You see in the real world things don't always live up to expectation hence the common phenomenon of FDRs not recording data up to the point of impact. Again, another big assumption being made is that everything outside of the FDR was working perfectly and that there was no power failure.
What are the reasons for FDR's not recording up to the impact point?
There must be some excuse for this, correct?
You can't name ONE example of a flight recorder that did not perform
to expectation.
Your examples of flight data 'missing' are from airliners that experience
severe/catastrophic failures mid flight, and you attribute that loss of data
to FDR failure. Should I insert the rolling eyes here?
The loss of data from impact and beyond is a reasonable, and logical standpoint
because the FDR will lose power at some instance beyond crashing.
There is no excuse for AA77 to lose data, and it's also electrically impossible
to erase single cells of data. Corruption, or partial frame yes....erasing - NO.
Here is a little more tech about flash memory, but I don't expect anyone
here to understand since you cannot comprehend the basic data transfer
of the flight system:
With the above image, can anyone explain how a few certain data cells
are erased without effecting an entire block?
Actual Flash Memory used in AA77's FDR
FA2100 CSMU
Prior Intel 32 Mbit Binary Devices, Intel Part Number DDI28F032SA100 (5V)
2000.6 Intel 32 Mbit Strata Flash Devices, Intel Part Number E28F320J5-120 (5V)
2005.8 Intel 128 Mbit Strata Flash Memory, Intel Part Number TE28F128J3C-150 (3V)
Turbo, you are saying you can conclusively prove that flight 77 didn't have any failures to cause the data to stop? And you of course missed the point because you are too busy making exact assumptions about every aspect of the event. That's your big weakness and that's one of the reason you and the crackpots at PFT are not taken seriously.
But go ahead and dismiss everything that does not steer you into your pre-determined conclusion. Unfortunately you can't get the rest of the world let alone the real experts who study plane crashes to do the same.
And to say that the power would be lost only after the impact is completely incorrect. You can't make that assumption. Again, one of the problems with your theories is that you are making assumptions that cannot be made.
Because they are not the same scenario, or circumstance. See my post
about regarding erasing single cell data, or a couple of seconds worth.
He can't answer any of my DME questions! He must be too challenged to figure out why only 4 out of 10 numbers are used per unit NM to store DME. He can't explain why p4t DME lists 1.5 DME and 3.2 DME at the same time.
I don't answer them, because you don't make sense! Where in the data
file do you see DME recorded at 1.5 and 3.2 during the same second?
You do know that there are TWO receivers which are tuned, correct?
You also know that each receiver is polled once every TWO seconds?
What the hell are you talking about in the bolded text?
As for your x.0, x.2, etc. Do you understand that your six second
'lag' BS doesn't add up? Are you that mentally challenged? How
can you associate a +/- .1 nm, or even 0.5 nm (if you must) with
6 seconds @ 500 MPH!?
But he does complain about having a salesman as an expert for DME. Guess he has to check with jdx to see what to say next! Oops, he is asking him now....
[/font][/color]
You are certainly good at spreding lies. Ed Santana was not confirming
anything with regard to the DME values. you are a liar, or not very good
at reading.
Personal comment removed. You have been asked to stop calling Beachnut 'Beachy'. You also should not respond to a member by their RL name unless permission was given. Stop it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
And to say that the power would be lost only after the impact is completely incorrect. You can't make that assumption. Again, one of the problems with your theories is that you are making assumptions that cannot be made.
Turbofan, what is your point? Do you believe that 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Is that what this is all about? I suppose that you think that if you attack the existing FDR data, this would prove something -- but what it would prove is a mystery.
This has been said many times: the no-planers for the Pentagon, or your subspecies of them, use evidence from a device (the FDR) which you claim was cooked. That is, well, it's like saying that the data from a forgery can be used to validate the actions of the criminals. It doesn't work that way. That's not the nature of reality.
In any case, no matter what you argue about the FDR, the real, physical world intervenes. All the evidence trumps anything the specs may claim. Or rather that you may claim from the specs.
You have been given proof 77 is 5 to 6 seconds away from impact when the data stops. Your failure to provide evidence it did not stop is proof of your total lack of flying knowledge.
There are many times FDRs have had missing data. Your poor excuse is noted, please show us why the data stopped on each FDR missing data from 1975. Go ahead prove your point with evidence. Please explain each time FDR was missing data and why.
The fact is the terrorist was flying 77 erratically and with terrorist in the cockpit anything could have messed up the aircraft systems. I wonder if a terrorist or crewmember messed with the aircraft system.
I wonder if the chip was damaged during impact.
Oops, it was damaged. Does that make a difference? You have no clue? Why did p4t fail to decode the last second like the NTSB did?
You can't even get a pilot to say 77 generators would not trip in negative G. Don't mention 93, it has different engines.
It is pathetic you posted the eprom stuff! What a joke.
So you fail to challenge the fact 77 was 5 to 6 seconds from the Pentagon. Can you do math? Oh, the 11.2 G flawed math/physics. Sorry. You could get SPreston or Capt Bob to help you mess up the math more.
Can turbulance cause FDR issues? Yes it can and has in the past. You can't go just by specs you know.
If everything lived up to specs, than no ones computer would ever crash or slow down. All eqipment made would work correctly all of the time. But that is not the real world now, is it?
<snippage>
There is no excuse for AA77 to lose data, and it's also electrically impossible
to erase single cells of data. Corruption, or partial frame yes....erasing - NO.
<snippage>
From the point of view of recovering correct data, what would be the difference between erasing (setting to all 1s) and corrupting (setting to random values)?
In neither case will you recover the correct values, so the data is lost. I don't believe anyone here has made the claim that the memory was erased, merely that the data was lost.
Since you admit the data could be corrupted, I don't see that your claim that there is no excuse for the flight recorder to lose data follows from that.
Are you just pretending to be a complete idiot? Here's the thing, we have shown you proof of how planes can lose data before impact. What data have you shown us that the data was fabricated? What evidence have you shown that the plane flew over the building?
NONE. You can't be this incompetent. I understand that you're simply flapping your wings and pretending to know what you're talking about to put on a show to make up for your lack of logical comprehension. But this just goes beyond it.
And as for us using evidence, it was the most expensive and comprehension investigation in the history of man. What have you done? You talked to a sales guy for the FDR company and spout what the specs are meant to handle while ASSUMING that everything worked perfectly right up until the point o impact.
You completely ignore things like the pilot cutting power or the damage to the plane prior to the impact interfering. The possibilities are unlimited. THAT combined with the rest of the evidence makes you look like a horses ass.
So stop acting like a little prick for a second and start LISTENING kid. Stop throwing your stupid little tantrums for one second and LISTEN. I mean doesn't it at all clue you in that you are ignoring ALL other evidence to support this? Does it not bother you to put on blinders and throw little tantrums to avoid having to address everything?
...
As for your x.0, x.2, etc. Do you understand that your six second
'lag' BS doesn't add up? Are you that mentally challenged? How
can you associate a +/- .1 nm, or even 0.5 nm (if you must) with
6 seconds @ 500 MPH!?
...
Do I need to call you tonight xxxxxxx? Get this on tape for the world to hear?
The 6 seconds is not a lag aviation expert. The data stops, is not in the secure chip, 5-6 seconds prior to impact. 77 impacts the Pentagon from 273 feet AGL 6 seconds later. No lag great expert car tuner.
The only values the DME is stored as are x.0, x.2, x.5, x.8. This means a value of DME stored from 1.2 to 1.8 NMs can only be one of three numbers: 1.2, 1.5, and 1.8. This mean somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8 the FDR stores either 1.5 or 1.8. So please tell me the exact DME when the FDR reads 1.5! You can't do it. Why are you regurgitating junk from p4t? Why is Capt Bob feeding you this trip? Still no theory an conclusions on 9/11 due to your p4t membership status? Do you guys take a special math and physics course to get this stuff wrong?
This means you have no idea what the DME is, or where 77 is. If you took the time to correlate the FDR to the RADES data you could estimate where 77 is.
This is the best Capt Bob, the 11.2 G math wizard, can do? Maybe you and Capt Bob can find the rest of your major errors so you can erase them so you don't look less of an expert; hurry, you have major errors, I would erase the whole post, I gave you a break.
You are a stalker, using my name again. Good job. He knows my name and the fact I have type ratings Capt Bob can only dream about, gee, he never got his ATP. Darn, 11.2 G, and no ATP. Stop using my name here and go plug into the FAA and use it there. https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/ Why do p4t members act like stalkers?
This is what Turbofan should already know about someone. I thought an ATP was a good rating but Capt Bob laughed at me.
You have been given proof 77 is 5 to 6 seconds away from impact when the data stops. Your failure to provide evidence it did not stop is proof of your total lack of flying knowledge.
You lied about DME having 3.2 and 1.5 at the same time stamp. Are you
getting paid by the government to propogate the BS, and cover? I can't
believe you are that incompetent to state DME has both values at the
same time!
The fact is the terrorist was flying 77 erratically and with terrorist in the cockpit anything could have messed up the aircraft systems. I wonder if a terrorist or crewmember messed with the aircraft system.
No it wasn't. Just because the case showed signs of damaged doesn't mean
the internal memeory was damaged. Remember, it's certified to withstand
3400 g's of impact, and temps well above what jet fuel could produce.
Oh wait ... oh nooos...you forget the important stuff.
You are technically dead in this discussion. I already posted flash memory
gate structures and asked how it was electrically impossible to wipe out
just seconds of data. You have yet to prove to me your understanding of
EEPROMs and floating gates.
So you fail to challenge the fact 77 was 5 to 6 seconds from the Pentagon. Can you do math? Oh, the 11.2 G flawed math/physics. Sorry. You could get SPreston or Capt Bob to help you mess up the math more.
Who is "beachnut" referencing when he says "he"? Did you know beachnut
has never brought such nonsense to the attention of P4T?
He has also refused to register for P4T and refused to debate on Air America Radio to make such claims. Because if he did, he would realize why he is talking out his butt.
He argues in circles with the same junk over and over; just read this thread
history. If he wants to debate such claims, ask him when he will be available
at home for a recorded call. I'm here waiting and I'll pay. He can call me
collect. Come on
Edited by chillzero:
Edited
, show your friends here how smart you are!
Who votes to have Beachnut phone me collect for a recorded conversation?
With that said, "beachnut" is better off accumulating posts on the JREF as its clear he will never venture out to confront real pilots. Can Beachnut, or
anyone else here be verified by the FAA?
All of the professional pilots at PFT can be. Ask yourself why you're tagging
along reading their faceless posts and non technical garbage about how
data systems work in their minds.
Ask them to produce links, proof, ARINC/FDR documentation.
They wont, because they can't. They don't have it!
Open your eyes people. Everything that happened in their eyes needed
a massive failure to realize their assumptions and make their story workout.
JREF asks for a solid foundation and basis for debate, however these guys
have yet to produce anything in return. Thier strategy is to flood you with
gang rape style debate... for example.. beachnut says here... "I can't find an official document from the NTSB with an impact time"... is he joking?
Why are you guys doing this? Face the facts and be adult about it!
Personal comment removed. You have been asked to stop calling Beachnut 'Beachy'. You also should not respond to a member by their RL name unless permission was given. Stop it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
It's really annoying when people who don't know what they are talking about pretend to turbofan. And it's funny how you accuse people of playing games when that's all you do. And you accuse people of not opening their eyes when you're the one who is blinded to everything BUT one point.
You have not offered a solid debate and you have not offered an intelligent argument. You have been shown over and over again why you are wrong and why the experts disagree with you.
Yes Turbo, face the facts kiddo. Stop acting like a 2 year old and learn to listen.
Clearly the guy is frustrated because he has not been able to make a soli argument without dismissing everything that proves him wrong. And clearly the P4T crackpots are getting frustrated that they aren't getting the attention they hoped for and that the experts don't agree with them. And it's sad to see him stoop to the tinfoilery accusations of being government shills.
I mean how can someone who IS an expert in this area take seriously someone who won't accept that these things can be damaged both before and after as well as during impact? How can an expert who deals with FDRs that lose data agree with someone from a conspiracy cult trying to tell them that FDRs are incapable of losing data because he read the specs? How can an expert have a discussion with someone trying to claim a plane did not crash at the Pentagon when they recovered most of the plane and the passengers, had 1000s of witnesses, RADAR data, the works?
What amazes me is how these guys don't understand WHY they are not taken seriously. And that they think they can make up for this by throwing out a bunch of empty rhetoric by accusing people of being paid by the government, being blind, not facing acts,etc.
It's really annoying when people who don't know what they are talking about pretend to turbofan. And it's funny how you accuse people of playing games when that's all you do. And you accuse people of not opening their eyes when you're the one who is blinded to everything BUT one point.
You have not offered a solid debate and you have not offered an intelligent argument. You have been shown over and over again why you are wrong and why the experts disagree with you.
Yes Turbo, face the facts kiddo. Stop acting like a 2 year old and learn to listen.
THis place is a lost cause. I haven't offered a solid debate?
You don't see anyone answering my questions do you? It really shows
their knowledge.
Then you have Beachy flipping off crap about DME which he knows nothing
about. I have it quoted where he thinks 3.2 and 1.5 are recorded at the
same second!
Look it up! You are believing his junk, over my sourced and credible links
and description of data transfer?
Email P4T for debate isntead of talknig out of your butt and hiding on JREF
Its clear even your most forfront "expert" cant even research the NTSB
Flight Path Study which calculates an imapct time. How do you people feel following such nonsense? Each time you post, you validate the work of PFT.
Keep it going
Jonny, PFT would have never expected 43 pages of argument, not to
mention numerous threads on the JREF tagged with "Rob Balsamo", JDX",
pilots for truth" from those people who think P4T is nuts
The fact that the self proclaimed anonymous "expert" JREFers refuse to
debate PFT, the fact that JREF mods ban PFT members constantly, speaks
volumes... but we got your number..
Lastly, I will only answer to Anti from this point forward, or anyone who
can explain my questions about Flash memory.
THis place is a lost cause. I haven't offered a solid debate?
You don't see anyone answering my questions do you? It really shows
their knowledge.
Then you have Beachy flipping off crap about DME which he knows nothing
about. I have it quoted where he thinks 3.2 and 1.5 are recorded at the
same second!
Look it up! You are believing his junk, over my sourced and credible links
and description of data transfer?
No, you really haven't. Your big talent seems to be throwing tatrums and blowing smoke up your ass. While you may impress yourself by preetending to be an expert, you aren't.
I do see people answering your questions and I see you brush off their answers with childish insults and your ego which is way bigger than you are. This isn't about flight 77 any more, this is about you and how you can convince yourself how smart you are ( but really aren't).
You're like a one trick pony who keeps spouting the same response no matter what arguments are presented. Now it's not right to be discussing the arguer, but you are making it impossible to do anything else. If you don't want to address or accept the responses being given then why are you even here? Since you're clearly not looking for a debate but rather attention, why are you here?
Thew bottom line is that the reason you are putting on this show and trying to cast doubt on the only area you can find a place to cast doubt, is beause you know the entire argument of P4T does not hold water. You think that if you can focus on this one technical isswue you can pretend that the rest of the theory can be true. But it does not work that way and that's why your group is not taken seriously by the experts. And your group containing no experts is why you feel the need to attack non-experts who are showing the flaws in your arguments.
How about calling the FDR company and asking them if damage done to the craft and FDR before or after the impact can result in lost data. It certainly did for the voice recorder. It certainly happens for many other crashes. But you seem to think this crash is different and have yet to offer a reason why. What is different about this flight than all the others that prevent the FDR and not the voice recorder from losing data? Remember, this has nothing to do with how the manufacturer says it's supposed to work under normal conditions. It's been damaged, so you cannot assume normal working conditions.
Jonny, PFT would have never expected 43 pages of argument, not to
mention numerous threads on the JREF tagged with "Rob Balsamo", JDX",
pilots for truth" from those people who think P4T is nuts
The EPROM was funny stuff; now that is a smoking gun for missing data, or data stopping or proving 77 hit the Pentagon. What is your problem? Frustrated cause you can't state a theory, just spew hearsay and what Capt Bob tells you to say? Now the EPROM looks like an original idea, but it failed to make a point.
Capt Bob may not be nuts, but he has half baked ideas on 9/11 and he can't even get 11.2 G correct, he can't state a theory, but he does sell implications of lies about 9/11. So? You an p4t are not nuts, your have nut case ideas on 9/11 and you have no idea what you are trying to say.
Now we both had fact filled posts.
Got this from p4t source. I know it is cause it has problems. Notice there are DME values posted all over the place. BTW, 3.2 and 1.3, and 3.7 are the values over there. Notice there are zero 3.1, or 3.4, or 3.3, or 3.9. Why? I can explain all of this, but can you?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
