Well, to be fair, Reheat, the graph doesn't have it's X and Y scales labeled, nor is there a graphic stating "g data vs. time", e.g.
To be fair, they were labeled in an earlier post, which if Turbofan had bothered to take time from posting to research, he would have known--and as a hint, they centered around 1.
No, you have not shown the transport lag to be anything in the F-2100, zip data to support your ideas. I may be confused all the time, but I am an engineer and I have done programming with data transport and delays and timing. I worked with teams to study advance cockpit system. I think you are confused thinking your hearsay stuff has merit. You are wrong.
The data stopped, easy question for an engineer and an aircraft crash investigator, trained by the USAF years ago. Oops, I have worked with FDR readouts to investigate real aircraft mishaps, have you? The data was not recorded to the secure chip, it may have been in the system. Oops, you never told me if the plane maintains power when you experience 0.2 Gs or less. Seems like the last push over many witnesses saw, could have tripped the Generators off line and stopping data collection on 77. Time to study the busses.
Hearsay, please produce the specification spelled out in the F-2100 manuals, and the regulations that may of covered the FDR in 77. Gee, you do not even know what the .5 second means, or when it went into effect. You believe hearsay, you are not using evidence, you are using talk made up by p4t.
Not true, some times the chip is damaged in a crash, and data is missing. You need to study other accidents. There are many examples of data missing, so your claim no data can be missing is not valid for 77, since you have no idea how the system works.
Not true, you have not shown me the data in each 4 second frame makes it to the secure chip in less than .5 second. Gee, this was an early SSFDR, and it may be the reason the rules were changed to only have .5 second delay in transport to the secure chip. The NTSB did not decode the RADALT. Gee, another very easy question. Do you even look at the evidence?
Oops, if I throw the stick forward, you get a lot of negative G. I can rip off the tail! Looks like you want to get technical with an USAF Command Pilot, and an FAA ATP rated pilot flying since I was kid. Push forward, you get lighter, pull back, you get heavier. If you want to talk about what make the G force, I could care less, if I want zero g, I move the yoke forward. If you want to quibble, go ahead, it seems like you are just parroting p4t failed ideas, and non theories, and non conclusions of woo.
It stopped. Either there was a power interruption, or there was 3 to 5 second delay in the pipeline which is why ED55 came out to correct the missing data problem with early SSFDRs. Got some facts, or just more hearsay on this issue? BTW, the animation does not have the Pentagon registered right relative to the aircraft flight path, and this was a working copy, never completed or certified for any real use! Sorry.
Yep! I have an ATP, the same certification as all Captains in the airliners have, and I was trained to fly 300,000 pound class jet aircraft. So? Looks like you love hearsay, and have failed to accumulate any real facts on this issue.
Yep. I have flown large jets since 1976! What did you do while I was doing my checks all those years.
p4t are dolts who can't calculate G correctly when told how to. p4t can't even produce a theory or conclusion! They tell you so. The FDR does support what happen on 9/11, you have failed to show it does not! Sorry, but you supplied zero evidence, where as I showed points from the FDR which support witness statements. Oops. 11.2 Gs, is that error still posted?
Well, there was plenty of context for me. Wasn't aware of the graph being posted previously though.
It was G vs time, but the time is each sample in the FDR, there are 8 samples per second.
No Ed did not present any evidence, he just said it without p4t backing it up with manuals, and ED55. Please produce the manuals saying so, and ED55, and stop using hearsay, it is not proof of anything but you parrot p4t drive by phone calls. This is what hearsay is! Do you understand?
I already told you once, some planes will loose electrical power from the engine driven generators when exposed to G forces less than 0.2 G, or negative Gs. I have flown jets which have generators that trip off line with subjected to low G force! It happens in real life. You think wrong!
Go look them up, the NTSB has them, and if you try you too can find them and stop thinking p4t non conclusion, non theory stuff is true. How are non theories considered? Do you know p4t make no conclusions or theories? What a bunch of no fact charlatans, selling nothing but false information for 15 bucks a DVD. Who are those without knowledge who fall for the non theories of 9/11 truth and p4t?
Gee, there are examples where the data stopped and there was no real physical upset as you are trying to allude to. What are you getting at? If the data is correct in 77, the last seconds are missing! No impact was needed. It is unknown. (examples can be found where data is missing; the specification of data storage required by ED55 is evidence that early SSFDRs did not store data within 0.5 seconds. Glad mom made me go to engineering school, and I wanted to fly jets.
p4t can do that for you, they are experts at pulling numbers out their pack of pilots who can't hit buildings in the safety of a simulator, why not make up some more false G numbers. 77 was going over 700 feet per second, how fast did it come to rest? Different items came to rest at different times. Why not tell us the G force, which has nothing to do with the data missing on 77. You can study physics and calculate it.
Wrong, 77 flew first in 1991, the specs you state were not in effect for all FDR installed before 2001; you need to read the FARs and FAA rules and present them. You are using present day junk for a 6 year old event and a plane first flown in 1991. You are using data that is 16 years new to lecture others on 9/11, and event you present hearsay and expect it to come true.
No, the NTSB did not decode the RADALT. So? Read what the NTSB tells you. They list the data they decoded. They list the data they did not decode. Wowzer.
Oh, they have the model FDR information right this second, a part installed over 10 years ago? What spec was Ed, the salesman talking about? The salesman hearsay expert testimony. If only you had some real evidence to support your ideas. You got the word of a salesman, that is super; a salesman, and Rob! Super duper…
Based on the data I see on the FDR, there are seconds missing. But I could be wrong, I have only been flying for 35 years. The data rate is clearly stated to the chip, it is 3072 bits per second. The data passed in a second is the amount of data collected in a second on the FDR used on flight 77. I doubt your car can withstand 3400 Gs and maintain 550 knots true airspeed. Your car has nothing to do with an aircraft, and your comparing your car or truck to a plane built and flying in 1991, and you are telling me the specs of a airworthy chip are like the junk in our cars today? What was the speed of a flash memory in 1991? And before you answer, what was the speed of the flash memory in the FDR installed in the plane which flew first in 1991. Do you understand lead times! Freezing the design so you can sell it? I see you clearly stated the exact time your car passes data! It was as fast as my screen updates. Wowzer. Is that engineering terms for what? As fast as… ?
I knew it.
90% chance if an old thread is unburied, a previously banned truther is at the root.
TAM
