Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Open Discussion Suggestion, to benefit the Pentagon investigation.
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:43 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



JDX,

Hey I have an idea.

Would you be willing to allow 2 JREFer's limited access to a debate thread with you on the FDR data?

Some of us here just don't get exposed to a second opinion on this stuff.

When you compared me to them and suggested I go over there, I did some reading. Some of them appear to be employed in the aerospace industry and pretty knowledgeable.

They have some ideas and formulas that indicate some different conclusions that seem reasonable.

As you've pointed out I am not that bright at this aerospace stuff and a couple of others have been told they don't know what they're talking about either. Since those of us here are not exposed to this stuff much, I thought it might help us understand the issues better.

We would know who they are and that they are taking the position of skeptics in advance. They would also only have limited access to the debate thread and would not "troll" the boards.

It seems like a good idea and with the facts you would be able to convince them of your interpretation of the data putting this all to rest.

Would you be open to doing that?

Is anybody else interested in seeing an open discussion like this? The truth has nothing to fear.

Russell

Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 10:25 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 10:30 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Still waiting for you to address this report as well...


QUOTE
Conclusion 1: The angle of approach, 42, proposed by the Report, is impossible for a Boeing 757 because of the locations of the single hole in the fence and the intact overhead signs and lampposts on the motorway. The only possible trajectory is difficult to reconcile with the Report's information on the tilt of the aircraft at the moment of impact.



QUOTE
Conclusion 2: The Report is able to present no rational support for its claim that the right engine's hitting a generator might explain why the outermost part of the right wing never hit the wall of the Pentagon



QUOTE
Conclusion 3: The cable spools show that the builing could not have been hit by an aircraft with dimensions similar to those of a Boeing 757 at a vertical position indicated by the Report.



QUOTE
Conclusion 4: No support is forthcoming for the claim in the Report that the left engine hit something prior to making contact with the facade. Also no justification is given in the Report for the allegation that such a hit could even in principle explain why the outermost part of the left wing never hit the building.



QUOTE
Conclusion 5: The Report's description of the interaction of the aircraft with the second-floor slab has no physical credibility.



QUOTE
Conclusion 6: The impact damage to the facade on the right side of the entry point of the fuselage does not correspond to the size, shape and position of the alleged Boeing 757 presented in the Report.



QUOTE
Conclusion 7: The facade damage to the left of the entry point of the fuselage is not suggestive of an impact by a B-757.


QUOTE

Conclusion 8: The absence of any kind of damage by the aircraft's tail excludes the possibility of a hit by a B-757.



QUOTE
Conclusion 9: The Report is not able to explain the hole in the inner wall of Ring C with the story of a crash of a Boeing 757



QUOTE
Final Conclusion
The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Belief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically impossible and inexplicable phenomena. More generally, no proof of the return of Flight 77 to the Washington area has been presented. On the contrary, e.g. any security camera recordings that would really show what hit the Pentagon have not been made public. (In May 2006, two series of still photos from security cameras were released, but they contain no evidence of a Boeing 757. See www.flight77.info and www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml.)

The most natural explanation for the numerous errors in the Report is that it is a part of the disinformation campaign by the US authorities - the purpose of which is to prevent the truth regarding 9/11 from being revealed and thus to protect the perpetrators of those atrocities.


This last conclusion makes ALOT of sense. "Disinformation campaigns containing numerous errors."

This site does it the right way. They took a govt report and went from there.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...dpost&p=7567582
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 05:04 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



Here is my page on the ASCE report.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/bps.html

Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 05:11 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



So if I organize a discussion of this nature here in the LC debate forum you will answer their questions?

Do you think UT would moderate it or something? He is detached and fair.
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 06:40 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



There is already interest on their part and they would abide by strict rules of professionalism. Just facts.

Do you have somebody in mind to work with you on this? That would be two people on each side.

Then we have to find a fair moderator. I would do it but it seems like you don't trust me for some reason.

This will be great.

Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 07:43 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



I welcome the opportunity to debate. I welcome anyone that can try to explain why the FDR shows the aircraft at 480MSL. So far no one has been able to. I have read over their comments, and they are just that, comments and opinion. They use one theory to explain one thing forgetting that it creates another conflict. Then the usual omit, ignore, spin.

However, i dont think the admins here want JREFers on this site. That is why i have welcomed them to my site. It seems no one has taken the challenge due to the simple rules of no name calling.


As i said, i have spent over 4000 of my first posts battling JREFers in the old Skeptics forum. Im familiar with their spin and ridicule while not providing facts. If they want to debate, the challenge has been up there since Sept 22.
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 07:49 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



So even if they are limited to just the thread we can't allow 2 JREFer's temporary access to have the discussion here?

I would post Dylan's own words on his thoughts about JREFer's here but as you know that thread and his words were disappeared. He seemed to think it was OK. Is there a way to find his thoughts on that and post them?

I feel it is a great idea to have some dialogue with another point of view.

The truth can only benefit from this.....right?

Maybe we should use democracy and have a poll to see if the people here are open to seeing both sides of this discussion. If we end up collectively being afraid of a different opinion then fine we can withdraw into our own theories and ideas without exposing ourselves to new information.

It might be just me but I feel truth has nothing to fear.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 07:58 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Russ,

I know this may be hard for you to grasp... but please try really hard to understand this... the welcome is there, it has been there for awhile. In the debate forum here and on my site. We have debated all of it before...

Heres one debate with another pilot that ended up holding on to a mistake in spelling.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...opic=11235&st=0

Heres another debate that has been up since Sept 28
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=15306


And if they dont want to debate here on LC.. they have this place
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Trut...hp?showforum=19

(note the amount of name calling in the Billzilla thread)
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 08:05 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



I understand the past. And you have called me names too so that is not a good example.

This would be different. It would be controlled and we would allow 2 representatives of their selection to have a fair discussion. Not get banned for having a different opinion.

I feel it should be done here in our forums so that we can all see it. It would only be the debate participants allowed to post under established rules.

Many of us have just been told to learn this and that we don't have educated opinions. We don't have time to learn it. Some of these people appear to be employed in the industry and have information that may expand our knowledge.

If the current interpretations are correct then they will have to skulk back to their own forums.

What can it hurt?
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 08:10 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Russ.. .THE THREADS ARE THERE! IN THE DEBATE FORUM. THIS BOARD. THE LOOSE CHANGE FORUM.


Does anyone have a bull horn to go over to Russ and say the above sentence in his ear really loud? Perhaps he will get it...


Russ, read the threads in the debate forum. Most has been debated. You want to invite them over, be my guest. The threads are there waiting as they have been. Read them...
Top
Anti-sophist
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 08:38 PM


Newbie


Group: Banned
Posts: 5
Member No.: 6,239
Joined: 11-October 06



Hi, my name is Anti-sophist.

I worked as an instrumentation engineer with the USAF (as a civilian). I'll be happy to look at your calculations in detail (I've already done so, repeatedly, in a shallow respect), and give you my honest evaluation. For the sake of full disclosure: I am a "skeptic" by every definition of the word, and a JREFer by you all's definition. However, none of those affiliations are paramount to my role as an engineer or scientist. I draw conclusions based on the evidence, and if the evidence changes, so will my conclusions. I consider my "skepticism" to be the the result of looking at the evidence, not the bias I bring to its analysis. You'll need to judge my honesty, for yourself, over time.

My only "rules" for any "debate" is that the goal is to get the science right, first, and draw conclusions last. Also, the debate needs to be about the science, and intellectually honest. I'm not in the business of sophistry or propaganda... getting the science right is all that should matter. Under those conditions, I'm willing to participate in any debate and/or discussion.

My expertise has to do with data aquisition systems, pcm data, and recording/telemetry devices. I've worked with tape and solid-state recorders, although never "crash survivable" ones. I do not claim to be an expert on issues like "pressure altitude" sensors and its calibration with respect to air speeds and lag and all that other stuff. That wasn't my business. My business was, very specifically, in reading data from instruments, storing the data returned, and telemetry. As such, any error related to the instrument must be dealt with post-decoding of the PCM data.

As such, I'm willing to discuss, specifically the FDR data. The CSV file released by the NTSB is the only data I have in possession. I understand there is also a '.fdr' file floating around which may contain raw data. If someone could provide me a link to that, I'd be happy to download that. Furthermore, does there exist, anywhere, the major-frame description of this raw data?

This post has been edited by Anti-sophist on Oct 11 2006, 08:39 PM
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 08:50 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



I think a controlled debate thread that is based on science sounds good. Let's start over and see what happens.
Top
Anti-sophist
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 08:52 PM


Newbie


Group: Banned
Posts: 5
Member No.: 6,239
Joined: 11-October 06



I'm really looking for the .fdr file raw dump, and the major frame description? Is this information available? I'd need all available data before seriously persuing this. Right now I have the CSV file, only.
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 08:53 PM


Below the Waves
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Member No.: 3,743
Joined: 2-August 06



Anti-S, I will PM you with the answers you seek.

ack, might not get to it tonight (typing), in the mean time, please review these threads

Bit level FDR

AA77 Flight Data, hard number and soft math

All About Alititude

Boeing refuses to decode

/thanks

This post has been edited by UnderTow on Oct 11 2006, 08:57 PM
Top
Anti-sophist
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:01 PM


Newbie


Group: Banned
Posts: 5
Member No.: 6,239
Joined: 11-October 06



QUOTE (UnderTow @ Oct 11 2006, 08:53 PM)
Bit level FDR

I got:

The error returned was:

You do not have permission to view this topic


I sent Russell and email, so hopefully he'll send me the fdr data.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:02 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Hi Anti-S,

I have read some of your stuff over at JREF. I noticed your first chart had the poles impacted with a 200 foot X Axis the same size for a 20 foot Y axis.

Not very to scale.

Next, I noticed you havent addressed the pressure correction for the 173' end of data corrected for local pressure. Do you know the difference between True altitude and pressure altitude? If you dont.. this is going to take awhile and perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the different types of altitude before we proceed. I have a long thread addressing this issue with Russell if you need it.
Top
Anti-sophist
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:11 PM


Newbie


Group: Banned
Posts: 5
Member No.: 6,239
Joined: 11-October 06



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 11 2006, 09:02 PM)

I have read some of your stuff over at JREF. I noticed your first chart had the poles impacted with a 200 foot X Axis the same size for a 20 foot Y axis.

Not very to scale.

You are right the graph wasn't spatially to scale, but all that changing the x-axis to equal the y-axis to scale would have done would be to "stretch" the graph and make it longer. It would change the slope of the lines, but not where any of them intersect (in proportion). I can reproduce a full to-scale graph quite easily if you wish.

But I think we are getting alot ahead of ourselves. I was operating on old data at the time, using very simple calculations based on alot of assumptions. There is much more information available than I used in those graphs, and I'm willing to look at my assumptions alot more carefully.

Moreover, I understand the differences you speak of. Maybe I need to be a bit more clear. I don't claim to be an expert in sensory, because that wasn't my job. I worked with many sensor experts, and picked up alot along the way, but it's not my specific area of expertise. I'm referring, here, to my professional experience. Please don't understand that to mean I am ignorant of the subject, though.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:16 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Please keep in mind the FDR is taking its recorded data directly off the ADC just as the altimeter, airspeed indicator and IVSI.

The animation shows real time input based on the recorded data provided by the NTSB.

We'll work from there.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:19 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Also to add,

Undertow can work with you as far as the computer aspect. I'll help with interpretations of the data as a pilot looking at an instrument.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:27 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (Anti-sophist @ Oct 11 2006, 05:01 PM)
QUOTE (UnderTow @ Oct 11 2006, 08:53 PM)
Bit level FDR

I got:

The error returned was:

You do not have permission to view this topic


I sent Russell and email, so hopefully he'll send me the fdr data.

Here is the link that doesnt work for you...

QUOTE
From UnderTow:

I've been reading extensively again in the hopes I've missed some golden key that may unlock this box. So excuse my pasting. But this is good information.

L3 Avitation Recorders
FA2100
Storage Capacity Exceeds 25Hours of Flight Data
Regulatory Specifications
ARINC 404A, 573/717 (64/128 WPS), 747 (64/128/256/512 WPS)

~~~NTSB Report~~~
SSFDR rate 3072 bits/sec
continous 4 second data frames (3027 bits/sec x 4 sec = 12108 bits)
4 1-second subframes of 256 12-bit words

~~~Boeing FDR for Dummies~~~
A typical DFDR with 25 hours of flight data will have (25 hours) x (3600 sec/hour) / (4 seconds/frame) = 22500 frames.
22500 x 4 = 90000 subframes of 3072 bits each

~~~American 77 raw FDR~~~
MATH:
276480000 bits for 25 Hours
34560000 bytes

MyFile: American77.xxx <<-- More about this later
58275333 bytes
466202664 bits
154014.755 seconds
42.781 hours

##

Conclusion.
The raw FDR File provided by the NTSB most likely contains 42.8 Hours of Flight Data
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:39 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



OK.

I guess this discussion is going to take place here?

No banning if the rules are followed?

Or should it be organized and controlled with rules in the debate forum?

I do feel that if us observers could occasionally pop in with brief, concise questions it would be helpful for everybody.

Let me know how this should all work.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:43 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Oct 11 2006, 05:39 PM)
OK.

I guess this discussion is going to take place here?

No banning if the rules are followed?

Or should it be organized and controlled with rules in the debate forum?

I do feel that if us observers could occasionally pop in with brief, concise questions it would be helpful for everybody.

Let me know how this should all work.

Russ.. just relax... so far its working.

We'll see how it goes. I'm interested in Anti-S's take. (although i have seen alot of his assumptions and spin on the JREF boards).

Just let it be the way it is. The rules of the board stand... period.
Top
Sanders
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:55 PM


Unregistered









I just banned Anti-sophist. For being an admitted JREFer. JREFers are not welcome on this forum.

I repeat, JREFers are not welcome here.

Anyone who talks on their forum about alerting the FBI, NSA, CIA to the LC forum in hope of shutting this place down and seeing some of us killed (yes, they really were talking about that over there), or anyone that associates with people of that mind-set, are not welcome here. Period. In case anyone didn't get the memo.

JREFers will be banned on sight. As I just did. We welcome skeptics, but not JREFers.

Thank you all for your consideration.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 09:58 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



oh well.. i guess that's that...


Seems Russ isnt too familiar with JREF tactics... or... perhaps he is... thats why he invited them here...
Top
Lyte Trip
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 10:14 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 243
Member No.: 3,066
Joined: 23-June 06



QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 11 2006, 09:55 PM)

JREFers will be banned on sight. As I just did. We welcome skeptics, but not JREFers.

Thank you all for your consideration.

Good job.

I'm sure Russell knows how bad they consistently slander Dylan, Loose Change, and anyone who is a member of this forum throughout the internet.

They are obviously obsessed.

The funny part is.......we have a reason to be obsessed with 9/11....they are clearly fanatics with no lives to be so involved with something they deem to be nothing but a looney conspiracy theory.
Top
slick
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 10:31 PM


Life Is A Paradox
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,672
Member No.: 2,498
Joined: 30-May 06



Good call Sanders. smile.gif

Those guys are definately a rare breed.

This post has been edited by slick on Oct 11 2006, 10:34 PM
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 10:36 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 11 2006, 10:14 PM)
QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 11 2006, 09:55 PM)

JREFers will be banned on sight. As I just did. We welcome skeptics, but not JREFers. 

Thank you all for your consideration.

Good job.

I'm sure Russell knows how bad they consistently slander Dylan, Loose Change, and anyone who is a member of this forum throughout the internet.

They are obviously obsessed.

The funny part is.......we have a reason to be obsessed with 9/11....they are clearly fanatics with no lives to be so involved with something they deem to be nothing but a looney conspiracy theory.

Dylan responds differently.

He welcomes the criticism and uses it to improve his film in every version.

One more loss of credibility for us.
Top
Lyte Trip
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 10:40 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 243
Member No.: 3,066
Joined: 23-June 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Oct 11 2006, 10:36 PM)

Dylan responds differently.

He welcomes the criticism and uses it to improve his film in every version.

One more loss of credibility for us.

That's funny.

I wonder why he never bothered to tell his admins this.

Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 11 2006, 10:41 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Oct 11 2006, 06:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 11 2006, 10:14 PM)
QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 11 2006, 09:55 PM)

JREFers will be banned on sight. As I just did. We welcome skeptics, but not JREFers.

Thank you all for your consideration.

Good job.

I'm sure Russell knows how bad they consistently slander Dylan, Loose Change, and anyone who is a member of this forum throughout the internet.

They are obviously obsessed.

The funny part is.......we have a reason to be obsessed with 9/11....they are clearly fanatics with no lives to be so involved with something they deem to be nothing but a looney conspiracy theory.

Dylan responds differently.

He welcomes the criticism and uses it to improve his film in every version.

One more loss of credibility for us.

Why dont you let Dylan speak for himself Russ...

Constructive criticism is one thing...

Spin, ignorance, omitting facts to push an agenda is another.

Im not surprised you dont know the difference.. nor am i surprised you just cant fathom the possibility that it just may happen on a site such as this.
Top
« Next Oldest | The Pentagon | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1774 seconds | Archive