FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

[BenBurch]

agreed. How many times can one ask of FDR regs when a self proclaimed "FDR Expert" avoids?

Ummm.... Son, I was talking about you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Kinda funny how tony asks question after question accusing people of not answering them, yet is never able to answer any questions himself. Just one of those traits you see in a troll.

 

[Reheat]

.......Just for clarity then can someone post all of the distances from the Pentagon at the time of the last recording on the DFDR according to all devices, INS, DME, etc. as well as the height from each data source, radar and pressure alt for instance ,,, and imporatantly, the inherent error in each number.........

I'm not sure this is a good idea at all. He will "cherry pick" the data and perhaps get an "expert" to explain away any inaccuracy as he's already attempted to do. It just gives him more justification to produce another DVD to sell.

The vast majority of "fence sitters" don't understand the technical discussions anyway and there is no reason (in my view) to give him the opportunity to "razzle dazzle" his way around a rational explanation for discrepancies which are numerous.

If we develop comprehensive data in that regard, all we do is just continue to fall into the trap of using ONE aspect of the Pentagon Investigation to prove whether AA77 hit the wall or not. The FDR Data alone is NEVER going to prove it conclusively one way or another anyway.

All data available shows AA77 in a position west of the Pentagon just short of the Pentagon, let's allow them attempt to PROVE it didn't hit it. The onus is on them, not us.

ETA: If he ever produces a written document with conclusions, I would reevaluate my position and reconsider a written response. Until then we should just let them produce their DVD's into oblivion. They are not effective anyway except for the gullible few.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page.

This is a continious distortion that pft keep pretending is relevant. The actual quote says that the system is designed to lose at most 1.5 seconds of data when power is lost.

Going from that statement to "at most 1.5 seconds is lost in the CSV file we have, after it was decoded, after it was validated, after it was on fire, and after slammed into a reinforced concrete structure at 550mph".

If and when Ed Santana says that _your_data_ has at most 1.5 seconds missing, I'll pay attention. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves in the face of such overwhelming and continuous gibberish.

 

[AMTMAN]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page. You didnt see it eeyore?


I suppose you people can ask for experts all day long while saying out of the other side of your cheek "That place disgusts me, i'll never go there".

Thanks. It appears you justify why people have questions about 9/11 and some are biased no matter what.

I wonder what PfT member, or founder, you are. I also wonder what you people think it was that hit the Pentagon since, according to PfT, the evidence does not support a AA 757 hitting the Pentagon. I also wonder why they waste their time on message boards since they have all this "evidence". Seems to me if they are so sure of themselves they should go to the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA TImes, 60 Minutes, Dateline etc, etc.

 

[AMTMAN]

If you read the linked post gum, you'll see it agrees with what you been saying. Are you also "disgusted" to click links to PfT? Even when it agrees with your analysis? Or do you just like to argue.

Is that you Rob?

 

[twinstead]

Seems to me if they are so sure of themselves they should go to the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA TImes, 60 Minutes, Dateline etc, etc.

Yea. One would think...

 

[apathoid]

Is that you Rob?

Yep, and he's already been banned as a sockpuppet of 'weedwanker'.

 

[BenBurch]

For the lurkers, tony soprano was in fact Rob Balsamo, the unemployed former pilot behind Pilots for Truth.

Lying, as you see, is what he does.

How bad/messed up do you need to be to remain unemployed as a pilot??? There is always SOME sort of flying job that needs to be done, even if it is just towing banners.

 

[apathoid]

How bad/messed up do you need to be to remain unemployed as a pilot??? There is always SOME sort of flying job that needs to be done, even if it is just towing banners.

Going off his forum management style and numerous death threats, I'd say there is a good chance he has a problem getting his blood pressure under control and can't get a medical...

(In fact, his face is probably turning beet red as he reads this.)

 

[AMTMAN]

This is a continious distortion that pft keep pretending is relevant. The actual quote says that the system is designed to lose at most 1.5 seconds of data when power is lost.

Going from that statement to "at most 1.5 seconds is lost in the CSV file we have, after it was decoded, after it was validated, after it was on fire, and after slammed into a reinforced concrete structure at 550mph".

If and when Ed Santana says that _your_data_ has at most 1.5 seconds missing, I'll pay attention. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves in the face of such overwhelming and continuous gibberish.

I wonder if Rob asked Mr. Santana if he thought an AA 757 hit the Pentagon. I'm guessing no, that's because he would not have liked the answer he would have gotten. Somewhere along the lines of "Are out of your mind?" I'm sure if Mr. Santana saw PfT's interpretation of the data he would have proceeded to tear it apart.

 

[Magenta]

I also wonder why they waste their time on message boards since they have all this "evidence". Seems to me if they are so sure of themselves they should go to the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA TImes, 60 Minutes, Dateline etc, etc.

I often wonder the very same thing. Has any truther ever been known to answer this question? (And saying "they" i.e. the media are in on it doesn't address the futility of arguing with strangers on internet forums.)

 

[EvilBiker]

Redirecting this towards Lisa and other mods: Just out of curiosity, how was that determined?

No, I'm not questioning the verdict; as a matter of fact, I was thinking that exact thing, that this sounded like a JDX sock. I'm just curious as to how it was determined he was Balsamo, that's all.

Can't comment from the mods side, but it was pretty obvious...

Balsamo pointers:

Keep up the great work! That post is saved.

Rob seems to be growing a rather credible group. Has spoken to Ron and Pat Curley, recorded.

Beachnut, make up your mind already...

I'll be back to play more with Beachnut in the future.

Dont bother editing again, as its now saved.

Typical ad hom when losing it:

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

I was just waiting for his classic "I didn't read the rest of your post" mantra...

Note to potential trolls: if you're socking at a site where you've been previously banned, change your posting style.

Of course, this would involve some thinking before posting, which tends to weed out the majority of these idiots.

 

[chillzero]

Moderation issues should be discussed in forum mgt, not in threads. Additionally, it helps us for pointers not to be given out to potential socks.

Please keep this thread more on topic, if the discussion is to continue.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm not sure this is a good idea at all. He will "cherry pick" the data and perhaps get an "expert" to explain away any inaccuracy as he's already attempted to do. It just gives him more justification to produce another DVD to sell.

The vast majority of "fence sitters" don't understand the technical discussions anyway and there is no reason (in my view) to give him the opportunity to "razzle dazzle" his way around a rational explanation for discrepancies which are numerous.

If we develop comprehensive data in that regard, all we do is just continue to fall into the trap of using ONE aspect of the Pentagon Investigation to prove whether AA77 hit the wall or not. The FDR Data alone is NEVER going to prove it conclusively one way or another anyway.

All data available shows AA77 in a position west of the Pentagon just short of the Pentagon, let's allow them attempt to PROVE it didn't hit it. The onus is on them, not us.

ETA: If he ever produces a written document with conclusions, I would reevaluate my position and reconsider a written response. Until then we should just let them produce their DVD's into oblivion. They are not effective anyway except for the gullible few.

Actually the final few posts of mine on P4t that got me banned were to do with them putting together a written report with calculations, and the sort of lists that I mention above. Rob simply and utterly refused to entertain such a suggestion and when I pushed him on it I was banned. I used no ad homs, no sarcastic attitude, just a simple suggestion.

Given that the lists I mention above would require a lot of explanaitory information (accuracy of radar and pressure alt, data write times and lag....) you are correct, it would be more than what one could put in a forum post , or for that matter, a video. Too bad that the 'experts' at P4t find it so very difficult or against their constitution to produce such a thing. If all they want to say it that the NTSB video does not match the advertised flight path and that the raw numbers on the DFDR do not match the advertised flight path then fine, that is true. If the plane was at 393 MSL above the light posts then it would not hit the light posts.

However, of course, although P4t says they make no claims, they in fact do. They back the CIT video which is tacit approval of the CIT claim. They expect that the above differences make the gov't story of Flt 77 wrong. Yet when pressed to produce a technical paper outlining all of their ,,,, concerns,,, they not only fail to do so, but actually refuse to.

boggles the mind........

 

[Reheat]

boggles the mind........

I think you really know why he won't put it all in a comprehensive technical paper.

A technical paper would pin him down. It would be easily reviewed. As it is he can continue to "razzle dazzle" his way through the endless explanations and sell DVDs.

If he's as correct as he indicates he is, a technical paper would more readily accomplish an honest goal of gaining the attention of someone in authority or the scandal hungry media. As it is, his objective is obviously not an honest one.

He will never ever document the variables to his theories as that would be the end of his fantasy. He'll continue to use whatever perpetuates his delusions.

I agree with you that his objective sometimes seems to be to prove that he's smarter than the NTSB. I get the impression repeatedly when watching his silly videos....

 

[AMTMAN]

I think you really know why he won't put it all in a comprehensive technical paper.

A technical paper would pin him down. It would be easily reviewed. As it is he can continue to "razzle dazzle" his way through the endless explanations and sell DVDs.

If he's as correct as he indicates he is, a technical paper would more readily accomplish an honest goal of gaining the attention of someone in authority or the scandal hungry media. As it is, his objective is obviously not an honest one.

He will never ever document the variables to his theories as that would be the end of his fantasy. He'll continue to use whatever perpetuates his delusions.

I agree with you that his objective sometimes seems to be to prove that he's smarter than the NTSB. I get the impression repeatedly when watching his silly videos....

That's the game he plays in a nutshell. When he's shown hard proof that he's wrong he will say things like We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available. Does he ever correct himself, no he does not. Admitting he has been caught in a lie would never cross his mind. What's even sadder is that his followers are so blind that they don't even think to question him.

 

[rsalinger]

Way Back When

I actually started this post a long time ago. I went back to it today and discovered an interesting conversation between Beechnut and Tony Soprano. Apparently Tony was banned. I am new to this forum and hadn't seen this before so I'm curious as to whether there's any way to tell why Tony was banned, his posts seem reasonably polite.

It seems to me that the issue continues to be whether you can rely on the data coming out of the flight recorder to be available in real time and accurate under the conditions - speed, altitude and rate of descent - which 77 was experiencing at the time of the crash. I personally haven't found anything which is available within the public domain which gives that key information. Given that, I think that you cannot use the FDR to prove or to disprove the official explanations to the extent one might wish. That cuts both ways. I'm really disappointed that there isn't a full article somewhere on the subject with a named author with appropriate credentials.

 

[Calcas]

I am new to this forum and hadn't seen this before so I'm curious as to whether there's any way to tell why Tony was banned, his posts seem reasonably polite.

Bannings and suspensions are always posted in the Forum Management section under "public notices."

In this case, it's here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=53

"Tony" was simply Rob Balsamo (from pft) coming back again with his same lame, debunked crap.

But, he was banned for being a sockpuppet of another previously banned member.

 

[Reheat]

I'm really disappointed that there isn't a full article somewhere on the subject with a named author with appropriate credentials.

It's my opinion that the ONLY folks who could possibly do this would be someone from the NTSB who has worked with them for many years. No one else has relevant experience. Technical specifications are one thing, but out of envelope crashes are another. There are also likely some variables depending upon the nature of the accident. It has never been a problem in the past that I've ever heard about until the amateur Sherlock Holmes' have begun to attempt to fulfill their fantasies.

I think another problem in this case is the split investigation between the NTSB and the FBI. It is unusual in that it is a criminal case, not an accident and we don't know exactly how the responsibility was split between the two agencies. I suspect that is the crux of the problem on getting additional information. In addition, I'd be reluctant to release information to satisfy insatiable Kooks anyway, if only for spite.