-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
Am I correct in my recollection that first, R.Mackey, Beachnut, and Anti-Sophist are all experienced people with technical understanding, while second, Turbofan is relying exclusively on reading the specs?? (Or on others reading the specs and explaining them to him.)
I vote for door #1.
I vote for door #1.
No, you are incorrect. They are not experienced, or at least they don't
have a grasp on the system function.
Poor Anti is trying to state that propagation delay, T4 and T5 have something
to do with how the parameter information is referenced to the time stamp.
K Beachy can't figure out how a plane 6 seconds away, traveling 500 MPH
can record a DME of 1.5
You still want to take door #1? Don't you know Anti has been spouting
off his rants without having the ARINC spec? Check pages 1-8 where
he asks to use diagrams and references from a legitimate ARINC document
for this 'presentation'
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
[crickets chirping]
No, you are incorrect. They are not experienced, or at least they don't
have a grasp on the system function.
Poor Anti is trying to state that propagation delay, T4 and T5 have something
to do with how the parameter information is referenced to the time stamp.
K Beachy can't figure out how a plane 6 seconds away, traveling 500 MPH
can record a DME of 1.5
You still want to take door #1? Don't you know Anti has been spouting
off his rants without having the ARINC spec? Check pages 1-8 where
he asks to use diagrams and references from a legitimate ARINC document
for this 'presentation'
Well, let me put it this way. I have followed their writings for some time, and while I myself lack technical expertise or relevant experience, I find them convincing. I know R.Mackey's academic credentials, both from his own statements and from other sources. Beachnut is very open about his chops... To be honest I don't recall what Anti-sophist has specifically said about his training and experience, but I still have confidence in his statements.
You, on the other hand, have provided zero, zip, zilch about your own expertise or experience, at least that I can recall. Further, your recitals of information from the specs are neither here nor there -- that is, I am aware (as an adult in whose lifetime the information revolution has taken hold, indeed as an adult who has found himself in the middle of it, as a librarian) that specs are fine up to a point. Then you have to apply them, and that is something else again.
So, door #1 it is. I'd consider buying a vowel as well, but I am not sure right now what I would do with one.
Using my real name, how stalker like; p4t paranoid, poor math skills, no physics, unable to correct the flawed 11.2 G web page since 13 March, 2008.Five to six seconds?
Was 77 moving at 5 MPH according to your math? You keep forgetting about
the last recorded DME value of 1.5 nm +/- 0.1 nm
Nice try Beachy. Do I need to explain this over the phone to help you understand?
Up to 6 seconds of data missing in the FDR. FDRs in many accidents have been missing data. A similar FDR, missing 13 seconds prior to impact. Get a grasp on reality.
… p4t math skills? 5mph? 77 was moving over 700 feet per second. You are in error, try again.
Is the DME 3.2, or 1.5, what DME do we use? Do you know? The last recorded DME is not 1.5, and not +-0.1 is not valid. Why? Because the only values stored by the FDR are X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7. This means storing the value is off plus errors in the DME transmitter and aircraft receiver. Explain why the DME there are no X.1, or X.3, or X.4, or X.6, or X.8, or X.9. Leaving out 6 numbers, +/- 0.1 is not correct. You have not source the DME errors, and you don't understand DME is only stored in 4 numbers in the FDR. Here are the last DME values. (note, it depends who decodes the values, the numbers are rounded differently from the NTSB and p4t crack team of decoders who decode data but don't have a clue about what TIME 77 impacts, they use the NTSB, how expert of them)
The last 16 seconds of DME; do you understand X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7???? Starts at FDR time 13:37:29 and goes to :44, when the data stops and 77 is over 4600 feet away from the Pentagon, the DME is closer to 10,500 feet to 10,025 feet based on when the data is collected relative the time stamp. Since the DME1 reading is 1.5 DME, I have teased Capt Bob about where 77 was when the data Stops. Poor Capt Bob's limited physics and math skills leave him theory-less! He is so challenged to comprehend anything his p4t mantra is," We do not offer theory", how can they, they have no real investigating skills. I am saying the DME could be 1.65 DME when the data stops, and the reason I can say this is because!!!! UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FACT. The FDR with a real value of 1.65 on the DME can only store 1.5, or 1.7. Do you understand, this means 77 can be over 10,000 feet from DCA and the DME can read 1.5! THERE IS NO CT! There are only real dumb pilots at p4t! You may be the best car tuner in the world, you have zero flight knowledge. I am not perfect, but you guys are at the lowest level on these topics.
DME 2, DME1
29 5.2, 3.7
30 3.2, 3.7
31 3.2, 3.7
32 3.2, 3.7
33 3.2, 3.7
34 3.2, 3.7
35 3.2, 3.7
36 3.2, 3.7
37 3.2, 3.7
38 3.2, 3.7
39 3.2, 3.7
40 3.2, 3.7
41 3.2, 3.7
42 3.2, 3.7
43 3.2, 3.7
44 3.2, 1.5
This is the p4t data on DME, the NTSB is different, I wonder how they use 1.5 vs. 3.2? Which DME data do you use from the p4t DME data dump? Gee, why do p4t experts list DME that does not change form second to second as the plane moves? I would post the NTSB data, but this is not my job. Let the p4t explain the DME and why they have no clue. (time from p4t is one second off, they are missing one second of final data, gee, they broke the no missing data rule form their expert salesman)
Things you have not sourced. The errors in the DME system aircraft system errors and DME transmitter errors. Explain the storage of DME, why are only 4 discrete values stored (could it be related to accuracy). Source not your hearsay repetitious regurgitation of p4t erroneous junk.
You have no idea where 77 is when the FDR data stops.
You use the NTSB time as impact time. The NTSB did not do an accident report, so they never calculated a real impact time based on what 77 really did. If you can't handle the real world stop making up fantasy ideas. What are you ideas anyway, you have not made it clear?
Here are positions of 77 based on FDR, and radars from different sources. With a little work this proves 77 hit the Pentagon and the FDR data stopped, and the DME was over 10,000 feet from DCA! When you finally model the DME errors you will find 10,500 feet is possible, gee we are talking about over 9100 feet for 1.5 DME after all, and 10,500 feet is not far from 9100 when you understand DME and model ALL the errors. I have over 35 years of practical experience (but don't need it to see your failed ideas), and you have p4t failed physics and math skills forming your failed ideas.
The yellow dots are the last two positions from the FDR; proves the FDR stopped recording before it hit the Pentagon. This is verified by the altitude match with the ground and radar data. So for some unknown reason the FDR stops, I have no idea why p4t will all their experts can't come up with any ideas! But the reason is they are sowing seeds of discontent that a few idiots buy their ideas and they make money acting stupid and making up false ideas; only idiots would fall for the ," We do not offer theory" crap. By matching the FDR information to radar data the time of impact for 77 is about 13:37:50 for FDR time, 13:37:27 for RADES data time, and 13:37:52 for DCA radar time. Time is relative, and these clock are not synchronized. The fact is the FDR data stops at 13:37:44, there are two more time stamps of :45 and :46, and 77 is still seconds away from impact related to these last time stamps.
The FDR did show signs of :
FDR has most of the data despite damage.
77 FDR chip. Yep, they have to use a vice to open the case.
The FDR in 93 looked completely different. Wonder if this model had a major pipeline problem, yet the p4t expert (a salesman caught on a drive-by phone call stalking campaign) says his FDR can't be missing data. Funny, a crash in 2001 was missing 13 final seconds, and throughout flight history, data has been found missing for various reasons. The industry continues to fix errors to eliminate missing data due to a multitude of problems. If only p4t had real experts, they all seem like paranoid anti-government Tim McVeigh types, they are drifting into fantasy ideas and have no evidence, they do have hearsay and baseless opinions.
There is data missing. 77 data can be matched to Radar data to estimate the time of impact relative to the FDR time, and radar times. Why can't the expert pilots at p4t figure this out? 11.2 G?! lol
This is my working copy, all errors can be discussed and correct by others as required. I have a theory, p4t are only in this fantasy world of 9/11 CT for profit. The p4t guys have no theories...
So if you can only store DME as 1.5 or 1.7? What do you store 10,000 feet as?
Further, the 1.5 and 1.7 are from the crack team of p4t FDR dolts, the NTSB decode has 1.5 and 1.8 as possible values to store a DME in the 10,000 to 10,500 foot range! OH MY! Looks like 1.65 DME could be stored as 1.5! Throw in the real errors for the DME system and you got Flight 77 5 to 6 seconds away from impact when the FDR data ENDS. p4t are just dolts selling false information...
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Missing seconds on that aircraft supports the idea that FDR's can indeed lose data in a crash, but, ahhh, Beachnut, that aircraft crashed shortly after 9/11/01 and so obviously it was arranged to crash and have missing seconds in the DFDR so as to bolster the botched job of the planners of 9/11 in which they inexplicably produced an FDR with data that does not (supposedly) match the 'planted' (supposedly) physical evidence illustrating the path the aircraft took.
You find them convincing, but have you checked their work?
You just blindly believe what they have to say, and a faceless account
at that.
I've posted several links to manufacturer data, and explained in basics
how the data is transferred.
You are reading BS statements about 'lag'. Let me ask you something:
If ARINC designed a system that could handle more than 0.500 milliseconds
of lag per cycle, how big do you think the buffer would have to be?
How do you expect that buffered data to be secure if the power was lost,
or the plane crashed?
How much information do you think the governing bodies allow to be 'suspended'
and unsecured without reaching crash protected memory?
Think about what the system is designed to do - STORE secure information,
as quickly and accurately as possible.
By Anti's statement, the current design would overload in buffer lag within
3-4 seconds. So...does that mean we can only store flight info for that
period of time?
There is no lag. T4-T5 do not factor in.
There are no seconds missing. Flash memory cannot wipe out just a couple
seconds of data (128 words worth). An entire block of data would be lost
due to the addressing structure (which I will post shortly in response to
beachnut).
Where are the electronic techs in this thread? Surely they know something
about flash memory and the addressing structure?
Another thing to consider is Beachnut wants you to believe the plane is
six seconds from impact.
Look at the airspeed six seconds from the end of the tab file. Do the math
based on the official conspiracy flight path. How far back must the aircraft
be to jive with Beachnuts' theory? How can DME record 1.5 nm if it's
six seconds away doing an average speed of about 450 knots?!
Door #1? Are you sure?
Every excuse these guys are spewing requires a sensor, or tolerance of
an imaginary theory to be out of range in order for their story to make
sense.
Does everything have to fail on 9/11 to make the offical theory work?
It's such a joke, and it's sad the average citizen does not have the technical
background to understand the BS put forth.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
No, you are incorrect. They are not experienced, or at least they don't
have a grasp on the system function.
Poor Anti is trying to state that propagation delay, T4 and T5 have something
to do with how the parameter information is referenced to the time stamp.
K Beachy can't figure out how a plane 6 seconds away, traveling 500 MPH
can record a DME of 1.5
You still want to take door #1? Don't you know Anti has been spouting
off his rants without having the ARINC spec? Check pages 1-8 where
he asks to use diagrams and references from a legitimate ARINC document
for this 'presentation'
Well we would certainly want to use sales information over the actual diagrams and those who work on the equipment right?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You find them convincing, but have you checked their work?
You just blindly believe what they have to say, and a faceless account
at that.
I've posted several links to manufacturer data, and explained in basics
how the data is transferred.
You are reading BS statements about 'lag'. Let me ask you something:
If ARINC designed a system that could handle more than 0.500 milliseconds
of lag per cycle, how big do you think the buffer would have to be?
How do you expect that buffered data to be secure if the power was lost,
or the plane crashed?
How much information do you think the governing bodies allow to be 'suspended'
and unsecured without reaching crash protected memory?
Think about what the system is designed to do - STORE secure information,
as quickly and accurately as possible.
By Anti's statement, the current design would overload in buffer lag within
3-4 seconds. So...does that mean we can only store flight info for that
period of time?
There is no lag. T4-T5 do not factor in.
There are no seconds missing. Flash memory cannot wipe out just a couple
seconds of data (128 words worth). An entire block of data would be lost
due to the addressing structure (which I will post shortly in response to
beachnut).
Where are the electronic techs in this thread? Surely they know something
about flash memory and the addressing structure?
Another thing to consider is Beachnut wants you to believe the plane is
six seconds from impact.
Look at the airspeed six seconds from the end of the tab file. Do the math
based on the official conspiracy flight path. How far back must the aircraft
be to jive with Beachnuts' theory? How can DME record 1.5 nm if it's
six seconds away doing an average speed of about 450 knots?!
Door #1? Are you sure?
Every excuse these guys are spewing requires a sensor, or tolerance of
an imaginary theory to be out of range in order for their story to make
sense.
Does everything have to fail on 9/11 to make the offical theory work?
It's such a joke, and it's sad the average citizen does not have the technical
background to understand the BS put forth.
Good thing for us that you're smarter than the average citizen.
And that you are fluent in BS
Last edited:
With the exception of Undertow, and Snowygrouch, I have a better handle
on the flight data system than anyone else here. Sorry you can't understand
the more technical side.
It's a shame you follow the words of Anti-Sophist even though he bases
his theory on a system of which he has no technical documentation, or
valid reference.
How can you take any of that seriously? Is this a popularity contest?
This crap about salesmen relaying information is stupid. The salesmen
don't make up the numbers; they get their information from the developers
and engineers who design the products.
What difference does it make if a salesman, receptionist, engineer, or
web site data is used as a reference?
These are just BS excuses to ward off a credible claim.
Pick up the phone and call the engineers at L3 if it makes you feel
any better. Are they going to tell you something different than
what the sales literature says (which they designed)?
It's a weak argument boys...very weak.
Tsig, I ask you the very same question I asked SDC:
How much buffer space would you need to support 0.500 msecs of lag per scan for a 1 hour
flight, or two hour flight, or 5 hour flight?
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
It also appears to have fooled all the actual FDR experts as well, as there are none at the PfffffT.
But it couldn't fool the guy who discovered the submarine tunnels in Nevada and the alien bases on the moon! Good thing the PffffT found him!
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Funny, the salesman, engineers, and developers all have neglected to come out in support of PffffT.
Are they in on it also?
Or do you think maybe, just maybe, the PffffT don't have the slightest clue about the subject at hand?
10,553 feet? or less, give or take a second. Reality, 77 was going 771 f/s when the data stops, and based on engine data, the plane could reach 774 to 800 f/s before impact in 5 to 6 seconds.
The plane is seconds away from the Pentagon because in the last two seconds of FDR data the plane was 273 feet above the ground or buildings it was flying over at 13:37:43 77FDR time. In 1200 to 1400 feet witnesses place 77 just at or below 172 feet AGL with 3400 feet left to hit the Pentagon.
+/- .1 NM is nice, but in reality the best you can expect for use is just under ½ mile or 3 percent of the distance, which ever is greater. This is confirmed by me, a humble electrical engineer, and pilot for over 35 years.
Using your .1 NM accuracy, the FDR could have recorded 1.5 DME when the real distance of 77 was 10,553 feet or 1.74 NM away from DCA. Remember only 1.5 and 1.8 are values stored for DME. A more realistic accuracy for the DME is 0.26 not .1. Why do you think they only store 4 of a possible 10 numbers per unit NM in DME on the FDR? Just divide 0.26 into 1. Gee, it is close to 4! Darn p4t are the dimmest wits to walk the flying information plank.
This is how 1.5 NM can be recorded with 5 to 6 seconds left to fly. Give or take a second.
Physical evidence proves 77 hit the Pentagon, your failed ideas and lack of evidence are good for …
From AIM
I think p4t use wiki instead of quailified sources.
Last edited:
Weird that Turbofan evidently believes I'm going to answer his technical question. I already said (and have frequently said) that I don't have the skill. I look at it this way: I go to the MD for medical checkups, problems, etc., and when I have a test done, I rely on the MD to explain it to me.
Similarly here, I rely on people who either have got the academic credentials which are easily checked (as in R.Mackey) or who have otherwise proved they have the experience and expertise to examine and explain.
Turbofan has 1/ not shown that he has either the experience or expertise, and he seems 2/ to rely on the idea that sales specs are all he needs.
Wrong.
Here's another comparison. I have spent long hours in discussions about library catalogs (ILS's to the cognoscenti). The level I work at is deciding on which of the pre-established codes should be used for which materials, which workflows, which records... a lot of stuff that even many librarians don't want to deal with. Yeah, we get a lot of technical documentation from the ILS vendors and then stare at it in the light of our institution's practices, our own experience and expertise, and then we make it work as best we can. (Since no one dies when we mess up, it's a little less urgent than, say, the interpretations made by these airplane types).
He (or she) who regards the specs as holy writ is behaving foolishly.
Turbofan, you only make yourself look sillier and sillier with your statements.
Similarly here, I rely on people who either have got the academic credentials which are easily checked (as in R.Mackey) or who have otherwise proved they have the experience and expertise to examine and explain.
Turbofan has 1/ not shown that he has either the experience or expertise, and he seems 2/ to rely on the idea that sales specs are all he needs.
Wrong.
Here's another comparison. I have spent long hours in discussions about library catalogs (ILS's to the cognoscenti). The level I work at is deciding on which of the pre-established codes should be used for which materials, which workflows, which records... a lot of stuff that even many librarians don't want to deal with. Yeah, we get a lot of technical documentation from the ILS vendors and then stare at it in the light of our institution's practices, our own experience and expertise, and then we make it work as best we can. (Since no one dies when we mess up, it's a little less urgent than, say, the interpretations made by these airplane types).
He (or she) who regards the specs as holy writ is behaving foolishly.
Turbofan, you only make yourself look sillier and sillier with your statements.
I have a background in electronics and networking. I have access to a
technical document which outlines the flight data system we are discussing
here.
I have picked apart each theory from Anti, R. Mackey and Beachnut and explained why
it can't work like that.
I've asked you a simple question about buffer capacity, but you admit you
can't answer it...yet you believe the nonsensical writing of the aforementioned
members.
Let's put it this way SDC:
The flight data system moves data bits in a sequence like you would put
books on a cart.
You fill your cart with books each round through the library and then place
them nicely in storage.
The next round, Anti comes along and falls in front of your cart and spills
some books which add to your load.
You are now late getting back to the storage room, and you have extra
books to carry.
Somehow ( I don't know where), you place these books and go back to
the storage room.
YOu have some extra books to unload, but since you're limited to a clock,
you can't place the extra books in the storage room; you must leave
immediately and do your rounds.
With some residual books on your cart, you make another pass around the
library.
Now, Beachnut comes along and trips! His books add to Anti's residual
and now you're really out of space on your cart.
How do you move all of these bits of information with this built-in integral
lag that Anti is promoting?
Do you see how the system will crash in just seconds?
It doesn't work like these guys are thinking. There is no lag. The system
is designed to handle the data load, and has a clock cycle fast enough to
move data and get new data each cycle.
technical document which outlines the flight data system we are discussing
here.
I have picked apart each theory from Anti, R. Mackey and Beachnut and explained why
it can't work like that.
I've asked you a simple question about buffer capacity, but you admit you
can't answer it...yet you believe the nonsensical writing of the aforementioned
members.
Let's put it this way SDC:
The flight data system moves data bits in a sequence like you would put
books on a cart.
You fill your cart with books each round through the library and then place
them nicely in storage.
The next round, Anti comes along and falls in front of your cart and spills
some books which add to your load.
You are now late getting back to the storage room, and you have extra
books to carry.
Somehow ( I don't know where), you place these books and go back to
the storage room.
YOu have some extra books to unload, but since you're limited to a clock,
you can't place the extra books in the storage room; you must leave
immediately and do your rounds.
With some residual books on your cart, you make another pass around the
library.
Now, Beachnut comes along and trips! His books add to Anti's residual
and now you're really out of space on your cart.
How do you move all of these bits of information with this built-in integral
lag that Anti is promoting?
Do you see how the system will crash in just seconds?
It doesn't work like these guys are thinking. There is no lag. The system
is designed to handle the data load, and has a clock cycle fast enough to
move data and get new data each cycle.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Yes you are correct. Turbo is only going by specs for how things should work under ideal conditions and his experience is computer networking, and nothing involving airplanes or FDRs. As everyone else who doesn't have a polical agenda knows, real world is not the same. And as we can see by looking at other incidents, sometimes the FDR records to and past the impact, sometimes it stops before the impact.
Because Turbo is going by ideal theoritical specs, he isn't taken seriously by anyone outside of the 9/11 cults like pilots for truth who themselves are not taken seriously for the same faulty science. It's no different than the people who claim the towers couldn't have collapsed because someone said they designed it to withstand the impacts of planes, while ignoring the obvious fact that the tower collapses prove that wrong.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Sorry you can't tell the difference between a "salesman, receptionist, engineer, or
web site data"
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Lag is part of the world. No matter how fast the system cycles there will always be some data lost if you interrupt the cycle.
Last edited:
That is bs!
You have no idea what you're talking about!
How the hell can you have a HALF SECOND DELAY in a system that writes
to crash protected memory at a rate of 64 WORDS PER SECOND?!
EXPLAIN it smart guy.
It's impossible! T4-T5 are after the fact. They are not required in this
stupid theory of Anti's