AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Anti-sophist]

Come on Anti, show all your friends that you're actually quoting a source
and not making this up?

Yes, I know. You are obsessed with the dog and pony show. You want drama and attention. You could care less about the truth. That's why you aren't worth my time. And the truth is, every time you try with this sad little build-up it ends up in disgrace and you have to spend the next 30 pages repeating nonsense like 'Anti has explained nothing!' hoping someone might believe you. I used UnderTow's drawings because of the hilarious irony of it all. Plus, it kept you from your first (intellectually dishonest) instinct of saying I made it up.

You've pretty much used up your allocation of my time for this week, so I suggest you get to the point quickly before I forget about you for another month.

 

[Turbofan]

No, you used UT's diagram because you have nothing else.

I'm all about finding the truth and confronting people like you who have nothing
better to do than make up theories about timing.

Still waiting for your docs and references. I'll leave you alone after you
post up some proof to back up your claims.

Show me this irony by producing your collection of data.

 

[Anti-sophist]

So all this blustering and posturing about your new fantastic data that you are just itching to show off and then as soon as I show up you pretend it my job to disprove you? I did that 30 pages ago. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this: I have no interest in repeating 30-page old arguments to you.

The holes in PfTs theories are several years old. And the holes in yours are some 30-pages old. I'm not in the business of rehashing settled arguments.

See you next month. Maybe.

 

[uk_dave]

Dammit Anti-sophist, you've gotta stay and debate with turbofan. You're the only thing stopping them from writing a technical paper on their theories and presenting it to proffessional bodies, media outlets and governments around the world, and blowing this whole conspiracy wide open!!!

Oh the humanity.

 

[Myriad]

Right...FAA, NTSB and PFT have it all wrong? I guess the FAA are a bunch
of crackpots too?

Did you get your copy of the latest presentations which show your errors and poor math skills? The 11.2G has been updated as well.

Since Turbofan won't discuss the argument the latest "presentations" make, I'll mention that so far nothing has contradicted (and various of Turbofan's statements and questions have tended to confirm) my impressions after viewing the trailer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4008366#post4008366.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[lapman]

Is TF still spewing the fantasy that the ARINC documentations states that the time from sensor transmission to storage in the CPM is within 500ms?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I have a few buddies here, and whether some agree with me or not, there
are certain JREF members who are somewhat respectful when debating with
me (and other PFT members).

OGCT = Official Government Conspiracy Theory

But seeing as how you have no respect for anyone and treat everyone with a complete lack of respect, you have absolutely no right to demand any respect. Respect is earned. You have not earned any respect from anyone. Your and PFT's biggest downfall is pretty much this.

You could probably make more progress if you guys were not so disrespectful

 

[Turbofan]

Just as I thought. Anti doesn't have anything to show.

His summary is just a theory based on what he wants to believe.

You want me to post up some diagrams from my document? Sure, I can do
that.

It doesn't support your incorrect theory though.

See, if you are claiming to explain FDR data, you surely must have something
to support your research right?

I'm calling you on the T4-T5 timing. I don't believe you because there's no
mention of such in my copy.

So yes, it's up to YOU to show me the proof.

I will however humour your request and post examples of the document
just to show that I've exposed your lie.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Wait, let me get this straight. PFT and turbo wrote up some big presentation that was going to rock the world on 9/11, yet they refuse to provide any such evidence or technical papers, and now instead want other people to do it?

So in other words all that dog and pony show was just a fraud?

 

[Turbofan]

Wait, let me get this straight. PFT and turbo wrote up some big presentation that was going to rock the world on 9/11, yet they refuse to provide any such evidence or technical papers, and now instead want other people to do it?

So in other words all that dog and pony show was just a fraud?

It has been released, you just have to buy your copy. We're sending free
copies to MSM, and members of government, etc.

Too bad you weren't a member of PFT, or other truth movements. You could
get a free copy and show your friends.

I might be nice and upload a portion of the video which puts some of these
faceless 'experts' to shame.

So, grab yours now! If you hurry, you might even get a PFT apron with
your order. call now while quantities last!

 

[Anti-sophist]

Just as I thought. Anti doesn't have anything to show.

I showed you everything required 30 pages ago. I don't play this game with you guys. I say stuff once. And when you can't comprehend it, I move on. I don't keep repeating it. No matter how many times you pretend that means you've won.

You want me to post up some diagrams from my document? Sure, I can do
that.
It doesn't support your incorrect theory though.

My money says it supports both my theories. The one about the FDR and the one about you having know idea what you are talking about.

See, if you are claiming to explain FDR data, you surely must have something to support your research right?

I find it interesting that you continue to repeat JDX's favorite lie. Feel free to show me where I have ever said I am an "expert" on FDR data.

I'm calling you on the T4-T5 timing. I don't believe you because there's no
mention of such in my copy.

Wow. Just wow. You can't be serious. How incompetent are you? You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are looking at, do you? I do so enjoy watch you stare at a tree and pretend you are looking at the forest.

Of course T5 isn't in the ARINC standard. It has nothing to do with the ARINC standards. It has to do with the data policies at the decoding end.

I'm going to ignore the T5 issue because T4 is so much more hilarious to me. That's basically like you saying you have absolutely no idea what time-division multiplexing means.

T4: The time from T3 for when that sub-frame is "completed" on the media, ie, you have a "complete" sub-frame

QUESTION TIME:
Let's say you have a (1-second) frame that consists of 1000 words. That means every second, you pump out 1000 words. One per millisecond. Once the frame is completed, AT LEAST how old is the first word of that frame?

This is not a trick question, by the way. ANYONE should be able to answer that question. And _this_ is the delay you are telling me, now, doesn't exist. The one that that is the EASIEST and MOST OBVIOUS of them all. The reason you don't find an "obvious" entry in the ARINC standard is because even brain-dead 4th graders could answer the above question correctly.

 

[funk de fino]

It has been released, you just have to buy your copy. We're sending free
copies to MSM, and members of government, etc.

Too bad you weren't a member of PFT, or other truth movements. You could
get a free copy and show your friends.

I might be nice and upload a portion of the video which puts some of these
faceless 'experts' to shame.

So, grab yours now! If you hurry, you might even get a PFT apron with
your order. call now while quantities last!

So you are sending free copies to the very people who you think carried out the attacks and then covered up the attacks, but the rest of the population who you are trying to convince of this has to pay for it?

Right................

Its all about the Benjamins eh?

 

[jhunter1163]

So you are sending free copies to the very people who you think carried out the attacks and then covered up the attacks, but the rest of the population who you are trying to convince of this has to pay for it?

Right................

Its all about the Benjamins eh?

I suspect in PFT's case that it's all about the Georges, Abrahams and maybe Alexanders.

 

[Turbofan]

Wow, just wow...you took an ARINC diagram and put timing terminology all over it with red text.

for the THIRD time, show me YOUR documentation which supports your timing
theories.

Your 1 second old word has a time stamp assoicated with the data. What's your point?

Questions for you:

What word position is RAD ALT, Vert Accel, and AirSpeed?

What does ARINC state for MAX time to build those words?

Hint: It's noted at the bottom of one of the diagrams UT handed to you.

 

[WildCat]

It has been released, you just have to buy your copy. We're sending free
copies to MSM, and members of government, etc.

Too bad you weren't a member of PFT, or other truth movements. You could
get a free copy and show your friends.

I might be nice and upload a portion of the video which puts some of these
faceless 'experts' to shame.

So, grab yours now! If you hurry, you might even get a PFT apron with
your order. call now while quantities last!

Ah yes, it's all about pwning people on the internet and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Frauds, all of you.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Your 1 second old word

That one second _IS_ T4.

So, now you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Does T4 exist, or does it not?

 

[Turbofan]

That one second _IS_ T4.

So, now you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Does T4 exist, or does it not?

No contradictions here.

You don't understand what a time stamp is do you?

It's not 1 second old info as you are trying to spin.

it's info sampled at the top of the scan , plus the time to write the word position (~ 15.6 msecs)

The propagation delay, or time to write to CPM DOES NOT add to the word
'age' LMAO!

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

Please answer my previous two quesitons.

 

[Anti-sophist]

No contradictions here.
You don't understand what a time stamp is do you?

Do time stamps cause things to go forward in time? If something is 1 second old is not 1 second old? This is a pretty simple question. Something happened 1 second ago (the word was written). Therefore. That word is at least 1 second old. Right?

It's not 1 second old info as you are trying to spin.

Ok, so something that occurred 1 second ago is not 1 second old? _REALLY_? Is this _REALLY_ what you are saying? Something written 1 second ago is LESS THAN one second old?

it's info sampled at the top of the scan , plus the time to write the word position (~ 15.6 msecs) The propagation delay, or time to write to CPM DOES NOT add to the word 'age' LMAO!

So the passing of 1 second of real actual time doesn't add to the words age? Really? Is that the pile of **** you guys are selling? You can't be ****ing serious.

If something is 1 second old. It is 1 second old. Period. End of story. Every element in a completed frame has an implicit age due it's position in the frame. Things at the beginning of the frame are "older" than things at the end of the frame. From the moment that word is written, until the end of that frame, 1 second of real-world time will pass. The fact that you are denying this is fundamentally stupid to be laughable.

Let me further expose your stupidity. Let's say our word #0 writes "18" to disk at time=0. And then at time=.99999 the plane crashes, right after we wrote out word 999, and we never get another chance to update the "18" in word 0. If I asked you, "What was the value of X at the time of the crash?"... Would you say "18"? Would that be the "right" answer? If I asked you "How old was that 18 measurement, at the time of the crash?" What would you say?

T1-T3 is the time from the event occurring, to the writing of the word. T4 is the time from the writing of the word, until the end of the current frame. You've just admitted, previously, that in our toy example, that T4 for our example word is 1 second. Nothing in the world can make T4 less than 1 second. No amount of time-stamping or anything else can make that data age any less than 1 second because that's how much time has to pass. Nothing. Nowhere. Nohow. That data doesn't get any "younger" until the next frame when a new sample comes in.

All am I saying is that when 1 second of real-life passes, the data on the disk gets 1 second older. AND YOU ARE ARGUING WITH ME.

 

[Turbofan]

Do time stamps cause things to go forward in time? If something is 1 second old is not 1 second old? This is a pretty simple question. Something happened 1 second ago (the word was written). Therefore. That word is at least 1 second old. Right?

Sure, if you mean referenced to a time stamp. The data associated, or
sampled at that time is one second 'old'.

What's your point?

So the passing of 1 second of real actual time doesn't add to the words age? Really? Is that the pile of **** you guys are selling? You can't be ****ing serious.

As long as you aren't trying to say the word within the frame is "old data"
when looking at the desired time stamp.

Isn't that what YOU were trying to sell?

If something is 1 second old. It is 1 second old. Period. End of story. Every element in a completed frame has an implicit age due it's position in the frame. Things at the beginning of the frame are "older" than things at the end of the frame. The fact that you are denying this is fundamentally stupid to be laughable.

No, no...slow down horsie.

At one point you were saying there is lag, and old data is hanging out in
the buffer. That certain words were one second older than what the time
stamped info revealed.

Don't make me go through this thread and quote you! Actually when I have
a second, i will find those quotes.

500 msec delay? Was I dreaming?

So, we no longer have a problem then? The data at 9:37:44 was sampled
and written at 9:37:44, plus the time associated with it's word position?

Seems like you have a change of heart now?

Let me further expose your stupidity. Let's say our words writes "18" to disk at time=0. And then at time=.99999 the plane crashes, and we never get another chance to update the "18". If I asked you, "What was the value of X at the time of the crash?"... Would you say "18"?

No sir, I would not. I would say the last updated value at time X:xx:xx was
"18".

You do know that a word is written bit, by bit and not transmitted on a wire
as the entire 'word', or 'frame' correct?

IE: electrically only one bit state can exist at any moment in time.

Still waiting for those word positions!

 

[Anti-sophist]

Sure, if you mean referenced to a time stamp. The data associated, or sampled at that time is one second 'old'. What's your point?

Ok , so now we are back to saying that T4 does exist and that our toy example has T4=1 second?

And there are no scare quotes. When you write something to disk. And one second of real world time passes. That data aged by one second. Period.

As long as you aren't trying to say the word within the frame is "old data"
when looking at the desired time stamp.

All I'm saying is that a word at the beginning of the frame is 1-frame-length old when the frame completes. Words in the middle, are half-of-a-frame-period old when the frame completes. This is T4. This shouldn't be controversial. This concept is absurdly simple.

At one point you were saying there is lag, and old data is hanging out in
the buffer. That certain words were one second older than what the time
stamped info revealed.

Yup -- that happens before T4. This has nothing to do w/ T4. This is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

I am sticking with T4, the thing YOU SAID doesn't exist. I'm waiting for you tell me that it does, and you understand what it is. Every attempt to change the subject will be ignored with extreme prejudice.

If my FDR stores an 18 for word #0(t=0s), and I crash one second later(t=0.999999s), before I can update that particular slot with some new value. That 18 was recorded (virtually) a full second before the crash, right? The value "18" is some measurement that is AT LEAST one second before the crash. True or false?