AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Mr. Skinny]

Let's just say that the upcoming correction will address all of the issues
which the government loyalists have been screaming about for the past
while.

It will be released in the next couple of weeks.

I don't believe a technical paper will be necessary as the press release,
and video documentary have outlined the errors. Maybe once we can get
the NTSB to respond, we can submit a detailed technical paper to highlight
the already proven errors.

Turbofan, why is everything always coming "in the next couple of weeks"?

According to what I read, it's been nearly 5 months since this 11.2G error has been pointed out, yet nothing seems to ever get to a stage where it can be examined. It's just constant promises and innuendo that some new evidence is gonna be revealed.

Frankly, it's tiring. Why, in all this time can't someone at PFT, with all of their education, produce at least a white paper (hell, I'll even accept that in lieu of a peer reviewed paper) and put it out there for all to criticize, similar to what Ryan Mackey has done?

PFT seems to want to claim professional expertise in the area of most things related to avaition, so why can't they produce a cogent paper outlining what they believe happened?

 

[Disbelief]

Can someone please outline what an "expert FDR specialist" really is?

I mean, you linked me to Juris Pro, but I don't see an FDR specialist/expert
on there? I've searched a few times and another attempt before posting.

Why should we do all your work for you? If you can't find it there, why did you not look at the links from post 2043.

As for what it takes, why not look here:
http://www.scsi-inc.com/FDA.html

Better yet, just look up flight data analysis on google.

 

[Turbofan]

Turbofan, why is everything always coming "in the next couple of weeks"?

Because there is a great deal of research involved. PFT is getting all of the
necessary data, checking it, and having it reviewed before going public.

This is contrary to what Beachnut is constantly doing.

I'm sorry that I'm making it tiring; that's not my intention.

People seem to get their back-up because of "unsupported claims" and I'm
sure that is why PFT is taking their time to release any updates.

Threads like these actually help because we can take all of the common
myths and address them all at once.

 

[Turbofan]

Why should we do all your work for you? If you can't find it there, why did you not look at the links from post 2043.

As for what it takes, why not look here:
http://www.scsi-inc.com/FDA.html

Better yet, just look up flight data analysis on google.

I checked those other links before, but they all seem to be courses, or schools
for flight data analysis.

When asking WHOM I should contact, I was directly to the people listed on
Juris Pro. That is why. That is all.

Would you rather I contact one of the schools? Would that be more appropriate? I don't mind doing that. Just tell me which one(s) I should
contact that would be seen as 'experts' by JREF.

Thanks.

 

[SDC]

Turbofan, no one trusts or believes you. You are behaving foolishly. Your noisy reliance on the specs do you no credit. There is no usefulness in your aggressive comments and your demands that others speak on the phone or the radio. In all likelihood you would record any comments (illegally in many places) and then splice and resplice or whatever it is creeps do these days till you had something with which you would try to mock and attack the poor person who fell for your goading.

Noise, noise. You are nothing but noise without meaning. Sound and fury signifying nothing and all that jazz. Go join Hxstamper in whichever level of hell's boredom he resides.

 

[WildCat]

TF is sounding a lot like Capt. Bob lately.

 

[Disbelief]

I checked those other links before, but they all seem to be courses, or schools
for flight data analysis.

Really? You mean like the first one that provides FDA? That's just a school?

http://www.iata.org/ps/intelligence_statistics/fda.htm

When asking WHOM I should contact, I was directly to the people listed on
Juris Pro. That is why. That is all.

But, you have not tried to contact anyone. Here's an idea for you, since I refuse to do your homework. Contact someone near you from the list that does data analysis (since you struggle with finding FDR expertise) and ask them if they do the analysis. If they do not, ask them if they know someone who does.

Would you rather I contact one of the schools? Would that be more appropriate? I don't mind doing that. Just tell me which one(s) I should
contact that would be seen as 'experts' by JREF.

Thanks.

Contact someone. With all the hemming and hawing you do, you could have found someone and had your answrs by now (not that you would like them.

 

[Turbofan]

Y In all likelihood you would record any comments (illegally in many places) and then splice and resplice or whatever it is creeps do these days till you had something with which you would try to mock and attack the poor person who fell for your goading.

Are you suggesting that I would create and manipulate audio to support
a theory?

Is that not called, "fraud"?

Sorry, but the truth movement doesn't need to fake, or create evidence to
support their research.

The fact that you would actually post that shows poor taste on your part.

 

[Drudgewire]

People seem to get their back-up because of "unsupported claims" and I'm sure that is why PFT is taking their time to release any updates.

Threads like these actually help because we can take all of the common
myths and address them all at once.

Look, this is nothing against the truth movement, but by the standards of the JREF (which, you may have noticed, is where you are) and skeptics in general (which, you may have noticed, is who you're arguing with) you're not addressing anything.

We don't hold you to any higher standard than we do anyone with an extraordinary claim, we demand EVIDENCE. If you have it, we'll happily look at it, and although some will pooh-pooh it out of hand others will weigh it equally against any other evidence and see if it holds up.

But "we'll be releasing numbers soon" IS NOT EVIDENCE! When you HAVE THEM, you'll be "addressing the common myths." Until then you're performing an act of what scientists refer to as "talking out of your ass."

That is all.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Because there is a great deal of research involved. PFT is getting all of the
necessary data, checking it, and having it reviewed before going public.

In a way your are making the point that jaydeehess and I are trying to make.

If you don't have your data in order, checked it, and reviewed it, why in hell are you debating unordered, unchecked, and un reviewed data on an internet forum? It makes no sense, given that you are proposing a very radical alternative to the OT (I guess that's what you call it).

This is contrary to what Beachnut is constantly doing.

I've never thought that Beachnut was doing any more than drawing from his own knowledge/experience. I've never heard him claim to have been peer reviewed. Then again, he isn't claiming Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

I'm sorry that I'm making it tiring; that's not my intention.

OK, but for those of us who's lives are spent in the science/research/develpment world, this approach is extremely tiresome, and I expected that, given the education level at PFT, PFT would have easily found common ground on what constitutes acceptable evidence.

No formal PFT evidence has ever been submitted. This "we have no theory" (hope I'm quoting that right) stuff, just doesn't cut it.

People seem to get their back-up because of "unsupported claims" and I'm
sure that is why PFT is taking their time to release any updates.

See above. This just seems like blustering to excuse inaction.

Threads like these actually help because we can take all of the common
myths and address them all at once.

Please do.

I'd like to recommend that the regulars in this thread compose a "Larsen List" of unanswered questions. Post them with bullet points and don't strike them out until answered. Add to the list as new questions come up.


Thanks for responding, Turbo (and listening, I hope)

 

[Turbofan]

Contact someone. With all the hemming and hawing you do, you could have found someone and had your answrs by now (not that you would like them.

Sorry, we don't need anyone to give us answers. That is what YOU want!
We're going beyond, and going to government and media sources to push for
an investigation and expose Bush and co.

PFT is doing fine cracking raw data files on their own; we don't need Mr. Juris
Pro FDR expert to help...that is what YOU want to satisfy your needs.

I'm just humouring your request. I'll contact anyone you want just to prove
that we don't play on JREF all day.

 

[SDC]

Are you suggesting that I would create and manipulate audio to support
a theory?

Is that not called, "fraud"?

Sorry, but the truth movement doesn't need to fake, or create evidence to
support their research.

The fact that you would actually post that shows poor taste on your part.

Response to first paragraph: actually, I said you would do it out of sheer meanness.

2d paragraph: beats me. I'm not a lawyer. I just understand that in many states unauthorized recording is a crime.

3d paragraph: I've never nominated a Stundie, but that one is a demmed good attempt.

4th paragraph: Sorry Charlie. Starkist, you know...

 

[Turbofan]

If you don't have your data in order, checked it, and reviewed it, why in hell are you debating unordered, unchecked, and un reviewed data on an internet forum? It makes no sense, given that you are proposing a very radical alternative to the OT (I guess that's what you call it).

See, that's what we're trying to get across and explain in simple terms.
The data is reviewed and in order. We're ready to debate and spreading it
around.

We're not here to seek answers. We're here to debate the frauds like
Beachnut, Anti and ReHeat. They make claims but can't back them up.

Please make a list, and I will do the same. There are several questions
that Anti, Beachnut and ReHeat refuse to answer.

As for listening, I'm doing my best. It's me (and a couple other here)
against a host of members. It's tough to keep up and answer everyone.

Your ideas are good; some have been tried. We continue to move forward
and hopefully this next presentation of research will put your questions to
rest.

 

[Disbelief]

Sorry, we don't need anyone to give us answers. That is what YOU want!
We're going beyond, and going to government and media sources to push for
an investigation and expose Bush and co.

Acually, I really do not care what you do. You will never expose anyone with your crappy research, because real FDR experts will laugh at you if you ever get any information out there.

PFT is doing fine cracking raw data files on their own; we don't need Mr. Juris
Pro FDR expert to help...that is what YOU want to satisfy your needs.

Actually, you did need help. Isn't that what you said earlier? I have no needs in this, as you have failed to sway anyone to believe your interpretation of the data.

I'm just humouring your request. I'll contact anyone you want just to prove
that we don't play on JREF all day.

Once again, do what you want. You will be a laughinstock unless you actually contact people with real expertise.

By the way, where did they find that pesky FDR that you say proves your case?

 

[Drudgewire]

You will be a laughinstock unless you actually contact people with real expertise.

Well, they'll be a laughing stock to a new audience anyway.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I would expect to break upon impact, or shortly thereafter.

it is your 'faceless experts' that claim the FDR broke before impact (between
3.6 and 8 seconds)!

Look at everyone getting angry because they can't come up with a logical
explanation to support their theories.

Just remember, PFT decoded the raw data file with help from industry pros
and have actual ARINC documentation. None of which your JREF 'experts'
can claim. They are clueless about the system and how it works, yet you
all blindly support them.

See, this is where your lack of experience really shines. The damage time does not have anything to do with how much data is lost. You have this absurd notion that the end of data = impact. It doesn't work that way. The extent of damage can determine how much data is lost. The loss does not have to do anything with the impact. Just like if you drop your little hard drive off your roof, you could lose data that you saved last week. Get it?

Just to recap, when things are damaged, they may not operate as intended.

And since you keep bringing up experts, what expertise do the members o PFT have in regards to FDRs, and which FDR experts endorse your findings?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

See, that's what we're trying to get across and explain in simple terms.
The data is reviewed and in order. We're ready to debate and spreading it
around.

Our point is that you're not spreading it around in the right places. Put together a technical paper on the issue an present it for professional peer review (or at least general comment). Can you explain what, exactly, is preventing this from happening?

We're not here to seek answers.

Noted.

We're here to debate the frauds like
Beachnut, Anti and ReHeat. They make claims but can't back them up.

Why spend time debating frauds? Unless you feel you know everything there is to know - publish, publish, publish!

Please make a list, and I will do the same. There are several questions
that Anti, Beachnut and ReHeat refuse to answer

I won't be making a list personally. Don't have the expertise (or time).

It was just a suggestion to others to reduce the signal to noise ratio in thsi thread.

As for listening, I'm doing my best. It's me (and a couple other here)
against a host of members. It's tough to keep up and answer everyone.

Understand it's tough here. However, you came here of your own free will. I can't bail you out.

Your ideas are good; some have been tried. We continue to move forward
and hopefully this next presentation of research will put your questions to
rest.

Well, I really hope you speed it up. Frankly, you're constant promises of something new and groundbreaking have lost their meaning. I know this statement is worn out, but it's "put up or shut up" time, Turbo.

Your evidence is apparently not acceptable here, so I think you need to take it to a higher level. Present it to people that are smarter about FDRs and avionic than Beechnut and Anti and Funk are. You are wasting your time on people you believe to be uneducatable.

Move on.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

See, that's what we're trying to get across and explain in simple terms.
The data is reviewed and in order. We're ready to debate and spreading it
around.

We're not here to seek answers. We're here to debate the frauds like
Beachnut, Anti and ReHeat. They make claims but can't back them up.

Please make a list, and I will do the same. There are several questions
that Anti, Beachnut and ReHeat refuse to answer.

As for listening, I'm doing my best. It's me (and a couple other here)
against a host of members. It's tough to keep up and answer everyone.

Your ideas are good; some have been tried. We continue to move forward
and hopefully this next presentation of research will put your questions to
rest.

You want to talk about Frauds? A group of crackpots with no exeprtise in the area they claim to be experts who think they can prove their claims by debating and "getting answers" from other non-experts. Instead of actually consulting real experts. Now if you are looking for answers and for debate, why aren't you doing this with real experts? I mean I can see how a con artist would be afraid to consult experts because it would expose them as a fraud. What reason would the crackpots at PFT have for avoiding experts and instead trying to debate non-experts instead?

Wow, that's awuly noble of you calling non-experts non-experts and avoiding the real ones. How long are you going to push this angle until you decided to face the fact that you can't get any experts to support your findings and that you can't even get any attention with your supposedly superior research work that seems to be infallible to you?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Are you suggesting that I would create and manipulate audio to support
a theory?

Is that not called, "fraud"?

Sorry, but the truth movement doesn't need to fake, or create evidence to
support their research.

The fact that you would actually post that shows poor taste on your part.

 

[bje]

We're not here to seek answers.

We already knew that. See http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/psychologists-to-study-growing.html for specifics.

We're here to debate the frauds like Beachnut, Anti and ReHeat.

We already knew that facts, evidence, and proof are "fraudulent" to you.

They make claims but can't back them up.

They backed up their claims. In the meantime, you can't even come up with a single eyewitness or a single fact to support your claims that AA 77 flew over and beyond the Pentagon.

Turbofan, we're tired of charlatans like you. Either put up or shut up.