accurate. This is being ditrubuted right now to the NTSB, FAA and FBI. Lets see how accurate you are compared to possible answers we get from govt agencies.
Questions for the US Govt regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder.
1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatent cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why did Capt Burlingame not follow protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: |
Basically.. lets do this.. neither of us will convince either. You are holding onto "actual" errors to not disturb your belief in the official story |
Corrected your post.
| Quote: |
You think you have more expertise than the professionals at the NTSB who produced this information. |
Lie. I think I have more than you. I explaining to you why you _aren't_ doing that the NTSB _does_. I'm explaining to you how and where the errors are in the CSV file. The NTSB is well aware of the issues raised and corrects for them every single day. The one who is NOT correcting them is you.
| Quote: |
You havent debunked anything except to hold onto fractions of a second.
|
Lie.
Same tired gibberish that has been answered 100 times. Classic CT repeating the same stupid questions, never listening to the answers.
I already answered this when you were posted it as weedwacker: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2000894&postcount=28
Stop "asking questions" and ignoring answers.
Last edited by Anti-sophist on Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: |
My 3 seconds? Gibberish talk much?
|
Yes.. YOUR 3 seconds.. you wrote it.. not me. Go read.
You keep saying "CTists" laugh at my claims. I have just realized what you mean by that. The JREF CTers who beilieve in the official fairy tale that come over to LC...lol
Your argument is weak. You are not addressing any of the issues i wrote above.. flight path.. CT debunks of PA, time slip errors that do not occur in the parameters i have listed.. the reported impact time vs. your "time slip error", The original alternate analysis that was done by Billzilla that i had to correct.. that you seem to think you debunked.. the list goes on and on...lol
You are using a classic disinfo, distraction technique. Ignore the obvious and try to side-step the issue by making statements without source (ie: this has been debunked, this is being laughed at... etc etc)
http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#2
#7
Basically.. lets do this.. neither of us will convince either. You are holding onto "possible" errors to not disturb your belief in the official story. You think you have more expertise than the professionals at the NTSB who produced this information. You are some guy on the internet that constantly spins and ignores issues you cannot address. You havent debunked anything except to hold onto fractions of a second.
Again... if you want.. answer these... make sure its accurate. This is being ditrubuted right now to the NTSB, FAA and FBI. Lets see how accurate you are compared to possible answers we get from govt agencies.
Questions for the US Govt regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder.
1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatent cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why did Capt Burlingame not follow protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11? |
This is all a giant steaming pile of horsesh!t. If you, JDX, are correct then AA77 blew past the roof of the Pentagon at 530mph and went...where?
While you are busy quantifying vague "errors" on AA77's flight recorder, there remains a giant purple gorilla in the room that no one seems very interested in. Where are the witnesses who saw AA77 miss the Pentagon? Why are the bodies of the passengers of AA77 present in the Pentagon? Why is the physical wreckage of AA77 (including the black box you guys are fussing over) present in the Pentagon? If AA77 missed the Pentagon, where is it?
Also JDX, what is the point of your argument? Where are you going with it? If the black box was planted along with bodies and other AA77 wreckage then why wouldn't the evil government conspiracy make sure it's data perfectly followed the coverstory? Also if it is your contention that the blackbox was planted, then why debate its contents at all?
While it may be fun to ponder the population of angels on the head of any given pin; it's alot more useful to look at the big picture. So let's stop this nonsense and let JDX have his way. He contends AA77 blew over the Pentagon missing it by at least 200 feet. Okay...so now what?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
|
Oh, I have n updated answer for that one. The correction between magnetic and true north is the reason the animation is rotated.
Go ahead, plot the bearing on a map, given the CSV file, and correct for mag/true north. The results may shock you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
|
Oh, I have n updated answer for that one. The correction between magnetic and true north is the reason the animation is rotated.
Go ahead, plot the bearing on a map, given the CSV file, and correct for mag/true north. The results may shock you. |
Oh geesus! The "major league ATP" doesn't know about magnetic variation? Gee, has he never seen an isogonic line before??
I may only hold a private single engine land rating...but even I seem to have more of a grasp of flying than Johnny Boy does.
Where'd you get your ATP John? Was it the prize in a box o' Cracker Jacks?
Seems to me that one could learn more about flying than JDX knows by reading an Ernie Gann novel...well maybe two....
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey it's JohnDoeX. Nice to see you. Well, no but, hey.
You have three options as far as I can see.
1. The flight data recorder information is real and accurate, and the plane hit somewhere other than the Pentagon. Where is it?
2. The flight data recorder information was faked, so why doesn't it show the plane hitting the pentagon?
3. The flight data recorder is information real, but has errors, so the aircraft appears to miss the pentagon.
Which is it?
(And while we're here, do you have any idea why I was banned from the Loose Change forum? I'm being quite serious here, I have no idea. I was in the middle of an argument and then I was suspended for a week, then I had to email to get unsuspended, but then I had my posting permissions permanantely removed. You got any idea why that was, because I honestly don't, because all I ever did was disagree, and as far as I knew, that wasn't against the rules.)
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | (And while we're here, do you have any idea why I was banned from the Loose Change forum? I'm being quite serious here, I have no idea. I was in the middle of an argument and then I was suspended for a week, then I had to email to get unsuspended, but then I had my posting permissions permanantely removed. You got any idea why that was, because I honestly don't, because all I ever did was disagree, and as far as I knew, that wasn't against the rules.) |
You mean you haven't heard? JDX caused a major meltdown at that forum and took most of the moderators with him. Dylan was forced to delete the old forum and create a new and improved members-only forum:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php
Something tells me JDX would not be welcome there. The rift he caused was irreparable.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66205
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JDX apparently has no answer to my questions. C'mon John; man-up and tell us where you are going with your AA77 "research".
Given: JDX is correct and has proven that the FDR data "proves" AA77 missed the Pentagon by at least 200 ft.
This brings to mind a few questions:
- Where is AA77?
- Where are the witnesses that saw AA77 miss the Pentagon by at least 200 ft?
- Why are the remains of the passengers of flight 77 found at the Pentagon?
- Why is the wreckage of an AA B757 found at the Pentagon?
- Given that the FDR we are *ahem* researching was part of said wreckage; how did it get in the Pentagon?
- If we are to assume it was planted; then why doesn't it show perfect data to uphold the government story?
- Why would you even consider using the FDR data since if the data is correct the FDR should not exist as wreckage since the plane did not crash...and if it is wrong it of course does exist but is obviously errored and hence suspect.
- Where did this FDR come from since AA77 flew away to somewhere/nowhere/anywhere....? (After engaging it's Romulan cloaking device of course...)
- What hit the light poles?
- What hit the Pentagon?
- What is your evidence....for anything...anything at all?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Last edited by Jay Ref on Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:18 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
Dylan was forced to delete the old forum and create a new and improved members-only forum:
|
Delete the old forum? LMAO! Why do you guys lie when you are caught so easily in your lie?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php
JDX didnt cause anything. The admins got fed up with the way the forum was being run and split. Dylan no longer has anyone to protect the forums from the above type of people (note the spin and lie right on this page).
They are wrecking the new LC forum and people are coming to my forum in droves. I respect Dylan and his work. But he needs to communicate more.
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | JDX apparently has no answer to my questions. C'mon John; man-up and tell us where you are going with your AA77 "research".
Given: JDX is correct and has proven that the FDR data "proves" AA77 missed the Pentagon by at least 200 ft.
This brings to mind a few questions:
- Where is AA77?
- Where are the witnesses that saw AA77 miss the Pentagon by at least 200 ft?
- Why are the remains of the passengers of flight 77 found at the Pentagon?
- Why is the wreckage of an AA B757 found at the Pentagon?
- Given that the FDR we are *ahem* researching was part of said wreckage; how did it get in the Pentagon?
- If we are to assume it was planted; then why doesn't it show perfect data to uphold the government story?
- Why would you even consider using the FDR data since if the data is correct the FDR should not exist as the plane did not crash...and if it is wrong it of course does exist but is obviously errored and hence suspect.
- Where did this FDR come from since AA77 flew away to somewhere/nowhere/anywhere....?
- What hit the light poles?
- What hit the Pentagon?
- What is your evidence....for anything...anything at all?
-z |
I briefly read his questions.. and most have been addressed.. but.... The above is a classic Disinfo and distraction tactics #5, #7, #9, #14, #17 (i stopped here.. there is plenty more im sure)
http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#1
We dont have all the answers. We dont claim to. you do..
We know there are major problems with the official story. You believe the offical story 100% like the good little lamb you are.
Cheers!
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
|
Oh, I have n updated answer for that one. The correction between magnetic and true north is the reason the animation is rotated.
Go ahead, plot the bearing on a map, given the CSV file, and correct for mag/true north. The results may shock you. |
you idiot.. the csv file shows a true course... lol. Do you know what true course is? Of course you dont.
But.. when referring to the flight path.. .notice i say IN THE ANIMATION.. not the csv file. The animation was produced by the NTSB. Think they know how to correct for Mag viariation and wind correction angles? You probably think they dont..lol
What distraction tactic was that you just used?
You're not even good at it...lol
ok.. enough play with the Screw Loosers. Got work to do... get a life you people. Your tactics are so apparent its laughable.
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum
Last edited by johndoex on Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:28 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
whatsamatter?
I was only asking questions.....
Well I tried to inject a little big picture logic...
Back to your debate...as for me?
My position is unassailable!!
Only 3 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
4 if it's a romantic song.
It's all right there on the FDR.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Huh. You're right, it's back. Last I had checked it was shut down, and the link on the Loose Change home page points to the new forum. My bad.
| Quote: | JDX didnt cause anything. The admins got fed up with the way the forum was being run and split. Dylan no longer has anyone to protect the forums from the above type of people (note the spin and lie right on this page).
They are wrecking the new LC forum and people are coming to my forum in droves. I respect Dylan and his work. But he needs to communicate more. |
To the impartial observer, it's obvious that the forum's downfall began with your ascent to Admin.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I fixed your quote above.. cause thats about what it amounts to.
You keep referring to the csv file while im referring to the animation. Do you know what the animation is? Do you know how it was produced? Have you read the numerous times i have tried to explain it to you that you continue to ignore? lol... i didnt know they made people this stupid.. either that or you purposely ignore this fact. Look at the original post. Its the animation.. not the csv file. Look at it over and over til lyou get it.
so typical..lol
Ok.. have fun Screw Loosers (what an appropriate name..lol)
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: | | We dont have all the answers. We dont claim to. you do.. |
I think it's appropriate that CTs claim to be "just asking questions" because they're certainly not "seeking answers".
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: |
We know there are major problems with the official story. You believe the offical story 100% like the good little lamb you are.
Cheers!
|
Maybe there are and maybe there aren't...but you aren't addressing the official story. You're making a whole new story of your own based on an idiotic misinterpretation of the FDR.
Here's a clue. Your "research" has brought up a paradox. If the FDR is correct and your interpretation of it is correct it should not exist as wreckage. It should be safely and snuggly nestled into it's B-757 that's sitting in a sooper-sekrit hanger in Area 51.
If the FDR data is incorrect; then it is found in the wreckage.
Therefore the FDR data is demonstrably incorrect.
Why are you debating? What is there to debate?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: | | You keep referring to the csv file while im referring to the animation. Do you know what the animation is? Do you know how it was produced? Have you read the numerous times i have tried to explain it to you that you continue to ignore? lol... i didnt know they made people this stupid.. either that or you purposely ignore this fact. Look at the original post. Its the animation.. not the csv file. Look at it over and over til lyou get it. |
I'll be honest, Rob. I'm happy you're pursuing this avenue of research. In fact, I hope the movement rallies around this as its new Smoking Gun. I mean, it's so mind-bogglingly idiotic, no one will ever take your claims seriously again. Problem solved.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BTW; you think the "Official Story" has problems?
The JDX version has so many problems that only a complete moron would fail to laugh at the absurdities presented by it. My list was only a rough draft.
Your "evidence" points to flawed data on a piece of electronics that quite literally went through hell. By leaning heavily on the flawed data your version has become a self-disproving paradox. A joke.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Amazing how the whole begining of flight cross checks with all parameters including ATC and Radar in the animation (bolded for A-S because he seems to over look this part alot).. but these guys think there are "actual" errors at the end of data...lol. (while using margins). They think the NTSB doesnt know about these possible errors and that they could produce a better product than the NTSB, Lockheed, Boeing and NASA.
Cant wait till UT releases his report. You people are in for a rude awakeneing. Oh yeah. .and remember.. im not a pilot (according to you guys)...lol
ok.. ciao folks.. enough play with the idiots.
To the UK friends. .try not to feed the trolls.. (as im sometimes guilty of)
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: | Amazing how the whole begining of flight cross checks with all parameters including ATC and Radar in the animation (bolded for A-S because he seems to over look this part alot).. but these guys think there are "actual" errors at the end of data...lol. (while using margins). They think the NTSB doesnt know about these possible errors and that they could produce a better product than the NTSB, Lockheed, Boeing and NASA.
Cant wait till UT releases his report. You people are in for a rude awakeneing. Oh yeah. .and remember.. im not a pilot (according to you guys)...lol
ok.. ciao folks.. enough play with the idiots.
To the UK friends. .try not to feed the trolls.. (as im sometimes guilty of) |
How did the FDR get into the wreckage John?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoex wrote: | | Amazing how the whole begining of flight cross checks with all parameters including ATC and Radar in the animation (bolded for A-S because he seems to over look this part alot).. but these guys think there are "actual" errors at the end of data...lol |
Not the end of _THE_ data. At the end of _YOUR_ data. Your data is not _THE_ data. It is incomplete. It is a _plotfile_ for gods sake.
| Quote: |
They think the NTSB doesnt know about these possible errors and that they could produce a better product than the NTSB, Lockheed, Boeing and NASA.
|
Begin copy/paste:
----
Seriously, how many times are you going to repeat this idiotic tripe? How many times? Seriously? THE NTSB IS NOT INCOMPETANT. THE NTSB, THE FAA, BOEING, THE ARINC STANDARD, AND THE ENTIRE DATA ACQUITION INDUSTRY KNOWS ABOUT THESE ERRORS AND CORRECTS (OR ACCEPTS) THEM EVERY SINGLE DAY. You _aren't_ correcting them. You deny they even exist. You are an amatuer trying to pass yourself off as a professional. THE NTSB ISNT THE ONE NEGLECTING THESE ERRORS, YOU ARE.
LET ME REPEAT THAT: The NTSB is well aware of these issues and corrects for them every single day. You _don't_ and _aren't_. The problem is that _you_ do not understand what the NTSB does and how it does it. You are GUESSING.
-----
Since apparently neither you nor Undertow can read, I have taken the time to prepare the above copy/pasted reponse to this same stupid comment that you both make every single post.
| Quote: |
Cant wait till UT releases his report. You people are in for a rude awakeneing. Oh yeah. .and remember.. im not a pilot (according to you guys)...lol
|
If by "you people" you mean the entire data recording industry. Because his report is going to be quite a shock to L3, Teledyne, and the rest of the instrumentation industry. They are going to want to know how they don't understand their own systems.
I can't wait to read Boeing et als reponse to UnderTow's "report". It took me 6 pages on JREF to even get him to understand the concept of an implied timetag. We'll see how long it takes for me to make him understand that "time recorded" doesn't equal "time measured". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
