New FDR Decode

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo, don't play ignorant. Just thought you would like some of your own reasoning (failure thereof) thrown back at you.

I'm not playing ignorant, I'm being genuine. I asked you for sources
for your claims.

I can provide video testimony to back up everything I posted, and everyone
expects the same of you.

Also, there are a few questions pertaining to the pole strikes and
FDR data which I would like to debate...so please go ahead with
those as well as linking me to your interview source(s).

Thanks!

reply to post by turbofan


Not the thread and I'm not going to derail it promoting CIT crazy material. You have argued this stuff before and you know every point I made above is true. Now quit picking on an old man and stick with the op.

Fine, we can get back on topic. I sent you a private message (U2U) so
we can futher discuss your sources.

Back to the FDR: Please work through the pole strike measurements with
me (us), so that we can determine what system on the wing section caused
the white smoke.

From there, we can search the parameters for data contained in the FDR.

Afterall, we are here to discuss this new found extration of data which is
supposed to prove light pole and Pentagon impacts.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
Fine, we can get back on topic. I sent you a private message (U2U) so
we can futher discuss your sources.

Back to the FDR: Please work through the pole strike measurements with
me (us), so that we can determine what system on the wing section caused the white smoke.

So you have found a chemistry person who can rationally discuss this issue with us?

Afterall, we are here to discuss this new found extration of data which is
supposed to prove light pole and Pentagon impacts.

No, we are here to dicuss the FDR decode, not to prove or disprove anything.

I just read that the Flight Deck Door was closed for the duration of the flight.

Is that true?

How can terrorists gain access to the Flight Deck if the door was never opened?

I'm confused. I need your help, 911files. You're the one claiming that official government story believers don't get confused - they just work their way through the problems.

So after 35 pages, it hasn't occurred to anyone a logical and much simpler explanation for the for the radar vs. pressure altitude discrepancy: the RA could have been 4 feet over one of the 8 wings of the Navy Annex (just like Ed Paik drew and he indicated he feared in the 2nd interview)? That also would agree with Morin's account fairly well. How many feet higher than the Pentagon foundation is the Annex foundation, and what are their relative heights?

But no- the pressure altitude "MUST be incorrect"--- umm... because of missing seconds... bird strikes... altimeter lag... power outage... Yeah- that's the ticket! Spin the wheel another time guys- there might be an excuse we haven't heard yet.

Of course this thread has primarily been turbofan baiting and a fishing trip for justification of an unverified, unofficial data set (aside from the pages of extreme ad hominem "dookie fling-o-rama"- it really smells BAD on this thread BTW- you should open a window or something).

Would any of this Warren Stutt data be admissible and legally binding in a US or VA court of law? C# isn't my thing (but I took several classes in C and C++ back in college, and the sourcecode was awfully sparse on comments when I looked at "Main.cs" and "GenerateOutput.cs" just now in my editor)- who has verified the code (and decoded data) are even valid? Has anyone considered comparing the new decode to the Pilots' decode for various parameters, or isn't the truth even a consideration on this thread?

I remember seeing different rates of descent for the multiple radar altimeters in my spreadsheet when I looked at ver 1.1? back in October (BTW there was more than one RA when I ran the decoder program on the Pilots' .FDR file back then). You "experts" sure those RA's were on the same airplane (if they're accurate to +/- 1 foot was it pages back)? Maybe we'll see a new chapter in that book that keeps getting alluded to on this thread. I'd call the new data inconclusive so far from what I saw, and how many versions of the decoder have we seen recently?

Then we've got the blatant arrogance of some who think they are the only one(s) capable of understanding "linearity" or air pressure.

It reminds me of the old joke about engineers- you can sure tell an engineer when you meet one (you won't be able to tell him much, but you can damn sure tell when you meet one).

[edit on 27-11-2009 by rhunter]

Originally posted by tomk52
I recognize the theoretical Nyquist criterion. I am neither a mathematician nor a scientist. I'm an engineer. I'll stick with 8x whenever possible. And move carefully down to 5x when forced to.

Entirely appropriate. The mathematical theorem says
the Nyquist frequency is exactly 2x, but that theorem
also says its conclusions hold only when the signal is
bandwidth-limited to less than the Nyquist frequency.
In most engineering applications, you won't have exact
knowledge of the bandwidth, so you have to build in a
margin of safety.

Originally posted by tomk52
The Moire effect is registered just fine by film, by cameras, by photoelectric cells, etc. Not only by biological visual systems. Therefore it is not caused by our visual systems. It's an objective phenomenon that is a spatial analog to "beat frequencies" in superposed oscillating systems with slightly different frequencies..

The Moire effect is a special case of aliasing, which
is the objective phenomenon registered by all those
systems: there are infinitely many signals that give
rise to exactly the same data when sampled.

The mistake arises only when someone or something tries
to impose some interpretation on that data, and chooses
the simplest (low-frequency) interpretation instead of
considering signals at or above the Nyquist frequency.
It's basically an inappropriate use of Occam's razor.

Humans make that mistake quite naturally; it seems to be
part of our cognitive programming. Computers and other
devices can make that mistake also, but only when they're
programmed to do so. That's an important difference
between humans and computers: Computers are generally
willing to regard data as mere data, without expressing
or trying to defend any opinion regarding the original
signal from which the data were sampled.

I haven't been trying to prove you wrong. I've just
been trying to explain why I don't understand your
point.

Will

reply to post by cesura

At a LabVIEW seminar that I attended for work, National Instruments also said 2x for the Nyquist rate (of sampling signals).

zone.ni.com...

They only build, sell, and refurb the DAQ equipment, and I've also built, installed, and operated such and similar equipment in several industries for over 10 years, but what do they/I know?

FWIW, the Wiki concurs with 2x:

en.wikipedia.org...

Now a little quiz for Tomfk:

A = "R_";
B ="Ryan";
If (A != B)
[
please STFU about it;
]
----------------------
[rhetorical] Quiz #2- now can this thread move forward about discussing FDR data without discussing "Balsamo" or "Mackeys?"

I honestly don't give a flying f*** whether these various Mackey people are named Robert, Ralph, Rico, Ryan, Ricky, Romeo, Rhiannon, Ramona, Rita, Roderigo, Raoul, Randy, Rusty, Rowdy, Ringo, Rasputin, RuPaul, or Rumplestiltskin! Feel free to start a "Who Is Mackey" thread though (but don't feel too bad if I don't visit it, and that might be against the T&C here).

I would like someone to answer turbofan's impact/accelerometer/engine/lightpole/data question above however (rather than dodge those repeatedly as I've witnessed so far on this thread).

Originally posted by rhunter
So after 35 pages, it hasn't occurred to anyone a logical and much simpler explanation for the for the radar vs. pressure altitude discrepancy: the RA could have been 4 feet over one of the 8 wings of the Navy Annex

That doesn't correlate with radar, terrain, and other
data, nor is it consistent with the longitudinal
acceleration recorded at the same time.

Originally posted by rhunter
But no- the pressure altitude "MUST be incorrect"--- umm... because of missing seconds...

Your hypothesis would imply at least 8 seconds missing
from the decodes performed by PfT and NTSB, instead of
the 4 seconds implied by hypotheses that correlate with
other data.

Originally posted by rhunter
Has anyone considered comparing the new decode to the Pilots' decode for various parameters, or isn't the truth even a consideration on this thread?

Yes, and that was done for most (if not all) fields in the
first version of Warren's decode. If you have specific
fields in mind, then I could do that comparison for you;
just give me the correct names for the fields and a URL
you trust for the Pilots' decode.

Originally posted by rhunter
I remember seeing different rates of descent for the multiple radar altimeters in my spreadsheet when I looked at ver 1.1? back in October (BTW there was more than one RA when I ran the decoder program on the Pilots' .FDR file back then).

Most of us have been merging those four fields (from
three instruments) into a single radio height. Keeping
them separate will give you different rates of descent
for exactly the same reason that separating the stream
of pressure altitudes into four distinct streams, each
one or two seconds out of phase with each of the others,
would give you different rates of descent for each stream.

Originally posted by rhunter
and how many versions of the decoder have we seen recently?

Warren Stutt has been very responsive to Rob Balsamo's
requests for new versions that decode more fields. Last
I heard, his FDR decoder was at version 1.4.

Originally posted by rhunter
Then we've got the blatant arrogance of some who think they are the only one(s) capable of understanding "linearity" or air pressure.

Lots of people understand linearity. Your grandmother
was one of them. The poseur is not, unless he knew he
was engaging in technobabble when he spoke of s=1/2at^2
as consistent with the near-linearity he was claiming.

I am willing to consider both of those alternatives,
but I don't see how it could matter much. The poseur
is just some pseudonymous wannabe. If he had anything
of technical value to offer, he'd have offered it by
now instead of plagiarizing Balsamo's nonsense.

Will

Originally posted by tezzajwI just read that the Flight Deck Door was closed for the duration of the flight.

Is that true?

How can terrorists gain access to the Flight Deck if the door was never opened?

Yes, the FLT DECK DOOR value was CLOSED for the entire flight. You got me. Oh wait, the same parameter is the same for ALL recorded 12 flights. The pilots never got anything to eat or left the flight deck to go to the bathroom, not even on the long LA - DC flights. As a matter of fact, the door is NEVER recorded OPEN for any point ever when the FDR is recording. Very strange. The pilots must have worn those astronaut diapers.

Thoughts and advice: There are 42 HOURS of flight data in Warren RO. It is wise to check your observations for the last minutes or flight against the other 41 hours of recorded data. I don't know why the value is CLOSED for the entire 42 hours (that is one for the pilot folks to hash out), but if the parameter never changes and reason dictates that it should at some point, then I can conclude one of two things. The parameter was not being recorded and a default value was being stored, or the parameter being recorded is not what some think it is.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
Yes, the FLT DECK DOOR value was CLOSED for the entire flight. You got me. Oh wait, the same parameter is the same for ALL recorded 12 flights. The pilots never got anything to eat or left the flight deck to go to the bathroom, not even on the long LA - DC flights.

Right, so what does that prove? I've travelled from coast to coast in Australia without needing to leave my seat.

Let me guess, you're not confused about this, are you? Maybe you're in the process of working your way through the problem.

I'll give you a few more days to formulate your response for why the alleged FDR data shows the flight deck door always closed.

Originally posted by 911files
As a matter of fact, the door is NEVER recorded OPEN for any point ever when the FDR is recording. Very strange.

I'll note, that according to you, very strange is not equivalent to being confused. I'm sure you're working overtime on a solution to the problem right now.

Originally posted by 911files
The pilots must have worn those astronaut diapers.

Are their bladders so weak that they need a toilet break so often? Are astronaut diapers routinely issued to airline pilots?

Originally posted by 911files
I don't know why the value is CLOSED for the entire 42 hours...

Again, when you don't know something, you're not confused, right? Working your way through the problem, I hope.

I'll check back to see what you come up with. It could be a simple error, which is fine. Let's see what you sort out.

I'm so confused. Can a bird strike knock out the flight deck door sensors, 911files? I read on some other forums that bird strikes can do a lot of things to the electronic systems inside an aeroplane.

Originally posted by rhunter
I would like someone to answer turbofan's impact/accelerometer/engine/lightpole/data question above however (rather than dodge those repeatedly as I've witnessed so far on this thread).

Already did, but I'll give it another shot. The long acc is sampled 4 times per subframe, or as censura likes to say, at a 4 Hz rate. At 480 knots, at a resolution of 0.25 seconds, that gives a range of 0.033 nautical miles between samples. So for a plane that is operating at maximum thrust, the impact will result in a small fluctuation unless the sampling is done at very close to the instance of impact.

Some say this will be a significant fluctuation, however I do not think so. The inelastic collision of the two will be limited to the break-away force designed into the pole. After that force has been attained, the pole will simply fall away (lever action). That is exactly what is seen in the photos taken of the intersection. A complete transfer of momentum is not observed in the physical evidence, otherwise you would have light poles sitting near the impact area and perhaps on the other side of the Pentagon (they have to go somewhere with a 480 knot initial velocity), so the impluse was limited.

The first pole stikes were far out on the wings, meaning that the force vector was not aligned with the long axis, but at an angle to it. Impact with poles #1 and #2 occurred at the end of position -1, and indeed there is a slight loss of long acc at this point and a small increase in lat acc. By the beginning of position 0 (last subframe), the long acc has recovered from the small loss in long and gain in lat acc. By the next sampling, encounter with the remaining poles, long acc pegs significantly down to almost 0 and lat acc is changing. By the third sampling, long recovers a little, but lat remains significant for the duration of the flight.

Some might disagree with this scenario (as I am sure they will), but I suspect some are over estimating the impact of the break-away force which is the major force contibutor of the pole impacts.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'll check back to see what you come up with. It could be a simple error, which is fine. Let's see what you sort out.

I'm so confused. Can a bird strike knock out the flight deck door sensors, 911files? I read on some other forums that bird strikes can do a lot of things to the electronic systems inside an aeroplane.

No need to check back because it is not something I plan to spend any time on for reasons already stated. And yes I know, you are always confused.

Originally posted by 911files
No need to check back because it is not something I plan to spend any time on for reasons already stated. And yes I know, you are always confused.

Oh, I'm always confused. I wonder why I spend so much time here when it's all so confusing.

So you're not concerned, worried, interested or confused in any way that the alleged FDR data shows the flight deck door always being shut?

No problems at all, 911files.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

reply to post by tezzajw


Nope, not at all. If there was at least one recorded OPEN value in the other 40 odd hours of flight time, then I would be. Since there is not, no reason to be.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by 911files
I don't know why the value is CLOSED for the entire 42 hours...

I see 911Files spent his Turkey Day, all day, and night, among perhaps the only family he has? lol

Well since 911Files only exists in quote form to me, through others,

How does a DFDR record 42 hours of data when it is only rated to record 25 hours?

Now, assuming 911Files is correct, although it's no surprise he does not provide source for his claims, once again.

25 - 1.3 hours = 23.7 hours.

Divided by 11 = 2.15 hours per flight.

Piece of cake to stay in your seat and keep the door closed.

911Files did mention he is an "old man" when pleading to Turbofan not to pick on him. Perhaps he no longer remembers being able to hold it for more than two hours? Just asking.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Darn Mackey imposter, we were talking about England, not me. Thought you had me on ignore?

Anyways, for anyone interested, here is my 'working' GE kmz composite with the last 19 seconds correlation.

Google Earth KMZ - Time Correlation Positions

Oh my, my calculator must be messed up. There are 151368 subframes in the RO, and last I checked (could be wrong) a subframe is one second. There are 3600 seconds in an hour the last I checkes, so there are 151368/3600 hours of data in the Warren RO. My calculator gives 42.0467 hours. It must be broken.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by 911files]

Yep, the file starts at 0 (before you ask)

Subframe Counter FLT DECK DOOR
3 CLOSED
7 CLOSED
11 CLOSED
15 CLOSED
19 CLOSED

[edit on 27-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Well since 911Files only exists in quote form to me, through others,

Originally posted by 911files
Darn Mackey imposter, we were talking about England, not me. Thought you had me on ignore?

You must be working so hard on that alleged FDR data decode that you don't read posts properly, 911files?

That sure could create more confusion in the thread.

Why would the alleged FDR data show the flight deck door being closed, 911files? What a confusing puzzle.

reply to post by tezzajw


No, you must not be. Please show me where my reference to an 'old man' was quoted by anyone in the thread above please.

If there is any confusion being generated it is by people such as yourself and Mackey imposter injecting personal attacks and false information into the thread.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by 911files]