AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Reheat]

This debate is useless because:

2. My sources are professionals, yet anyone I mention is considered a crackpot, or not experienced enough....however the people calling these guys crackpots are no where near the level of ability of said individuals.

How do you know the qualifications of anyone who has replied to you?

You might consider Balsamo a professional. Most of the rest of us don't. Who are these other "professionals"? Undertow? Jeff Latas is a retired AF Pilot just as Beachnut and I are. While he may be a professional pilot, what experience does he have with analyzing FDRs? I've seen no evidence that he had anything at all to do with analyzing the FDR data.

Perhaps being an Accident Board President impresses you, but I know that it's an administrative position and the other members of the board are the professionals with expertise in various areas.

At any rate, why is it that you want to argue about the FDR to the point of obsession? What about all of the other mountain of evidence that exists?

You accuse everyone of not going to the L3 Web Site, but you still don't know if anyone has or not. That's in contrast with your direct statement that you would not read the recommended book on the firefighting efforts at the Pentagon.

At this point in time it's senseless to argue about the FDR because it is going to prove nothing either way. Balsamo claims it doesn't support the Government's Story when the entire story is not just the Government's it a compilation of 1000's of people in and around the area surrounding the Pentagon most of whom are not Federal Government affiliated.

I will guarantee you will not get anywhere at all here unless you bring substantial evidence to the agenda. So far, you have failed miserably. Do you have anything more than hearsay from pffft? If not I suggest you peddle your snake oil somewhere else, because no one here is buying.

 

[Turbofan]

Are you looking at the same data that we are?

The info released by the NTSB?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

GET A CLUE PEOPLE

Oh the irony! It wouldn't be so funny if it came from anyone else.

Turbo, what are some of the FDR systems that you are experienced in?

 

[Turbofan]

None, but I can understand how to read the data.

I can also understand that a CSV file with missing parameter(s) has
been tampered with.

How about you Johnny? What's your expertise? Why are you so willing
to believe these guys, over pilots and systems analysts?

Has anyone called up L3 to speak with their tech support, or read their
products specs?

I have. It's all on the site.

What would it take to make anyone here believe that the maximum data
write period is half a second?

Should I call L3 and record a conversation? Video tape? I have either.

Give me a list of questions and let's start putting this to rest with sources
we both can agree upon.

Who's up for the challenge?

 

[Reheat]

Give me a list of questions and let's start putting this to rest with sources we both can agree upon.

Who's up for the challenge?

Why the sudden change in attitude. Perhaps if you'd started off with the same attitude you'd have gotten a better reception.

Having a thousand conversations with the manufacturer is NOT going to show you how the FDR actually performed.

I've got a better idea. Have their competition decode and analyze the data and then it can be discussed in a reasonable manner.

You're never going to get proper attention until someone competent and without a biased political agenda decodes and analyzes the data.

 

[CurtC]

What would it take to make anyone here believe that the maximum data
write period is half a second?

As beachnut already noted, it would take a cite from the manual of the model SSFDR used, and the electronics from the sensors to it.

Do you have any idea about the speed of electron current flow in a wire?

As an aside, electrons in a wire carrying electrical current move at a rate on the order of a small fraction of a millimeter per second.

 

[Myriad]

Or, Turbofan, I've got another idea: if the manufacturer of Flight 77's FDR knows that it's not possible for it to have failed to record the last few seconds of data before the crash, they should be pretty upset that the FAA is telling everyone that it did, and releasing data files that show that it did! Imagine, the public organization overseeing a large segment of the industry their company serves, is telling everyone that their product failed to perform as well as they know for a fact it must have performed! Surely they would be sparing no effort to set the record straight and defend the excellence of their FDR engineering.

So, give me a link to the press releases where the manufacturer denounces the FAA's libelous slur on the quality of their instruments' engineering. Give me a link to the lawsuit they filed for damages from the misrepresentation of their product as having failed, at the most crucial of moments during the most publicized news event in history, in a manner that they know for certain it could not possibly have failed. Give me a link to the Web page they've published to let the public know that the missing data cannot have been their machine's fault and must therefore have been tampered with by someone.

I would find that information quite convincing. On the other hand, I would find excuses for why that information doesn't exist (let me guess: they're afraid the government will somehow force the airframe manufacturers and airlines to boycott their products if they say anything) quite destructive to your case.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[funk de fino]

Are you looking at the same data that we are?

The info released by the NTSB?

I am a professional as well and your posts are junk. You compare cars to aircraft.

I worked avionics, electronics and electrical systems on fast jet military aircraft with nav computers which had less speed and memory than my phone. I serviced FDR for the aircraft. You are talking junk.

Think about whe the plane was built and then think about when it was designed. Look at the spec you are tossing around and see when it was introduced.

You claimed the plane should have shown the impact of the poles. You are wrong. Tell us why they would have done so or you are ignorant of aircraft and FDR.

You have made a fool of yourself.

 

[Turbofan]

I am a professional as well and your posts are junk. You compare cars to aircraft.

I worked avionics, electronics and electrical systems on fast jet military aircraft with nav computers which had less speed and memory than my phone. I serviced FDR for the aircraft. You are talking junk.

Think about whe the plane was built and then think about when it was designed. Look at the spec you are tossing around and see when it was introduced.

You claimed the plane should have shown the impact of the poles. You are wrong. Tell us why they would have done so or you are ignorant of aircraft and FDR.

You have made a fool of yourself.

Yeah. You're right. I'm comparing cars to aircraft. Have another...

Buddy, I would school you in a technical discussion. It clearly shows, and
you haven't offered any tech in return. You don't threaten me with your replies.

 

[Turbofan]

Or, Turbofan, I've got another idea: if the manufacturer of Flight 77's FDR knows that it's not possible for it to have failed to record the last few seconds of data before the crash, they should be pretty upset that the FAA is telling everyone that it did, and releasing data files that show that it did! Imagine, the public organization overseeing a large segment of the industry their company serves, is telling everyone that their product failed to perform as well as they know for a fact it must have performed! Surely they would be sparing no effort to set the record straight and defend the excellence of their FDR engineering.

So, give me a link to the press releases where the manufacturer denounces the FAA's libelous slur on the quality of their instruments' engineering. Give me a link to the lawsuit they filed for damages from the misrepresentation of their product as having failed, at the most crucial of moments during the most publicized news event in history, in a manner that they know for certain it could not possibly have failed. Give me a link to the Web page they've published to let the public know that the missing data cannot have been their machine's fault and must therefore have been tampered with by someone.

I would find that information quite convincing. On the other hand, I would find excuses for why that information doesn't exist (let me guess: they're afraid the government will somehow force the airframe manufacturers and airlines to boycott their products if they say anything) quite destructive to your case.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The FAA ? Since when and where did you read the FAA stated such comments?

Please find me a quote from the FAA and I'll find the documents you request.

BTW, the MFG of the FDR is L3 Communications. I figured you would know
at least that much?

 

[beachnut]

This debate is useless because:

1. If I point you to a developer site with specs., you wont go and read them.

2. My sources are professionals, yet anyone I mention is considered a crackpot,
or not experienced enough....however the people calling these guys crackpots
are no where near the level of ability of said individuals.

3. Many of you believe bus speeds on aircraft are between 2-6 seconds
before data is stored! I have computers from the 70's that are more advanced!

4. Many of you don't understand what it takes to certify an aircraft,
yet you post information as if it were fact! It's not the age of the plane
that determines the spec/certification. If the law changes, the equipment
must meet/exceed the standard for that year.

5. Many of you don't understand how the FDR records data , even though
I posted a basic relationship to a car's computer to draw a parallel.

keep on believing what you want, and that FDR's have snail paced data
storage from the stone age. Whoever is feeding this garbage to you
is not helping out.

For your sake, take a course in computer technology, or electricity.

You are the biggest bs specialist in a while pushing hearsay as fact and telling all you can school everyone on things you never used.

You have no real new stuff, you post hearsay from an L3 salesman, your expert is a salesman, third hand! Wowzer.

Please explain how fast electrons let us store data on the FDR installed in 77! You said you could school us, but it seems the FDR was limited to 3072 bits per second, not sure how that jives with the speed of light, but I think you are missing a few facts to tie your expert opinion to reality.


So besides hearsay, what do you have?

...
BTW, the MFG of the FDR is L3 Communications. I figured you would know
at least that much?

Please supply proof the FDR on 77 was manufactured by the L3 Communications. Please hurry, so far you have backed your data with zero sources. I await your sources in the clear and direct. Are you capable of producing evidence and data in the first person?

The introduction of solid-state flight recorders in the late 1980s marked the most significant advance in evolution of flight recorder technology. The use of solid-state memory devices in flight recorders has expanded recording capacity, enhanced crash/fire survivability, and improved recorder reliability. It is now possible to have 2-hour CVRs and DFDRs that can record up to 256 12-bit data words per second...

Schlumberger, Loral, Lockheed Martin, and L-3 Communications, who really made the one and only FDR used in 77?

 

[funk de fino]

Yeah. You're right. I'm comparing cars to aircraft. Have another...

Buddy, I would school you in a technical discussion. It clearly shows, and
you haven't offered any tech in return. You don't threaten me with your replies.

Which aircraft did you work on? Tornado F3 was mine. Weapons, avionics, power, communication, radar, FDR, fuel systems etc etc

You are a glorified car mechanic. You couldnt even school me on changing a tyre.

You know nothing about FDR systems from those days and are stupid enough top try tp compare them to car computers which have more power and speed in them than the fast jet aircraft I worked on.

The FDR in our aircraft was a piece of slow junk. Why would the plane show the impact of the poles champ? Stop avoiding the question.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

None, but I can understand how to read the data.

I can also understand that a CSV file with missing parameter(s) has
been tampered with.

How about you Johnny? What's your expertise? Why are you so willing
to believe these guys, over pilots and systems analysts?

Has anyone called up L3 to speak with their tech support, or read their
products specs?

I have. It's all on the site.

What would it take to make anyone here believe that the maximum data
write period is half a second?

Should I call L3 and record a conversation? Video tape? I have either.

Give me a list of questions and let's start putting this to rest with sources
we both can agree upon.

Who's up for the challenge?

I have no experience. But I am not the one making claims about how the FDR works, you are. So you are dictating how it works based on absolutely know experience. And doing so to people who have direct experience engineering the devices? And your only expertise you use is a car? And you wonder why you aren't being taken seriously?

Am I willing to believe the guys who work with FDRs over pilots who don't know the first thing about the engineering behind FDRs? Abso-****ing-lutely. to listen to pilots instead of engineers would be absolutely idiotic. Is that what you are doing? Is that your experts? Pilots? Seriously?

Why don't you talk to a car driver about the engineering behind an engine build instead of an engineer who builds engines?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Every now and then we need to put these conversations in perspective. What's being argued is that flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but instead it was flown over in front of 1000s of people in the hopes that they would just happen to get lucky and no one would notice. Then they planted a fake black box and put in readings that made it impossible for the plane to have hit the building instead of readings showing that the plane hit the building. And during this fiasco, they planted an entire plane's worth of parts as well as the belongings and remains of the passengers of flight 77. All doing this at the exact moment of the crash in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. And of course this also means that they managed to crash flight 77 and get all the parts to the scene between the time it took off and the time the pentagon was hit. In addition they also had to knock down all these light poles on the heavily travelled roads in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. They then also had to plant explosives that would go off just as the plane flew over but without damaging the plane and without the plane votex interfering with the explosion. They also did it in a way that the explosion sucked materials into the building. They then also pulled off a massive cover up that would have to involve 1000s of people who are in it simply for no personal gain but to hurt others.


And somehow people think they are crazy....

 

[Myriad]

The FAA ? Since when and where did you read the FAA stated such comments?

Please find me a quote from the FAA and I'll find the documents you request.

BTW, the MFG of the FDR is L3 Communications. I figured you would know
at least that much?

Ah, my mistake. It was the NTSB rather than the FAA that released Flight 77 FDR data that's missing data in the final seconds, which the manufacturer of the FDR knows with certainty could not really have been missing.

So, are you now going to show me where the manufacturer has contested this tampered data that wrongfully implies that their recorder was unreliable, in the press, in court, or in public?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[eeyore1954]

Why the sudden change in attitude. Perhaps if you'd started off with the same attitude you'd have gotten a better reception.

Having a thousand conversations with the manufacturer is NOT going to show you how the FDR actually performed.

I've got a better idea. Have their competition decode and analyze the data and then it can be discussed in a reasonable manner.

You're never going to get proper attention until someone competent and without a biased political agenda decodes and analyzes the data.

Why don't you answer this or better yet ask Pilots for "Truth" why they don't do it .

 

[Turbofan]

You are a glorified car mechanic. You couldnt even school me on changing a tyre.[\QUOTE]

Actually, no I'm not a car mechanic. Another stupid assumption. You just
assume that because I posted images of performance software.

You know nothing about FDR systems from those days and are stupid enough top try tp compare them to car computers which have more power and speed in them than the fast jet aircraft I worked on.

I know more about FDR than you have shown to date in this thread.
If you're too slow to understand the parallel between both computer
systems, then god help you.

Do you understand how the error codes are set in an FDR? Yes, or no?

Please explain.

The FDR in our aircraft was a piece of slow junk. Why would the plane show the impact of the poles champ? Stop avoiding the question.

Why would the plane show impact of the poles? Apparently there are pressure
sensors on the airplane, and bleed air ducts on the wings, and RPM monitors
for jets.

When the plane strikes an object at 500 MPH, the impact against the wing
creates sound, vibration, and pressure change (shockwave). None of the sensors managed to pick up any such variation.

Don't you think that's a little odd?

 

[Turbofan]

I have no experience. But I am not the one making claims about how the FDR works, you are. So you are dictating how it works based on absolutely know experience. And doing so to people who have direct experience engineering the devices? And your only expertise you use is a car? And you wonder why you aren't being taken seriously?

Nobody here is a qualified FDR specialist, yet you all believe what you want.
That's great.

No, I never touched an FDR, but I have researched the operation and specs.
I have also look to industry professionals for their conclusions, as opposed
to a few annonymous internet wanna-be's that wont even post their name,
or view/call L3 communications to verify the information they are denying!

Am I willing to believe the guys who work with FDRs over pilots who don't know the first thing about the engineering behind FDRs? Abso-****ing-lutely. to listen to pilots instead of engineers would be absolutely idiotic. Is that what you are doing? Is that your experts? Pilots? Seriously?

What engineers? I have a degree in Electronics Engineering and have over
16 years experience with the technology. Nobody here has shown an ounce
of engineering skill, or understanding of data transfer.

You want me to take those seriously who don't give their credentials, or
name to verify? You want me to take these same people seriously that
can't follow a spec and understand that all systems must comply to said
spec?

You want me to believe these guys when they're throwing out guesses
of how the power was interrupted on the FDR when it shares the main
power bus with the cockpit supply?

As far as I'm aware, the FDR in "AA77" had battery backup. Once I verify
that, then what is your excuse for power failure going to be? Bin Laden
unplugged the data bus before the plane crashed?

Why don't you talk to a car driver about the engineering behind an engine build instead of an engineer who builds engines?

Why don't either of you go live with me, or PFT , or post up some questions
so I can call L3 myself and record the coversation?

Still no takers?

 

[celestrin]

The CSV file shows that each pressure altimeter was set at the exact same
time! Down to the second!

[Pretending the above actually has any merit or even meaning]
Yes, isn't it funny that this would happen when there were two hijackers onboard 77 who had pilot training.
[/pretending]
(ETA: ---- not that it matters too much, but disregard the above, I got the threads mixed up ----)

Hey, Turbofan, what did Calum Douglas say when you approached him with your "at most 0.5 to 2 seconds missing" or "1600 feet" hypothesis? Did he laugh at you? Did you ever ask yourself why not? Do you laugh at his radar altitude analysis, showing the plane was about 5000 feet out at last recorded data? Why not?

 

[Turbofan]

Every now and then we need to put these conversations in perspective. What's being argued is that flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but instead it was flown over in front of 1000s of people in the hopes that they would just happen to get lucky and no one would notice. Then they planted a fake black box and put in readings that made it impossible for the plane to have hit the building instead of readings showing that the plane hit the building. And during this fiasco, they planted an entire plane's worth of parts as well as the belongings and remains of the passengers of flight 77. All doing this at the exact moment of the crash in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. And of course this also means that they managed to crash flight 77 and get all the parts to the scene between the time it took off and the time the pentagon was hit. In addition they also had to knock down all these light poles on the heavily travelled roads in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. They then also had to plant explosives that would go off just as the plane flew over but without damaging the plane and without the plane votex interfering with the explosion. They also did it in a way that the explosion sucked materials into the building. They then also pulled off a massive cover up that would have to involve 1000s of people who are in it simply for no personal gain but to hurt others.


And somehow people think they are crazy....

Big deal; that's only one slice of the pie my friend!

You still have to account for:

- Entry hole impact damage (photo)
- FDR data (NTSB)
- E4-B video from CNN
- Norman Mineta testimony on video
- The other witnesses contradicting your witnesses (video)
- Video of witness testimony claiming C-130 over 'AA77'

Why aren't you considering these facts?