AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

Please allow me:

>> Why no real theories on the FDR besides your rule of no theories?

Because that would be a theory, and that's not productive. A conclusion
based on research and evidence is more productive and credible.

>> What does the 500 millisecond mean for people who have NO theories?
>> Why is an issue?

It puts to rest any theory that data takes longer to reach CPM and therefore
would skew the position of the plane in relation to the light poles and Pentagaon.

>> On Rob's first video, why does he make irrational statements about Hani's
>> flying?

"irrational" is a subjective term. Hani never flew a commerical airliner.
The turn, the yoke movements, and control of the plane at 500 MPH does
not suggest a first timer in the seat.

>> Why can't p4t pilots hit buildings in the safety of a simulator, yet 3
>> terrorist did in real life, and kids with not training in sims have, and pilots
>> with only time in small planes did on video?

That is your belief based on the government's official theory.

Would you allow a non pilot, or pilot in training to take the controls of a
Boeing 757 and feel confident he/she could pull off rapid flight and
interpretation of the instruments?

>> How does the FDR change 9/11?

It raises doubt about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

>> Why are errors made by p4t not corrected in a timely fashion?

"Timely Fashion"? What is a reasonable time frame? Perhaps there is
something going on behind the scenes ()and PFT is waiting to release
all of the corrections at once.

>> Why is traffic down at p4tf?

It may seem that way, but there are private forums at PFT which only
certain member can access, or view.

Most of the time is spent in those forums lately...perhaps for behind the
scenes discussion? Hmmm...

>> Why have you only gained 20 pilots in one year?

PFT is not considered a debate forum. 20 professionals in one year is
substantial. Quality, not quantity.


>> What is your growth in pilots per month since inception and when do you
expect to pass 0.001 percent of all world pilots?

Not sure. That would take a poll, or research beyond our scope. Not very
important in my opinion.

>> Why do all the 757/767 Captain I have talked to personally, and worked
with, think your ideas are nuts on 9/11?

I don't know? Why do all of the pilots we talk to agree?

>> Why do all the air force pilots I have worked with think your ideas are
nuts on 9/11?

I don't know? Why do all of the AF pilots we talk to agree?

 

[lapman]

What you, Anti and several others fail to understand is the data arrives
as an entire word. What ever values you see, are safe and current with
time referenced!

It is impossible for certain parameters to get stored while other go missing.
You would lose the entire word,or blocks of data.

I guess you failed to understand that each word only contains data for one sensor. It's clearly spelled out in the tutorial you posted a link to.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"I don't know? Why do all of the AF pilots we talk to agree? "

OK, give us the list of AF pilots and let's check on that.

 

[Turbofan]

"I don't know? Why do all of the AF pilots we talk to agree? "

OK, give us the list of AF pilots and let's check on that.

Geez, here we go again! I guess the list we posted a few million times
throughout this thread isn't good enough?

Go to PFT. Check out the list.

Go to partiots. Check out the list.

COme back here with your list of excuses, and tell everyone how cracked
out these guys are.

 

[beachnut]

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?

.. "not-so-bright", would try to use such a tactic

this is ironic after say I have lied, but you failed to produce evidence, but you freely take my words and make up lies and use my quotes out of context. Your 11.2 G error is not out of context, it is the best math and physics you can do, you failed.

John Lear is perfect for your p4t org, he has aliens to support your ideas, you could sign them up and have thousands, what are you waiting for! Two Pulitzer Prizes, one for exposing aliens, and one for 9/11. If only you have a theory.

John Lear is as bad on 9/11 issues as you are; he is perfect for p4t. He is not a liability he is the personification of bad idea on 9/11. John is your perfect member. He has pure hogwash for 9/11. Good work, if you had something you would not waste time talking about beachnut or John Lear, two great pilots, but their ideas are not worth anything without evidence to back them up. Go take Jesse for a plane ride, make him your next pilot for truth, and add another illogical expert to your pack of pilots who are wrong about all things 9/11.

Wasting time, please get the hot FDR smoking gun points you have in your bag of tricks.

…

Go to PFT. Check out the list.
Go to partiots. Check out the list. …

After a careful and through review, no fact or evidence was found with these few, very small, incredible small number of pilots, to support the "no theories" you and p4t propose! You have found a group with no idea what happen on 9/11 and they prove it by making, no theory! (is partiots, parrots for 9/11 truth? They are not patriots, cause patriots use facts)

Not one FDR expert, not one piece of evidence to support you. You are on your own on the FDR, what was your point about the 1553 buss? How does 500 ms relate to 9/11?

 

[lapman]

>> On Rob's first video, why does he make irrational statements about Hani's
>> flying?

"irrational" is a subjective term. Hani never flew a commercial airliner.

You do realize that he had time in an airliner simulator, don't you?

The turn, the yoke movements, and control of the plane at 500 MPH does
not suggest a first timer in the seat.

Please elaborate. I may be wrong, but I would be correct in thinking that an expert pilot would have never made the turn in the first place. And the turn itself would certainly not be from any real expert pilot. You must also remember that during WWII, kids with only a third of Hani's TT were flying airplanes through flak into a moving ship in aircraft that were considerably harder to control.

>> Why can't p4t pilots hit buildings in the safety of a simulator, yet 3
>> terrorist did in real life, and kids with not training in sims have, and pilots
>> with only time in small planes did on video?

That is your belief based on the government's official theory.

Would you allow a non pilot, or pilot in training to take the controls of a
Boeing 757 and feel confident he/she could pull off rapid flight and
interpretation of the instruments?

Well, since that pilot was commercial rated and had at least airliner simulator time, I would since flying an airplane is really not that hard. Go take a demo flight at our local airport and see for yourself.

 

[nicepants]

To all those with doubts...answer me this...

What is more likely:

(B) The "experts" at Pilots For Truth have incorrectly analyzed or interpreted the FDR data.

Definitely B. The "minds" at pffft have shown again and again their complete inability to perform simple math. It's a good thing Rob isn't allowed to fly people around anymore...someone lacking those skills could be pretty dangerous.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Geez, here we go again! I guess the list we posted a few million times
throughout this thread isn't good enough?

Go to PFT. Check out the list.

Go to partiots. Check out the list.

COme back here with your list of excuses, and tell everyone how cracked
out these guys are.

Learn to read kid.

I wasn't simply asking for a list of members. You said every AF pilot you talk to agrees. So let's see which ones specifically. Are you saying the only ones you talk to are the ones who are members of PFFFT? You don't talk to any pilots outside of your own group? And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously? I guess if your idea of the opinion of AF pilots is deducted by only talking to the ones who are signed up on your web page, then it surely explains your delusions.


But at least we have cleared up what you meant. So when you say every AF pilot you talk to, you mean the 1 or two working AF pilots on your member list. I think the poster you were responding to was referring to the majority of AF pilots, not the couple that are on your little member list.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh yes and as mentioned there's the most qualified PffffT expert John Lear. The guy who thinks that there is a huge soul catching machine on the moon run by aliens who harvest our souls. The same guy who thinks that the planes were holograms and nuclear explosives were used on 9/11.

Why your PFT group isn't taken seriously is a complete mystery there....

 

[beachnut]

Please allow me:

>> Why no real theories on the FDR besides your rule of no theories?

Because that would be a theory, and that's not productive. A conclusion
based on research and evidence is more productive and credible.

Balsamo said this? No, the answer is you have no evidence and make up stuff so people who lack knowledge can make up a conclusion that is a lie based on p4t tripe insinuations and flawed research (that is being generous).

>> What does the 500 millisecond mean for people who have NO theories?

>> Why is an issue?

It puts to rest any theory that data takes longer to reach CPM and therefore
would skew the position of the plane in relation to the light poles and Pentagaon.

And that has nothing to do with 9/11, and you failed to correctly state the position.
Good, at least you understand a FDR can be missing data! Good. No theory here you are still a good follower of Balsamo, no theory group.

>> On Rob's first video, why does he make irrational statements about Hani's

>> flying?

"irrational" is a subjective term. Hani never flew a commerical airliner.
The turn, the yoke movements, and control of the plane at 500 MPH does
not suggest a first timer in the seat.

Oops, the turn averaged 300 KIAS, not 500 mph, your failure to research the simple errors Rob makes is showing. Rob makes really dumb statements about Hani, and you defend them. You are not a pilot. At best his statement are just talk and bs. No substance. And you failed to present facts, your 500 mph does not happen until the last 20 seconds, don't you read the FDR data, you always spew "we didn't" and we do, you are the on who lacks the ability to figure out anything 9/11 without our help. The yoke movements and control of the plane look just like Hani would do. Actually you are wrong, his control of the jet is just like someone who flew the jet for the first time despite having simulator time in a jet simulator. You actually got all of this backwards in a pure illogical way.

>> Why can't p4t pilots hit buildings in the safety of a simulator, yet 3

>> terrorist did in real life, and kids with not training in sims have, and pilots
>> with only time in small planes did on video?

That is your belief based on the government's official theory.

Would you allow a non pilot, or pilot in training to take the controls of a
Boeing 757 and feel confident he/she could pull off rapid flight and
interpretation of the instruments?

"RAPID FLIGHT" What are you talking about!?
You do not need instruments during pure VFR! The less you concentrate on the instruments the better you fly and avoid hitting other planes outside! He would not have any real experience flying instrument in a real plane, his simulator time would help, but flying with the big ADI is the best thing for stable flying! God's ADI, the earth! Sad the biggest flight instrument is only available in clear weather, like on 9/11.

>> How does the FDR change 9/11?

It raises doubt about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

[truthNAZI Balsamo]
Oops that my friend is a theory and you are not allowed those [/truthNAZI Balsamo] No it raises doubts about the FDR having all the data to impact and after. You guys take the 45 second time as impact, but gee, there is clearly a time stamp on the FDR of 46. Make up your mind, is it 45 or 46? You have messed up logic and picked the wrong theory, which you can't have cause you are a good little p4tNAZI.

>> Why are errors made by p4t not corrected in a timely fashion?

"Timely Fashion"? What is a reasonable time frame? Perhaps there is
something going on behind the scenes ( )and PFT is waiting to release
all of the corrections at once.

Funny, it took JREF posters a few minutes to correct the massive math and physics errors, all they had to do was lift the work and say thank you to Mackey if they used his directly, or just changed and said fixed! Sad, but I understand, 6 years and p4t have messed up 9/11 past recognition.

>> Why is traffic down at p4tf?

It may seem that way, but there are private forums at PFT which only
certain member can access, or view.

Most of the time is spent in those forums lately...perhaps for behind the
scenes discussion? Hmmm...

Yes, I know you have secret rooms and you can see all this discussed and you repeat it here for all to see. Gee, you guys are no posting just like Balsamo! I have access to the secret ready room, you guys are too easy! Gee, why are all hx posts and your post filled with flawed Balsamo junk without gathering it from the secret part of p4tf, and being directed firsthand by the truthNAZI of p4t.

>> Why have you only gained 20 pilots in one year?

PFT is not considered a debate forum. 20 professionals in one year is
substantial. Quality, not quantity.

Quality? Not one can provide evidence to support even your failed conclusions you now have retracted due to secret forum input form the fearless leader.

>> What is your growth in pilots per month since inception and when do you

expect to pass 0.001 percent of all world pilots?

Not sure. That would take a poll, or research beyond our scope. Not very
important in my opinion.

So you don't expect to pass 0.001 percent of all pilots?

>> Why do all the 757/767 Captain I have talked to personally, and worked with, think your ideas are nuts on 9/11?

I don't know? Why do all of the pilots we talk to agree?

You have not talk to many pilots have you!

>> Why do all the air force pilots I have worked with think your ideas are

nuts on 9/11?

I don't know? Why do all of the AF pilots we talk to agree?

Oh, how many pilots out of p4t have you talked to?

This is cool, you tell us about he secret forum at p4tf, the reason traffic is down. Yes you have to move your false idea discussions underground out of the light of knowledge and truth, and keep the pit of pure ignorance free of facts and evidence. You have learn much in the pit, you are now conforming to the "no theory" party line.

Because that would be a theory, and that's not productive. A conclusion
based on research and evidence is more productive and credible.

Funny part is you have no evidence, you have exposed p4t as a fraud. Good job.


It may seem that way, but there are private forums at PFT which only
certain member can access, or view.

I am sure Hitler had his private rooms just for a select few, you guys at p4t act like Animal Farm, big brother (1984), and Lord of the Flies; how do you just get the worse traits down to perfection?
So you expose your flawed logic on the relation of the FDR to 9/11. You could just say you have no idea, instead of messing it up.
Good for you, you understand physics so much better than FDRs.

 

[Myriad]

I was going to go through this whole post and show how you are completely lost, point by point....

But i dont have anymore time to play with JREFers today.. .so i'll just use the above.

Good, because you would have wasted my time and yours. The exact nature of your claims is irrelevant to my point, which concerns your lack of a complete technical argument that supports any hypothesis that there is anything unexpected or sinister about the FDR data from Flight 77.

We arent making the claims of "missing seconds". Those claims are from "Reheat", "Anti-Sophist", and "Beachnut" et al. You initially claimed the FAA makes the comment the data is missing seconds and that L3 should go after the FAA if L3 claims no more than a 0.5 sec buffer lag. You corrected your mistake regarding the FAA (the data wasnt provided by the FAA, rather the NTSB) and switched your claim to the NTSB. Which is also wrong.

Geeze, have you even read this thread? Do you even remember what you wrote?

I vaguely remember writing something about how, since you claim that the data from the FDR does not agree with the consensus narrative of where the plane went, that if you are correct this would strongly imply that the FDR did not function properly. Since the manufacturer of the FDR has not made any public argument defending the performance of their system, it appears likely that they disagree with you regarding whether or not the FDR data is consistent with the consensus narrative, and that based on information available about FDR recordings from other crashes, it appears that the failure of the final recorded data points to conform closely to the plane's apparent final position is neither unusual nor important.

Nothing you've said has given me any reason to change my mind about that point, by the way.

Was that earlier in this thread, or in some other thread? Was it with you, or someone else who writes and acts exactly like you do? I see no reason to care. So maybe I haven't been paying much attention. Why should I have been? Your group's choices of actions have made it irrelevant so far. It isn't worthy of more than cursory attention. It doesn't matter what you think, what you believe, what you conclude, what you claim. By your actions and choices you have made it not matter.

Do you believe that data from the FDR entry for the final few seconds were deliberately deleted for nefarious purposes? Or that the flight instruments were giving wildly inaccurate readings causing the plane's final recorded position to be off from its actual position? Or that the FDR record is complete and accurate and the flight actually ended a few thousand feet from the Pentagon and hundreds of feet in the air (and is still there, presumably)? Or that the entire FDR data recording was fabricated -- which would mean that it has no evidentiary value at all for whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon? Who knows? You won't tell, so why should anyone care?

All you can tell me is that the final position data points in the FDR recording don't coincide exactly with the impact point at the Pentagon. Should they coincide? You think they should, but you have not made a technical case that they should, given the real-world details of how FDRs function which you seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding (e.g. disputing the existence of a data buffer which is clearly a necessary component of the system, and speaking of data transfer protocols as if they were physical devices) or describing coherently. So, since other people who can speak of these technical matters with much more self-consistency and much more in line with digital data acquisition systems as I understand them disagree with your claims, I think you're wrong, and there's no reason to expect the final recorded position to coincide with the final position.

You're the one complaining that you're not getting more attention. I'm explaining why you're not getting more attention. If you don't actually care why you're not getting more attention, then never mind.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[hxstamper]

You, of course, can only be referring to this post of mine which exposes the gross incompetence and irresponsiblity of Rob's previous work.

That was about four and a half months ago. It's been over four months since Rob has been promising to expose my "lies."

Alittle taste...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3898453#post3898453

More to come..

 

[Turbofan]

That's why I don't reply to BS questions Beachnut. You typed all of that,
and it's worthless. It's all your opinion and you're entitled to it.

As for PFT, Rob, and myself having a theory about AA77:

FDR files are not theoretical.

Learn the difference between theory, and evidence.

It doesn't take a fighter pilot to understand the flight data errors. My opinions
were formed long before PFT was around, or before I was a member.

Later , skater.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That's why I don't reply to BS questions Beachnut. You typed all of that,
and it's worthless. It's all your opinion and you're entitled to it.

As for PFT, Rob, and myself having a theory about AA77:

FDR files are not theoretical.

Learn the difference between theory, and evidence.

It doesn't take a fighter pilot to understand the flight data errors. My opinions
were formed long before PFT was around, or before I was a member.

Later , skater.

And yet your own "experts" won't agree with you. So interesting how that works. And it's no doubt your opinion was formed long before PFT and long before you began your "research" act.

 

[R.Mackey]

Alittle taste...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3898453#post3898453

More to come..

Responded in the appropriate thread. All you've demonstrated is you (and your confederates) don't understand the derivation. Quite amusing, really, since it's the same one you attempted first, just with the correct method.

 

[hxstamper]

Originally Posted by hxstamper
Is that why Mackey refuses to debate anyone on your show or anywhere else?

I've made no such refusal. You are a liar.

Originally Posted by R Mackey

Since I know you are in very, very, very close contact with Rob Balsamo, you also know why I won't "debate" him

R Mackey, not only do you contradict the NTSB, but you also contradict yourself.

(insert laughing dog here)

 

[Hokulele]

R Mackey, not only do you contradict the NTSB, but you also contradict yourself.

(insert laughing dog here)

Your original accusation stated that R. Mackey "refuses to debate anyone". I am sure there are plenty of rational people he would be willing to debate anywhere, any time. Debating nutjobs such as Ace Baker and Rob Balsamo are just a waste of everyone's time.

 

[beachnut]

Your original accusation stated that R. Mackey "refuses to debate anyone". I am sure there are plenty of rational people he would be willing to debate anywhere, any time. Debating nutjobs such as Ace Baker and Rob Balsamo are just a waste of everyone's time.

Comprehension is not required for p4t membership, it is discouraged, but it is a good idea to have in flying. Our newest p4t member at JREF may not be a pilot for long if this failure in judgment spills into the cockpit.

Did he even think before posting the error of logic? Let me read it again.

Originally Posted by hxstamper
Is that why Mackey refuses to debate anyone on your show or anywhere else?

Yep, faulty analogy, or something. It is late here!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

R Mackey, not only do you contradict the NTSB, but you also contradict yourself.

(insert laughing dog here)

Go read over your post a couple times and then understand why we're not surprised you can't figure out how to insert a laughing dog. Can you find where you went wrong here? You'd probably be laughing if you knew.

 

[pomeroo]

R Mackey, not only do you contradict the NTSB, but you also contradict yourself.

(insert laughing dog here)

You are w-a-y out of your depth here.