FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

[applecorped]

Stundielicious!!

 

[deep]

Stundielicious!!

If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[rwguinn]

Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence? No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data. Let's see, we have:

Snip Non-=sequiters and circular references.​

Um...
The only people interested in examining the FDR data are...
(Any guesses?)


Yes! Troofers! They look at it like a holy grail
The rest of the world notes that "all systems were operating normally" and get on with their lives..
​

 

[Disbelief]

If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Spare everyone your wounded heart. Not only have all of your silly points been debunked repeatedly, you have to rely on fabrication of evidence to try and put out a coherent story. What about the passenger DNA at the scene? What about eyewitness reports of plane parts and human remains insode the Pentagon? What about all the gaping holes in the CIT story (since you appear to be trumpeting their "findings"?

 

[twinstead]

If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.

Actually, REAL ad hominem attacks are neither encouraged nor tolerated here. What's your point?

 

[beachnut]

If this were truly a forum for serious discussions, these ad hominem attacks (once removed, in this case) would not be tolerated.

Here at JREF, not only are they tolerated, it would appear that they are encouraged.

Thanks, but no thanks.

If you were serious you would have evidence instead of hearsay lies from 9/11 truth. Not a thing you posted is serious evidence, just talk and false information.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, good Lord, how many times do some of these myths have to be refuted? My God, some of them are like weeds, resurrecting themselves over and over again.'

There was much debris found at the Pentagon, including the FDR, not to mention engine parts and landing gear. Oh, and corpses.

And every time someone makes the "hole too small" claim, they're pointing at the wrong damn hole. Check out the images in the Pentagon Building Performance Report, and tell me how the impact area hole is supposedly "too small".

And "conflicting witnesses"? Consider the list of witness testimony that Gravy has compiled:

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.​

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. ​

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.​

3 took photographs of the aftermath.​

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."​

And of course,​

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. ​

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.​

Links to witnesses specific testimony is available at Gravy's site.

In sum: It is simply ridiculous to purport that the evidence for the crash is weak or contradictory. A simple perusal of the evidence shows that to be false. And misrepresenting the evidence by making claims about the hole being the wrong size, implying that the wreckage is insufficient to identify it as AA77, or implying that the witness testimony is confused or contradictory is hardly conducive to finding the truth.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ps. Just to slam the door shut on the canard about the hole being too small: Does anyone have the link to the post where one of the posters here stiched together images to show the main impact hole in its entirety? For some odd reason, I'm not digging it up in forum searches, and I don't know why.

ETA: Gaah! Dammit, I did it again. Once more, I've been off topic. If we need to split this and my previous post from the main topic, go ahead and do so.

Blech... why do I keep on doing that?...

 

[Anti-sophist]

Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence?

I don't think you understand what circular logic means.

No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data.

Or maybe you do. That's circular logic.

Regardless..

- little or no visible debris usually found in areas where a plane has crashed.

False.

The use of the term "usually" here gives you away. You assume there have been other plane crashes like AA77. You assume you know what to look for. You are wrong.

Unless you know of other 500+mph collisions at a 90-degree incidence angle to a reinforced concrete structure. Do you?

- a hole in the side of the building that didn't appear to be large enough for a commercial airliner.

False. This bizarre truther myth has been demolished for 4+ years now.

- conflicting reports from eye-witnesses, some even reporting seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon

False. Not a single eye witness has ever said this.

Oh, and for those of you who claim there was some sort of delay - aside from the federal regulations prohibiting the use of FDRs with more than a .5 second delay, that claim isn't technically sound.

Federal regulations say no such thing. To be fair, there are federal regulations with which the above statement has a passing resemblance but you've removed so much actual information in a clear attempt to deceive that it's safe to say you are either ignorant or lying.

Regardless, there is no FAA regulation addressing how much data can be lost when the FDR slams into a building at 500 mph.

If you want to quote the actual FAA regulations in question, I'll tell you why they are inapplicable to the case of amateur analysis of AA77's data.

Even personal computers with their cache-heavy file systems will retain data that was written up to the point of a power failure (within .5s).

Nonsense.

Let's start with this simple fact: even if this gibberish about PCs was true (it's not), it's still an absurd analogy. The inner workings are, at best, tangentially related to the inner workings of an FDR.

Are you telling me that the FDRs used on commercial airliners are using some inferior technology?

FDRs are based on technology that do exactly what its designed to do. So the answer to your question is: yes. Performance requirements aren't as high, for one. Two, the market for FDRs is much smaller and subject to much stricter regulations. It's the same reasons that space shuttles go up with inferior technology.

You seem to be guessing how FDRs work and presuming they work somewhat like the way you've guessed computers work. This type of argument is going to get you very close to nowhere with me.

Please explain to me, in technical terms, how that would be possible? Given the fact that FDRs are writing a steady stream of data that does not vary in size, there would be no benefit in caching it.

Not true, at all. The benefit of caching the data is obvious once you understand how FDRs work in conjunction with other digital components aboard an aircraft. I wrote a giant post describing this in great detail. Maybe you should read it. It's called something along the lines of "AA77 FDR data explained".

Also, you've ignored about 15 other reasons why the data in the files floating around on the internet may be incomplete. You've focused on this one source ignoring a dozen others. I suggest you complete your view before attempting to pick holes at such a small piece of the puzzle.

So what caused the delay?

Measurement delay. Hysteresis. Competition for computational resources. Digital signal processing delay. Priority scheduling. Digital buffering (due to a time-sliced serial data stream). Data compression delay. Storage delay. Impact damage. Incomplete/damaged frames. Decoding of damaged frames. Validation of damaged frames.

To name a few.

By the way, I have intimate knowledge of both how PCs and FDRs work. If you really want to have this particular argument in depth, I will. I can assure you that your PC analogy is fundamentally flawed. And my responses won't be filled with innuendo likes yours. I won't name random devices and say things like "Don't you think it would work like this?". Unlike you, I -know- how these things work. I don't need to guess.

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is what I find remarkably STUPID wrt the truthers canard on "no debris at the Pentagon"...

WTF...did you have a look inside the Pentagon itself, you know, where the jet went into!!!

Just because a few dozen photos show only small pieces of debris, DOES NOT mean there was little to no debris. On the contrary, I am sure if one were privy to the debris list or report from the scene in its entirety, one would see that a HUGE amount of debris was present.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

For what it is worth, there are witnesses, IIRC that witnessed a plane flying over the Pentagon, but it was a while after the crash of AA77.

TAM

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence? No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data. Let's see, we have:

- little or no visible debris usually found in areas where a plane has crashed.

- a hole in the side of the building that didn't appear to be large enough for a commercial airliner.

- conflicting reports from eye-witnesses, some even reporting seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon.
​

Sorry, but that's not a mountain of evidence.

Oh, and for those of you who claim there was some sort of delay - aside from the federal regulations prohibiting the use of FDRs with more than a .5 second delay, that claim isn't technically sound. Even personal computers with their cache-heavy file systems will retain data that was written up to the point of a power failure (within .5s).

Are you telling me that the FDRs used on commercial airliners are using some inferior technology? Please explain to me, in technical terms, how that would be possible? Given the fact that FDRs are writing a steady stream of data that does not vary in size, there would be no benefit in caching it. So what caused the delay?

Sorry folks, but that is evidence. Please stop with your erroneous claims that there isn't any.

Definite stundie material, but what really hits home is that he is oblivious as to why it's such stundie material.

 

[rsalinger]

FDR Evidence

I started this thread a long time ago and I'm pleased to see it's still rolling along.

I keep reading about the performance of an FDR under the conditions of the Pentagon crash. From what I gathered on the PFT website, they have claimed that the FDR shows the plane to be way too high at the moment of impact. From what I've read here, this is explained by saying that there was is a several second difference between the last readable frames on the FDR and the actual crash. This doesn't seem reasonable to me on its face. Why would it be so hard to get date into the FDR in close to real time? I've thought about this, and I think it would be really informational if someone from Boeing would explain the entire system (which is where I suspect the problem actually lies). It's too simple to say that the FDR has a 1/2 second latency from buffer to memory. For example, the digital altimeter is transmitting data to the FDR how frequently? For example, can we tell how many frames were lost/damaged? For example, what is the speed of the information bus on the airplane? How accurate is the altimeter at 400ft and 500mph? It's really a shame that it's not possible to get something from the people who actually know the real answers.

I think that the other evidence for AA77 is compelling on its own. It would have taken a conspiracy involving thousands of people to pull it off, and no one has yet come forward and there's no logical reason to have done this. However, if the veil of secrecy would be lifted, all this could be put to bed. It's just a shame that our government wants so many of it's citizens to be deceived rather than take tiny risks. And that's the real lesson, the paranoid concerns of the central government make it really hard for citizens to know what is going on. We need a new FOIA with real teeth in it.

 

[AMTMAN]

. For example, the digital altimeter is transmitting data to the FDR how frequently? .

Who told you that the altimeter transmits to the FDR?

 

[beachnut]

I started this thread a long time ago and I'm pleased to see it's still rolling along.

I keep reading about the performance of an FDR under the conditions of the Pentagon crash. From what I gathered on the PFT website, they have claimed that the FDR shows the plane to be way too high at the moment of impact. From what I've read here, this is explained by saying that there was is a several second difference between the last readable frames on the FDR and the actual crash. This doesn't seem reasonable to me on its face. Why would it be so hard to get date into the FDR in close to real time? I've thought about this, and I think it would be really informational if someone from Boeing would explain the entire system (which is where I suspect the problem actually lies). It's too simple to say that the FDR has a 1/2 second latency from buffer to memory. For example, the digital altimeter is transmitting data to the FDR how frequently? For example, can we tell how many frames were lost/damaged? For example, what is the speed of the information bus on the airplane? How accurate is the altimeter at 400ft and 500mph? It's really a shame that it's not possible to get something from the people who actually know the real answers.

I think that the other evidence for AA77 is compelling on its own. It would have taken a conspiracy involving thousands of people to pull it off, and no one has yet come forward and there's no logical reason to have done this. However, if the veil of secrecy would be lifted, all this could be put to bed. It's just a shame that our government wants so many of it's citizens to be deceived rather than take tiny risks. And that's the real lesson, the paranoid concerns of the central government make it really hard for citizens to know what is going on. We need a new FOIA with real teeth in it.

There is nothing new about missing data in accidents with planes and FDRs. This is why the standards change on survivability and data requirements. If you look at past accidents the FDRs have lost data. This is not new.

The .5 second lag standard is for what? Please post the standard, by paragraph. Did the FDR in flight 77 have to conform? The first solid state chips are slow. Did you know the data pipe line in 77's FDR was at the data rate that took one second to collect? This means there is zero tolerance for delay. Have you seen what the standard says?

The part about the government is pure paranoid delusion. The p4t have all the data; the data they have shows all 25 hours of exactly what the airframe of 77 did before 9/11, each airport and each parking spot. It appears to me there is missing data. In fact, if the standard (you have never seen, or shown anyone) may have been changed to get rid of the old delay storing the data in the survivable chip.

Can you explain the standard the p4t have never explained. In fact a salesman stated the standard without presenting the standards. If you read the FAA standard, older FDRs may not have to comply. If you design FDR systems, I know all the data could be in the system, it just was not stored yet.

Do you know how the data is compressed? How many seconds are compressed to store the data frame? Why are there time stamps on the NTSB readout, but no data? Is the data compressed in 4 second frames? Was this changed to meet the ED-55 standard as specified for new FDR installed after the FAA directive?

Study the FDR, before you start blaming the NTSB, the FBI, and the FAA for the paranoid minds of a few fringe pilots at p4t. They are not only wrong, they do not get a single thing right about 9/11.

There is no veil of secrecy, there is only paranoid dumb pilots who make up false information and doubts to help people form conclusions based on paranoid ideas.

 

[rsalinger]

Actually, [I]w[I]hat I should have said is that I can't find any information about flight recorders which would be probative in the matter[/I][/I]. That's why I can't post the standard for an aircraft like a 757 in 2001 and you haven't given me a link to one either. That's more or less what I'd like someone to do, and for precisely the point you raise because without it we just have people and theories. Wouldn't it be simple for someone who makes the systems to come forward and say either that the conditions at the end of the flight mean that the data is not accurate or that theres a 2-3 second delay inherent in a crash?

I accept that you can argue the point that there is "missing data". As this is unprovable, it's a weak argument, in my view. What proof do you have for missing data?

I don't understand your point about 25 hours of data, maybe you could amplify that.

I think I'll stick to my view that the US government is choosing not to deal with these loose ends because it's the nature of the institutions we have today not to serve the people but rather to keep things under wraps for as long as possible. I also find it genuinely odd that the standards and specifications for FDR's aren't available on the internet.

 

[CurtC]

Wouldn't it be simple for someone who makes the systems to come forward and say either that the conditions at the end of the flight mean that the data is not accurate or that theres a 2-3 second delay inherent in a crash?

Let's say you have a multi-billion dollar company who's struggling against strong competitors, have promised new products to compete with your competitors' upcoming products, and the stock market is holding your feet to the fire to deliver.

Then there's a small band of kooks on the Internet, who is accusing your company of at least tangentially assisting in mass murder. This small group is marginalized and has no hope of ever making their case accepted in public. So do you, as an executive with the company, take some of your personnel resources to address the band of kooks? Or do you have your engineers continue working on the new products?

I think I'll stick to my view that the US government is choosing not to deal with these loose ends because...

You can choose to hold that view, but the reality is that the PfT kooks are not even a blip on the government's radar, except for possibly some guys at the FBI who are worried about potential domestic terrorism.

 

[Mancman]

I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....

Ben

I've read both 'A New Pearl Harbour' and 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking' and found both to be pretty much shocking. Extremely biased, full of misunderstandings and flat out deceptions.

 

[Reheat]

I accept that you can argue the point that there is "missing data". As this is unprovable, it's a weak argument, in my view. What proof do you have for missing data?

Holy crap batman! No one, and I mean no one can state with certainty the exact position of AA77 at the end of the data extracted by the pilot loon site. There are numerous discrepancies with the FDR Data they have extracted. The DME records don't agree, the INS data has significant error, the Radar Altimeter shows the aircraft too high to hit the building according to THEIR calculations. The data doesn't show what numerous witnesses testified about the flight profile of the aircraft as it approached the building. If this isn't evidence proof of missing data I don't know what is. There is an undeniable mountain of physical evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. To deny this and find implausible academic anomalies that don't fit according to twoofer logic is pure delusion to support a biased political agenda.

I don't understand your point about 25 hours of data, maybe you could amplify that.

FDR's store 25 hours of flight data, so all of AA77 previous flights up to 25 hours worth are there. To my knowledge no effort by the loons has been made to extract any of that data to establish either trends or to more positively identify the possible problems with the FDR. In fact, they use the shutdown and parking location at Dulles to begin an analysis of the INS information. It's in error even at the parking spot where it spend the evening of 9/10 parked at the Dulles terminal.

If p4t is interested in the truth, why haven't they extracted and analyzed all 25 hours of the data to determine (if possible) what's going on with the FDR and to silence the loons who insist that the aircraft has not been identified?

I suspect the NTSB/FBI knows that any answer to the "loose ends" will simply result in more "loose ends" to answer as it has already with the released videos. What the Government really needs is a time machine for twoofers that can place them in a position to witness AA77 on it's final flight path. Even then I'd suggest they would find a problem with their placed position or that the time machine was the wrong color.

 

[AMTMAN]

Let's say you have a multi-billion dollar company who's struggling against strong competitors, have promised new products to compete with your competitors' upcoming products, and the stock market is holding your feet to the fire to deliver.

Then there's a small band of kooks on the Internet, who is accusing your company of at least tangentially assisting in mass murder. This small group is marginalized and has no hope of ever making their case accepted in public. So do you, as an executive with the company, take some of your personnel resources to address the band of kooks? Or do you have your engineers continue working on the new products?


You can choose to hold that view, but the reality is that the PfT kooks are not even a blip on the government's radar, except for possibly some guys at the FBI who are worried about potential domestic terrorism.

Usually the only way PfT talks to someone within the industry is when they get a hold of someones phone number and ambush them. I have yet to open my weekly issue of Av Week and see any mention of PfT "research" into FDR's. Or any other aviation periodical for that matter. Why is that, because because most people see it for what it is.