AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[applecorped]

I'm doing pretty well for myself thanks. I don't need to make millions like
all of the JREF members do. LMAO

Why laugh. You're a JREF member.

 

[JimBenArm]

And where's my millions? Who's holding out on me?

 

[jaydeehess]

Jaydee,

Like I said, this is not my (or the truth movement's) sole outlet to get the word out,
and debate issues.

I just happen to be at a desk with a computer and some time to kill. This is
something I enjoy doing (debating).

Sorry to say, but we have hit many brick walls getting even the slightest
response from our intended media outlets. You can't get blood from a stone,
but that's not going to keep is from trying other methods.

I respect your belief, and I respect your civil debates. I wish more of the
members here would communicate like you do.

Ok I see, you have no explanation as to why PfT will not even consider changing the methods they are using in their quest to get some official recognition of their claims that the FDR data ostensibly from flight 77 does not match the flight path illustrated, and accepted by all MSM and official depts, by the damage pattern on the ground that day. Certainly it would be now a question for Rob Balsamo to answer. From personal experience it is my understanding that Balsamo is steadfastly opposed to changing the way his group is going about this.

With Kucinich putting on a strong campaign, and other members of parliament
calling for impeachment and new investigations, we feel the word is getting
out. There are signs of the facts getting to more people as new organizations
are coming forth.

Be it a little late, I don't believe it's ever too little.

You used the term 'parliament' just to get a rise out of a few debunkers now didn't ya?

To that side issue though I do not see anyone claiming that Bush caused the events of 9/11 or even that he had prior, specific knowledge of the attacks and let them occur (not that such would play into PfT's contentions at all). No, its all much more mundane in things such as knowingly lieing to Congress about the clear and present danger that Iraq posed.


Now I watched about 16 minutes of PB2 and so far not a lick about how the FDR data does not match the physical damage. I got to the part where they are explaining that the Pentagon can lose track of money.
So they 'have no theory' but go off on tangents such as this. It reminds me of Les Nessman and his "think about it, or perhaps the Fox special about the Apollo hoax in which they never actually say that the Apollo missions were a hoax, they just ask "did we really go to the Moon?"

They may saaaaayy they present no theory (although they seem quite willing to wrap their arms around the CiT who certainly do) but there is no doubt, when one watches PB or PB2 that PfT believes that flight 77 did not fly into the Pentagon and that it was all a hoax perpetrated to garner a war in Iraq.

They will not address the questions begged by their contentions. Questions such as:
"where did Flt 77 and all its occupants go?",
or
"why go though all of the trouble of commandeering an aircraft, possibly substituting another aircraft for it, take all the occupants away, kill them and dispose of the aircraft and plant the DNA of the occupants either in the Pentagon or in substitute it for the samples taken from the Pentagon, present a FDR that does not contain data that illustrates the plane was on the path described by the physical damage, and finally, use another method to blow a big hole in the Pentagon, when in fact if you have already commandeered an aircraft and want it to look like it has slammed into the Pentagon then why not just slam it into the Pentagon?"

It is this that truly logical thinkers see as the downfall of PfT and the TM in general. Don't even get me started on the pure unadulterated idiocy of the contentions of the CiT's illogic

 

[Mangoose]

This post from lapman earlier in this thread shows some of the thousands of pieces of debris that Turbofan thinks was planted:

Here are a few more parts on the lawn and outside the Pentagon that "they" had to have "planted":

 

[Jonnyclueless]

A Network Engineer?

Your research skills are awesome

I'm doing pretty well for myself thanks. I don't need to make millions like
all of the JREF members do. LMAO

Why don't you do something constructive and show Beachnut how DME alternates, and the sample interval! He could use a little help in his old
washed up days.

Interesting, nobody accepted my live debate, or with PFT. Surprise!

Hey Pomeroo, are we going to set this up so I can prove to you how inexperienced
your "pros" really are?

I'm sure you have read Rob's request by now. We'll be there. Just set it up.

Is your whole live debate challenge to make up for you being unable to answer questions? What's the strategy mr IT? Is it in hopes that people will forget or not notice you running away from the questions? Is it so you can continue to put on your false pretense that Beachnut showed where you are wrong?

BTW, remember, it's your crackpots that are claiming to be pros, not anyone here. But you have to remember that we're also going by what the pros who actually investigate these things, such as the NTSB. Your crackpot team who all combined HAVE NO EXPERIENCE seem to think that the people such as NTSB are incompetent. Why don't you have a debate with the NTSB instead of other people who are just as unqualified as you crackpots are?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The kicker is that these "experts" want us to think that no plane hit the Pentagon, but that the actual plane, it's passengers, and it's luggage were crashed somewhere else, the parts trucked in, and planted in front of 1000s of people all within the time the plane took off and the impact. And again, without anyone noticing. And of course this also means that the people in the Pentagon who died were in on it as well. And They also expect us to believe that some people were out there knocking down telephone poles in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. They also want us to believe that some diabolical government did this in the hopes that no one would happen to have a video camera rolling which would completely expose the entire plot.

And I can agree with that. So long as I ingest enough cocaine to kill a small horse. So it's a complete mystery why these guys aren't taken seriously in the scientific world.

 

[SDC]

But I don't want to live with you. I already have a wife and kids.

How do you know that they aren't behind all this?

 

[Disbelief]

No you did not. You simply listed the general qualifications for the members. Maybe you should learn to read before you call people blind dumb and illiterate. Let me post the question in capitol letters for you:

WHAT EXPERIENCE DO THE MEMBERS OF PFT HAVE IN REGARDS TO FDR RECORDERS.

Now read VERY carefully. Because the question does not stop at asking what their qualifications are in general. Notice the ending of the sentence. You might have to look VERY carefully. Try to take it one word at a time if the entire sentence is too much to manage. Notice the part being specific about FDR recorders? OK, that means that the question is referring to FDR recorders, hence using the term FDR recorders. It does not ask if the members are pilots or mechanics, or cheerleaders. Now, if you have to read the sentence several times before you understand it, that it sinfe. We will wait. I do recommend however that maybe you should share the question with all the members of PFT and that way maybe between all of you, you will be able to understand the question. It seems that on your own you just aren't able to understand the question. And this is probably about the 16th time you have been asked and still fail to answer the question.

Turbo, is this whole tough guy cute routine a coping mechanism to make up for your inability to read a simple question and provide an answer. I mean not just an answer, but an answer to the actual question? If you need a tutor, we can help, don't be afraid kiddo.

And no brainiac, I did NOT skip over your anaomilies. BUT you probably didn't stop to think about them and notice they are all confined to one small area and they are all dependent on some MAJOR assumptions. A perfect example is your claim that the light poles could not have been knowked down because of the data on the FDR. But what you don't relaize is that the lightpoles being knocked down by the plane prove that your interpretation of the data i wrong. And all the experts agree on this. Yet you don't have a single expert on your team. Which is pretty funny considering how your only real argument is calling the experts incompitent.

And wow, look at you. A network engineer. WOOOPPATEEEDOOOO!!!!. Yeah, we're goign to go by what a little networking engineer with absolutely ***NO*** experience in FDRs and who is intentionally dismissing ALL other evidence, over REAL experts who do this for a living and know what they are talking about.

You see little tough guy, this is what REAL investigators do. They look at ALL the evidence. They don't start with a pre-determined conclusion and work backwards like the clowns over at PFT. You know the clowns who leave it at "hey man, we're just asking questions and we just want a new investigation. Pass the weed man". We rely on real investigations that actually follow through and look at all the data and put it all together because they know each piece of data on its own may not be reliable.

Just like the loons over at CIT, this is just another way of taking one portion of evidence and using it to dismiss all the rest. And the fact that some of your arguments are simply the ones from CIT is WHY you and your brain trust are NOT taken seriously.


Answer this in addition to my original question. What did the media and the authorities say when you showed them your presentation? Forget about pretending you "wrecked' other people's demonstration when they continually prove you wrong. What did the experts say when you presented your little findings?

This deserves an answer, since Turbo has ignored this question many times. By his logic, I am more of an expert on FDRs than anyone from his list. When I was in the USAF, I worked as a communications/navigation specialist on C-130 aircraft. Two of the systems I was responsible for were the FDR and CVR.

 

[Turbofan]

The list is sufficient.

I don't understand why everyone has their back up? Is there a magical
course that you can take in school that makes someone super special
over the combined expertise of pilots, electronics engineers, IT, etc.?

What does an FDR "Expert" do, or know that a team of researchers with
backgrounds in specific keys areas do not?

You all do know, our members have attended ARINC seminars, and have
actual documents for Frame Data and the system itself?

You all do know that our members had/have help from industry professionals
that helped decode the data?

I don't see anyone here showing an ounce of understanding for the system,
the specifications, or data interpretation.

Just remember, you guys believe the NTSB issued a working copy with ERRORS,
and they are supposed to be "experts"

PFT caught the errors and are demanding a correction/explanation.

So once again, what makes one an FDR expert? What are the qualifications
and names of JREF 'experts'?

 

[applecorped]

What are the qualifications
and names of JREF 'experts'?

Well? Your a JREFer, what are the qualifications and names of your experts?

 

[Disbelief]

The list is sufficient.

I don't understand why everyone has their back up? Is there a magical
course that you can take in school that makes someone super special
over the combined expertise of pilots, electronics engineers, IT, etc.?

What does an FDR "Expert" do, or know that a team of researchers with
backgrounds in specific keys areas do not?

You all do know, our members have attended ARINC seminars, and have
actual documents for Frame Data and the system itself?

You all do know that our members had/have help from industry professionals
that helped decode the data?

I don't see anyone here showing an ounce of understanding for the system,
the specifications, or data interpretation.

Just remember, you guys believe the NTSB issued a working copy with ERRORS,
and they are supposed to be "experts"

PFT caught the errors and are demanding a correction/explanation.

So once again, what makes one an FDR expert? What are the qualifications
and names of JREF 'experts'?

Ask these people:

http://www.jurispro.com/category/black-box-data-recorder-s-13/

So, do you go see a general practicioner if you need heart surgery? Do you not understand specializing?

By the way, where was the FDR found?

Here's an interesting link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=l5U1YwUMAJ4C&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=flight+data+recorder+expert+-9/11&source=web&ots=U1zUPxuAQm&sig=bN5TGUQ_HhaUoJ9f_A868TSv8b8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

 

[jaydeehess]

The list is sufficient.

I don't understand why everyone has their back up? Is there a magical
course that you can take in school that makes someone super special
over the combined expertise of pilots, electronics engineers, IT, etc.?

Come now TF. Would you trust the analysis of a networking problem to a programmer?
FDR analysis is a specialty. That said, yes, someone with expertise in somewhat related areas could learn to do the job. However what you and PfT need isn't various individuals (using their real names or remaining anonymous) doing this job. What you need is a generally accepted FDR expert organization to do the job. That means getting it done by the NTSB, L3 or ICAO for instance. In order to get that what is required is not a press release containing accusations and bald assertions. It requires a detailed and purely technical breakdown of how PfT arrives at the conclusions it does.

,,, and yes, I will continue to harp away at this until PfT either fades away or actually changes its tactics and tries it.

What does an FDR "Expert" do, or know that a team of researchers with
backgrounds in specific keys areas do not?

As above, what does a nephrologist know about cardiology? I trust a nephrologist to diagnose renal problems but if my heart goes bumpity-bump I will not be consulting the nephrologist.

You all do know that our members had/have help from industry professionals
that helped decode the data?

They and their credentials are on that list?

I don't see anyone here showing an ounce of understanding for the system,
the specifications, or data interpretation.

Then why are you argueing this here? Why don't you write up the purely technical paper outlining that the FDR data does not indicate a flight path that is the same as illustrated by the physical damge and submit it yourself to the above mentioned organizations?

Just remember, you guys believe the NTSB issued a working copy with ERRORS,
and they are supposed to be "experts"

Yep, and the TV station where I am employed as a broadcast tech just installed a new on air automated system. Gee, just today an operator entered a program and set its duration as 29 minutes when in fact it is 59 minutes long. Boy does that &$%7 up the system. I have also found several instances of inverted audio cabling and mislabeled cables. Stuff happens!

PFT caught the errors and are demanding a correction/explanation.

Along with the attendant accusations. Does that clue you into why there is no response to the "press release" and telephone calls? Why don't I call you and ask you to explain why you molest puppies. Gonna answer me or hang up?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The list is sufficient.

I don't understand why everyone has their back up? Is there a magical
course that you can take in school that makes someone super special
over the combined expertise of pilots, electronics engineers, IT, etc.?

What does an FDR "Expert" do, or know that a team of researchers with
backgrounds in specific keys areas do not?

You all do know, our members have attended ARINC seminars, and have
actual documents for Frame Data and the system itself?

You all do know that our members had/have help from industry professionals
that helped decode the data?

I don't see anyone here showing an ounce of understanding for the system,
the specifications, or data interpretation.

Just remember, you guys believe the NTSB issued a working copy with ERRORS,
and they are supposed to be "experts"

PFT caught the errors and are demanding a correction/explanation.

So once again, what makes one an FDR expert? What are the qualifications
and names of JREF 'experts'?

The list is NOT sufficient. We are going by YOUR standards not ours. No one here is claiming to be an expert. It's YOU who spends the majority of your arguments talking about qualifications. So it's important to point out that the party obsessing over qualifications is the least qualified of anyone.

It's important to note that the group accusing others of not being experts (in reference to people who spend their entire professions studying FDRs and who's business revolves around working with FDRs) has absolutely NO expertise what so ever.

It should be noted that the group who comes here and berates some of the members here for only being made up of pilots, is a group that consists of only pilots, and many of them aren't even that. You see Turbo, this is what fraud is. You think if you put on your cute tough guy act that you can ignore these facts. You think if you act aggressive then no one will notice that you and your group are the least qualified group of people that are going around accusing everyone else of being incompetent.

And no, no one is saying the NTSB is putting our errors. The idea of a working copy is simply to present a rough idea of what happened. It's not mean to be accurate or to be used in the way you are using it. The errro lies in PFT, not the NTSB. This is the problem when you have a group of uneducated people trying to dictate how things work to a group of REAL experts. Because you guys don't even understand what you are talking about, you don't understand why you are even wrong. And you don't understand why the experts are right. So instead of learning, you chose to live in ignorance and just pretend that the experts are incompetent. Because that's the only way you can go along with your own fantasies.

BUT, this is why your crackpot group is not taken seriously outside of it's own members. While you kids have convinced yourselves you are right and that the world around you is incompetent, the rest of the world is not in your fantasy. And unless your group starts being honest, they are never going to be taken seriously.

BTW, you mentioned that PFT had industry experts help them. Well then why aren't those industry experts part of PFT? Why aren't those industry experts the ones debating? Why aren't these industry experts supporting PFT? I think we all know the answer to that one.

 

[beachnut]

Just remember, you guys believe the NTSB issued a working copy with ERRORS, and they are supposed to be "experts"

PFT caught the errors and are demanding a correction/explanation.

Your lack of understanding on an animation with no FDR errors is not surprising. IF you understood this one thing, you would not be a p4t member who lacks knowledge on 9/11.

Explain one error in a working copy! How funny! A working copy error. lol

The p4t can't catch an error in anything, let alone their own 11.2 G error in simple math and physics. Over 5 months and still posted. Must be a working copy.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The NTSB error was not realizing that if they left the working copy video in the package that some idiots would try to use it for forensic purposes.

 

[Turbofan]

And no, no one is saying the NTSB is putting our errors. The idea of a working copy is simply to present a rough idea of what happened. It's not mean to be accurate or to be used in the way you are using it. The errro lies in PFT, not the NTSB. This is the problem when you have a group of uneducated people trying to dictate how things work to a group of REAL experts. Because you guys don't even understand what you are talking about, you don't understand why you are even wrong. And you don't understand why the experts are right. So instead of learning, you chose to live in ignorance and just pretend that the experts are incompetent. Because that's the only way you can go along with your own fantasies.

Well if that's not a paragraph full of contradictions, I don't know what is!

So it's a working copy, and it's full of errors...and it doesn't show AA77
hitting the Pentagon, but we're not supposed be upset?

Beachnut, we you can figure out that the frame data for DME holds the last
known value until the receiver updates (4 seconds), then you might have
a chance at figuring this out.

While you're at it, try sourcing your material and labeling the columns
with parameter headings and frame info.

Listing a bunch of numbers from a column of excel doesn't mean squat without
labels.

 

[WildCat]

Have any actual, real-life FDR experts corroborated the findings of the pretend FDR experts at the PffffT Turbofan?

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, we you can figure out that the frame data for DME holds the last
known value until the receiver updates (4 seconds), then you might have
a chance at figuring this out.

The FDR stores DME and according to current FAR, Appendix M to Part 121—Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications,

I am familiar with the NTSB data. I knew each DME was every 4 seconds; but the data from the expert p4t source populated every second with a DME value rounded to different values.

NTSB ---

p4t decode ---

The data above from the NTSB and p4t really does match, p4t just filled in all the values with the 4 other values. Face it, the blocks are in four seconds! So time is only stored each 4 seconds. Then time is generated for anaylsis.

The DME is not updated with an actual DME value every 4 seconds, or there would be changes that match the path.

FDR for Flight 77 stored the DME in 4 values. X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8, are they really X.0, X.25, X.5, X.75, ?... The resolution is set at 1 NM. Not .1 NM, but 1 NM. Do p4t guys understand this? The four values per unit NM?

Here are 68 seconds of DME from the experts decode from p4t. (p4t decode place a DME on each second, I have known the sample rate was 4 seconds, but it is cool getting Turbofan to publish the FAR)

From 13:32:09 for 68 seconds. See the 17 DME point above where 77 was close to when these values were stored in the FDR, albeit this is the p4t decode with each second populated in ERROR. The NTSB above is how the FDR was meant to look. I asked you to explain why you experts are not as good as the NTSB. But you failed to reply.

17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17
16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2, 16.2
14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7
12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.7

The FAR says the DME is sampled every 4 seconds, and stored in 1 mile resolution.
So there are 17 actual samples in the p4t decoded spreadsheet out over 68 seconds. During those 68 seconds Flight 77 would fly from 17 to about 11 DME. With 17 samples we should see 17, 16.8, 16.2, 16, 15.5, 15.2, 15, 14.5, 14., 13.5, 13, 12.8, 12.2, 12, 11.8, 11.2, 11 We should see 17 different samples, we see 4. I asked for p4t experts to explain, they regurgitate the FAR. I got the FAR and I can see the data. Is anyone awake in the p4t cockpit?

The NTSB files show DME sampled each 4 seconds (but the p4t decode shows each second populated, I asked why, but comprehension is missing). It looks like the buffer is not updated every 4 seconds with an actual DME figure as proven by p4t decond and the NTSB data.

Already knew the DME was sampled as the FAR says. The p4t decode failed to fix that.

The DME is not updated to a real position every 4 seconds. Who cares?

The DME is not good enough to place the position of 77 better than 1500 to 3000 feet. So the 1.5 DME does not preclude Flight 77 being 5 to 6 seconds from the Pentagon, where the FDR last data was stored.

p4t have the only errors; 11.2 G comes to mind,,, Got physics?

 

[Turbofan]

From 13:32:09 for 68 seconds. See the 17 DME point above where 77 was close to when these values were stored in the FDR, albeit this is the p4t decode with each second populated in ERROR. The NTSB above is how the FDR was meant to look. I asked you to explain why you experts are not as good as the NTSB. But you failed to reply.


The FAR says the DME is sampled every 4 seconds, and stored in 1 mile resolution.

Hey mods, why is Beachnut allowed to post NSTB data, and I'm not? Shuold
he not get a warning as well?

As for Beachnut, he's forgetting to take his meds. Must be the old age because
he doesn't understand that the NTSB resolution he's looking at is the
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE STANDARD! If you want the damn resolution of
a particular device, you look at the MANUFACTURER SPECS!

Duh! How many times do I have to burn you on this topic? Go away and
learn something please.

If you want to know more about Undertow's spreadsheet, why don't
you send him a message so he can destroy you 10 times over what
I already have?

YOu don't even know what you're looking at! How pathetic! I DARE you
to send Undertow a message.

I will bet your JREF friends that you don't have the balls to message him
and ask.

P.S. Does anyone here have a copy of the latest ARINC spec, or has
anyone here been to an ARINC seminar to actually have the slightest
clue of how to discuss the frame data?

Your silly little thread starter is asking PFT for information and diagrams
for a system that he claims to be an expert. LMAO! A JREF 'pro' asking
a truther for diagrams!

 

[applecorped]

Hey mods where you going with that gun in your hand?

you know I'm going to shoot my old lady

cause I caught her messin round with another man,,,

I gave her the gun

I shot her.....