AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[lapman]

I guess my electronics engineering and networking experience doesn't account
for much "eh"? You might want to reconisder that although I am referencing
tutorials and PDF's that my education and field experience is well within
reason to understand data transfter, sensors and electricity.

Now you're lying about your background. You have no comprehension of even basic concepts like transfer intervals or what polling is.

The DAU receives information from certain sensors and the DAU outputs this information to the FDR. Those same sesnsor send the same info the instrumentation (LRU's).

Though true, the data would not suffer the same latency. The data displayed on the LRU's are not from a single serial source. Even on a glass cockpit, the data is processed in parallel. On an analog cockpit, the sensors are directly linked to the instrument in the cockpit.

No, you are mistaken. I never claimed the sensor was connected directly
to the FDR! Where are you getting that idea? I said the sensor info values
get stored in CPM within 500 msec! Big difference if you can grasp that?

We keep showing you that you are 100% wrong in every sense of the word.

That's what I'm getting at! The information form the sensors is shared.
The LRU receives the same info as the Flight data acq. unit!

Though you are right about the fact that the data is shared, the LRU displays it instantly while the FDAU has to translate, buffer and send. It's the translate and buffer step that take a while. There is nothing in anything you've posted that account for that.

Yes, and that's what the equation implies. I'm really not sure what your
point is about getting specifics from t1-t5 when the entire process takes
no more than 500 msec!

Wrong. Nothing you have posted even addressed the equation.

So you must be implying that the time stamps stored to CPM are transposed
with reference to the NTSB noted impact time?

Where does it say that the time stamps are the times the data was stored as opposed to when it was originally created by the sensor?

 

[R.Mackey]

Personally, I thought that strange diversion to the power bus in his last post was the deadest giveaway yet, but this discussion was pretty dead already...

 

[pomeroo]

I saw what you did there.

Yeah, I caught that one, and it was pretty damn good!

 

[MSgtWeiss]

I have my crucifix and holy water ready to give Last Rites to pfft's failed argument. Memorial services will be held at the next "Twoofstock".

(Disclaimer: I am not really a priest, but I did stay at a Holliday Inn Express last night)

Well, I still have my ordination certificate from the old Universal Life Church, dated 1969. I'd be glad to mumble a few appropriate words -- or even inappropriate ones -- at the ceremony.

I think, though, that we should also bring along a hammer and some wooden stakes, just to make sure it doesn't rise again.

 

[OldTigerCub]

Well, I still have my ordination certificate from the old Universal Life Church, dated 1969. I'd be glad to mumble a few appropriate words -- or even inappropriate ones -- at the ceremony.

I think, though, that we should also bring along a hammer and some wooden stakes, just to make sure it doesn't rise again.

I'll bring some garlic too, just for good effect.

 

[OldTigerCub]

roundhead. In post 1015 you said


In post 1067 I asked



In post 1250 I said



You have been active on the forum in the meantime. I would like to know how you ignited the kerosene. It is something you have done, so answering should be simple. Roundhead, please don't ignore me in such a cavalier fashion.

Thanks

*Yawn*

I'm still curious as well as to how this "experiment" was carried out.

 

[jhunter1163]

Yeah, I caught that one, and it was pretty damn good!

I wish I'd thought of it.

 

[Anti-sophist]

No, it's called Time DIVISION multi-plexing which I'm fully aware of.

*face-palm*. It isn't called time _division_ multiplexing anywhere outside of a communications class and/or wikipedia. I have a hunch which of the two you found that term at.

I guess my electronics engineering and networking experience doesn't account
for much "eh"?

As I've stated many times, I don't care about your background. Your ignorance, however, is much more troubling.

it's funny that you're not able to get this information claiming to be an
expert, but you're relying on me to produce them at a snap of your fingers?
Surely you know this takes time and resources to follow up? I'm sorry I can't
quit my job and give up my free time to be an "Anti-sophist" debunker 24-7.

1) I've already produced the answers. The fact that you continue to claim I haven't is a lie. The first post in this thread is a good place to start.
2) I've never said I'm an expert. That is yet another lie.
3) It takes neither time nor resources for an INFORMED person to make intelligent estimates.

Wrong and wrong, but no explantion huh?

Are you braindead? The explanation is in the part you snipped out.

So you're saying the
power bus powering the FDR, DAU and cockpit is NOT the main power bus?

I'm talking about the data-bus, kid.

Nice diagram (?), what's your source?

Actually, the source of that diagram is from a PfT member Undertow who used that exact diagram earlier in this thread. He, exactly like you, had no idea what he was looking at, and ended up proving himself wrong with his own diagrams. Then he vanished. I figured it would come in handy. Go ask your buddy where he found it.

Regardless, both diagrams that the PfT member provided are fairly accurate representations of FDR/data-acquisition systems. The fact that you don't immediately recognize the accuracy of these diagram is yet more proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This is flight data acquisition 101.

The DAU receives information from certain sensors and the DAU outputs
this information to the FDR. Those same sesnsor send the same info the instrumentation (LRU's).

I like the way you've just subtly contradicted yourself by pretending this was your opinion all along. Ok, that's one way to admit defeat. I'm glad to see you've changed your mind and agreed with me. Remember when you tried to tell me that the instrumentation was "post" DAU? Yea. That was funny.

No, you are mistaken. I never claimed the sensor was connected directly
to the FDR! Where are you getting that idea? I said the sensor info values
get stored in CPM within 500 msec! Big difference if you can grasp that?

Yes, I do understand the difference. However, ALL of the specs you have shown only talk about time delays from INPUT TO THE FDR to STORAGE (ahem, T3, only). Therefore, in order to claim that 500ms is the maximum amount of time FROM THE SENSOR (T2 + T3), you need to IGNORE DAU. Stop ignoring it, please.

You have no provided a single technical reference showing a 500ms maximum time FROM THE SENSOR to the cpm. FROM THE SENSOR is the operative word. Not from the DAU. If you want to use the 500ms, ok, but you still need ADD the effect of the DAU. (**HINT** see T2)

This all is neverminding the fact that 500ms from the sensor is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. If you sample something at once per second (as many parameters are sampled), you cannot have 500ms maximum delays. That fact that your own little theory of how this all works is internally inconsistent doesn't seem to bother you at all.

Yes, and that's what the equation implies. I'm really not sure what your
point is about getting specifics from t1-t5 when the entire process takes
no more than 500 msec!

No, it doesn't. Nowhere have you ever demonstrated that 500ms applies to T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. At best the specs you have shown us demonstrates T3, alone, is 500ms. Even more hilariously, you aren't even claiming T1-T5, you are only claiming T2+T3 < 500ms. You are wrong twice. You've -completely- ignored T1, T4, and T5 for the entire duration of this conversation.

So you must be implying that the time stamps stored to CPM are transposed
with reference to the NTSB noted impact time?

This question makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what you think transposed means, but I'm pretty sure you are using it wrong. Transposing of time stamps would imply some kind of reversal of time stamps. And nowhere have I claimed anything as bizarre as that. The fact that you might even ask something so absurdly stupid further underlines how far you have to go in understanding the conversation we are trying to have.

 

[twinstead]

That fact that your own little theory of how this all works is internally inconsistent doesn't seem to bother you at all.

Internal inconsistencies ROCK!

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Turbofan
I cannot speak for Douglas, or Balsamo. Based on the relationship
and response they have had with such organizations such as the NTSB, or
P.S., I would suggest the news would not be well received.

The idea that FDR data is untrustworthy would certainly have the attention of the relevent organizations. I have long suggested that approaching them with that would be more constructive than threats and allegations or argueing with anonymous internet posters. You may suggest that the NTSB and L3 might have a conflict of interest that would lead them to push such things under-the-rug but the unions certainly would not and I doubt that all of ICAO, the NTSB and the pilots unions could all be tainted in such a manner. You want a grass roots call to action? Convince pilots that the data cannot be trusted. The guys in the front seats are not going to suffer any conflict of interest in this.

The people who's very lives depend on certain organizations doing all they can to ensure that the systems on the aircraft they fly each and every work day would certainly be the target group for your case that the FDR data does not describe the same flight path as the physical evidence on the ground. The pilots and crew of aircraft depend partly on the continuous improvement of flight safety that is garnered from the flight recorders on their aircraft. Diatribes railing on about cover ups and horrendously complicated and completely unneccessary plots simply will not garner your 'cause' much support among that group. Not only is that my opinion but it is borne out by the fact that in the years since your cause began there has been no ground swell of such support. Clearly the present tactics are not working.

Originally Posted by Turbofan
On another note, it's not the we(I) spend our days on forums trying to
win over a few people. There are several other avenues we are trying
to get the word out.

Anything from radio, internet, open letters, public meetings/presentations, etc.

It's obvious that we're not going to see eye to eye on many things. We play
on here during the day to pass time and help our own cause.

Its not working, that much is obvious. You have not gotten the attention of any relevent organization nor has your cause been receiving much MSM attention..

"Playing" here is not furthering your cause in the least from what I can see.

Originally Posted by Turbofan
We feel our cause is justified and well researched. We are contacting MSM,
FBI, NSTB with little luck at this time. I don't know that a technical paper
will help.

What you are doing isn't working. A technical paper based upon the work you have already done, a cojent technical explanation of your position certainly could not hurt.
What does and has hurt you are the threats and allegations already made.

You claim that PfT already has done the work required to illustrate that the FDR data does not describe the same flight path as the physical evidence on the ground. That is a small, but core, part of the raison d'etre of PfT. Therefore it should be but a simple task to write a cojent technical arguement that backs up this conclusion.

Originally Posted by Turbofan
Comment as you all will. This is pretty much the reality and what we face
every day.

We have questions. We want answers. We want a new investigation.

Satisfy our doubts and we will stand down

Its not up to me. I can't answer all your questions. The people here who I feel can and have, you do not accept. Therefore, and given that your organization demonstrably believes that there are organizations that do have the requisite expertise, it would seem the logical next step to calmly inform those organizations of the technical reasoning behind your conclusion that the FDR data illustrates a greatly different flight path than the physical evidence on the ground. .

You want an investigation, you want answers to the questions. So start with the first, purely technical and supposedly provable point;
that the FDR data does not describe the same flight path as the physical evidence on the ground, and illustrate this to the 1000 MSM and the above mentioned organizations.
Instead of doing so, thus far what has been sent to the 1000 MSM? Diatribes on cover ups and horrendously complicated plots. In fact the forums of PfT concentrate on such horrendously complicated plots.

 

[pomeroo]

I wish I'd thought of it.

I know the feeling.

 

[jaydeehess]

I should note, for Turbofan, hxs tamper, and others, that I truly want for the core teaching of PfT to receive a hearing in the organizations I list above. Not because I believe PfT's conclusions, rather, because I do not. The bright light of true and recognized expertise on the subject of the FDR data should shine forth. Again, not because it it a cog in the machinery that will illustrate or dispel the notion of a vast and complicated conspiracy of a shadow gov't plot to kill citizens of the USA for the political gain of a select few, but because if the FDR data illustrates a different flight path than that which is made obvious by the empirical, physical evidence of the path of flight 77 then this is a matter of the reliability of FDR data in, at the very least, the last few seconds of a flight that has departed from normal operating conditions. That time period is often of great importance to determining how to better the flight safety of the commercial aircraft that many of us spend time in.

 

[hxstamper]

what is the real time of impact? Who said so? Who verified it? Who stands by it more than just a working copy?

Beachnut, this was posted for you on earlier pages, but i guess your memory isnt what it once used to be?

It appears Beachnut knows more than the NTSB? Has Beachnut informed the NTSB they are distributing "error filled" data through the Freedom Of Information Act to the American public?? Does "Beachnut" know how the NTSB dervied and calculated their "impact" time?


(by the way, is that a picture of you in your avatar? Anything more recent, say... when color cameras/film were invented? Not trying to insult you, just asking a question).

Looks like you all had a wonderful weekend..

Regards

 

[hxstamper]

Lets keep this real simple for the on-lookers.

JREFers Beachnut, Anti-Sophist and others, anonymous self-proclaimed "experts", claim the NTSB is providing information through the Freedom Of Information Act to the American public which has "missing seconds", "altimeter lag", "rotated map", etc etc. But the NTSB fails to note such "errors".

The NTSB says in cover letter dated March 2007 that they want everything as accurate as possible when distributing data through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). The NTSB does admit one error in their animation with respect to the clock annotation (EDT/GMT). The NTSB does not state any such errors as claimed by anonymous individuals who claim 'expertise' on the JREF internet forum. None of the self proclaimed anonymous "experts" on the JREF internet forum have contacted the NTSB, FBI or L3 Communications to inform them of such claimed "errors" being distributed through the FOIA.


Anti-Sophist, the thread starter of this convoluted mess of a thread which is mostly ad-homs and attacks on "pffft"/libel on P4T members who actually use their real names and faces -- states on many occassions within this thread there can be no more than 2 seconds missing.

I think it's impossible for anyone to say with certainty how much data is missing except the people who actually looked at the recorder. I think the estimate in the 1-2 seconds range is probably accurate, though.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2237875&postcount=337

People who "looked at the recorder" (the NTSB) dont claim any seconds are missing. Anti-Sophist seems to know more than the NTSB?

I don't think there is that many data points missing. My best guess is 1-2, so 2 at the most.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2239284&postcount=341

[Rob Balsamo] is absolutely right when he says the errors I'm talking about fractions of a second (well, as much as 2 seconds). If his true altitude number is correct, he is actually on to something.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2002910&postcount=43

It is clear from the quotes above, written by an anonymous self-proclaimed "Expert" that he feels there can be no more than 2 seconds missing. Since we now have RADALT after the quoted text above was written by Self-proclaimed anonymous "Anti-Sophist", we processed the data with respect to Anti-Sophist argument of "up to 2 seconds missing"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4801

Its-still-too-high.

Again, self proclaimed anonymous "experts" prefer to hide behind their screen day and night making excuses for the NTSB/FBI releasing what "Expert" JREFers claim is "error filled data" to the American Public through the FOIA. Popular Mechanics, NTSB, FBI, and anonymous internet "experts" refuse to discuss/debate these issues with P4T. I dont blame JREF "Experts" for remaining behind their screen.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

The NTSB/FBI are supplying data through the Freedom Of Information Act which does not support the govt story of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the light poles on Wash Blvd, or impact with the pentagon. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment, retract, correct, refute when contacted by anyone (not just P4T). Unprecedented!. This is a factual statement and undisputed.


Ron "pomeroo" Wieck said it best when he said..

What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience.

bolding mine. More "large audiences" are coming up. Will "Beachnut", "Reheat", or "Anti-Sophist" step up to the plate this time? If past performance is any indication, they will remain here, on the JREF.

 

[Bananaman]

Popular Mechanics, NTSB, FBI, and anonymous internet "experts" refuse to discuss/debate these issues with P4T.

Why would experts bother debating with idiots? It's rather like asking Stephen Hawking to debate physics with a teenager who believes the world is flat.

Bananaman (who has his eyebrows raised.)

 

[Reheat]

It appears Beachnut knows more than the NTSB? Has Beachnut informed the NTSB they are distributing "error filled" data through the Freedom Of Information Act to the American public??

I'll rewrite that for you.... "It appears pffft knows more than the NTSB? Has pffft informed the American Public they are distributing "error filled" data via their web site, utube, and DVD's to the American public??

(by the way, is that a picture of you in your avatar? Anything more recent, say... when color cameras/film were invented? Not trying to insult you, just asking a question).

[Edited for being off topic.]

Looks like you all had a wonderful weekend..

Yes, it was nice for me. BTW, did you see how your lover was trashed here? Some of it was pretty funny, huh?

BTW: Did you find an FDR "expert" yet? It appears that Turbo Charged is not doing too well. Maybe you need someone a little better versed in FDR's to replace him.

Please stay on topic and avoid attacking the arguer. Thank you.

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

 

[hxstamper]

Why would experts bother debating with idiots? It's rather like asking Stephen Hawking to debate physics with a teenager who believes the world is flat.

Bananaman (who has his eyebrows raised.)

And this whole "Conspiracy Theory" subforum is here because?

Who is the bigger fool/idiot. The idiot himself or the one who follows/writes about/spends day and night attacking the "idiot"?

 

[hxstamper]

I'll rewrite that for you.... "It appears pffft knows more than the NTSB? Has pffft informed the American Public they are distributing "error filled" data via their web site, utube, and DVD's to the American public??

The NTSB places altitude of 173 PA at 09:37:44. The NTSB calculates impact time at 09:37:45. The local DCA pressure is 30.22. Tell us "Reheat", you claim to be a pilot. What is the True Altitude at 09:37:44 as plotted by the NTSB? What is the height of the poles/pentagon in terms of MSL? Can a 757 Perform such a manuever as plotted by the NTSB?

[edited].

What are you.. 15? Reported.

Yes, it was nice for me. BTW, did you see how your lover was trashed here? Some of it was pretty funny, huh?

Im guessing 13 perhaps? Reported.

BTW: Did you find an FDR "expert" yet? It appears that Turbo Charged is not doing too well. Maybe you need someone a little better versed in FDR's to replace him.

We have several and spoken to many.. you?

 

[Reheat]

The NTSB/FBI are supplying data through the Freedom Of Information Act which does not support the govt story of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the light poles on Wash Blvd, or impact with the pentagon. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment, retract, correct, refute when contacted by anyone (not just P4T). Unprecedented!. This is a factual statement and undisputed.

 

[Bananaman]

And this whole "Conspiracy Theory" subforum is here because?

Who is the bigger fool/idiot. The idiot himself or the one who follows/writes about/spends day and night attacking the "idiot"?

You've unwittingly made a good point. I can only reply for myself. I read and post here, attacking the lies propogated by the troofers, mainly out of a mixture of frustration and amazement that they can get things so wrong.

I see it as a charitable work. One doomed to failure, no doubt, but one with honest, good intentions of kindness behind it. But sometimes you have have to be cruel to be kind as the old cliche goes.

Bananaman (who is all heart.)