AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[twinstead]

pft, that pesky physical evidence and those pesky people who actually picked up airplane and passenger parts at the scene will follow you to your graves unless you find a way to deal with them.

Arrogantly hand waving them away like you do just makes you look like fools. THAT is what the lurkers are reading.

 

[Turbofan]

*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.

Is that right? You might want to check MIL-STD-1553, or avionics product
documentation. But you know what, it's cool. Now we're on the same page.

I can find several other current and past examples using time_division as a
reference. The term is not as displaced as you think...

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

The feeling is mutual. I'll give you a pat on the back for catching me
on LRU, however that's the least of your worries. LRU/Instrumentation
semantics.

The fact that the DAU receives the same sensor data is what is most
important in this discussion. Sorry, but as you're surely aware it's tough
to get wiring diagrams for Boeing aircraft. You're asking about minor
details which in the big picture do not matter.

The fact that the FDAU is a dedicated RX makes your story even more of a
problem. Devices such as the LRA-900 (RAD altimeter) interface directly
to ARINC 429.

So, now we're left with the task of finding the latency from sensor, through
device processor to FDAU to FDR memory. I'll see what I can find through
the manufacturers just to please you.

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.

That was funny, but even funnier is ... it doesn't matter. The only error
I made was thinking the DAU processed the data from the sensors and
supplied it to the LRU.

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.

There is nothing inconsistent with my logic. You are claiming the sensor
data can't make it safely to CPM under 500 milliseconds. I'm saying all this
time, that it's a maximum of 500 milliseonds.

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.

Wrong again. 500 ms is an absoluate maximum. The actual transmission time
is less!

Instead of questioning the data, you pick on the most rediculous points and
try to find excuses that the FDR was at fault. You're asking questions that
you don't have answers to, and don't have resources to find the answers.

Now you're expecting the world to solve your t1-t5 equation instead of
contacting the NTSB for clarification and explanation on the data they released!

Awesome dude.

I'll do my best to find those answers for you.

 

[WildCat]

Im the "lover" of Balsamo? Do you think such a sexual reference against another member of these forums (me) is appriopriate for this thread "Reheat"?


...I notice much of your posts are beligerent as well. Some rascist, some derogatory towards gays (you have a problem with gays Reheat?), most attacking the person instead of the argument. Ever been warned by a mod? hmmm....

How could he be calling you gay when we don't even know your gender? I don't believe you've ever announced here whether you're male or female. We do know you are seemingly privy to every little internet dustup Rob Balsamo ever had with members of this forum, information only someone extremely close to Balsamo (or Balsamo himself) would know about.

 

[Reheat]

I have read this thread but perhaps I missed your, or TF's, or someone else's explanation as to why you will not submit a purely technical paper detailing the discrepancies you have found between the FDR data and the physical, empirical evidence of the flight path of the aircraft.

Please note that I am not asking you to do this for my benefit or for the benefit of any anonymous internet poster whom you and the members of PfT hold such disdain for. I am asking why you do not do so for your own benefit and to the end you often claim you want; answers from the organizations(specifically the NTSB and FBI) who you acknowledge have the expertise to provide those answers.

I know you're being sincere when you suggest this, but it's too late with "too much water under the bridge".

This suggestion might have worked 5 or 6 years ago, but there is no way a Government Agency is going to respond to much of anything now short of Congressional action or a lawsuit, more likely only the former. As you know anything they say is just going to continue to fuel the conspiracy theories at this point.

I learned very early in my career that virtually nothing can be accomplished by sitting on the outside and throwing stones at the glass house. The best way of effecting change has always been from within. Once stones are thrown at that glass house the occupants are only interested in protecting themselves from the stones, nothing else.

It is very, very obvious that pfft or any of these other troofer organizations are either not interested in any legitimate response or they have been too stupid to realize how to do it from the very beginning.

They selected the troofer route of Utube videos, DVD's, and web sites which attracted kooks and malcontents from all over the world completely destroying any legitimate purpose they might have had. The fact that the chief loon referred the NTSB to their web site and their "press release" accomplished nothing more than providing a laugh to the organization addressed.

It is also quite obvious that the illusion to the safety issues is only a ploy to makes their appearance legitimate and to attract more rational members who are not activists and/or haven't bothered to scrutinize their objectives more closely.

The fact that they come here and continue their tirade is very telling. Their movement is dying and they can't get any attention, so by coming here they are both trying to recruit and also trying to rescue their defeated egos.

It's too late. There is no backtracking to erase all of the words, all of the accusations, all of the nonsense that has transpired. They have succeeded in destroying the very thing they profess to seek by their own stupid actions.

 

[hxstamper]

Mackey's intellectual honesty is beyond question.

Is that why Mackey refuses to debate anyone on your show or anywhere else?

Anti-Sophist, Beachnut, and Reheat have completely destroyed the baseless Pentagon fantasies promoted by pft.

Oh please...

First of all, Anti-Sophist own arguments (read: excuses) place the aircraft too high. Turbofan has posted solid source. Anti-Sophist has posted speculation and hypothesis.

Beachnut? Really? If you combined all his ad homs posts of "failure, dolts, idiots, nuts, wackos" and further consolidated all the "DVD sales, 11.2 G's.." etc etc, Beachnut would only have a total of about 200 posts here (instead of creeping up on 8000 saying the same thing over and over).

And Reheat? Well, the guy has been proven to be a liar and a fraud. He has tried to portray himself as a college female on other forums just so he can "debate" people he thinks are idiots. He has fradulently accused Rob Balsamo of commiting a felony instead of taking it to the proper authorities, and has endlessly failed to grasp basic concepts of pressure altitude vs. True (laughs at it), unable to find DME references, the list goes on...

All of the above refuse contact L3, NTSB, or FBI with their claims of the NTSB providing error filled data through the FOIA to the American public. They also refuse to debate in an open forum (such as on air or recorded venue such as Hardfire), as you have experienced first hand Ron. All of them have refused to sign up to P4T using the excuse, "We'll just get banned", or "there is nothing to debate", when they spend their days and nights doing just that from the biased JREF forum whose members are known for attacking and banning "troofers". How does Reheat put it? Oh.. thats right.. "Thrashing".

 

[Myriad]

Once again I ask you to narrow down where in the somewhat large faa site one might find a section that concerning how to deal with the FDR data. Perhaps you now wish your suggestion to me to be that I should be looking in the faa site for calculations to convert pressure altitude to 'true' altitude.

I have read this thread but perhaps I missed your, or TF's, or someone else's explanation as to why you will not submit a purely technical paper detailing the discrepancies you have found between the FDR data and the physical, empirical evidence of the flight path of the aircraft.

Please note that I am not asking you to do this for my benefit or for the benefit of any anonymous internet poster whom you and the members of PfT hold such disdain for. I am asking why you do not do so for your own benefit and to the end you often claim you want; answers from the organizations(specifically the NTSB and FBI) who you acknowledge have the expertise to provide those answers.

So far my question has not been answered. Turbofan basically stated that he did not see the value in creating such a paper, that the NTSB probably would not receive it well.

Why the hemming and hawing? What you are doing now clearly is not garnering any action from any organization nor any MSM outlet.

You already claim to have all of the work done that would go into such a paper, a detailed timeline of the position of the aircraft as it approached the Pentagon as determined by the parameters recorded on a flight data recorder purported to have been in the aircraft that also was responsible for the knocked down lamp poles and the damage pattern in the Pentagon. All that remians is for the relatively simple task of putting it all down in a paper, without accusation, and submit it to not only the NTSB but to ICAO and pilot's unions as well as relevent magazines, journals and newspapers.

Phone calls to organizations claiming that this has been proven does not cut it. Your claim ( by 'your' I am refering to PfT) that it has been proven must be backed up by presenting your work and interpretation of the FDR data in written form that will allow an expert to determine if your work is done properly and if not then perhaps even point out where you go wrong.

I do note the fact that no one at PfT noticed immediatly that the calculations done concerning the desent rate of an aircraft coming over the VDOT tower were in error certainly indicates that PfT is quite capable of erring in other technical aspects of the flight of AA 77.

Please understand that one does not write a technical paper based on a report stating 2+2=4. Please understand that you do not have the aeronautical knowledge to determine the simple calcuations made for true altitude based on pressure altitude as plotted by the NTSB. Please understand that we have contacted all of the above with our names, faces and professional reputations on the line (not just a phone call from Jeff Hill, you assume too much). Please understand that the NTSB/FBI refuse to correct, retract, refute, comment to anyone. Even you (if you ever try). This is unprecedented. Please understand the NTSB have also been petitioned through the FOIA by John Farmer why their data does not support the govt story and the NTSB still refuses to comment (i'd post link here but John deleted his blog, feel free to contact him directly for the letters). Please be advised the FBI/NTSB did not document/positively identify any of the 4 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11 as determined through the Freedom Of Information Act via Aidan Monaghan (google it). Please be advised you have asked the same thing over and over and have been told over and over it has been addressed and given links ad naseum. Please understand your circular arguments are getting stale and we are tired of providing you the same exact information you constantly refuse to acknowledge. Please understand that not even Anti-Sophist, Reheat or Beachnut attempt to make your argument because apparently they can determine pressure, true, radar altitude. Please understand why they make excuse for lag, missing seconds, rotated map, sans your argument, when the NTSB makes no such claims.

None of this references the well-reasoned dispassionate technical paper you have written nor the technical organizations that you have circulated it to. Jaydeehess's question was why you have not written and circulated such a technical paper when you claim to have done most of the work that would be necessary to do so, and that response does not answer his question.

You have a hex nut that won't come off, and you're telling us how you've tried hitting it with a hammer, poking it with a fork, spitting on it, swearing at it, and showing it dirty pictures, all without effect. Jaydeehess is asking why you don't just get the right size wrench and turn it. This suggestion, for some reason, appears to enrage you. How very strange.

Please read this page, specifically the updates...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

I will add by saying we will be exposing R Mackey's intellectual dishonesty along with Myriad. Anti-Sophist, Beachnut, and Reheat dont get much of a mention as they have been thoroughly exposed aready and credibility is shot.

Sheesh, you're making 3-D computer animations to attempt to disprove some calculations I did with elementary math and physics?

The wrong tool for the job seems to be a habit here. If there were errors in my calculations or R. Mackey's, the best way to show it is to point out the errors in the calculations.

That's all it takes. Not accusations of confusion or dishonesty. Not arguing that I used "high school math" as though there were something defective about algebra. Not 3-D animations. Not interpretive dance (just in case that was next on your to-do list).

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[lapman]

The fact that the DAU receives the same sensor data is what is most important in this discussion. Sorry, but as you're surely aware it's tough to get wiring diagrams for Boeing aircraft. You're asking about minor details which in the big picture do not matter.

You mean the big picture that over a hundred people reported seeing the aircraft fly into the building, the DNA evidence, etc.? That's that big picture that you ignore.

The fact that the FDAU is a dedicated RX makes your story even more of a
problem. Devices such as the LRA-900 (RAD altimeter) interface directly
to ARINC 429.

More ignorance on your part. ARINC 429 is a data standard and not a device. Please show that the LRA-900 interfaces directly with the FDR.

So, now we're left with the task of finding the latency from sensor, through
device processor to FDAU to FDR memory. I'll see what I can find through
the manufacturers just to please you.

Good luck. Are you prepared to admit that you were wrong?

That was funny, but even funnier is ... it doesn't matter. The only error I made was thinking the DAU processed the data from the sensors and
supplied it to the LRU.

If you possessed the knowledge that you claim to have, you would not have made such a simple mistake.

There is nothing inconsistent with my logic. You are claiming the sensor
data can't make it safely to CPM under 500 milliseconds. I'm saying all this
time, that it's a maximum of 500 milliseonds.

Good, but are you starting to understand where you are mistaken?

Wrong again. 500 ms is an absolute maximum. The actual transmission time
is less!

False. 500ms is the maximum from the time the FDR is able to record until the first data is recorded and 500ms is the maximum time between transmissions from a sensor. Nowhere in any of the documents that you have posted does it say that the 500ms is the maximum time from sensor to CPM.

Instead of questioning the data, you pick on the most rediculous points and
try to find excuses that the FDR was at fault. You're asking questions that
you don't have answers to, and don't have resources to find the answers.

Now you're expecting the world to solve your t1-t5 equation instead of
contacting the NTSB for clarification and explanation on the data they released!

Unlike you and pfffft, we understand that the roll of the NTSB was not to perform an extremely detailed crash investigation. Why don't you submit an FOIA request for the actual request from the FBI to see what NTSB's roll really was?

I'll do my best to find those answers for you.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[hxstamper]

None of this references the well-reasoned dispassionate technical paper you have written nor the technical organizations that you have circulated it to. Jaydeehess's question was why you have not written and circulated such a technical paper when you claim to have done most of the work that would be necessary to do so, and that response does not answer his question.

Myriad, have you figured out that the NTSB doesnt claim there are missing seconds in their data yet? Or do you need a "technical paper" drawn up for you.

You have a hex nut that won't come off, and you're telling us how you've tried hitting it with a hammer, poking it with a fork, spitting on it, swearing at it, and showing it dirty pictures,

Petitioning the NTSB/FBI through the FOIA is "hitting it with a hammer, poking it with a fork, spitting on it, swearing at it, and showing it dirty pictures"? Should we send pretty pictures of flowers through the FOIA?

all without effect.

Well, we agree on something. The FOIA is ineffective for getting answers. Perhaps talking to a congress rep is next signed by all these names?? Nope, that didnt work either.


Perhaps sending out press releases to media outlets worldwide regarding the animation produced by the NTSB claimed to be based on flight data they failed to cover yet cover and tout an animation not based on any flight data whatsoever would gain more exposure to what JREFers claim is the "NTSB distributing error filled data through the FOIA"? Nope, that didnt work either...

(although it did get alot of coverage in alternative. Takes time for the wheels to spin i guess in Mainstream media to cover an animation produced by the NTSB? Nope, thats unprecedented too...)

Sheesh, you're making 3-D computer animations to attempt to disprove some calculations I did with elementary math and physics?

3D is right. Perhaps you should take note as you failed to grasp such a concept with your one dimensional formula.

The wrong tool for the job seems to be a habit here.

Agreed, and you will soon find out why you chose the wrong tool.

If there were errors in my calculations or R. Mackey's, the best way to show it is to point out the errors in the calculations.

Do you have patience?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Back at ya..

 

[WildCat]

The FOIA is ineffective for getting answers. Perhaps talking to a congress rep is next signed by all these names??

The 4th name on your list is this guy? http://www.thelivingmoon.com/



eta: a picture is worth a thousand words! http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/John/TinFoilHatIdiotD.png

eta2: How many other PfffT "experts" spent their childhood eating lead paint chips?

 

[T.A.M.]

The 4th name on your list is this guy? http://www.thelivingmoon.com/



eta: a picture is worth a thousand words! http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/John/TinFoilHatIdiotD.png

oh noes Wildcat. Now hx will whine on your ass about "character assassination".

TAM

 

[Turbofan]

More ignorance on your part. ARINC 429 is a data standard and not a device. Please show that the LRA-900 interfaces directly with the FDR.

My ignorance?

More like your spin, and/or lack of understanding.

The quote says DEVICES such as LRA-900 interface directly to ARINC 429.

In otherwords, the output data is capable of communicating directly to ARINC 429

Here's your damn source that you will probably ignore. I thought someone
that spouts off as much BS as you would know this?

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html

Data Output
Per ARINC 429 ; BCD and Binary altitude

 

[hxstamper]

The 4th name on your list is this guy? http://www.thelivingmoon.com/



eta: a picture is worth a thousand words! http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/John/TinFoilHatIdiotD.png

John Lear has over 19,000 hours flight time, has more certificates than any airman issued by the FAA, has helped design aircraft which are a household name and has more than enough experience and qualifications to comment on our work. You?

Can we attribute a single JREF member who may do alternative research to you and all of JREF? Nice try WC, but the tired old stale tactic of painting with a broad brush is not only childish, but shows your desperation. Its not surprising you would single out one member and refuse to research/discuss others.

By the way (and at the risk of getting off topic, which im sure is WC's agenda), Lear has told us to kick him out of the organization if he becomes a liability. We told him that only the.. shall we say.. "not-so-bright", would try to use such a tactic which would immediately show the oppositions desperation. Thanks for exposing yourself WC. Might want to rethink about getting another internet persona, as clearly you have made your current one "disposable" and discredited.


Forgive me if i ignore your future childish tactics.

 

[DavidJames]

The fact that they come here and continue their tirade is very telling. Their movement is dying and they can't get any attention, so by coming here they are both trying to recruit and also trying to rescue their defeated egos.

This quote should be a forum autoresponse to any PFT post.

Hey Rob - did you find a job yet?

 

[WildCat]

John Lear has over 19,000 hours flight time, has more certificates than any airman issued by the FAA, has helped design aircraft which are a household name and has more than enough experience and qualifications to comment on our work. You?

Me? I'm not completely insane, John Lear can't say the same.

By the way (and at the risk of getting off topic, which im sure is WC's agenda), Lear has told us to kick him out of the organization if he becomes a liability. We told him that only the.. shall we say.. "not-so-bright", would try to use such a tactic which would immediately show the oppositions desperation. Thanks for exposing yourself WC. Might want to rethink about getting another internet persona, as clearly you have made your current one "disposable" and discredited.

It doesn't bother you that he is completely insane? Is he one of your "FDR experts"?

Until the PfffT manages to get an actual FDR expert to corroborate their findings they'll continue to be little more than a magnet for the disgruntled and the insane.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry but I stopped believing people in this movement the moment they said that the wings and tail section should have magically been neatly set next the the walls where the body of the plane went through. If they can't get the physics right, I call into quuestion their qualifications for credibility, particularly when they make NO effort to amend it.

 

[bje]

Can we attribute a single JREF member who may do alternative research to you and all of JREF?

We all noted a long time ago that P4T doesn't know how to do research. If you did know how, you would be able to answer the straightforward questions posed to you. Instead, those questions scare you to death.

My straightforward question has been posed to all of you at CIT and P4T and you dare not answer it.

Why are you scared of questions about the evidence, hxstamper?

 

[WildCat]

The second name on the PfffT list (right after Balsamo's) is Captain Russ Wittenberg. Interview with him here: http://www.illuminati-news.com/inside-job.htm

Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”

Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.

He's also a Kennedy conspiracy loon and thinks Pearl Harbor was also a conspiracy.

 

[Myriad]

Myriad, have you figured out that the NTSB doesnt claim there are missing seconds in their data yet? Or do you need a "technical paper" drawn up for you.

I need a technical paper, of course. Shouting your accusations about missing seconds will have no effect on me or anyone of consequence. That's stating a conclusion without an argument. A technical paper making a technical argument that other technical experts can evaluate is required.

Petitioning the NTSB/FBI through the FOIA is "hitting it with a hammer, poking it with a fork, spitting on it, swearing at it, and showing it dirty pictures"?

Yes.

And I'm glad you grasped the analogy correctly. (That can sometimes be a sticking point when using analogies.)

Well, we agree on something. The FOIA is ineffective for getting answers. Perhaps talking to a congress rep is next signed by all these names?? Nope, that didnt work either.

You don't have to tell me that making unsupported accusations was ineffective. That's what I'm trying to tell you. You didn't present a technical argument in a technical paper to be reviewed by their technical experts, did you?

Perhaps sending out press releases to media outlets worldwide regarding the animation produced by the NTSB claimed to be based on flight data they failed to cover yet cover and tout an animation not based on any flight data whatsoever would gain more exposure to what JREFers claim is the "NTSB distributing error filled data through the FOIA"? Nope, that didnt work...

Of course it didn't work. When mainstream media outlets receive reports about a technical matter, they hand it off to their own technical experts to evaluate. Without a technical argument to evaluate, they could not perceive any merit in your accusations, and hence, did not report them.

(although it did get alot of coverage in alternative. Takes time for the wheels to spin i guess in Mainstream media to cover an animation produced by the NTSB? Nope, thats unprecedented too...)

There's a difference between waiting for the wheels to spin, and spinning your wheels. Alternative media doesn't have (or doesn't choose to utilize) as much access to technical experts to evaluate the validity of claims, and that's why they are more credulous of unsupported claims. The "wheels turning" process you're waiting for, for mainstream outlets to pick up the story, includes that review by technical experts I spoke of. Oops, no technical paper, no technical argument, means no wheels turning, just wheels (yours) spinning.

3D is right. Perhaps you should take note as you failed to grasp such a concept with your one dimensional formula.

At any time, with or without animations, you can point out which dimension I failed to include in my analsysis (hint: I included forward motion and vertical motion, leaving only one spatial dimension left, sideways motion of the plane) and how that caused my calculations to be wrong.

Agreed, and you will soon find out why you chose the wrong tool.

Do you have patience?

My patience in this particular matter is infinite. Your previous argument was proven wrong. Therefore the claims that 11.2 G would be required, and the claims that G forces exceeding the airframe's ability to survive would be required, are currently unsupported by any evidence. If you have another argument to make instead, it's up to you when, if ever, you wish to make it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[lapman]

My ignorance?

More like your spin, and/or lack of understanding.

The quote says DEVICES such as LRA-900 interface directly to ARINC 429.

In otherwords, the output data is capable of communicating directly to ARINC 429


Here's your damn source that you will probably ignore. I thought someone
that spouts off as much BS as you would know this?

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html

More ignorance on your part again. Data output is not "interface." Again ARINC 429 is the data standard that the LRA-900 uses to format the data it transmits.
Here is something you missed:

Tracking Capability
0 to 100.5 m/second (330 ft/second)

The plane was going how fast in ft/second?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hey Turbo. The qxygen tanks on the Quantas flight were not designed to explode. Are you kids at PFT gonna start talking about that conspiracy theory?