AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

Being an engineer and a pilot helps with the math, physics, and flying.

Being an engineer certainly didn't help you with speed and distance.

3.6 seconds at 500 MPH!

Where is the missing data?

If yuo're an engineer explain how you can wipe out 3.6 seconds of flash
memory.

It's electrically impossible. Did you forget that lesson about EEPROMs, and
the block addressing?

Remember this? Probably not:
http://www.procision-auto.com/911/911_mem_block.JPG

Sorry nice try Beachnut.

BTW: Why haven't you updated your medical for the past 8 years?

When are you going to debate us so we can explain your errors of 3.6 seconds?

I'm off to bed. Talk to you tomorrow Beachnut. Don't forget to take
your meds!

P.S. Reheat is scared to register at P4T with even his screename "Reheat". He
registered with "Foxy" and pretended to be a college female at Univ of Tenn.
We found out it was him through him posting at Loose Change forum with same IP.

 

[beachnut]

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:



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

If he calls me, records me without my permission, I can make money. I better start picking up on the crank calls.

So all they have is "77 is too high to hit the Pentagon" with zero evidence and no understanding of the FDR. It looks like they are hung up on the NTSB animation. Remember those animations at the safety meetings?

So where did you go to UPT? I was at Moody trying NOT to feed the alligators.

 

[Turbofan]

they are hung up on the NTSB animation. Remember those animations at the safety meetings?

Remember ( if you can ) the data files are not a working copy.

Nice spin, and attempt to avoid fact.

Also remember, you and your JREF experts don't have the resources
or experience to decode a raw data file.

Keep hiding behind the screen with an expired medical.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

I've seen it, I know why its utterly wrong when it does state

11.2 G's needed to arrest descent.

It is a problem worthy of a high school physics class and yet after months PfT has still not done it right.
Beachnut may be zealous but he ain't wrong about that ridiculous page.

I quote(bold mine)

224/3 seconds = 75 fps descent rate x 60 = 4480 fpm descent rate needed to reach top of pole 1 from top of VDOT Antenna.

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds.

Except that 75fps times 1.3 seconds is the distance the plane would travel vertically IF THERE WERE NO CHANGE IN THE DESCENT RATE. Therein lies one high school level error in the physics of this problem (BTW its customary to keep units consistent. If you calculate fps stay with fps , don't change to fpm without reason)

Next

97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's

Well that 32 is not fps but f/s²well if one divides feet by f/s² one gets a result in seconds squared which is meaningless.

Now back to my post above. Are you stating that PfT, after years of argueing on the internet to no avail, has finally produced a comprehensive technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns and actually asked respected organizations to comment on it? No accusations of false data, no contentions of treason, no "line 'em up and shoot them in the head after the revolution" rhetoric?



....goody

 

[beachnut]

Being an engineer certainly didn't help you with speed and distance.

3.6 seconds at 500 MPH!

Where is the missing data?

So you guys were hitting on a man? Funny stuff. You guys track IP addresses, how paranoid; how big brother of you! I guess Balsamo is still the truth-NAZI; no truth for you! And you know who is posting at an IP address. Wowzer.

You must be using that new math, or think 500 mph is 5000 mph.
Take 463 KIAS (about 500 plus mph), that is 771 feet per second. We are 2796 feet away. Divide 2796 by 771 and we get, 3.6 seconds. Like I said, math comes in handy, and you are right, only a grade school education is needed to debunk p4t fantasies.

1.5 DME, plotted on 61.2 degrees give use 2796 feet to go! But 77 is further away, proven by RADAR! oops

The RADAR has 77 at the blue tack, and time is 13:37:47 over 5 seconds away from the Pentagon. There goes your impact time into the bit bucket. Did you miss this before? You never do cover all the issues.

The data stops, your EPROM stuff is funny!
Did I tell you my professor invented the integrated circuit? Guess what he taught us? You spewing bs is where my masters in engineering comes in handy; although I am in awe of all the laypeople who can see your failures easier than I.

BTW: Why haven't you updated your medical for the past 8 years?

As all military pilots know, we don't need an FAA medical to fly. We take a physical each year, we carry passengers, we don't have to have an FAA physical. When the Flight Surgeon is an FAA medical guy, we can get a Second Class. When our Flight Surgeon is not an FAA guy we have to go downtown if we want an FAA physical. Can't usually get a first class on base, the base does not have an EKG hooked up to the FAA, our EKGs are read by the Flight Surgeon.

For someone who knows nothing about flying, you have just been schooled again.

11.2 G see this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109066 and you will be schooled again.

 

[Slayhamlet]

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

Anything? What are this guy's credentials again?

 

[Reheat]

P.S. Reheat is scared to register at P4T with even his screename "Reheat". He registered with "Foxy" and pretended to be a college female at Univ of Tenn. We found out it was him through him posting at Loose Change forum with same IP.

Well, now, he is even clairvoyant. He knows how many computers I have in my house and who uses them. These pffft boys are might smart I tell you. They know everything. Everything, I tell you. I'm impressed!



ETA: Oh, Capt BoB said to Foxy. I'm better looking than my photo shows. It really doesn't do me justice. (snicker, snicker) How 'bout meeting me for a few drinks? This was AFTER accusing the female ROTC Cadet of being the British Porn Actress Samatha Fox.

[insert more dogs]

 

[EvilBiker]

Keep hiding behind the screen with an expired medical.

That is Captain Bob's prerogative. You should know this, being surgically bound at the intellect.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

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"

Research? You give him too much credit. I've already debunked his nonsense "paper" here. Apparently he's too busy watching flies gather over dog feces (odd hobby btw) to reply:

I'll be busy for awhile as I see a neighbor's dog has just pooped in my yard and it's attracting some of those ugly green flies. It seems they are everywhere I look today.

 

[beachnut]

Research? You give him too much credit. I've already debunked his nonsense "paper" here. Apparently he's too busy watching flies gather over dog feces (odd hobby btw) to reply:

The only thing you debunked; your physics skills. The flight paths are impossible, you failed and prove you don't understand flight, or physics. You really don't understand physics, and you don't know it.

Do you know the FDR like you know physics?

p4t have problem with physics too, they just close a thread when the questions are too hard.

p4t Capt Bob says:

Nice strawman, circular logic and putting words in my mouth. Typical govt loyalist slimy tactics. Consider this your first warning.

However, if thats how you rationalize it to yourself in order for you to understand the method, so be it. It seems you arent familiar with the concept of reducing margins for error.

I understand you are nervous that we have built a model, it certainly shows... and you should be.

Thread closed until we're done.

Over 5 months and they still have no physics skill that are visible. They are going to, or have a model to help them. It could be in Al Gore's lock box.

 

[funk de fino]

Naomi Watson
Flight Attendant - Delta Airlines
Based Atlanta

I repeat

Is she more qualified than me to discuss FDR or aircraft tech details?

How about pulling one off your list who is?

 

[funk de fino]

Research? You give him too much credit. I've already debunked his nonsense "paper" here. Apparently he's too busy watching flies gather over dog feces (odd hobby btw) to reply:

TLB

Correct me if I am wrong, but do some of the triple corroborated completely infallible NOC CIT witness not contradict the too high to hit the Pentagon claim TF and Captain Bobs little helpers are making?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I hope I've answered everything in your post.

You did type some words in response. Thanks. Let's see if you answered anything...

Yes, I'm trying and I did look hence the link. I don't see any FDR experts
that everyone is crying about. Their credentials are no better than the
pros at PFT.

Maybe not, but perhaps they're more honest. If you didn't see any experts, than how do you know their credentials?

So please, help me find an FDR guy and i WILL contact him/her with
audio and/or e-mail history.

I don't know any and I don't care. We all know why you don't want to find any experts to ask real questions. You ignore all that haven't signed onto your echo chamber mentality of selectively applied expertise.

How do YOU arrive at 1.3 miles from impact? That's a new one! Check
that value. Are you thinking 1.5 nm DME perhaps?

I'm thinking the distance I measure from the wall to the INS lat/long reading for 9:37:45, your 'moment of [alleged] impact.' 38 51 43 N 77 4 48 W

For this to be the moment of impact, the INS would have to be in error about 1.33 land miles, correct? So what evidence do you have that INS can be this far off? I'm inclined to believe the expert posting here, even though I don't know his name, when he says INS error is up to app 1/2 mile. Silly me, show me wrong!
As Beachnut points out: there are multiple independent RADAR returns verifying 77 was actually 4700 feet from the Pentagon when the FDR stops.
That's a discrepancy of about 2700 feet. Nearly a mile from impact.

What examples are those? Name the flights please. I can assure you
those planes had catastrophic failures before impact in order to lose data.

Maybe you're right. It was a case Beachnut cited somewhere and I don't know the circumstances.

Has anyone come up with a reason for AA77 to stop recording before impact?

Beachnut did have a thought i found interesting but didn't understand. Had to do with powering up. Beachnut? Myself, I've also wondered if it was deliberately cut off later. It is a good question and one that hasn't been totally answered that I've seen. Anyway, why are you so sure data ISN'T missing?

If they're wrong, then they wont admit it . They wont fix it. We're simply asking for an explanation and complete investigation.

If they don't admit it does that mean they're right? Does anyone but you care that they cited the wrong time and you refuse to recognize that? You'll accuse them of all sorts of sloppy cover-ups riddled with error you experts can spot, but they couldn't possibly be wrong when they decide there's no missing data. Because... why again?

Our analysis is just that. The plane didn't crash! The flight data shows it,
and it's NOT a working copy. are you not concerned?

I'm concerned for your mental health. The data shows the plane didn't crash at 9:37:45. Not until some seconds later. But you know there's only one official time it could ever crash, you 9/11 Commission official-story zombie.

1.5 DME, and the altitude is several hundred feet too high, and too close to
the Pentagon according to the impact time.

Not sure what you mean on the last, as it's shown too far away, as discussed. Too high AND the heading is a bit off, the pitch is wrong, and the wing bank too, as you guys have rightly pointed out. And the location is wrong! Good work. You've shown the data for last frame is NOT the data Flight 77 would record at impact! So it's 77 data from a different second, thanks for helping.

 

[Bananaman]

Let's face incontrivertible facts.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Anyway, carry on.

Bananaman (who is too frustrated reading this thread to be diplomatic).

 

[beachnut]

I'm thinking the distance I measure from the wall to the INS lat/long reading for 9:37:45, your 'moment of [alleged] impact.' 38 51 43 N 77 4 48 W

For this to be the moment of impact, the INS would have to be in error about 1.33 land miles, correct? So what evidence do you have that INS can be this far off? I'm inclined to believe the expert posting here, even though I don't know his name, when he says INS error is up to app 1/2 mile. Silly me, show me wrong!

On take off the INS shows 77 2000 feet south of the runway. A 2000 to 3000 foot error in the INS is normal.

When you take the error out of the INS using RADAR data, you find 77 is about 6 seconds away from impact.

So the INS is only about 2000 to 1600 feet off at the end of flight. The INS drifts and is updated with VOR/DME.

Turbofan will talk about 1.5 DME as the last DME on the FDR, but he ignores the fact it is only stored in the FDR as .0, .2, .5, or .8 values. There for just the storage error alone is significant. When you add the DME systems errors to the storage error, you have up to a 0.355 NM error long on the DME. So 1.5 DME could be 1.855 DME from DCA VOR. I suspect the actual DME was 1.74 DME to 1.855 when you match 77 FDR to the RADAR data.

 

[DC]

I repeat

Is she more qualified than me to discuss FDR or aircraft tech details?

How about pulling one off your list who is?

can you backup your calims about your expertise about FDR's?
and where can i find your work or papers you published about the AA77 FDR data?

 

[funk de fino]

can you backup your calims about your expertise about FDR's?
and where can i find your work or papers you published about the AA77 FDR data?

Ex RAF, tornado F3 electrical and electronic technician. 1st and 2nd line experience. Responsible for the FDR on the Aircraft amongst all the other systems.

Do you think I am lying? If I supplied you with proof of my claims would you apologise for doubting me?

I do not need to write a paper on flight 77 fdr because there is already one out there. The fact that TF has a complete inability to understand what the info is telling him is not my problem. Beachnut has destroyed him in this thread. TF keeps listing his experts and some of them are flight attendants.

the CIT clowns own witness even destroy the pffft claims

ETA look at post #2065 and see if you understand what beachnut is saying. this will go a long way to see where pffft are going wrong with the impact time claims etc.

 

[DC]

Ex RAF, tornado F3 electrical and electronic technician. 1st and 2nd line experience. Responsible for the FDR on the Aircraft amongst all the other systems.

Do you think I am lying? If I supplied you with proof of my claims would you apologise for doubting me?

I do not need to write a paper on flight 77 fdr because there is already one out there. The fact that TF has a complete inability to understand what the info is telling him is not my problem. Beachnut has destroyed him in this thread. TF keeps listing his experts and some of them are flight attendants.

the CIT clowns own witness even destroy the pffft claims

i didnt say i doubt it. i just would like to see some evidence.
and oc i will not apologise, nobody ever apologised to me for doubting that i am from switzerland.

and when you are an expert, it would be very interesting to read your work about it.

 

[funk de fino]

i didnt say i doubt it. i just would like to see some evidence.
and oc i will not apologise, nobody ever apologised to me for doubting that i am from switzerland.

and when you are an expert, it would be very interesting to read your work about it.

you are obvioulsy doubting it, i have assured you i have what i claim i have

if you want me to supply you privately with back up to my claims i can do that but not right this minute

i would also have to have a guarantee that anything i supplied you with would never be passed on or shown to anyone else

 

[Turbofan]

On take off the INS shows 77 2000 feet south of the runway. A 2000 to 3000 foot error in the INS is normal.

When you take the error out of the INS using RADAR data, you find 77 is about 6 seconds away from impact.

So the INS is only about 2000 to 1600 feet off at the end of flight. The INS drifts and is updated with VOR/DME.

Turbofan will talk about 1.5 DME as the last DME on the FDR, but he ignores the fact it is only stored in the FDR as .0, .2, .5, or .8 values. There for just the storage error alone is significant. When you add the DME systems errors to the storage error, you have up to a 0.355 NM error long on the DME. So 1.5 DME could be 1.855 DME from DCA VOR. I suspect the actual DME was 1.74 DME to 1.855 when you match 77 FDR to the RADAR data.

You are talking out of your butt. If yuo knew how DME worked, you wouldn't
type such nonsense.

The DME receivers cannot receive a value of 1.5 unless the aircraft is within
1.5 nm, +/- 0.1 nm of the beacon!

Another problem with your theory is that you cannot account for 3.6 seconds
of data!

You are aware that the transfer rate is 64 words per SECOND correct?

You do know the clocks are sync'd up , right?

The NTSB states the impact time. You have problems with the time stamp
and missing data as well as the 1.5 DME!

Try another theory Beachnut, nobody's buying this one.