FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

[beachnut]

The best of all..

Beachnut, you just told us the time frame. If you're confused, perhaps someone here can help you with speed = distance/time. If you dont know where to find the speed, the NTSB provided it in their CSV files.

TSO-124 and ED-55. Its on the PfT front page interview with Ed Santana. Why do you keep avoiding it asking me to answer? Stale tactic. You cant answer. We get it.

Have fun!

The data for each second is collected; can you tell me or anyone when in the infinite portions in that second the RAD ALT is from in time (0 to 1 second use .001 second portions)? (you need to think before you mess up again and post stupid stuff) Ask questions if you do not understand?

You keep posting standards! Fence sitters, he is talking about standards and he can not tell you the date, or the compliance requirements of the standards he is posting. (124b is current, ED-112 is current)

HINT:

New models of FDR systems identified and manufactured on or after the effective date of this TSO must meet the MPS in the European Organization for Civil Aviation Electronics’ (EUROCAE) publication ED-XXX

Fence sitters, please be warned, the p4t cherry pick and mislead! They want you to buy pure dumb DVDs which mislead to feed paranoid minds who want to let others make up their minds for them. Those who understand reality must ask questions of those who ignore facts to sell DVDs which mislead. This simple quote from the standard our newest expert can not produce, explains why he can not tell anyone the whole story it will destroy the misinformation of p4t. Join the p4tf and see pure stupid in action. It hurts to see how dumb people can mess up 9/11 without any effort.

 

[tony soprano]

Too bad you have no idea how a FDR works;

Beachnut, why did you edit the above post almost 1.5 hours after your posted the original? Your original is quoted all over the place. Are you trying to hide something?

You do know people can see date/time.. right?

For those not familiar redirecting to quoted posts, click the little arrow next to the name in above quote. Note the difference in time from original to edit. Also note Beachnut didnt give a reason for edit. He deleted his whole post and reposted something completely different. Beachnut, poor form.. very poor form. Even for JREF. Scroll down on same page to see quotes from his original post.



Dont bother editing again, as its now saved.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, why did you edit the above post almost 1.5 hours after your posted the original? Your original is quoted all over the place. Are you trying to hide something?

You do know people can see date/time.. right?

For those not familiar redirecting to quoted posts, click the little arrow next to the name in above quote. Note the difference in time from original to edit. Also note Beachnut didnt give a reason for edit. He deleted his whole post and reposted something completely different. Beachnut, poor form.. very poor form. Even for JREF. Scroll down on same page to see quotes from his original post.



Dont bother editing again, as its now saved.

So?

 

[tony soprano]

So?

Beachnut, i understand what you did and why you did it. You deleted a post you made that incriminates yourself and the govt story. You placed the aircraft location based on speed and height. You realized you were wrong, and you deleted it almost 1.5 hours later when you finally "woke up" to what you had done.

Its all spelled out here....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3443068&postcount=80

and subsequent posts.

So tell me JREF regulars, is it normal to edit your posts almost 1.5 hours after its been quoted everywhere? Maybe i'll go back and edit mine. Nah, i dont need to.

Beachnut, careful, JREFers might start to think you are hired by P4T as controlled opposition. You're just to easy to spot.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, i understand what you did and why you did it. You deleted a post you made that incriminates yourself and the govt story. You placed the aircraft location based on speed and height. You realized you were wrong, and you deleted it almost 1.5 hours later when you finally "woke up" to what you had done.

Its all spelled out here....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3443068&postcount=80

and subsequent posts.

So tell me JREF regulars, is it normal to edit your posts almost 1.5 hours after its been quoted everywhere? Maybe i'll go back and edit mine. Nah, i dont need to.

Beachnut, careful, JREFers might start to think you are hired by P4T as controlled opposition. You're just to easy to spot.

They can read my posts in your posts: I am saving space and wanted to say less! I could care less if you have all my edits stored forever! So? I can edit them for 2 hours, you can too; so? I want to shorten them all. But I was typing away; I type too fast unlike Rob who can't type as fast; I am watching movies and typing; so; after I read my posts, I want to shorten them despite the fact you have them all stored in your posts! So?) Do not be surprised when this goes away too, so keep a record for me! thank you very much.

BTW, I have listen to rob and so have others here is what others have heard rob say as I have! You can find these recording if rob has not deleted them.

Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:
It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits.

How can you support such tripe? How can you support such a nut? He does not know how many feet were in a NM, the spectrum of a RADAR ALT, and this is his idea of reality! Good for you, you have no evidence and you support an idiot!

 

[tony soprano]

I notice you dont provide source links. Typical.

"Saving space". And i bet many JREFers will buy that?

However, i dont support no one but myself, my family and the Constitution. I have questions regarding 9/11. You seem to think anyone who questions 9/11 is a liar, a thief, a snakeoil salesman, a dolt, a junk "scientist" ..etc etc, while you delete your posts when they are used against you.

I hope you feel proud.

Tell us Beachnut, why were you taken off the line and assigned to fly a desk?

 

[gumboot]

I have to ask, what is the point of all this obsessive compulsive amateur analysis of the FDR output from AA77?

 

[beachnut]

I notice you dont provide source links. Typical.

"Saving space". And i bet many JREFers will buy that?

However, i dont support no one but myself, my family and the Constitution. I have questions regarding 9/11. You seem to think anyone who questions 9/11 is a liar, a thief, a snakeoil salesman, a dolt, a junk "scientist" ..etc etc, while you delete your posts when they are used against you.

I hope you feel proud.

Tell us Beachnut, why were you taken off the line and assigned to fly a desk?

You support the nut case ideas of rob as posted here!

You can not supply the dates and what the standards mean for FDRs.!

You have posted no facts, you have failed to make a point except to support a fantasy made up by rob.

NO, anyone who makes up lies is a fraud and those who believe the ideas of rob are dolts for not demanding evidence to support the fantasy he made up!

If you have listened to all of rob's interviews you know this is true of what he said! Either you are a good researcher and know this, or you are a poor researcher and do not know what rob has said. Which is it?

Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:

It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits.

Do you do your own research? Then you can look up the oath I took too. Why do you lie?

 

[tony soprano]

You support the nut case ideas of rob as posted here!

You attack person instead of argument. Against JREF rules?

You can not supply the dates and what the standards mean for FDRs.!

i have told you numerous times Ed Santana supplied the information through an interview provided on PfT front page. I asked you if you knew what it meant, 7 times. Instead, you chose to attack asking me what it meant.

You have posted no facts, you have failed to make a point except to support a fantasy made up by rob.

I have posted and quoted your own words, which you deleted once you realized it didnt add up to the govt story. Your excuse? "Saving Space"...

NO, anyone who makes up lies is a fraud and those who believe the ideas of rob are dolts for not demanding evidence to support the fantasy he made up!

All dolts according to you... http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots ... and growing rapidly..

Wheres your picture and statements?

Again, care to tell us why you were assigned to fly a desk? I lost count, but i think its the 5th time asked.

 

[tony soprano]

I have to ask, what is the point of all this obsessive compulsive amateur analysis of the FDR output from AA77?

Great question Gum. Why dont you think it over.

But i disagree with "amature", unless of course we are talking about Beachnut.

 

[DGM]

Tony:
Simple question. Is all the physical evidence, DNA, wreckage, witnesses and such all an elaborate fake?

 

[beachnut]

You attack person instead of argument. Against JREF rules?

Wrong, I said nut case ideas! And here it is.

Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:

It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits.

Have you found the interview yet?

i have told you numerous times Ed Santana supplied the information through an interview provided on PfT front page. I asked you if you knew what it meant, 7 times. Instead, you chose to attack asking me what it meant.

Tell me in your own words what the standards say for the FDR used on 77. Facts please.

I have posted and quoted your own words, which you deleted once you realized it didnt add up to the govt story. Your excuse? "Saving Space"...

No, I edited my posts; my posts, to make them smaller (less is more) and what I want to post now. If you have the old ones that is great; you can keep them; thank you for making up what you think I am doing; it shows how good you are at stating facts; I know you have quoted my old posts, I edited them; you have got my old post; I wanted to shorten my old posts as I wish; you can keep the old ones, I posted new ones. SO? I will remove this after a few minutes cause I am wasting space with your stupid statement. So be quick I want to edit my posts as I see fit to say what I want to say when I want to say it. SO? Please keep beating this dead point into the ground so you can avoid actually answering a single real question I have posted many times.

All dolts according to you... http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots ... and growing rapidly..

Those who can not figure out 9/11 after 6 years are dolts; those who finally figure it out are cured of terminal stupidity and can be then be known as knowledgeable and be proud they have learned to identify idiot ideas made up by frauds.

Wheres your picture and statements?

Where's yours?

Again, care to tell us why you were assigned to fly a desk? I lost count, but i think its the 5th time asked.

Why do you make up lies? Is this a habit or a learned technique from 9/11 truth?

 

[gumboot]

Great question Gum. Why dont you think it over.

I'd rather not waste my time, and as I already expressed I am ignorant of its importance. Obviously it has something to do with a theory of what happened on 9/11, but I'd like something a bit more specific.

But i disagree with "amature", unless of course we are talking about Beachnut.

I mean amateur in the sense of it being conducted via a method and via people that are not professionally qualified and properly equipped FDR analysers.

 

[tony soprano]

ok.. i see the gang rape is coming on board. Sorry if i dont get to all of you.

Beachnut, i'll keep it simple as others are lurking, know your name, and know your "assignment".

Just answer these questions.

Does ED-55 and TSO-124 set the standard for SSFDR's?

What is the standard buffer lag for SSFDR's?

Were these regs effective in 1965, 1970, 1980, 1990, or 2001?

Were they only effective for SSFDR?

Do you put your name on the fact that SSFDR's can have a 4 second buffer lag?

Just answer please. Dont ask me to answer (spin is so unbecoming). Im asking you.

Remember now, "Save Space" with your reply.

Thanks in advance.


edit to add: Beachnut, are you saying you were never taken off line to fly a desk? Please tell me i am lying again.

 

[beachnut]

2800 feet/781 f/s speed = 3.5 seconds

393 feet altitude/3.5 seconds = 112 f/s descent rate x 60 = 6737 fpm descent rate at less than 400 feet above the ground. Unfortunately, you just increased the descent rate/pitch angle the NTSB provided, which in fact doesnt hit the poles.

Sorry, it is 94 feet/second; you forgot to adjust some things and you rounded 3.63 seconds to 3.5! As usually you have the wrong amount of feet to impact in absolute attitude and you shave the time to cheat.

The less than 5667 feet rate of descent is not out of the ordinary for 77! Sorry, what is your point besides showing how you can shave time and increase the absolute altitude above the Pentagon impact point to make up false information on 9/11.

Sad you make up stuff to mislead, does not seem your actions support your ideals.

 

[gumboot]

ok.. i see the gang rape is coming on board. Sorry if i dont get to all of you.

For what it's worth I'm not interested in discussing the matter as I really don't know much about FDRs. I'm just curious to know what the specific relevance is. Maybe it's worth addressing in my Air War paper I'm writing.

 

[tony soprano]

ok, lets get critical...

2800/781 f/s = 3.58 What calculator are you using? What speed are you using?

393/3.58 = 109 f/s dive

109 f/s dive = 6586 fpm descent rate at less than 400 feet above the ground, at less than 4 seconds from the pentagon wall.

Beachnut. Are you telling all these pilots who are lurking that a 757 can pull out of a 6500fpm dive, less than 400 feet above the ground, in less than 4 seconds? Is that what you are telling us? Because once again, you increased the rate the NTSB provided. They show a 4500 fpm descent rate. 4500 fpm is too high. But hey, feel free to keep arguing it. You help PfT.

edit to add: keep in mind, the above are Beachnuts numbers (where he got them from, who knows, but he did delete his originals, i guess we can see why), which are very wrong when one watches the video here based on actual NTSB numbers:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10751

 

[gumboot]

Beachnut. Are you telling all these pilots who are lurking that a 757 can pull out of a 6500fpm dive, less than 400 feet above the ground, in less than 4 seconds?

Not that I'm really following the conversation, but why would a 757 need to pull out of such a dive?

 

[eeyore1954]

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Anyone who uses this quote is either wildly misinformed or definately not interested in the truth. The complete quote plainly shows to any reasonable reader that he does not mean there was no crash of a jetliner.

 

[tony soprano]

Not that I'm really following the conversation, but why would a 757 need to pull out of such a dive?

Perhaps click the link to the videos? Others will, and others do.

edit to add: ok, i'll help you a bit here Gum.

Watch this video first. Its based on working backwards from the "impact hole" with NTSB pitch/bank data.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8166

That pitch is about 4500 fpm descent.

Beachnut, even if we go with his 5880 fpm descent rate, has increased the pitch beyond what the NTSB provided. Hope this helps.