AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[uk_dave]

Hey UK_Dave, you seem to have a big mouth, but not much to back it up.

No sale. Try again.

 

[R.Mackey]

I didn't say anything, MACKEY said it and it's quoted. Now he's trying to
squirm out.

I don't appear to be "squirming" about anything.

He's stating that transients can wipe out single gates, without burning out
the prior buffer circuitry, or blowing the chip entirely.

This is possible. Read up on SEUs and latching behavior.

He's stating that the transients (which don't burn up individual gates) can
alter bit states of adjacent words ( < wow for that one!).

This is more than possible, and my leading hypothesis for why most of the final 4-6 seconds of data could not be found on the FDR.

Mackey is stating that six seconds of data is 'missing' even though power was
completely lost after 200 msecs after impact.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I stated that at most the FDR's power supply would be stable for 200 milliseconds after the nose touched the Pentagon wall. It was probably much less. It is even possible that some lesser event, say ingestion of tree branches and pole impacts, caused an interruption before impact, though I doubt it.

Read the thread.

If all that BS isn't enough, he lies about damage to the CPM chip upon which
data was retrieved.

The NTSB report describes damage to the FDR. That's what I described. How much affected the memory module is not clarified, and I have no insight. I do know, however, that many parameters were irretrievable, also as described in the NTSB report. You are lying, again...

Pick your poison people. In order for any of the lies above to make sense,
the NTSB impact time MUST ALSO be incorrect by six seconds and DME had
to record out of tolerance.

At least I have a hypothesis -- a very simple one. The last moments of data were lost, a common event in aircraft crashes. The last data that we have, which shows the aircraft at several hundred feet altitude, is therefore a few seconds back along the terminal trajectory. The NTSB reported "impact time" is referenced to the end of the FDR record and is not meant to be accurate to the second. Under these assumptions, the entire story is completely self-consistent.

Which is good, because the debris alone irrefutably proves AA 77 did, in fact, crash there. Your hypothesis, if indeed you even have one, conflicts with this FACT. Hypotheses that conflict with facts are false, full stop.

Mackey when are you going to debate PFT accident investigators? Are you
scared to leave the comfort of all your buddies that know little to nothing
about data/electronics?

The "Pilots For Truth" are incompetent. The 11.2 g gaffe, and their latest video which relies on a totally absurd trajectory (the "hockey stick"), demonstrate this unambiguously.

This site serves fine as a venue for discussion. You don't appear to be taking advantage of it.

When are you going to contact the NTSB to correct the impact time? Gee,
it's not that important...it only means the difference between hit and miss.

It doesn't. An error in the NTSB timeline, an error of an estimated 4-6 seconds in a measurement presented without error bars or confidence level, cannot possibly gainsay the overwhelming preponderance of physical evidence.

Your complaint is nothing more than "No Holes, No Holocaust" in a different context.

This debate really isn't going well for you. You appear to be the only one confused. Again, I advise you, if you want to know what really happened, attempt to formulate a hypothesis. I gravely doubt you even can under your assumptions. That should settle the question of who is right, and who is talking foolishness, once and for all.

 

[bje]

Yes BJE, you're a bright one.

Indeed. And your the dim one for not admitting your screw-up.

I don't believe AA77 hit the Pentagon.

No, you only claim you don't believe it. But you've slipped up enough times here and on ATS that we know you know AA77 hit the Pentagon.

If you were able to keep up with the
technical aspect of this thread, you would understand that we're talking
about Mackey's hypothetical nonsense, and that Mackey stated the
FDAU/FDR retained power up to 200 msec after impact.

Let's repeat so there's no doubt about your screw-up:

"Mackey is stating that six seconds of data is 'missing' even though power was completely lost after 200 msecs after impact."

There you are in all your glory, Turbofan.

Yes, and you keep overlooking our witness accounts and impossible
damage to the Pentagon.

We don't forget that you refuse to provide any eyewitnesses to YOUR "flyover" theory, Turbofan. How dimwitted is that? Imagine, claiming there was a flyover but refusing to provide any eyewitnesses beyond the Pentagon in metro DC that would have necessarily seen a flyover.

No eyewitnesses, no news reports of a flyover. Give up now, Turbofan, you lost.

 

[uruk]

I would be more civil if he owned up to his error. Sorry you don't understand
EEPROM;s either.

And apparently you don't either otherwise you would know this: http://support.atmel.no/bin/customer?=&action=viewKbEntry&id=4

 

[Turbofan]

Indeed. And your the dim one for not admitting your screw-up.

No, you only claim you don't believe it. But you've slipped up enough times here and on ATS that we know you know AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Let's repeat so there's no doubt about your screw-up:

Here's direct proof that BJE is a liar.

I don't post at ATS. Never have to this day.

Seems like you are the screw up.

The NTSB report describes damage to the FDR. That's what I described. How much affected the memory module is not clarified, and I have no insight. I do know, however, that many parameters were irretrievable, also as described in the NTSB report. You are lying, again...

You should probably read the report I provided a link

You should also be aware that PFT decoded RAD ALT without a hitch.
A parameter that the NTSB 'conveniently left out'. YOu can talk to Undertow
about the procedure and process to decode a raw file.

A liar? THis coming from someone who believes adjacent gate states can
flip from transients without effecting a block of data? Did you happen to
look at the EEPROM gate layout I provided?

Do you see how several gates are connected in parallel?

Enough voltage and duration to flip states of tri-stated gates without
burning up any single transistor. Unreal.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And from someone who provided evidence the explains how damage to EPROMS happens and can happen. And evidence of the same model FDRs losing data in other events.

Give it up turbo, the game is over. You're not going to get more DVD sales this way to turn a profit.

 

[Turbofan]

And from someone who provided evidence the explains how damage to EPROMS happens and can happen. And evidence of the same model FDRs losing data in other events.

Give it up turbo, the game is over. You're not going to get more DVD sales this way to turn a profit.

Too bad ERPOMS and EEPROMS are two different designs and erase VERY
differently.

That is not proof, but rather a poor understanding of electronics and
design.

This isn't a game. You have no evidence. Your guys don't even know
the difference between EPROM and EEPROM!
L3 Comm uses(used) EEPROMs in the FDR installed on AA77
and planes before and after!

Busted AGAIN!

 

[beachnut]

...
You should probably read the report I provided a link

You should also be aware that PFT decoded RAD ALT without a hitch.
A parameter that the NTSB 'conveniently left out'. YOu can talk to Undertow about the procedure and process to decode a raw file.

A liar? THis coming from someone who believes adjacent gate states can
flip from transients without effecting a block of data? Did you happen to
look at the EEPROM gate layout I provided?

Do you see how several gates are connected in parallel?

Enough voltage and duration to flip states of tri-stated gates without
burning up any single transistor. Unreal.

RADALT, are you trying to be misleading? The RADALT is not a factor on 9/11, the RADALT is not needed to know 77 hit the Pentagon, there is DNA, and all of 77 at the Pentagon; you conveniently ignore the real evidence, trying to manufacture some perfect FDR image!

The NTSB has PA, RADAR ALT would be important if this was an accident with aircraft systems in question it is not, the NTSB did a decode of data needed to satisfy FBI requests. You are now talking BS and implying some stupid CT ideas! Paranoia is setting in?

Your EEPROM stuff is a hoot! Keep up the murder of the little stuff, it is amusing as my team is being beat, and your tangential forays into nothingness increase.

 

[bje]

I don't post at ATS. Never have to this day.

I never said you posted as "Turbofan."

The point is that you continue to refuse to provide any eyewitness testimony to your flyover of the Pentagon from the other side anywhere in Metro DC. So do Balsamo, Marquis, TC329, and Ranke.

Now that the FDR data is settled and Mackey easily debunked you, the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon remains solid and unrefuted. If you want to persist with your flyover claim, you're going you have to deal with the lack of any eyewitnesses to your flyover of the Pentagon.

What is your explanation for refusing to provide necessary evidence to support your claim of a flyover, Turbofan? Why don't you want us to have that eyewitness testimony?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Too bad ERPOMS and EEPROMS are two different designs and erase VERY
differently.

That is not proof, but rather a poor understanding of electronics and
design.

This isn't a game. You have no evidence. Your guys don't even know
the difference between EPROM and EEPROM!
L3 Comm uses(used) EEPROMs in the FDR installed on AA77
and planes before and after!

Busted AGAIN!

Oh I am sorry. You're talking about the magical indestructable one. Too bad they didn't use the magical indestructable memory on the CVR or the many other FDRs of the same kind that lost memory even though they are identical.

But then we have your evidence that the plane flew over the building. Which is your eyewitness testimony. Oh wait, there isn't any because they claimed it flew into the building. I guess we're then left with your proof of a flyover which is the FDR that shows the plane did not fly over the building according to your logic.

Hmmm... guess you're back to pretending people are busted.

 

[Myriad]

Too bad ERPOMS and EEPROMS are two different designs and erase VERY
differently.

That is not proof, but rather a poor understanding of electronics and
design.

This isn't a game. You have no evidence. Your guys don't even know
the difference between EPROM and EEPROM!
L3 Comm uses(used) EEPROMs in the FDR installed on AA77
and planes before and after!

Busted AGAIN!

And the link that was given, is that about EPROMs or EEPROMs? (Here it is again.)

Oops. Who's busted again?

(Does anyone use EPROMS that aren't EEPROMs these days? I remember those things, you had to bake the chip in an ultraviolet light box to erase them... antique technology from the days of the Z80 processor, S100 bus, and CP/M operating system! Though to be fair, they were an improvement over punched paper tape...)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Hokulele]

Silly Myriad, Turbofan is clearly talking about ERPOMS. Re-read that first sentence.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Don't back down Turbo. Keep it coming. Again the so-called debunkers here have nothing. Especially Mackey and another one of his many hypotheses. LOL

 

[Turbofan]

And the link that was given, is that about EPROMs or EEPROMs? (Here it is again.)

Oops. Who's busted again?

(Does anyone use EPROMS that aren't EEPROMs these days? I remember those things, you had to bake the chip in an ultraviolet light box to erase them... antique technology from the days of the Z80 processor, S100 bus, and CP/M operating system! Though to be fair, they were an improvement over punched paper tape...)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Looks like Mackey is busted because that linked article doesn't support
his theory, nor say a thing about transient spikes altering bit states.

I really wish you guys new a tiny bit about this stuff before linking it.

You think Mackey will go live with me to debate EEPROM? I mean he
must know more than me right?

 

[R.Mackey]

That's what the evidence in this thread supports. Unless you can come up with a good reason why "going live" with you would improve the quality of your arguments, again, this forum is more than adequate for the purpose.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Looks like Mackey is busted because that linked article doesn't support
his theory, nor say a thing about transient spikes altering bit states.

I really wish you guys new a tiny bit about this stuff before linking it.

You think Mackey will go with me to de PROM? I mean he
must know more than me right?

Man crush?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

That's what the evidence in this thread supports. Unless you can come up with a good reason why "going live" with you would improve the quality of your arguments, again, this forum is more than adequate for the purpose.

Mackey what are you doing here? Don't you need to be working on your apology for the WTC7 report? Or did I miss it's grand release? I could use a good laugh.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

did I miss it's grand release? I could use a good laugh.

Look down your shorts.

 

[bje]

Mackey what are you doing here?

It's pretty clear to all of us.

 

[Turbofan]

That's what the evidence in this thread supports. Unless you can come up with a good reason why "going live" with you would improve the quality of your arguments, again, this forum is more than adequate for the purpose.

Reason #1: You wouldn't have a bunch of ankle biters throwing up pointless
posts after everything you say. I'll give credit where it's due by saying
there are about four members within this thread that have some technical
know-how.

Reason #2: We can get much more done and clarify all the topics as they
are discussed. The communication factor is much better over a phone
wouldn't you agree?