AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[beachnut]

Rolling my eyes and sighing....

So, explain it to me then? Show me (PFT) where we're wrong?

NTSB states an impact time.

The raw and CSV file shows too high at that time.

How does all of this wonderful data work in the real world?

P.S. Still waiting for an expert from Juris Pro

(someone is changing the subject )

The NTSB did not do an investigation.

You picked an impact time with 77 still over 2800 feet away, at 1.5 DME on a heading of 61.2 degrees.

This reminds me Balsamo did not know how many feet were in a nautical mile.

1.5 DME from DCS is 2816 feet from the Pentagon. At 771 f/s we get 3.6 seconds to hit the Pentagon. This is simple math, sorry you can't check my work due to math failure.

Why is 1.5 DME 2816 feet from the Pentagon impact, because 77 is on a heading of 61.2 degrees. There is only one point where 1.5 DME and 61.2 degrees lines up with the souls on board of 77 resting place. The people you disgrace with your lie that 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon.

Simple math, geometry and a little physics could help you understand this. Next time take the hard courses it will help you understand reality.

Do you know the errors in the DME! Do you ignore the things you can't answer?

The raw data does not show anything! The raw data is encoded and you can't see anything! What a crock!

You can't use 1.5 DME and any old impact time you want. Failure.

Have you plotted 1.5 DME yet?

 

[Turbofan]

The NTSB did not do an investigation.

You picked an impact time with 77 still over 2800 feet away, at 1.5 DME on a heading of 61.2 degrees.

The NTSB did a Flight Path Study. They calculated "impact time" at 09:37:45,
it is NOT a working copy (unless you can quote as such from the NTSB in
the Flight Path Study? didnt think so). You claim the NTSB is wrong.

When have you contacted the NTSB about this? The rest of your post is the
same old BS thats been addressed ad nauseum throughout this 50 + page
thread. Its clear why you wont take on aviation professionals and hide here.

1.5 DME from DCS is 2816 feet from the Pentagon. At 771 f/s we get 3.6 seconds to hit the Pentagon. This is simple math, sorry you can't check my work due to math failure.

Your failure is that you can't account for the rest of the flight data.

Did it just fall off into your fairytale land? Please tell the world where
that 3.6 seconds of data ended up!

Why is 1.5 DME 2816 feet from the Pentagon impact, because 77 is on a heading of 61.2 degrees. There is only one point where 1.5 DME and 61.2 degrees lines up with the souls on board of 77 resting place. The people you disgrace with your lie that 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon.

Tell that to the first responders and 3000+ families wanting an investigation.

Start with these people:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors

Do you know the errors in the DME! Do you ignore the things you can't answer?

The raw data does not show anything! The raw data is encoded and you can't see anything! What a crock!

You're a crock, and apparently forgetful! PFT DECODED the raw data file. if the Raw file cant be read, why do you keep using it?
LOL! Make sense much?

You can't use 1.5 DME and any old impact time you want. Failure.

That's right smart guy; that's why your stupid theory doesn't add up.
3.6 seconds LMAO.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yup, still beating a dead horse

Refering to PfT's contentions. Well, you said it,not me.I guess.

As long as you're all still answering,
I'll keep replying as well.

Ok fine but I thought you actually wanted something to come of all of PfT's extensive research. I guess I was incorrect in that.

Jaydee, what are the chances that L3 as a company would endorse JREF,
or PFT?

Well given that it is now obvious, from past exclamations from PfT , that if they did comment negatively on PfT that they would be in for accusations of cover-up and of being traitors. So PfT has poisoned the well. Does that make you all gushy and warm inside?
Now just what from the pages of the JREF forum would you want L3 to "endorse"? Perhaps what you meant to say was that you wonder if L3 agrees that the data stored on their product, having come from Flight 77, illustrates the same flight path that the physical damage path on the ground does (within the acceptable errors). I believe that L3 would indeed endorse such a senario. Unless of course someone were to show them cause to challenge that senario. After all if a good case could be made that their equipment is faulty they would be very interested in knowing about it.

What are the chances all employees of L3 would agree with either side
of this debate?

I believe very strongly that they would agree that the data stored on their company's product, having come from Flight 77, illustrates the same flight path that the physical damage path on the ground does (within the acceptable errors). If you believe differently then perhaps you'd care to give them your case in a consise, comprehensive technical fashion.

I still don't see how getting their approval of a study would make the case
any stronger?

Decorum would prevent me from stating what I feel you just said about yourself with that statement.

We both know now that PFT has submitted their study, but no response
was given (for/against).

Actually we both know that PfT has done nothing of the sort. PfT has released a 'press release' in which they state their conclusions along with scant details on how they arrive at such conclusions, and a fair amount of accusation and vitriol with the request that the reader then watch a video. That hardly constitutes a "study" being submitted.

ETA: ,, and we also know that PfT has called L3 and made a few inquires about the FDR type in question. Still does not add up to "submitting" a study paper.

I've asked a couple of your members to find me a FDR expert from Juris Pro
that I may contact. Nothing.

Who do you feel I should contact to help the cause?

Well how about http://www.iata.org/ps/intelligence_statistics/fda.htm

or this organization. http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=8037They have done research using FDR data such as this

Here's another http://www.cefa-aviation.com/

Check out the author of this presentation.
http://www.asasi.org/papers/2003/Flight Data Analysis_Campbell.pdf

Oh and looky here http://www.avtoday.com/asw/categories/maintenance/2034.html The publication Air Safety Week is interested in FDR analysis too.

Aviation Week has also published many articles on FDR's and their tech and analysis. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/channel_.jsp?channel=awst In fact they did not shy away from reporting on the friction between the NTSB and the FBI during the TWA800 investigation. They should be a perfect venue for PfT's study.

So what will be your excuses for you and PfT not submitting a technical paper to any of these?

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, i notice you bring up John Lear alot to argue your case against PFT.

... "Lear" is a household name and helped design
the famous jet. So lets compare credentials, shall we?

Everyone knows data can be missing in a FDR! It is a proven fact, example have been given, but your salesman FDR expert says data can't be missing. He is wrong, as you are wrong. Data has been missing, and even with the same FDR! But you have excuses. The 1.5 DME proves data is missing. You insist on using 1.5 DME, this give 3.6 seconds of missing data! Darn, you should have studied more.

John Lear? I think his ideas match your massive errors on the FDR and 9/11; perfect match. Aliens among us. Guess you got the best expert. What jet did John Lear design? I knew he was in Public relations for a short time. At least John knows he is crazy about things.

How does John crazy flying exploits and failed 9/11 ideas help you. You can't even plot 1.5 DME or 61.2 degrees. Better ask John's aliens for help!

 

[Turbofan]

I believe very strongly

We expected an argument from incredulity based on bias.

Let's see some facts to back up these claims please.

The rest of your post has been addressed.

 

[Turbofan]

Everyone knows data can be missing in a FDR! It is a proven fact, example have been given

Just like your examples of TWA 800 , SwissAir 111, etc. which had in flight emergencies?

Tell us again how a single cell can be erased? You do know how the
flash memory is erased in blocks , right?

,but your salesman FDR expert says data can't be missing. He is wrong,

Beachnut, have you called L3 yet? No? Didn't think so!

John Lear? I think his ideas match your massive errors on the FDR and 9/11; perfect match.

Beachnut, why does John Lear have 9 pages of credentials at FAA.gov; the most
ever in FAA history and you have an avatar before colour photography was
even invented

This rest of your post is not worth addressing, because we beat it to death over the
last 50 pages! It's all junk like most of your theories.

Call me Beachnut! I need to hear your voice! Then again, we just might call you soon.
Be prepared to be recorded...

 

[DavidJames]

Hey body shop boy.

LMAO

LMAO!

LMAO!

LMAO!

LMAO!...LMAO!

LMAO!

LMAO.

(those are just from the last few pages)

Why don't you stop LMAO and start actually trying to do something. You claim the U.S. government is complicit in the murder of 3000 people yet all you seem to care about is arguing with people here and then you have the audacity to call the people here cowards.

Your and pffffft are the epitome of cowards. Oh wait, you cold call people and send them emails, how brave of you. How would you like it if your family was killed and a group claimed to have evidence pointing to the real killers and all they did was end out some emails. Oh wait, I forgot they do much more, they sell stuff about your family being killed.

Then to top things off, some body shop boy, while defended those morons, is constantly including LMAO all the time.

There you go, body shop boy, that's you and your friends.

Pathetic.

Indeed

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, why doesn't have 9 pages of credentials at FAA.gov; the most
ever in FAA history and you have an avatar before colour photography was even invented

Why don't I believe in aliens?

Still you can't plot 1.5 DME!

3.6 seconds to impact. DME is only stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8. So 77 is really 5 to 6 seconds away as verified by RADAR.
Add in DME errors, and we have even more lead way. So p4t have no clue where 77 is, or how to figure it out. They have 11.2 down! Got math?

If you take 463 KIAS, and 2796 feet, you get 3.6 seconds. Got math? Yes, the yellow line goes to the Pentagon in 2796 feet.

 

[Turbofan]

Why don't I believe in aliens?

Still you can't plot 1.5 DME!

When are you going answer my questions about John Lear and his credentials?

You're on line with an Auto Tech and getting schooled about FDR's, and that's
why you wont debate with pilots at PFT. They would RUIN you 100 times over!

 

[jaydeehess]

We expected an argument from incredulity based on bias.

"We"? Is that PfT or are you using the 'Royal WE'?

Let's see some facts to back up these claims please.

You asked for my opinion as to whether or not L3 and the employees of L3 would stand behind their product. I stated that I believe they would do so until someone gave them cause to doubt their product in this instance. What more do you need? It is my contention that most professionals do stand by their work product and are very interested in knowing about flaws so that they can continue to improve them. Do you have a reason to doubt that this is the normal circumstance?

The rest of your post has been addressed.

PfT HAS NOT even created a comprehensive, technical paper outlining how they arrive at the conclusion that the FDR flight path and the physical damage flight path are grossly different, LET ALONE "submitted" such a study to anyone or any organization. If I am incorrect then perhaps, as with almost everything else PfT does, there is a link to that study? I remind you that such a study would not contain accusations of false data or cover ups or treason.

 

[Slayhamlet]

You mean the Learjet 23? And your evidence that John Lear had any part in the design of it is?

 

[beachnut]

When are you going answer my questions about John Lear and his credentials?

You're on line with an Auto Tech and getting schooled about FDR's,

John Lear is the most qualified person in p4t, his fantasy ideas make him the most fantasy minded p4t member you got. You guys spew fantasy ideas, John Lear is the most qualified guy you have to spew fantasies not supported by fact or evidence. You are right his qualifications are perfect for p4t and making up lies and fantasies about 9/11.

You have not schooled anyone. You can't answer DME accuracy, you have no clue what X.0, X.2, X.5, and X.8 mean for storage of DME. You have no idea why p4t decode lists a DME every second, but the NTSB list correctly the DME every four seconds. You can't plot 1.5 DME, or figure out where 77 is.

What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?

All your experts and not one answer. School me with some answers.

 

[Turbofan]

You can't answer DME accuracy, you have no clue what X.0, X.2, X.5, and X.8 mean for storage of DME.

Here's your first lesson:

Why do you keep posting x.8?
(take note JREF, your expert is losing it!)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77FDRp4tNAV.jpg
Do you see an x.8 here Beachnut? Incoherent? Need to take those meds?

You have been doing that for the last few pages.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

The other questions have been addressed several times. Read back instead
of posting the same thing over and over again.

Why was PFT able to decode the raw file, and you with so much 'experience'
are unable to do so?

We already know why Anti-Sophist couldn't get a Data Frame Layout or
decode the raw file. Anti readily agrees he is no expert on the subjuct. So
why do so many 'critical thinkers' get suckered in to his sophism?

 

[beachnut]

Here's your first lesson:

Why do you keep posting x.8?
(take note JREF, your expert is losing it!)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77FDRp4tNAV.jpg
Do you see an x.8 here Beachnut? Incoherent? Need to take those meds?

You have been doing that for the last few pages.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

The other questions have been addressed several times. Read back instead
of posting the same thing over and over again.

Why was PFT able to decode the raw file, and you with so much 'experience'
are unable to do so?

We already know why Anti-Sophist coulndt get a Data Frame Layout or
decode the raw file. Anti readily agrees he is no expert on the subjuct. So
why do so many 'critical thinkers' get suckered in to his sophism?

Told you a long time ago when I was getting you to post the FAR on DME and FDR. The p4t decode has DME stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7; NTSB stores DME as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8; school out!

Go ahead look at the NTSB data, it has .8 and p4t data has .7. I explained this so when I talk about X.8, it is X.7 for expert p4t decode.

The p4t decoded the raw FDR information and have proof 77 flew all 25 hours of flight on the FDR. Proof of the FDR being 77 is in p4t hands. Good job!

Too high to hit and the FDR was in the Pentagon. As is the DNA. You disrespect those who died by making up fantasies. And you can't plot 1.5 DME, or remember who has X.8, and X.7. Good job. You can't remember the simple stuff I have taught you.

Do you know the feet in a nautical mile? What about fixing the 11.2 G error? 5 months!

No you never answered these, or you would!

What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?

Can John help you?

 

[jaydeehess]

Well how about http://www.iata.org/ps/intelligence_statistics/fda.htm

or this organization. http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=8037They have done research using FDR data such as this

Here's another http://www.cefa-aviation.com/

Check out the author of this presentation.
http://www.asasi.org/papers/2003/Flight Data Analysis_Campbell.pdf

Oh and looky here http://www.avtoday.com/asw/categories/maintenance/2034.html The publication Air Safety Week is interested in FDR analysis too.

Aviation Week has also published many articles on FDR's and their tech and analysis. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/channel_.jsp?channel=awst In fact they did not shy away from reporting on the friction between the NTSB and the FBI during the TWA800 investigation. They should be a perfect venue for PfT's study.

So what will be your excuses for you and PfT not submitting a technical paper to any of these?

Well TF, will PfT create and submit a comprehensive, technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns to any of these organizations?
If so when?

 

[Turbofan]

Well TF, will PfT create and submit a comprehensive, technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns to any of these organizations?
If so when?

How do you know they haven't? YOu will soon find out who we've contacted
and expose the spins Beachnut has been putting on 11.2G's. You're not
going to be too happy.

I'd like to see him squirm his way out of the clarified explanation.

Read this for further info:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

 

[Turbofan]

Told you a long time ago when I was getting you to post the FAR on DME and FDR. The p4t decode has DME stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7; NTSB stores DME as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8; school out!

School out on backtalk too? I love how you twist stuff around, and try
to change the topic.


If you're so good, why don't you post up your crendentials so I can compare
them to Lear, and Latas?

Once again Beachnut, why didn't you decode the raw file like PFT did?
I guess you're not able to...I think I know why.

So, I'll wait for you to reply and write the same junk instead of answering
me.

Keep up the great work! 3.6 seconds @ 500 MPH and no data!

 

[Reheat]

Call me Beachnut! I need to hear your voice! Then again, we just might call you soon.
Be prepared to be recorded...

Hay Beachnut, he's pulled the ultimate threat now! He's going to record your voice for his grandchildren to hear.


California Legal Code regarding recorded phone calls:

California

Although California is a two-party state, it is also legal to record a conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties to hear. This information was included with my telephone bill.

California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632). There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded. Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may recover the greater of $3,000 or three times the amount of any actual damages sustained.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

 

[beachnut]

How do you know they haven't? YOu will soon find out who we've contacted
and expose the spins Beachnut has been putting on 11.2G's. You're not
going to be too happy.

I'd like to see him squirm his way out of the clarified explanation.

Read this for further info:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

Good you posted the 11.2 G error page. A physics blunder! Good job. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109066

Please explain why Balsamo messed that up and did not use the solutions offered here at JREF where physics is understood?

You can see here the RADAR return from DCA showing 77 at 13:37:47 still flying towards the Pentagon 2 seconds after your p4t expert impact time. How did you guys mess this up?

The FDR data stops near this green dot at the end of the yellow marker extension to ground. This is 4700 feet from the Pentagon, and falls within the possible errors of DME so 1.5 DME on the FDR still supports this position for people who understand DME and the errors I have explained. This position verified by RADAR makes impact about 6 seconds away. Impact becomes 13:37:50. The RADAR impact is about 13:37:52.

Being an engineer and a pilot helps with the math, physics, and flying. But only a grade school education is needed to debunk your fantasy of 77 not hitting the Pentagon.

 

[Turbofan]

Awww, lookie here. Reheat decides to post legal stuff as if I'm scared.

Can I call you in TN and get you on tape? Are you chicken too? Still
signing your research papers with "Reheat"

Classy, and brave...