AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[uruk]

Here are some links on single bit errors in EEPROMs

http://klabs.org/richcontent/MAPLDCon03/papers/p/p10_chen_p.pdf
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/comp.arch.embedded/msg06759.html
http://www.aero.org/conferences/mrqw/2002-papers/A_Mavis.pdf
http://editors.maxwell.com/pdf/me/app_notes/1Mb_EEPROM_error.pdf

 

[jsiv]

I have a question that I hope someone will be able to answer.

What is our working theory as to why the people who faked the Pentagon attack chose to omit the last six seconds of data that would confirm an impact? Is the FDR not a simple device that could have been programmed with this data from the comfort of their office without the need to actually crash a plane?

And what do we think was the incentive for American Airlines to take part in the conspiracy?

 

[ktesibios]

Well, I did specify that the arc hits the circuit at the collector connection of T1. But in any case, that is the correct answer.

Any, all, or none of the transistors could be damaged. If not all are damaged, then the one most likely to be damaged is T1 followed by T2, but there's no guarantee. The surge could take out just T3. When one transistor does fail, it provides a path of less resistance for the remaining transient charge, protecting the other transistors to some degree. So it's common to have some components fail, and others that are in parallel off the same bus remain operational.

Audio frequency power amps and linear regulated DC power supplies commonly use output transistors in parallel to provide sufficient load current capability. I've spent many years doing repairs on amps and PSUs(among other things), and what I've observed is that it is much more common for only one transistor in a bank to fail than it is to find all of the devices in a bank failed.

It's good shop policy to replace all of the output devices if you find one blown, but that's precautionary thinking and not absolutely necessary just to restore the circuit's functionality.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

This is a technical version of the argument that a passport can't survive a plane crash.

 

[jaydeehess]

Larcan TV transmitters also use a combining network on parallel power amps to produce final output power and indeed it is rare for all of them to go down at once, including when the cause is a lightning hit to the tower.

I see that many are saying that the failed part provides a path to ground. I had thought that it simply provided a sink for the excess energy. That is to say that as the element is destroyed it uses up that energy and since the transient is short lived no other parts get destroyed. Sometimes a transistor that gets fried will become a short but most of the time it becomes a burned chunk of carbon that has a very high resistance (essentially an open cct).

This is something I, and the techs I have worked with over the years, have refered to as 'letting the smoke out'. The farsical theory goes like this;
All electronic components are just various colors of smoke contained in small plastic cases and when something happens to that case and the smoke is let out, the component does not work anymore. Some components consist of more than one smaller plastic containers of smoke all wrapped up together and it is possible for one of the smaller containers to have its smoke let out while the others are ok. That is how, for instance, only one amp in a quad op amp chip can stop working.

 

[cludgie]

I have a question that I hope someone will be able to answer.

What is our working theory as to why the people who faked the Pentagon attack chose to omit the last six seconds of data that would confirm an impact? Is the FDR not a simple device that could have been programmed with this data from the comfort of their office without the need to actually crash a plane?

And what do we think was the incentive for American Airlines to take part in the conspiracy?

In fact, why bother to fake anything? The CVR was rendered unreadable by the crash so why not just trash the FDR and then you don't have to to worry whats on it at all.

 

[jaydeehess]

In fact, why bother to fake anything? The CVR was rendered unreadable by the crash so why not just trash the FDR and then you don't have to to worry whats on it at all.

True, there was no requirement for an FDR at all. It could simply have been damaged so severely that it was useless. How many people could argue that it positively should have been intact?

OTOH if there was a requirement to have an FDR , whatever that may have been, it would have been a relatively simple matter to enter into it data that exactly matched the path the plane took from take off to Pentagon wall.

Instead, we are told, the FDR data was faked to illustrate a path that would not intercept the Pentagon wall AND that the last few seconds of the flight path were then left out in an to attempt to deceive the public into thinking that this FDR does come from a plane that did hit the Pentagon wall.

 

[jsiv]

Don't be sheeple.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

True, there was no requirement for an FDR at all. It could simply have been damaged so severely that it was useless. How many people could argue that it positively should have been intact?

OTOH if there was a requirement to have an FDR , whatever that may have been, it would have been a relatively simple matter to enter into it data that exactly matched the path the plane took from take off to Pentagon wall.

Instead, we are told, the FDR data was faked to illustrate a path that would not intercept the Pentagon wall AND that the last few seconds of the flight path were then left out in an to attempt to deceive the public into thinking that this FDR does come from a plane that did hit the Pentagon wall.

But don't forget the motivation. It was all done so it could be blamed on Afghan which would allow us to attack Iraq which had nothing to do with the plot. Boy NWO sure is clever.

 

[pomeroo]

You know what, rather than repeat myself and waste my time, I'll take these
comments to the EE forum where there are actual FDR designers.

We'll see what filtering is used and if they happened to consider the effects
of high impacts when they built these dinky little things.

Some of us have noticed that you NEVER EVER get around to explaining why your imaginary conspiracy didn't simply plant FDRs that corroborate the physical evidence found at the crash site and the eyewitness accounts. Seriously, why wouldn't a real conspiracy do just that? Under what conceivable circumstances would a real conspiracy neglect to that? Is it even thinkable that a real conspiracy wouldn't plant the evidence it requires?

You tap dance interminably, arguing with people who have vastly more experience and knowledge than you, and you never touch the very first question a disinterested, fair-minded person coming to the subject for the first time would ask.

 

[Turbofan]

Others notice that you don't want to do the live debate?

In any case, the question has been asked and thought about and considered
and beaten to death and ... and ... and...

No matter what I say, or what I present your community wont accept it, or
research it.

I'm looking to outside 3rd party resources to settle a debate about FDR
transients just to put this to an end.

So far, so good.

 

[beachnut]

Others notice that you don't want to do the live debate?

In any case, the question has been asked and thought about and considered
and beaten to death and ... and ... and...

No matter what I say, or what I present your community wont accept it, or
research it.

I'm looking to outside 3rd party resources to settle a debate about FDR
transients just to put this to an end.

So far, so good.

FDR have been missing data that should have been recorded. Before impact and after impact. There is no reason, no specification, no protection, no super chip, no super system to stop FDR from missing data, lost data, data not recorded.

The impact at the Pentagon and at the WTC were outside the limits for FDRs. Look up the specs, the 3 jets impacting buildings at HIGH SPEEDS are not designed into the FDR spec. Why?

I will let Turbofan explain why 11, 176, and 77 are outside the specification for each FDR involved.

 

[WildCat]

Others notice that you don't want to do the live debate?

What will a live debate accomplish? You obviously have no facts or evidence, or you'd be pwning us here instead of losing badly.

I'm looking to outside 3rd party resources to settle a debate about FDR
transients just to put this to an end.

And not finding anyone to support you. Nor are there any real FDR experts who agree with the pretend ones at PfffT.

 

[pomeroo]

Others notice that you don't want to do the live debate?

Your refusal to respond has been noted. A live debate will degenerate into a screaming match unless both sides operate in good faith. You have demonstrated that you are impervious to criticism of your errors of fact and interpretation. No progress is possible in a debate with you, as you simply dismiss with a hand-wave any data inconvenient to your fantasy.

In any case, the question has been asked and thought about and considered
and beaten to death and ... and ... and...

No. Simply--NO.

The question, the elephant in the room, remains: Under what conceivable circumstances would a real conspiracy neglect to plant evidence that supports its narrative? Why did your imaginary conspiracy leave FDRs at the crash site (of what?) containing incomplete, damaged data when, according to fantasist myth, it plants all sorts of evidence and could easily have substituted ones that tell the "official" story?

Yes, it is amusing to watch you squirm, but the enjoyment is diminshed when one reflects that every conspiracy liar peddling nonsense about the crash of Flight 77 trips over his tongue on the same simple question.

You are quite right that the question has been asked repeatedly. Although your side has, characteristically, done little or no actual thinking, it has babbled and dodged and bobbed and weaved and tap danced and evaded and blown smoke...BUT, in the final analysis--you have absolutely nothing to say!

No matter what I say, or what I present your community wont accept it, or
research it.

What you have presented has been refuted by people who know more than you do. Mackey made a telling point that you chose to ignore: you are asking far too much from the data. It cannot possibly supply the precision you profess to seek.

In the meantime, tell us why your imaginary conspiracy didn't plant FDRs that said what they were supposed to say. Until you do, you're wasting everyone's time.

I'm looking to outside 3rd party resources to settle a debate about FDR
transients just to put this to an end.

So far, so good.

It has ended. You've been exposed.

 

[Turbofan]

Right...

Mackey's theory is getting rejected at the engineering forum with replies
from design, aerospace, military and FDR engineers.

If this is getting exposed, please expose me more!

When you can show me how AA77 can pass through a wall,
I'll lay down quietly.

When you can show me how a 47 floor steel building can fall
STRAIGHT down in under 10 seconds because of a few column
failures (by fire!), I'll roll over like a "new phenomemon".

When you can show me how two 110 floor buildings fall in
under 15 seconds, in the same fashion (even though they
were struck at different levels), I'll give you a bone.

Bonus question:

Can you tell me why the south tower tipped to the side
which did not have an impact hole?

 

[R.Mackey]

The comments on that forum agree with me, and even if they didn't, they cannot trump journal articles and refereed conference papers. I don't see where any of the posters on that forum (thread is here) support you over me. Except you, of course.

Your other list of confusions is off-topic, and have all been explained endlessly. Apparently you could stand to learn something about basic mechanics as well.

 

[DavidJames]

The comments on that forum agree with me, and even if they didn't, they cannot trump journal articles and refereed conference papers. I don't see where any of the posters on that forum (thread is here) support you over me. Except you, of course.

Your other list of confusions is off-topic, and have all been explained endlessly. Apparently you could stand to learn something about basic mechanics as well.

Is it any surprise that TurboFan could look at quotes like these:

If you try to write one outside of the allowed conditions the results are undefined.

You could have all sorts of unexpected results. The same invalid conditions applied to the same make and model EEPROM will result in similar results each time.

You could easily have random bits written.

Why not? Now that you know what could happen, you should make changes to mitigate any future occurrences. Since your processor got fried, there's no knowing what mischief was caused by the power supply transients.

If the software was written incorrectly, extremely high... if the software failed to transfer the data within the specified window and left it in RAM, it's toast. Once it's actually in the EEPROM, only electrical transactions not strictly adhering to the chip's specs, bad memory, or physical damage could cause it to be lost.

and reach the conclusion they support him.

 

[TjW]

Some of us have noticed that you NEVER EVER get around to explaining why your imaginary conspiracy didn't simply plant FDRs that corroborate the physical evidence found at the crash site and the eyewitness accounts. Seriously, why wouldn't a real conspiracy do just that? Under what conceivable circumstances would a real conspiracy neglect to that? Is it even thinkable that a real conspiracy wouldn't plant the evidence it requires?

You tap dance interminably, arguing with people who have vastly more experience and knowledge than you, and you never touch the very first question a disinterested, fair-minded person coming to the subject for the first time would ask.

It's easier than that. When the FOIA request comes in, you simply ship data that matches whichever flight path you want to support to Pfffft.
It never has to be in the FDR at all.

 

[Dog Town]

When you can show me how two 110 floor buildings fall in
under 15 seconds, in the same fashion (even though they
were struck at different levels), I'll give you a bone.

Bonus question:

Can you tell me why the south tower tipped to the side
which did not have an impact hole?

Nice contradiction!

 

[Turbofan]

The comments on that forum agree with me, and even if they didn't, they cannot trump journal articles and refereed conference papers. I don't see where any of the posters on that forum (thread is here) support you over me. Except you, of course.

Your other list of confusions is off-topic, and have all been explained endlessly. Apparently you could stand to learn something about basic mechanics as well.

Trump? This isn't euchre buddy. Your theory doesn't work because of
the filtering electronics at the front end of the FDR.

The transient can't get through to make the damage you WANT for your
SUGGESTIVE theory. Filters and clamps. It can't happen.

I guess you're not keeping up with the forum? Now we're also confirming
that buffer data cannot be more than two seconds like Anti's BS.
Sorry no delay theory either.

You should spend more time answering my tower tilt question. I'd love to
read your excuse for that one.