And how many words per second did you say?
How many bits in each word?
Thank you for helping me learn about the FDR.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
How many bits in each word?
Thank you for helping me learn about the FDR.
This is your problem you have no evidence, so like crazy biased Clinton conspiracy theorist, you guys are making up lies about Bush. So sad a pure anti-intellectual pursuit by the special physics experts p4t and you. You just chant too high to this the Pentagon, but you really are saying you hate Bush. You are not prepared to explain the FDR, so take your biased political opinions you confuse with evidence to the political forum and keep your ignorance about FDRs over at p4tf, where errors are rewarded. And 11.2 G errors are expected.
You are making up false ideas about 9/11, you are ont going beyond, you are making up lies without evidence.
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
Which begs the question, if this information you claim to have is as bulletproof and earth-shattering as you claim, what are you doing futzing about on an internet board instead of reaping your justly-deserved attention from the world press? Bit of a disconnect there, wouldn't you agree?
Again, your public anxiously awaits. Why do you torment them so?
Names calling? Next time check your research instead of being like Capt Bob.
Pomeroo buried the p4t fantasy specialist and liars. (gee it is true, you are a liar and so is p4t for saying 77 is too high when it hit the Pentagon)
Pomeroo is very good at presenting the fact and evidence to show you are spewing fantasy ideas. He did much better than I would live. Balsamo is so stupid I would be laughing each time he came up with a stupid implication of failed ideas.
Why did p4t leave out 87% of acceleration (G) in their decode? Got experts?
The navigation system of 77 is not better than 2000 to 4000 feet; I can prove it, all you can do is attack me. Cool. Why are you always wrong on the FDR?
All you can do is attack!
Thank you very much.
Now I become the argument!
Here you are calling me a liar as you post the wrong FDR information.
Sorry, I was telling the truth, you GOT THE WRONG FDR! LOL Funny stuff!
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
My question:
The reply:
Now TF states:
So , how do I know PfT hasn't created and submited a comprehensive, technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns to any of these organizations?
Well TF, I now know it because you just said they haven't. I understood it to be so before, thank you for the confirmation that such has not occured recently either.
The Press release and videos are simply NOT technical studies worthy of any consideration whatsoever by any organization. You claim that you can show that L3 produced a FDR that officially was located in the wreckage of Flight 77 but which contains data that cannot be reconciled with the physical damage pattern on the ground. Do you not think that they would be in the least interested in knowing that it can be shown that their equipment is faulty? Do you not think that Aviation Week, or any aviation magazine would be interested in a study that shows this?
What they would certainly NOT be interested in would be a 'press release' that makes accusations and jumps to conclusions. IF what PfT asserts is true, that the two flight paths are grossly different, they jump, leap even, to the conclusion that the data has been falsified. When the ground in a working copy of the flight animation does not line up with the data PfT jumps to the conclusion that something nefarious was afoot.
But, as I said, thanks for confirming that PfT still adamantly refuses to try any other tact other than harrassing phone calls to agencies and internet debate in order to get the message out.
As Mr Skinny put it: ( and I bold what I believe is the most important part)
Now, concerning the 11 G paper. great, its going to be corrected. However if this problem had been put to me in 1st year physics and it took me an entire semester to complete and hand in, that would indicate an extreme amount of trouble with the subject.
Indeed this is a freshman level calculation. I pointed out two absolutly glaring errors a page back.
How can you see that the author of that paper divided 97 feet by 32 feet per second squared (incorrectly labeled as feet per second) which would not be the ratio they thought it was but instead have the units of seconds squared, and still believe that the author knows anything about simple Newtonian physics and basic math?
How can you see that the sponsor of that page let such ignorance stand on the site with but a disclaimer tacked on rather than take the erroneous page down and not be bothered by it in the least?
In light of this how can anyone believe that the 'corrections' will be any better? Perhaps we should just wait and see? Hopefully they found an undergrad to do the math for them. (physics, math, engineering or even chemistry majors would all suffice)
jaydeehess said:
The reply:
Now TF states:
So , how do I know PfT hasn't created and submited a comprehensive, technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns to any of these organizations?
Well TF, I now know it because you just said they haven't. I understood it to be so before, thank you for the confirmation that such has not occured recently either.
The Press release and videos are simply NOT technical studies worthy of any consideration whatsoever by any organization. You claim that you can show that L3 produced a FDR that officially was located in the wreckage of Flight 77 but which contains data that cannot be reconciled with the physical damage pattern on the ground. Do you not think that they would be in the least interested in knowing that it can be shown that their equipment is faulty? Do you not think that Aviation Week, or any aviation magazine would be interested in a study that shows this?
What they would certainly NOT be interested in would be a 'press release' that makes accusations and jumps to conclusions. IF what PfT asserts is true, that the two flight paths are grossly different, they jump, leap even, to the conclusion that the data has been falsified. When the ground in a working copy of the flight animation does not line up with the data PfT jumps to the conclusion that something nefarious was afoot.
But, as I said, thanks for confirming that PfT still adamantly refuses to try any other tact other than harrassing phone calls to agencies and internet debate in order to get the message out.
As Mr Skinny put it: ( and I bold what I believe is the most important part)
Now, concerning the 11 G paper. great, its going to be corrected. However if this problem had been put to me in 1st year physics and it took me an entire semester to complete and hand in, that would indicate an extreme amount of trouble with the subject.
Indeed this is a freshman level calculation. I pointed out two absolutly glaring errors a page back.
How can you see that the author of that paper divided 97 feet by 32 feet per second squared (incorrectly labeled as feet per second) which would not be the ratio they thought it was but instead have the units of seconds squared, and still believe that the author knows anything about simple Newtonian physics and basic math?
How can you see that the sponsor of that page let such ignorance stand on the site with but a disclaimer tacked on rather than take the erroneous page down and not be bothered by it in the least?
In light of this how can anyone believe that the 'corrections' will be any better? Perhaps we should just wait and see? Hopefully they found an undergrad to do the math for them. (physics, math, engineering or even chemistry majors would all suffice)
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Tf seems to be either getting truly hot under the collar and quite peeved at some posters. This is illustrated by his ramping up of the name calling.
However it also may be that he feels he has been here long enough and that it is time to collect a 'badge of honour' and get banned from these forums for personal attacks.
Don't take the bait. Do not respond in kind.
However it also may be that he feels he has been here long enough and that it is time to collect a 'badge of honour' and get banned from these forums for personal attacks.
Don't take the bait. Do not respond in kind.
Funny you should mention that!
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
not like it hasn't crossed the mind of many here.
It would be nice if he would answer Mr.Skinny's question (quoted in my post above) before going bye-bye
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Because keeping it down to about a hundred thousand conspirators is worth taking the justifiable risk of leaving some solid physical evidence, but a hundred thousand and one might just give the game away?
Dave
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Please note TF has ignored the questions in the above earlier post. He will not explain what parameters not recorded or recorded properly means.
Come on guys, does that question really need explanation? I'm not here
to answer 100 JREF members and repeat myself, or cater to silly questions.
For the sake of Funk who claims to work with FDR's but can't figure out
what "not recorded", or "recorded properly" means, I will do my best to
explain it...
You can't seem to distinguish between a parameter that has intelligible values,
and a parameter that records corrupt incoherent data. Anything
shown in the CSV file is more than enough information to show the aircraft
was too high and did not hit the Pentagon.
What other parameters do YOU need to figure this out?
What's with all the warnings here Lisa? Everyone else can call me a crackhead,
or dolt, but if I call Beachnut a chicken I get a warning? What sort of
double standard is that?
Don't worry Jay, I will never back down or want to be banned. I'm just
playing like everyone else except certain moderators have favourites it seems.
I'm supposed to attack the argument, not the person however the same
does not hold true for other members.
Nice.
PFT has contacted every FDR company worldwide, Boeing, the NTSB, ALPA,
APA, the list goes on. When trying to decode the raw file, many companies
were willing to help for a fee in the thousands. Once they realized where the
file originated, they declined to help even if they were paid, which includes Boeing.
PFT was later able to get the raw file decoded for free. How do you think
that happened? This is the same raw file Beachnut and Anti-Sophist couldn’t
get decoded nor could they get their own data frame layout. It is clear who
has the experts on their side. It is clear that Beachnut nor Anti-Sophist
are "experts" or they would be decoding their own raw file obtained from the
NTSB and comparing it, instead of using PFT's decode.
We will give the names of our FDR Experts, who are currently working in the field,
the day Anti, Beachnut and Reheat offer their name and verifiable
credentials.
Here is one link to Boeing Refusing to help decode raw file once they realized where the file originated.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=435
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,619
Wait, before you said you didn't need the experts. Now, you claim that you have contacted everyone. Can you make up your mind?
You already said that your experts are on your site, and we have looked through their credentials and they have been found to be lacking. So, are you now claiming to have more? Why would anyone offer their name to you guys, considering the harrassment they would get.
[/QUOTE]
Make up my mind on what?
We DO NOT need experts as we have already decoded the data.
We have contacted others to inform them of the errors found.
BIG difference!
PFT has industry pros behind the scenes that have helped decode the
raw data...you see...that's how it got decoded...
Something that Anti, Beachnut and ReHeat cannot accomplish. Now that's
funny.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Please list the errors. You can't. (to do)
p4t has no evidence, and they say they have no theory as they rant 77 is too high to hit the Pentagon, but fail to used the data to prove it. In their expert decode they put a DME for every second for both receivers when that devices in only sampled every FOUR seconds. Bad! They also left out data! BAD! For example they left out 87% of vertical acceleration. Bad! It is funny, in the OJ column your experts listed 75 percent too much! Funny stuff.
Why would I have to decode the FDR? p4t has thousands of errors in their decode which you just wave your hands and make up excuses. Good for you, never admit errors. I would have had all the accelerations in my decode, but then I am not the great expert all your guys are.
Why did they put DME every second in error. Stop with the cover up.
Oops, did you see all the DNA evidence? You know there were people monitoring the DNA work? Gee, this means for your fantasy to happen more people are in on it. There are navy officials who monitored the DNA. So you have to call these guys liars too; add to the long list of people who you say were in on it. You can't even say what happen to 77 due to the fact you don't really have experts on FDRs, you have Capt Bob who is challenged in every field required to understand 9/11 and proves it by saying 77 did not hit the Pentagon. He messed up and said that, but it requires comprehension and logic to figure out.
The raw data is not readable, you have to decode it. BTW, you picked the wrong words per second it is not 64; have you corrected that yet? (to do)
I found another 757 with lost data, this on due to "power supply distortion". Oops there goes the salesman expert lag issue. We are talking lost data, data stopped, not internal lag issues. But gee, you can't explain the system anyway, so you would not know the data buffer delays when errors occur. Of course no matte what you will defend your salesman and say something happen, but get there were terrorist at the controls in the cockpit near things that do things to the aircraft, and the plane was OVER SPEED the last 20 seconds as it was passing 463 KIAS, the fastest the plane had ever been near sea level. This is something big, but you will make excuses for your fantasy too high junk, something you can't figure out or provide evidence.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Fixed that for ya TF. You're not fooling anybody.