New FDR Decode

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by tomk52
Part 2
On the Twoofer side:

There's another Warning, right above!

Check it out, right here:

Originally posted by semperfortis
Attention Please....
The word/term "TRUTHER" is an acceptable idiom.
However the bastardization of the word "Truther" is an insult and from here on will be treated as such.
I am not going to go back and take any action on past offenses, but any future instances and action will be taken.

Cripes, Tezza.

"Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Smith!! TommyK is chewing gum on line!"

Were you the kid that got beat up all the time in school for ratting everyone out?

Being relatively new here, I'd not seen before that proscription. As a guest, I'll abide by ATS's requests of course.

But that means we've gotta come up with a substitute term. Because the word "Truther" is an abomination to both the English language and to the root word itself.

If "Twoofer" is out, then I'm pretty sure that Conspiratard is gone. Can't use that one.

Let's see...

How about "Angry Young Boys"?

"Credulous beyond all reasonable limits"?

"Hopelessly gullible"?

"Delusions of technical adequacy"??

Heck, this is gonna be hard.



Tomk

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 911files

 

Yes, as you well know, it is the 'components' that matter, in the physics of aerodynamics.

I was calculating vector components.

What a load of BS.

He thought his calculations were low due to a "conversion factor". No, it was due to the fact Farmer/911Files doesn't understand flight dynamics and calculated the wrong vector.

I came up with the same values for bank angle, but slightly lower g-force values. I suspect it is in the conversion factors used.

Source

After being corrected by Balsamo, Farmer deceptively went in and edited his post with a new chart. Par for the course when dealing with Farmer if you have studied any of his work (most of which is now deleted).

I don't see how anyone can take seriously a person who deceptively edits his posts after being corrected, has been caught in numerous lies, flip flops constantly on his own positions which were recorded, and deletes all his work/sites, twice. Which is the reason I have placed him on ignore. He is a waste of time.

reply to post by tezzajw

Thanks, 911files, for making it clear about who gets confused and who doesn't.

No confusion here...just honesty.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tezzajw

 

Thanks, 911files, for making it clear about who gets confused and who doesn't.

No confusion here...just honesty.

It's ok to be honest when you are confused, or don't know something, weedwhacker. I find that honesty is usually the best policy. I've been honest about my inability to read a FDR.

It's good to see you and 911files being honest about not knowing if the vertical acceleration is with respect to the aeroplane's axis or not.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

I came up with the same values for bank angle, but slightly lower g-force values. I suspect it is in the conversion factors used.

Source

This is an example of what you were talking about weedwacker. In his quote he leaves off the smiley face which is important for context. Notice I used the term g-force, NOT g-load. Rob did not understand it at the time but several pilots who read P4T (I don't) were leading him on at JREF. That is not the math thread either, just a 'have fun with Rob who reads this stuff post'. Again, g-load is an entirely different animal than the 'g-force' generated by cetripetal acceleration (actually a force vector) which was the context of the post and the P4T folks could not seem to get the difference (still don't I suspect).

I guess since the math ain't working out for him, it is time for a personal attack rant. I am hurt...and to be ignored too...crushing, very crushing.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by tezzajw
It's good to see you and 911files being honest about not knowing if the vertical acceleration is with respect to the aeroplane's axis or not.

Why thank you tezzajw. Contrary to what some may claim, I have no problem confessing my limitations. The published definitions for vert acc are straightforward, but the data may not be stored that way. I won't know until I get the roll angle values.

I'll say it again, I am not a pilot (although I did solo in a Piper Cub way back in the 70's) and certainly not an aeronautical engineer. I'm a data guy and when the data does not make sense, I have sense enough to ask questions.

Originally posted by 911files
Contrary to what some may claim, I have no problem confessing my limitations. The published definitions for vert acc are straightforward, but the data may not be stored that way. I won't know until I get the roll angle values.

No problems, 911files. Thanks for confirming that you're not confused, instead you just currently don't know what the data is telling you.

That makes it very clear to me, especially in light of your earlier comment:

Originally posted by 911files
"There is only confusion among CT forum 'experts' who have no clue what they are talking about."

EDIT: Which fixed three points on the aeroplane are you planning to use to draw your final flight path? I would assume that the left and right wing-tips and the nose cone would be obvious choices, but any three points, spaced far enough apart, would be sufficient.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

EDIT: Which fixed three points on the aeroplane are you planning to use to draw your final flight path? I would assume that the left and right wing-tips and the nose cone would be obvious choices, but any three points, spaced far enough apart, would be sufficient.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by tezzajw]

I'm not going to use any three points on the aeroplane. I'm generating a data-derived flight path which will be a range of values (not points) within a 2 sigma band. I'll give you the subframe in the FDR when impact with the poles was most likely based on probability. As I mentioned earlier, from that point, you have your answer with what is known from the physical evidence, the starboard wing tip and the VDOT camera pole. Call that your origin (0,0,0) and fill in the blanks.

I was able to see this after I signed out. I'll just do this real quick to demonstrate the deceptive nature of 911Files/Farmer

Notice I used the term g-force, NOT g-load.

g-force and g-load are the same thing in the context with which you used it.

You claimed you came up with the same bank angles as Balsamo, but slightly lower g-force values than Balsamo. You thought you were calculating the same vector as Balsamo for a given bank angle. You were wrong. You thought your values for g-forces were lower than Balsamo due to a "conversion factor" you applied. You were wrong. It was due to the fact you didn't calculate the same g-force vector as Balsamo since you do not understand flight dynamics. When Balsamo pointed this out on his forum (which you obviously read religiously), you changed your chart to include N and starting defining terms so you could possibly cover up your complete blunder. You have been caught once again in your lies. Epic Fail.

In case you're still confused Farmer, your values were lower than Balsamo's because you calculated the wrong vector, it wasn't due to a conversion factor you suspected. It appears you are still confused with the concept of vertical acceleration regarding flight dynamics relative to an aircraft. Hmmm, you think it's just coincidence acceleration data is named the same as the aircraft axis?

Your backpedaling is very unbecoming 911Files and I'm sure everyone can see through it.

"No, that's not even reality...." - 911files/Farmer explaining the DoD 5 Frames video at the Pentagon of an object crossing the lawn. Recorded.

It's a very interesting phone call and gives a lot of insight into Farmer/911Files deceptive style. Everyone should download and listen to it. It's not very long. Only 9.1 MB download.

Here is a direct link to the mp3 download of the call with Farmer. Right click and save target as.
www.thepentacon.com...

It is very relative to this thread and the data. Note the confidence in 911Files/Farmer claims. Using words such as "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" when referring to the NTSB data being a disinformation campaign.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I was able to see this after I signed out. I'll just do this real quick to demonstrate the deceptive nature of 911Files/Farmer

So, after you signed out, you decided to read the thread again? We are supposed to believe this? Like we are to believe you are not Balsamo? That you did NOT create your Mackey name because of Ryan mackey?

Nice try Balsamo

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I was able to see this after I signed out. I'll just do this real quick to demonstrate the deceptive nature of 911Files/Farmer

So, after you signed out, you decided to read the thread again? We are supposed to believe this? Like we are to believe you are not Balsamo? That you did NOT create your Mackey name because of Ryan mackey?

Nice try Balsamo

Yep, just like he was 'ignoring' me too. When he can't keep up with the math he always goes onto the same ole diatribe of 'liar, liar, pants on fire'.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I was able to see this after I signed out. I'll just do this real quick to demonstrate the deceptive nature of 911Files/Farmer

So, after you signed out, you decided to read the thread again? We are supposed to believe this? Like we are to believe you are not Balsamo? That you did NOT create your Mackey name because of Ryan mackey?

Nice try Balsamo

Yep, just like he was 'ignoring' me too. When he can't keep up with the math he always goes onto the same ole diatribe of 'liar, liar, pants on fire'.

It is very relative to this thread and the data. Note the confidence in 911Files/Farmer claims. Using words such as "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" when referring to the NTSB data being a disinformation campaign.

What he fails to mention is what I beleive is that the NTSB data was released without explanation as part of a 'disinformation campaign' to fuel ludicrous fly-over theories. I still believe that

[edit on 24-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
I'm not going to use any three points on the aeroplane. I'm generating a data-derived flight path which will be a range of values (not points) within a 2 sigma band.

Well that's kind of pointless, is it not?

How do you know the roll pitch and yaw of the aeroplane within your flight path, if you don't generate it using three fixed points in a 3-D coordinate system?

The aeroplane can not be modelled by a singular point. It has projections, such as wings, fuselage, tail, etc... You can't model a flight-path based on a single point, and claim that's the path of the entire aeroplane, all confined within a 2-sigma confidence interval.

The only time that it is appropriate to model an aeroplane as a singual point would be for large distances. However, in this instance, where short distances (between light poles) and short time frames are involved, the modelling of the aeroplane needs to be very specific within the three dimensions.

Originally posted by 911files
I'll give you the subframe in the FDR when impact with the poles was most likely based on probability.

But wait, you claimed that the aeroplane hit the light poles with a probability of 1. You can't provide me anything less than a probability of 1 and expect your claim to hold true.

You need to show, using coordinates, which part of the aeroplane allegedly struck which parts of the light poles (and their coordinates). Reducing your argument to being a 2-sigma confidence interval, based on probability, shows that you can't definitively prove what you claim to be true. It's hardly the same as being 'certain', right?

Still, I'll wait to see what you supply. You need your time, fair enough.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


Okay, I'll need the quote of where I claimed a probability of 1 on anything. I had a plant manager ask me once how sure I would need to be before making changes to a process. My answer is the same as I am giving you now. There is no such thing as 100% (probability = 1). For critical systems, I go for 3 sigma (probability = 0.997) and for non-critical 2 sigma (0.95). From quantum mechanics to cosmology, no measurement is ever 100% (there is ALWAYS measurement error and a range).

What you asked for was the point in the FDR where the plane hit the poles. I suspect you are just wasting my time.

And no, giving you a range is not pointless. That is the real world you live with every day. The goal is to narrow that range of certainty to a point where it is practical.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
Okay, I'll need the quote of where I claimed a probability of 1 on anything.

No problem, check page 29, here's the quote:

Originally posted by tezzajw
Do you have co-ordinates of the wing tips and nose, or just a general position of the 'plane'? Which co-ordinate set proves that the plane hit the first light pole?

Originally posted by 911files
But you already know were the tip of the starboard wing hit.

See, you're telling me that the starboard wing hit the pole. Why would you state that if you didn't believe that it has a probability of 1?


Here again on page 28:

Originally posted by tezzajw
Show me where each light pole was hit.
Take your time to get it correct, but keep me updated.

Originally posted by 911files
Better yet, I'll write a book for you.

You're going to write a book for me, telling me how the light pole was hit. Now, if you claim that the probability is not 1, then it must be a fiction book that you're writing, right?

Are you now wishing to back-peddle on your claim that the aeroplane hit the light poles because you don't want to associate a probability of 1 to it happening, in your calculations based on the alleged FDR data?

Either the light poles were hit by the aeroplane, or they were not. Unless your flight path shows the coordinates of a part of the aeroplane, hitting the coordinates of the five lights poles, with a probability of 1, then your claim is not satisfied.

You might be able to do so, I don't know. I'm giving you the time to do it. Good luck to you. I know it's a big task, I know the kind of figures that need to be crunched.

Originally posted by 911files
There is no such thing as 100% (probability = 1).

Wrong. In this instance, for you to show that the alleged FDR data supports the five light poles being hit by the aeroplane, then there can not be anything less than a probability of 1 in your analysis. Any margin for error will invalidate your claim.

(Your story about manufacturing processes is not relevant. Normal probability distribution variations are expected from the mean in repeated events. The five light poles being struck is a one-time event that must be demonstrably true, for your claim to hold. You must be able to demonstrate it with a probability of 1.)

Originally posted by 911files
From quantum mechanics to cosmology, no measurement is ever 100% (there is ALWAYS measurement error and a range).

You might be using misleading terms here, 911files. There is no 'measurement' involved in the five light poles being struck by the aeroplane. Either they were struck, or they were not struck.

It either happened and can be supported with a probability of 1 in your data analysis from the alleged FDR, or there will be a probability less than 1, in your data analysis, meaning that the event can not be supported by the alleged FDR data.

Originally posted by 911files
What you asked for was the point in the FDR where the plane hit the poles. I suspect you are just wasting my time.

Unless you can show this, then you're probably wasting your own time. You're making the claim that the alleged FDR data will support the five light poles being hit, you will need to demonstrate this with a probability of 1. If you can't state which part of the aeroplane struck which part of the poles, then you weaken your claim. You reduce it to guess work.

Originally posted by 911files
And no, giving you a range is not pointless. That is the real world you live with every day. The goal is to narrow that range of certainty to a point where it is practical.

Unless the range that you provide does not give a probability of 1 for the aeroplane hitting the five light poles, then your claim will be invalidated.

I'll see what you've got when you end up getting it but I'm not buying any books to read it.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
See, you're telling me that the starboard wing hit the pole. Why would you state that if you didn't believe that it has a probability of 1?

Okay, this is just foolishness now. We 'know' within a range of error where it hit the VDOT camera pole. That is not a probability of 1. It is some position relative to ? and is a measurement and like all measurements is subject to measurement error. The FDR records subframes once every second, so that creates a measurement range of +/- 0.5 seconds right there. Some values are given 4 times a second, so there is a +/- 0.125 second range there at best. Depending upon the speed, that translates to +/- 0.125 nautical miles @ 450 knots per subframe!

So yes tezzajw, the location of the mark and missing rung on the VDOT pole is a measured value. I'm starting to sense that this thread is degrading into foolishness. I have taken the time to respond to you reasonably, but it seems reason is not what you are after.

reply to post by 911files

So let's get this straight.

You claim, for certain, that the aeroplane hit the five light poles, right?

You are going to analyse the alleged FDR data to show that the aeroplane hitting the five light poles is also supported by the FDR data, right?

Unless your analysis shows, with a probability of 1, that the alleged FDR data supports the aeroplane hitting the five light poles, then you can not claim that it certainly does.

It is a meaningless conclusion to state something like: "The data shows the aeroplane hit the light poles within a 2-sigma range".

If the aeroplane hit the light poles, then it must be 100% demonstrably true. Otherwise, the claim that the aeroplane hit the light poles can not be supported with certainty.

I'll wait to see what you come up with.

Originally posted by the fake R_Mackey, and snipped to its essentials:
You claimed you came up with the same bank angles as Balsamo, but...Balsamo...Balsamo...Balsamo...Balsamo...Balsamo...Epic Fail.

You two should get a room. Citing Balsamo's calculations
isn't going to impress anyone who understands mathematics
or physics, although I have to admit it's consistent with
your previous assertion that a quadratic equation with no
linear term at all can describe a near-linear change in
altitude over time.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Well that's kind of pointless, is it not?

Not at all. We're talking about the real world, not a
video game.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The aeroplane can not be modelled by a singular point. It has projections, such as wings, fuselage, tail, etc... You can't model a flight-path based on a single point, and claim that's the path of the entire aeroplane, all confined within a 2-sigma confidence interval.

Nonsense. You can model the plane using any point
on it, such as its center of gravity. Its velocity
vector implies the approximate direction in which the
plane is pointing, so you can calculate the position
of any other feature of the plane from the position
of that point. Factoring pitch, roll, and yaw into
those calculations would improve their accuracy by
a few inches or feet, but that improvement will be
small compared to known sources of error.

Originally posted by 911files
Okay, this is just foolishness now.

It's been that way for a while now. Hypothesis P
has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
There never was any evidence for Hypothesis Q, and
Warren's data have destroyed the already nonsensical
argument for Q from the last altitude recorded by
the FDR found in the wreckage.

So tezzajw and the poseur have started to use words
like "proof" and "certainty" and "exact", as though
Hypothesis P were a mathematical theorem that could
be proved instead of an empirical hypothesis for
which there is overwhelming evidence. The apparent
purposes of this rhetorical device are to increase
the burden of proof beyond all reason, and to shift
attention away from their epic failure to provide
positive evidence for Hypothesis Q or any other
flyover hypothesis.

Will

Originally posted by tezzajw
The aeroplane can not be modelled by a singular point. It has projections, such as wings, fuselage, tail, etc... You can't model a flight-path based on a single point, and claim that's the path of the entire aeroplane, all confined within a 2-sigma confidence interval.

Originally posted by cesura
Nonsense. You can model the plane using any point
on it, such as its center of gravity. Its velocity
vector implies the approximate direction in which the
plane is pointing, so you can calculate the position
of any other feature of the plane from the position
of that point.

Nonsense.

Knowing only one point on the aeroplane will not give the geometric orientation of the aeroplane in space. The velocity vector will only give the direction moved by that point on the aeroplane.

For example, take the known point on the aeroplane being the nose cone. The position of the nose cone will be known along with the direction it will be moving. However, you won't know how the wing tips are tilted relative to the nose cone. The wings could be tilted at any angle, the plane could be sideways, it could be pointed towards the Earth, it could be pointed up to the sun - you wouldn't know, as you're only modelling the nose cone point.

The same argument holds if the chosen point was the centre of gravity.

Originally posted by cesura
Factoring pitch, roll, and yaw into
those calculations would improve their accuracy by
a few inches or feet, but that improvement will be
small compared to known sources of error.

See, now you admit that you need three fixed coordinate points, just like I typed above.

What do you think that you get when you know the roll, pitch and yaw??? That's right, you get every other point on the aeroplane relative to the nose cone (or centre of gravity).

Your, single point-velocity vector model, is not sufficient to model the geometric orientation of the flight path, which is why you need to include roll, pitch and yaw to generate the extra points that I stated were needed.

Three fixed points on the aeroplane are necessary and sufficient to model the geometric orientation of the aeroplane's flight path. Of course, that still doesn't account for slight wing flexing, if two of the points are on the wing tips.

I can't believe that a PhD would get it so wrong.

Originally posted by cesura
So tezzajw and the poseur have started to use words
like "proof" and "certainty" and "exact", as though
Hypothesis P were a mathematical theorem that could
be proved instead of an empirical hypothesis for
which there is overwhelming evidence.

There is no hypothesis to test. It has been claimed that the five light poles were knocked down by the aeroplane. This must be demonstrably true, without any margin for error in the alleged FDR data.

Either the claim can be supported to show the event happened for certain, or it can not be supported.

Originally posted by 911files
Okay, this is just foolishness now.

Yes, I agree. If a PhD in maths needs me to correct his fundamental misunderstanding about the flight path and geometric spatial orientation of the aeroplane - then what hope do we have for a sensible thread? I can't even read a FDR!!!

[edit on 25-11-2009 by tezzajw]

I noted that the plane's "velocity vector implies the
approximate direction in which the plane is pointing",
but tezzajw apparently does not understand the meaning
of the word "approximate". He also does not understand
that, to a first approximation, fixed wing aircraft can
only fly forward:

Originally posted by tezzajw
For example, take the known point on the aeroplane being the nose cone. The position of the nose cone will be known along with the direction it will be moving. However, you won't know how the wing tips are tilted relative to the nose cone. The wings could be tilted at any angle, the plane could be sideways, it could be pointed towards the Earth, it could be pointed up to the sun - you wouldn't know, as you're only modelling the nose cone point.

That would be true if we were modelling a video game or
alternative Truther universe in which aircraft can fly
sideways or otherwise perpendicular to the direction in
which they are pointed.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yes, I agree. If a PhD in maths needs me to correct his fundamental misunderstanding about the flight path and geometric spatial orientation of the aeroplane - then what hope do we have for a sensible thread? I can't even read a FDR!!!

When you or your fellow agents of disinformation think
you have scored a major point by saying the plane could
have been flying sideways, there is indeed little hope
for a sensible thread.

Will