AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[funk de fino]

normaly you will find a detailed description why this is, but not for the 9/11 NTSB FDR reports

untrue

 

[Turbofan]

Nope. And if it transister went bad during that last 6 seconds, no data from that address.

You do know that addresses were accessed beyond :45, right?

That pretty much throws you damage theory out the window.

 

[funk de fino]

Maybe I need to start bolding things:

THE DATA WAS RECORDED AND RETRIEVED FINE BY
PFT. IE: RAD ALT. I don't know why the NTSB left this out (**cough )...but the parameter was recorded. UNDERSTOOD?

For a complete list of what was retrieved, contact UT. The important parameters (the ones needed to show AA77 was too high
and off course) are all that we need.

I don't need UT to hold my hand, however the process of decoding the raw
file is HIS baby, not mine. If it was easy Mackey, Anti and you would have
a copy of the raw file decoded.

What do you think this means?

That does not answer my question. Did UT retrieve all the data from the FDR for the entire flight? Was there any data he did not retrieve? Explain the statement from the NTSB report as you see it.

Here it is again

"The remaining parameters either were not recorded properly or were not confirmed to have been recorded properly, and are not included in this report"

I have coloured the important words in red because you seem to like it.

Are you claiming it is impossible for any FDR to have missing data? The NTSB report says there is missing data. Are you accusing them of being part of the conspiracy?

"Only validated parameters are included in the plots and tabulated data in this report"

What does the above mean to you?

ETA - Still looking for a name from the list of liars? Surely you can get one?

 

[funk de fino]

See page 3 of the NTSB FDR report for Flight 77.

Have you read the Time Correlation report between the SSFDR data and local time (EDT)?

Why dont you contact NTSB and ask them to confirm impact time and if they found any data missing on the SSFDR? They might explain.

All the other evidence points to missing data ragardless of how it was caused.

 

[Turbofan]

Yes, I love red. It's sexy.

"The remaining parameters either were not recorded properly or were not confirmed to have been recorded properly, and are not included in this report"

What does the above mean to me? I don't know, it's pretty vague. It doesn't
tell me which parameters were not recorded properly, nor does it tell me
which were not confirmed to have been recorded properly.

My guess would be (in the case of RAD ALT.), that they didn't bother to
confirm RAD ALT because they are lazy and/or dumb. Maybe they wanted
to hide something about the altitude? Hmmm...sure would be nice to get
that new investigation.

Maybe the NTSB could use people like Undertow to help them confirm and
extract data from raw files.

 

[lapman]

You do know that addresses were accessed beyond :45, right?

That pretty much throws you damage theory out the window.

Were 100% of all address accessed to keep the data synced?

 

[Turbofan]

Were 100% of all address accessed to keep the data synced?

Do you mean sync words?

 

[funk de fino]

Yes, I love red. It's sexy.



What does the above mean to me? I don't know, it's pretty vague. It doesn't
tell me which parameters were not recorded properly, nor does it tell me
which were not confirmed to have been recorded properly.

My guess would be (in the case of RAD ALT.), that they didn't bother to
confirm RAD ALT because they are lazy and/or dumb. Maybe they wanted
to hide something about the altitude? Hmmm...sure would be nice to get
that new investigation.

Maybe the NTSB could use people like Undertow to help them confirm and
extract data from raw files.

keep on running..........

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So now PFT RECORDED the data? That sounds a bit suspect eh? I would like to think the FDR recorded the data. How dd PFT manage to record the data on flight 77?

I don't believe NTSB said anything about parameters being left out because they could not be verified to have been decoded properly. I believe they said it could not be verified to have been RECORDED properly. So how does PFT determine it was recorded properly? Aside from the claim that they were the ones to record it.

 

[Myriad]

Voltage divider in parallel? Are you feeling alright?

At high dV/dt, your wire no longer behaves as an ideal parallel circuit, in the ways and for the reasons I explained. Energy that is dissipated in one component is not available to affect another, and the spatial layout affects which components receive more energy. So, not all components are equally affected. This is something that anyone who has enough hands-on experience to have ever damaged something with an accidental transient overvoltage would understand.

The power grid in your city is wired entirely in parallel. Does that mean when lightning strikes a power line, every circuit breaker in your city trips? Or none of them trip at all? What actually happens is, some of them trip and some do not, the parallel wiring notwithstanding. Same thing for the components of a chip that receives improper voltages.

You also seem confused between damage that alters the state of bits (damaging the data) and permanent damage to the circuitry. You can have the first without the second (obviously, or the memory would not be writable or erasable in the first place), or both can occur. And even physical damage to the circuitry will not necessarily prevent a read operation from occurring; it might only cause false data (such as all zeros, or all ones, or random bits) to be asserted. So, your claim that localized damage to data cannot occur without causing global malfunction of the chip or erasing "entire blocks" is not supportable by reasoning or evidence.

Well you tell me how many 'people' are hanging on the EEPROM wire
and what their resistance will be when their address line is not enabled.


Can you also tell me the distance between each gate and calculate the
voltage at each node? You say it's pretty simple, so let' see the numbers.

I did not say that was pretty simple. I said (and maintain) that understanding the fact that energy dissipation from a transient does not conform to the idealizations of the intended circuit design is pretty simple.

However, if you'd like me to try an exact calculation (most likely a computer model) of the effects, please provide me with an accurate physical layout of the chip, specifications of all relevant material properties (e.g. dielectric constants of insulating layers), the exact state of all components at the start of the event, and the exact parameters of the transient signals introduced at each pin including potential and effective internal resistance of the source as a function of time. (Please also accompany this with a plausible source for the information, as the calculation would take a lot of work which would be wasted if the input parameters are just guesswork.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Gamolon]

Sorry to ask this, but can someone please tell me if I understand all this correctly?

Is Turbofan (and everyone who stands with him) claiming that the flight path of the plane that either did/did not hit the Pentagon was north of the Citgo, but the FDR data that was recovered shows it being south? In addition to that error, there is data from the FDR that refutes the official claim of the flight path of the plane which in turn casts doubt that a plane actually hit the Pentagon.

Did I get that right? If so, can Turbofan or someone else answer a few questions please?

1. What is Turbofan's stance on the FDR data? Faked, altered, or what?
2. I know that they have no theory or pont no fingers, but what is Turbofan actually claiming all this conflicting evidence points at? Flyover? The plane still hit the Pentagon? What? If he believes the plane hit the Pentagon, then why does the conflicting evidence of HOW the plane got there matter when the end result is the same?

Would someone be kind enough to enlighten me? Turbofan perhaps?

Thanks.

 

[Turbofan]

So now PFT RECORDED the data? That sounds a bit suspect eh? I would like to think the FDR recorded the data. How dd PFT manage to record the data on flight 77?

I don't believe NTSB said anything about parameters being left out because they could not be verified to have been decoded properly. I believe they said it could not be verified to have been RECORDED properly. So how does PFT determine it was recorded properly? Aside from the claim that they were the ones to record it.

Psst...get your face out of the glue bag.

Funk, I gave you an answer. It's not running. If you don't like, have the
NTSB go through the data again and extract parameters that UT was able to.

I'm getting pretty tired of these games some of you are playing. I'm not
answering anyone unless it's FDR related. I'm sure the mods will appreciate
this as well.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Let's get this straight kiddo. You're the one that expects us to accept that a huge airliner flew over the building in front of 1000s of people and no one happened to catch it. You expect us to accept that someone rushed in an entire planes worth of parts to the scene and planted them just at the moment of impact in front of 1000s of people without anyone seeing them. And you expect us to accept that someone planted all the light poles in front of 1000s of people with no one seeing. And you expect us to believe that the NTSB, the FBI, the CIA, and pretty much every government agency are all in on this (you leave no other choice). And you expect us to believe that the victims family members are in on the deaths of their loved ones. And you expect us to accept that someone would hash this impossible and absurd plan that would have only a one in a million chance of working and that it happened to get that one in a million chance.

And you think people other than yourself are sniffing a glue bag? Where again is the one who isn't being taken seriously by anyone outside of a crackpot conspiracy tabloid site? Oh right, YOU.

 

[Turbofan]

At high dV/dt, your wire no longer behaves as an ideal parallel circuit, in the ways and for the reasons I explained. Energy that is dissipated in one component is not available to affect another, and the spatial layout affects which components receive more energy. So, not all components are equally affected. This is something that anyone who has enough hands-on experience to have ever damaged something with an accidental transient overvoltage would understand.

The power grid in your city is wired entirely in parallel. Does that mean when lightning strikes a power line, every circuit breaker in your city trips? Or none of them trip at all? What actually happens is, some of them trip and some do not, the parallel wiring notwithstanding. Same thing for the components of a chip that receives improper voltages.

You also seem confused between damage that alters the state of bits (damaging the data) and permanent damage to the circuitry. You can have the first without the second (obviously, or the memory would not be writable or erasable in the first place), or both can occur. And even physical damage to the circuitry will not necessarily prevent a read operation from occurring; it might only cause false data (such as all zeros, or all ones, or random bits) to be asserted. So, your claim that localized damage to data cannot occur without causing global malfunction of the chip or erasing "entire blocks" is not supportable by reasoning or evidence.



I did not say that was pretty simple. I said (and maintain) that understanding the fact that energy dissipation from a transient does not conform to the idealizations of the intended circuit design is pretty simple.

However, if you'd like me to try an exact calculation (most likely a computer model) of the effects, please provide me with an accurate physical layout of the chip, specifications of all relevant material properties (e.g. dielectric constants of insulating layers), the exact state of all components at the start of the event, and the exact parameters of the transient signals introduced at each pin including potential and effective internal resistance of the source as a function of time. (Please also accompany this with a plausible source for the information, as the calculation would take a lot of work which would be wasted if the input parameters are just guesswork.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Right, you want me to obtain proprietary information which is inaccessible to
certain L3 employees?

Are you feeling alright?

Myriad, you're a smart cookie and you're using all of your tricks to form
yet another theory.

Yes, a transient (or signal) will degrade of a length of a wire. The difference
is, we're talking about microns, not meters.

Would you like to post records of employment to prove our experience in
the field and electronics? Maybe we can start with PM if that makes you
more comfortable.

 

[Turbofan]

Let's get this straight kiddo. You're the one that expects us to accept that a huge airliner flew over the building in front of 1000s of people and no one happened to catch it. You expect us to accept that someone rushed in an entire planes worth of parts to the scene and planted them just at the moment of impact in front of 1000s of people without anyone seeing them. And you expect us to accept that someone planted all the light poles in front of 1000s of people with no one seeing. And you expect us to believe that the NTSB, the FBI, the CIA, and pretty much every government agency are all in on this (you leave no other choice). And you expect us to believe that the victims family members are in on the deaths of their loved ones. And you expect us to accept that someone would hash this impossible and absurd plan that would have only a one in a million chance of working and that it happened to get that one in a million chance.

And you think people other than yourself are sniffing a glue bag? Where again is the one who isn't being taken seriously by anyone outside of a crackpot conspiracy tabloid site? Oh right, YOU.

That's right, when you can't hold up with the technical debate, resort to
another theory!

Bottom line. The FDR info doesn't support the OGCT (along with a host of
other things).

Myself and more than a few others would like a new investigation.
I shuold probably get some work done instead of playing with 20+ JREF
members who can't form a single theory.

Why don't you all get in a room and come up with one conclusive story
that everyone can agree on. Stick with it, and debate it.

 

[R.Mackey]

Bottom line. The FDR info doesn't support the OGCT (along with a host of
other things).

You've neither shown this, nor explained what you believe it does support.

Why don't you all get in a room and come up with one conclusive story
that everyone can agree on. Stick with it, and debate it.

I gave you mine. Your response was to claim it was "impossible," based on a fractured understanding of basic electronics. I've since provided you three refereed papers showing that your objection is nonsense. The ball remains in your court.

 

[DavidJames]

So TF is crawling into a little box trying to hide from his lie about posting on "all the EE forums".

 

[beachnut]

Myself and more than a few others would like a new investigation.
I shuold probably get some work done instead of playing with 20+ JREF
members who can't form a single theory.

19 terrorist took 4 planes, no theory, it happened. When we choose not to think for ourselves we repeat what others implies with lies.

You lack the knowledge to figure it out. Your post confirm that fact.
Your lie from p4t that 77 did not hit the Pentagon is not even repeated, only implied by p4t who make up these false ideas out of ignorance in math and lack of understanding, a one dimensional thinking forged out of paranoia and ignorance.

You ignore physical evidence on faith it is wrong, a flat earth big foot anti-intellectual spirit of ignorance.

You are mislead by Balsamo who at 38 has failed to get the left seat ticket he dreams of, a feat I achieved when I was 25 years old, flying heavy jets. I flew my first jet supersonic when I was 22 years old. He calls me an old timer to belittle me, I call his idea doltish, that is a fact. I do not have to belittle your fearless leader, his actions speck louder than words. You are following a failed person on 9/11 issues; he runs a p4t forum with no free speech, or free ideas, he is unable to learn math and use it practically. The 10 and 35 G junk video are ridiculous, I used 27,000 foot radius and hit all the obstacle with 1.7 G. Your buddy is busted, he implies lies, you say them for him. If you ever thought you wanted to think for yourself now is the time to do it.

The false name "truth" in p4t is noted, as you prove it.

The only people who want a new investigation are those who lack the skills to understand the many investigation already done, and people like Balsamo the terrorist loyalist who make money selling implications of lies.
You need to do better on the FDR and stop waving your hands and saying wrong, but explain why. Stop the wrong junk and show why you are right. Don't use chips that were not in the box in question like you did before.

Do you know the FDR is constantly overwriting old data? How is that done? Is that correct?

 

[Turbofan]

You've neither shown this, nor explained what you believe it does support.

Geez...how many pages are we going to waste and how many more times
do I need to repeat myself? You love playing games don't you?

Do you recall anything about NTSB impact vs. FDR time?

Do you recall the altitude of the aircraft, DME, etc.?

I believe this data supports a government cover up. Any further questions
about my position will be pointed to this post.

I gave you mine. Your response was to claim it was "impossible," based on a fractured understanding of basic electronics. I've since provided you three refereed papers showing that your objection is nonsense. The ball remains in your court.

You gave me a report based on blocks of data, not single gate access.
nothing in those articles support your assumptions.

Basic electronics? Mr. Mackey, show me how a transient changes one
gate in this layout please

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That's right, when you can't hold up with the technical debate, resort to
another theory!

Bottom line. The FDR info doesn't support the OGCT (along with a host of
other things).

Myself and more than a few others would like a new investigation.
I shuold probably get some work done instead of playing with 20+ JREF
members who can't form a single theory.

Why don't you all get in a room and come up with one conclusive story
that everyone can agree on. Stick with it, and debate it.

First of all, the only one failing on the technical side is YOU. And those "theories" are the ONLY possibly results from your arguments. I am not the one making the argument about the plane flying over the building, YOU are. And those claims I just made are the only possible outcome of your argument.

The FDR DOES support the official findings. I don't know about your 3rd grade acronym or anything, but the only thing that doesn't add up is your little crackpot theories.

You only want a new investigation because you are well aware that the results of your claims are impossible and don't allow you to actually do real research. If you did, your own hypothesis would prove you wrong. So knowing that your own hypothesis is completely impossible, you settle for the "new investigation" cop out. It's up to you. You've investigated this far, why did you stop? No one is preventing you from investigating. You stopped because you know going any further makes you make yourselves look like idiots even further. For you to investigate further on your own means for you to have to admit to all the things I listed above. You'd rather pretend they don't exist. Hence your denial movement.

And JREF didn't come up wth 20 theories. They showed all the many many things that show what happened as being completely plausible. Only 1 is needed, yet many have been found. Your little theory depends on only 1 possible situation happening. One that is very improbable and is impossible. This is why you are not taken seriously. This is why you want a phone conversation so you can try to eliminate as many of these plausible explanations as possible.