AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

With 64 words per frame, 64 wps on UA93, 64 wps as a data rate of the acq. system, and 64 wps listed in the ARINC document, I think it's fair to say
I confused the data rate.

I owned up to the error, and you're still giving me a tough time?

Is beachnut going to apologize for calling us dolts, and crackheads? Is this
what this technical debate has come to?

I'm all for talking live and standing behind the facts. It's all about taking
responsibilty for your actions and your claims. It's not about owning anyone.

It's all about getting to the point and dispelling the myths.

If Anti, Beachnut, Mackey, Reheat and others propagating their theories
would go head to head with PFT , we could stop the uncertainties on
either end correct?

There will come a time when the facts have been hammered out and one
group of research will prove to be more credible and factual.

That is why we'd rather go live. Who's going to stand behind their claim
and end this 55+ page thread?

 

[uk_dave]

Boeing, the NTSB and the worlds media aren't ignoring you because of what is typed on this thread, you know?

There is another reason.

 

[Myriad]

I'm all for talking live and standing behind the facts. It's all about taking responsibilty for your actions and your claims. It's not about owning anyone.

It's all about getting to the point and dispelling the myths.

If Anti, Beachnut, Mackey, Reheat and others propagating their theories would go head to head with PFT , we could stop the uncertainties on either end correct?

There will come a time when the facts have been hammered out and one group of research will prove to be more credible and factual.

That is why we'd rather go live. Who's going to stand behind their claim and end this 55+ page thread?

I agree. If everyone making claims of unacknowledged discrepancies in FDR performance in commercial aircraft were to present their technical papers at an aviation technology conference before an audience of avionics experts, it would go a long way toward deciding the issue.

That is what you're suggesting here, isn't it?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Gamolon]

I'm all for talking live and standing behind the facts. It's all about taking
responsibilty for your actions and your claims. It's not about owning anyone.

It's all about getting to the point and dispelling the myths.

Really?

I have a question then about your statement above that I bolded. If you truly believe that it's not about owning anyone, then why have you added the following quotes to many of your posts?

Can you read English? Are you on medication?

Look above you ... it's right in the ARINC document. Should I call you tonight
and read this SLOWLY?

These are the kinds of people that should be jailed along with those
responsible for the cover-up of 9/11.

It's sad that nobody else is putting Beachnut in his place for this nonsense.
What kind of upstanding citizen tries to deny facts presented by the documents?

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.

This is just a few of your "not trying to own anybody" comments. If you aren't trying to own anyone and/or make them look foolish with sarcastic remarks, then why are they in there?

Look at all the pompous and arrogant typed out tongue lashings you've given these folks here about the data rate, all the while trying to prove them wrong and make them look like idiots at the same time and look what happened? You end up being wrong.

Unbelievable. Just makes me wonder how many more sarcasm laden pages will have to be wasted until you admit your next mistake. I'm at a loss really. You've called Reheat a fraud, liar, said he should be jailed, etc. All this chest pumping you've done over the last few pages only to have to admit you were wrong and all he gets is a "I apologize for my error". Just the data rate error huh?

 

[funk de fino]

With 64 words per frame, 64 wps on UA93, 64 wps as a data rate of the acq. system, and 64 wps listed in the ARINC document, I think it's fair to say
I confused the data rate.

and again

The sad thing is he gave you a direct quote from the actual FDR report prepared by NTSB for flight 77 and you completely missed it. How can this be? Surely you know that report inside out?

I owned up to the error, and you're still giving me a tough time?

Is beachnut going to apologize for calling us dolts, and crackheads? Is this
what this technical debate has come to?

I'm all for talking live and standing behind the facts. It's all about taking
responsibilty for your actions and your claims. It's not about owning anyone.

It's all about getting to the point and dispelling the myths.

If Anti, Beachnut, Mackey, Reheat and others propagating their theories
would go head to head with PFT , we could stop the uncertainties on
either end correct?

There will come a time when the facts have been hammered out and one
group of research will prove to be more credible and factual.

That is why we'd rather go live. Who's going to stand behind their claim
and end this 55+ page thread?

The facts are the facts. A live debate would descend into chaos. Imagine if you made the 64wps mistake on live? Imagine if anyone asked you to explain the rest of the evidence from that day? Can you hadwave this live or would you have no go areas for discussion that would certainly be an attempt to run away from tough questions you have no answer for?

You are accusing others of running away yet you are the one ignoring questions from posters here. If you do this live you will get the broadcasters nightmare scenario. Silence.

You have to present a paper with your findings and data. You then publish it.

Even the junk that is this thread is better debate platform than going live. You are all about control not facts. I am more experienced than you with aircraft and FDR/CVR and I have asked for one name off your list with equivalent to my credentials and you have run away everytime.

The pft list contains the names of flight attendants for pity sakes.

 

[Turbofan]

Even the junk that is this thread is better debate platform than going live. You are all about control not facts. I am more experienced than you with aircraft and FDR/CVR and I have asked for one name off your list with equivalent to my credentials and you have run away everytime.

The pft list contains the names of flight attendants for pity sakes.

Comments such as these are not only false, but they don't deserve a reply.

If the list I presented doesn't cut it for YOU, then go on your merry way.

The credentials found on that list, along with names attached outweigh
your line of text unfortunately.

Let's cut the small talk and get back onto FDR data, and the system itself
please.

 

[GlennB]

...
I'm all for talking live and standing behind the facts.
...

Live debate is essentially circus. Can be fun, but it's not the way to discuss scientific matters.

Publish, TF. Let the scientific community see what you have. If it stands up to long, considered and careful scrutiny then good for you. Live debate on a TV or radio program will illuminate nothing.

 

[jaydeehess]

Boeing, the NTSB and the worlds media aren't ignoring you because of what is typed on this thread, you know?

There is another reason.

Here's a thought, its just a thought mind you and I would not want to be too off-the-wall about such an important topic such as flight safety but,,, why not have PfT write up a comprehensive technical paper using the data they have and the work they have already done with that data, that clearly and consisely shows how they arrive at the conclusion that the flight path illustrated by the data stored on the FDR is grossly different than the flight path illustrated by the damage pattern on the ground from the low flying Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon?
Such a paper could then be submitted to various and sundry publications and when published, perhaps after a peer or editorial review, could be available on the internet for all to see and comment upon.

just a thought.........

I do recall a very similar paper, from several years ago, in Scientific American concerning the success, or lack of success, of an ABM test in which the author clearly stated his case for his conclusion that the Pentagon was being very misleading in claiming the test was successful, and that when one looked at the data it was in fact not even close.

There is also the article in Aviation Week about the TWA800 investigation and the conflict between NTSB and the FBI which bears some similarities with what PfT would be preparing.

 

[jaydeehess]

Concerning the "11.2G" page on PfT......

TF could you ask Undertow and JDX if there is an ETA for the corrections to it. Something more specific than "soon" would be appreciated.

 

[uk_dave]

Here's a thought, its just a thought mind you and I would not want to be too off-the-wall about such an important topic such as flight safety but,,, why not have PfT write up a comprehensive technical paper..........

And the merchandise sales could be tied in.......how?

 

[Turbofan]

Concerning the "11.2G" page on PfT......

TF could you ask Undertow and JDX if there is an ETA for the corrections to it. Something more specific than "soon" would be appreciated.

Estimates of Sept 11 to release the presentation which will address this
question and many more in great detail.

 

[GlennB]

Estimates of Sept 11 to release the presentation which will address this
question and many more in great detail.

"Presentation" ??

When will you publish a technical document for review?

 

[beachnut]

I don't know if this is a rhetorical question Beachnut, but my recollection is that a British student - who used to post over on the UK 9/11 forum as Snowygrouch - was (illegally) slipped the frame layout by a Boeing worker. Or he was part of a group that had an insider contact in the industry .... something like that. I believe Snowygrouch is part of PffT, although I don't read that forum.

The UK 9/11 forum is down at the moment but I'll see if I can track down the story when it's back up.

... you have it correct.
I was seeing if Turbofan knows the past of his p4t fringe group.

It would be neat if Turbofan could explain all the errors p4t decode has in it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Estimates of Sept 11 to release the presentation which will address this
question and many more in great detail.

Great.

So tell me though, is the Sept 11 date just a coincidence or was it picked for (supposed) impact? A fanfare decision rather than it being the earliest possible date?

Can you promise, or at least have the general understanding that, this docuement (it is a docuement of some sort, correct?) will contain a detailed account of how PfT arrives at the conclusion of two grossly differing flight paths and complete with calculations that make use of common Newtonian physics that B.Sc. undergrads the world wide would agree is all properly applied? (ie. not the embarrassing display of ignorance on the 11.2 G page)

OR

,,,,,,,, is this just "Pandora's Box Revolutions"

 

[jaydeehess]

... you have it correct.
I was seeing if Turbofan knows the past of his p4t fringe group.

It would be neat if Turbofan could explain all the errors p4t decode has in it.

I am sure TF knows all of this and, like his compatriots at PfT, considers the person to be a patriot and a credit to his race.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hmm, they don't want to consult experts, only debate non-experts from the internet, they don't want to publish a technical paper, but they do want to make a presentation that is being released on a date that is about marketing impact instead of simply getting the data out there to get to the bottom of a big "crime" as soon as possible.

And they aren't taken seriously? People think they are con artists? Wha? Still a mystery...

 

[uk_dave]

Hmm, they don't want to consult experts, only debate non-experts from the internet, they don't want to publish a technical paper, but they do want to make a presentation that is being released on a date that is about marketing impact instead of simply getting the data out there to get to the bottom of a big "crime" as soon as possible.

And they aren't taken seriously? People think they are con artists? Wha? Still a mystery...

To be fair, the powers that be have engineered a totally bogus 'democratic election for office of president' in order to distract from the ground breaking work of various 'truther' groups. We know it's bogus because 9-11 'truth' doesn't get mentioned and that just can't be possible when 86% of the electorate believe the incumbent party was behind 9-11..... allegedly.

 

[Bananaman]

You have to present a paper with your findings and data. You then publish it.

Hear hear in big capital letters. Well said, and it's been said more times in this thread than can be counted.

I'll repeat what I said before in an edited post which chillzero stamped on, quite correctly, but I think was apt:

Turbo IS like a roadkill victim, like a rabbit, splattered all over the road but still trying vainly to give a V sign to the lorry that squashed it.

You just watch in horror and hope for the best.

Bananaman.

 

[funk de fino]

Comments such as these are not only false, but they don't deserve a reply.

If the list I presented doesn't cut it for YOU, then go on your merry way.

The credentials found on that list, along with names attached outweigh
your line of text unfortunately.

Let's cut the small talk and get back onto FDR data, and the system itself
please.

None on your list have my experience. I have supplied some of my credentials to an independant truth sympathiser on this board who should back me up on what I claim.

Give me one name on that list who has 1st and 2nd line experience servicing, repairing, replacing, testing, troubleshooting, downloading and plotting data and interpretating data for engineers and pilots.

Just one? I just see some ex pilots, a couple of mechs and some flight attendants. surely the flight attendant has less experience than me?

Just give me one name.

 

[Reheat]

Just give me one name.

Pssst, Hay Funk, Since Turbo is currently speechless I'll give you a name of their expert. It's Undertow! You know a cousin of Underdog, a super duper sleuth and computer genius just like Turbo!