AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[WildCat]

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 are delusional.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

Holy Cow! It's a deluxe Woo burrito!!

He thinks Mackey is getting rejected when everyone is agreeing with him??

He thinks a 757 at 500mph is going to bounce off a concrete wall? Really? Really?

He's claiming that the 18 second collapse of WTC7 was under 10 seconds? Really? Really?

He thinks that the height of the damage is going to affect HOW a building falls as opposed to when? Really? Really???

I think Turbo needs to stick to the FDR nonsense. That's just some mind blowing stundie woo there.

 

[R.Mackey]

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

Ah, no. You've got it completely backwards.

This is like when you claimed there could be no time-smear because the data is timetagged. In fact, the data has to be timetagged because without it, you will get time-smear.

Yes, of course there are filtering electronics at the front end of the FDR. There is probably even line-conditioning and fuses and all kinds of stuff. But that only proves that if it breaks, there could be an effect. If the effect is impossible, they wouldn't bother.

Do you think that stuff might break if, oh, I don't know, it got caught up in a ruddy plane crash..?

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

Filters and clamps that prove, without a single doubt, that the storage medium is in fact susceptible to that failure mode. All one has to do is break the filters and clamps. I have just the method in mind.

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.

In the split thread I asked you, since you reject journal articles and refereed conference papers, what standard of proof you would accept. Apparently the answer is, "a bunch of stuff typed anonymously on an Internet forum, that I misunderstood besides."

This is why nobody wants to debate you. There's no point. We'd be left wondering what it was you thought you heard, as you declare victory over the windmills.

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

I spend some time on it in my whitepaper. It's really very simple. And off-topic.

---

Holy Cow! It's a deluxe Woo burrito!!

He thinks Mackey is getting rejected when everyone is agreeing with him??

It is like nothing I've ever seen before. Though it does lend some insight into how they decided AA 77 never hit the Pentagon in the first place. With comprehension skills like that, anything is possible.

 

[jaydeehess]

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!

Actually the worst that could be gleaned from their comments about Mackey's suggestion would be that they consider it somewhat doubtful. No one said it could not be the case.

However, the latest post...........

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

Its called momentum transfer, part of a system of science refered to as physics.

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".

Given the novel nature of the construction and the resultant long beam lengths combined with single side constraints on some beam/column connections I found the WTC 7 report quite well done. Could use a few more quantitative analysis of how to prevent such collapses(would installation of shear bolts into the concrete have done it?)

Did you read it yet?

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.

Thanks but I don't swing that way. What possible difference would it make as long as the mass above initial failure is sufficient to collapse the next level down?

Bonus question:

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

It tipped to the side that had the most column damage and which was the long axis of the core.(you were aware that although the perimeter of the buildings were square that the core was rectangular, right?)

 

[Turbofan]

Wildcat, why don't you post something worthwhile for once? Are you
just some ankle biting puppy that tags along for post counts?

Please show me you know the meaning of a clamp circuit and how it works.

Use Google if you must. Post it here so everyone can see that FDR's have
considerations for transient supression in the event of a crash!

Its called momentum transfer, part of a system of science refered to as physics.

So, I can run through a wall without breaking it too?

Given the novel nature of the construction and the resultant long beam lengths combined with single side constraints on some beam/column connections I found the WTC 7 report quite well done. Could use a few more quantitative analysis of how to prevent such collapses(would installation of shear bolts into the concrete have done it?)

Did you read it yet?

I didn't know that column 79 could cause all the other columns to fail.

What possible difference would it make as long as the mass above initial failure is sufficient to collapse the next level down?

core columns. Perimieter columns. Conservation of Momentum.

It tipped to the side that had the most column damage and which was the long axis of the core.(you were aware that although the perimeter of the buildings were square that the core was rectangular, right?)

No, it did not. Watch the video again.

The most column damage was the side that the plane entered! You know,
the columns that were cut? The side with the big airplane sized hole?

 

[R.Mackey]

No, it did not. Watch the video again.

The most column damage was the side that the plane entered! You know,
the columns that were cut? The side with the big airplane sized hole?

This is false! The aircraft cleared out more perimeter columns on exit than entry. See NCSTAR1-2B. Simple geometry explains it.

Even overlooking the fact that you're now totally off-topic, this is yet another topic you don't understand in the slightest.

ETA: The above is mistaken. See below for correction. Also see Figure 3-3 of NCSTAR 1 for the actual NIST estimate of damage at impact.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, so now there was no hole in the Pentagon. This just gets more and more odd.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat, why don't you post something worthwhile for once? Are you
just some ankle biting puppy that tags along for post counts?

Please show me you know the meaning of a clamp circuit and how it works.

Use Google if you must. Post it here so everyone can see that FDR's have
considerations for transient supression in the event of a crash!

Sorry Turbofan the Amazing Water Boy. I'll post here if I want, and continue to point out your delusional fantasies for what they are.

The fact remains, you and the PfffT don't have a single FDR expert on your side. Zero, nada, zip. You're a laughingstock even among other truthers, the lowest caste of the freak show known as 9/11 truth.

None of the people on that engineering forum are supporting you.

Your group exists for the sole purpose of selling merch on line, and pathetic attempts at pwning people on internet forums.

Experts Turbofan, when will the pretend experts at Pffft corroborate their findings with real FDR experts? When will anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together take you seriously? How much progress have you made after 7 years?

Your group is ridiculous, so desperate for members, any members, that you accept a guy who thinks millions of people live on the moon capturing sould! An that there's a submarine base under the Nevada desert!

Pathetic.

 

[Turbofan]

This is false! The aircraft cleared out more perimeter columns on exit than entry. See NCSTAR1-2B. Simple geometry explains it.

Even overlooking the fact that you're now totally off-topic, this is yet another topic you don't understand in the slightest.

Excuse me? Are you blind? The plane entry had LESS perimeter column
damage than the EXIT?

Even though you are completely wrong about that (and the FDR transients),
The building still tipped in the direction other than the entry, or exit hole.

Back on topic. Can you explain how a clamp circuit limits transients?

Video of collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&feature=related

 

[Jonnyclueless]

My God, now he's jsut completely making stuff up.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'll have to issue a retraction. The perimeter columns to the starboard side of WTC 2's impact did survive the collision. However, the reason it leaned in that direction afterward should be quite intuitive, given that's the long-span portion, and that's where the fireproofing loss was highest.

My apologies. It's been almost a year since I cracked that report.

Back to topic, can you tell me what happens when a clamping circuit hits a concrete building at over 200 meters per second? Do you think it might, just possibly, affect its performance?

 

[Turbofan]

I'll have to issue a retraction. The perimeter columns to the starboard side of WTC 2's impact did survive the collision. However, the reason it leaned in that direction afterward should be quite intuitive, given that's the long-span portion, and that's where the fireproofing loss was highest.

My apologies. It's been almost a year since I cracked that report.

Back to topic, can you tell me what happens when a clamping circuit hits a concrete building at over 200 meters per second? Do you think it might, just possibly, affect its performance?

Intuitive?

You mean losing fireproofing is worse than cutting columns?

 

[Turbofan]

Back to topic, can you tell me what happens when a clamping circuit hits a concrete building at over 200 meters per second? Do you think it might, just possibly, affect its performance?

Considering the FDR is at the back of the plane, and the FDAU is closer to
the front of the plane, the clamp circuit would operate just fine.


Any of the harmful transients would be regulated.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yes, actually. You could have severed the entire east perimeter entirely, and the structure would have been standing, had it not been for the fire. Fireproofing may or may not have been relevant, depending on whether you lean towards NIST or Quintiere.

That's all I have to say on the matter. You're off-topic, and I'm done encouraging you.

 

[Turbofan]

Yes, actually. You could have severed the entire east perimeter entirely, and the structure would have been standing, had it not been for the fire. Fireproofing may or may not have been relevant, depending on whether you lean towards NIST or Quintiere.

That's all I have to say on the matter. You're off-topic, and I'm done encouraging you.

Those darn one hour office fires!

It's OK, I'm off to bed. Have a good night. I'll see you on the battle
field again tomorrow I'm sure. We'll talk more about FDR transients and
ask the EE forum a few more questions.

Take care.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Again, we note that you have spent no time answering my question--indeed, everybody's question--about the strange behavior of your imaginary conspiracy.

Why didn't your comic-book super-villains plant FDRs with the "right" data? We all agree that a real conspiracy certainly would have.

 

[DC]

Do Conspirators never make misstakes?
i dont want to say it was planted, but if, it is also possible they messed up the faked FDR.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Cheney. If you were going to devise the biggest conspiracy inside job known to man, would you commit one that relied on a one in a million chance that no one would see the plane fly over the building and just simply cross your fingers and hope no one happened to be video taping it?

But what conspirators are we talking about, let's be specific.

 

[pomeroo]

Do Conspirators never make misstakes?
i dont want to say it was planted, but if, it is also possible they messed up the faked FDR.

Hey, great hypothesis! They "planted" incomplete and damaged data on purpose. It was all a mistake. They intended to plant a FDR with supportive data, but they accidentally used the one from the plane that actually wound up inside the Pentagon. This could be one of the fantasy movement's greatest discoveries.

A psychotic no-planer named Rasga Saias believes that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy planted a random hunk of metal in the street--a hunk that absolutely no one has identified as an aircraft part--in order to persuade people at Ground Zero, many of whom watched Flight 175 crash into the SouthTower, that a plane really hit the building. He contends that the evildoers didn't trouble themselves to plant an actual aircraft part because they didn't think it was necessary.

 

[DC]

Cheney. If you were going to devise the biggest conspiracy inside job known to man, would you commit one that relied on a one in a million chance that no one would see the plane fly over the building and just simply cross your fingers and hope no one happened to be video taping it?

But what conspirators are we talking about, let's be specific.

Flyover? sounds strange to me. how much G would that be then if leveling out, allegedly caused already such High G-Forces.

sepcific? we talk about those that have planted the FDR, in case it was planted.

Conspiracy-Deniers seem to belive that such Conspirators are perfect and never make misstakes.