AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[funk de fino]

sigh.... Wildcat, we went over this pages ago. Why dont you remember? Here, let me refresh your memory. I'll bold the important parts.

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Technician or engineer??

No?

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Avionics technician or engineer?

No

Art Carran
Commercial Certificate
Instrument Rating
350 Hours TT
Piper, Beech, and Cessna single-engine aircraft
Professional Engineer, State of Ohio
Aerospace Engineer

Avionics? Electrical or electronics? Engineer? FDR?

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation,
including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters
Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation.
Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.

Techinician or engineer?

No


I have more FDR experience and avionics and electrical and electrnics aviation experience from a technical and engineering view than those guys except perhaps Arty boy. Not sure if his little aircraft carry FDR and CVR though.

 

[Turbofan]

I have more FDR experience and avionics and electrical and electrnics aviation experience from a technical and engineering view than those guys except perhaps Arty boy. Not sure if his little aircraft carry FDR and CVR though.

Well, if you're so qualified why don't you step up to the plate? I'll get any
one of those guys to backup their 'lack of experience' if you like.

What are you scared of? Afterall, you claim to be above them? What's
your name and how do I verify your claims?
FYI: THey are all engineers my friend.

Still waiting for Mac. to put his name behind his claims. This is not about
questioning his Electrical Engineering degree, but rather the internal function,
and circuitry of flight data systems.

Like I said, I took Mac's information and studied it further. Apparently, his
forte is not around FDR. You see, there's much more happening with protection
circuitry, build standards and encoding with flight data systems than you'll
find in your typical computer flash drive, or digital camera memory.

As you all question the validity and expertise of our experts I am now questioning
Mac's background and experience with FDR's. From what I see, he has none.

If he would like to step up and back his claims, I have at least one person
willing to discuss his theory head to head. We'll see if he is confident enough
to help out.

 

[beachnut]

Keep selling that to yourself "Wildcat" ... "mew"


The rest of us will click this link...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

...and watch the lists of 'experts' grow, while you continue to say your "FDR Experts" know more, yet cant decode an FDR file.... nor put their names to their claims to be confirmed as "experts".


Wildcat... did you know that "De-Nial" is not just a river in Egypt?

Your experts believe nut case ideas on 9/11. Your idea that 77 did not hit the Pentagon is pure fantasy and using the FDR to support your idea is pure junk.

Not one of your experts has any evidence to back up their opinions based on paranoid hearsay.

Your patriots believe nut case ideas on 9/11. They have less knowledge than you on FDRs. Next time pick an argument you have some evidence to support your position.


Your experts are full of pure junk when it comes to 9/11. I base this statement on the fact I can’t find a single thing they say to be true when it comes to 9/11. Read their information. Not a darn thing of substance. Great job exposing the total idiots on 9/11, thanks for showing us the web site for one stop shopping to find the biggest nut case ideas on 9/11.
7 years and still not a clue – that is 9/11 truth

FDR has lost data, or stopped, or have missing data, etc. The 500 ms is not related to 9/11 issues, your inability to understand the accuracy of DME and the storage limitation of DME in the FDR is the reason you can’t see the RADAR positions show 77 was seconds away from the Pentagon when the last data “decoded” in the FDR was recorded. This is ironic since you are off on some tangent and have no idea why the data is missing for the final seconds.

I have no idea how you can say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, the people on Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and your mentor terrorist apologist Balsamo has never refuted that fact as he sells implications of lies for 16 bucks a DVD. A real patriot for UBL, a snake oil salesman for the rest of us.

 

[twinstead]

I like how some truthers characterize their dying movement as 'growing' as if it's some kind of Snowball of Truth. Good stuff.

 

[Turbofan]

Your experts believe nut case ideas on 9/11. Your idea that 77 did not hit the Pentagon is pure fantasy and using the FDR to support your idea is pure junk.

Not one of your experts has any evidence to back up their opinions based on paranoid hearsay.

Your patriots believe nut case ideas on 9/11. They have less knowledge than you on FDRs. Next time pick an argument you have some evidence to support your position.


Your experts are full of pure junk when it comes to 9/11. I base this statement on the fact I can’t find a single thing they say to be true when it comes to 9/11. Read their information. Not a darn thing of substance. Great job exposing the total idiots on 9/11, thanks for showing us the web site for one stop shopping to find the biggest nut case ideas on 9/11.
7 years and still not a clue – that is 9/11 truth

Same ol' huh Beachnut?

Let's go over some simple facts for the folks here and those looking from the
outside in internet land:

- NTSB 'experts' do not claim missing seconds, or data erasure.

- L3 claims no more than 500 msecs. missing for thier product. This is also
built to a specification and certified in order to be used in a commerical aircraft.

- A flight data recorder is built to a higher specification than most home
electronics. A flight data recorder also has transient suppression and rejection
to handle extreme impact forces...unlike the typical consumer electronic
device.

If any of the "techs" here have had the opportunity to work on consumer
product vs. high end military grade devices, they will know the difference.

You will also know the testing, and workmanship standards between both.

Another guy on our side:
Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle UniversityManagement analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

and yes... he's an engineer too

Keep on denying the independent research and new data. Keep on denying
the conflicting government data sources. Keep on denying the science.

P.S. When:
- new experts join a forum
- more members join a forum
- new professional bodies organize a forum
- every seminar spoken captures a new audience
- petitions acquire more signatures
- etc., etc., etc.

This indicates a growing movement. Just remember, most of these forums
are only two years old. Check out the post counts, member lists of any
truth movement forum and public speaking events in your community.

Far from dead. You might want to focus on the growing numbers over the
next few months as well.

Oh yeah, Jaydee...have you found that tech paper yet?

 

[A W Smith]

Well, if you're so qualified why don't you step up to the plate? I'll get any
one of those guys to backup their 'lack of experience' if you like.

What are you scared of? Afterall, you claim to be above them? What's
your name and how do I verify your claims?
FYI: THey are all engineers my friend.

Still waiting for Mac. to put his name behind his claims. This is not about
questioning his Electrical Engineering degree, but rather the internal function,
and circuitry of flight data systems.

Like I said, I took Mac's information and studied it further. Apparently, his
forte is not around FDR. You see, there's much more happening with protection
circuitry, build standards and encoding with flight data systems than you'll
find in your typical computer flash drive, or digital camera memory.

As you all question the validity and expertise of our experts I am now questioning
Mac's background and experience with FDR's. From what I see, he has none.

If he would like to step up and back his claims, I have at least one person
willing to discuss his theory head to head. We'll see if he is confident enough
to help out.

Same old same old. names names names. Listen. it's really very simple. Put up or shut up.

 

[beachnut]

doubt he went to school

 

[TjW]

Like I said, I took Mac's information and studied it further. Apparently, his
forte is not around FDR. You see, there's much more happening with protection
circuitry, build standards and encoding with flight data systems than you'll
find in your typical computer flash drive, or digital camera memory.

You're not going to be happy with any expert that doesn't agree with your conclusion.

Still, if the chips CAN'T have the problems, why would anyone go to the bother of adding the weight, cost, and additional points of failure of "protection circuitry"?

 

[Turbofan]

Same old same old. names names names. Listen. it's really very simple. Put up or shut up.

We have put up. Waiting for any of your excuse making experts to come
forth.

P4T has offered:
- live debate
- forum debate
- radio debate

Your guys - nothing but excuses.

Your movement sweeps aside:
- several witness accounts of a North approach
- a recently released FAA animation of a north approach (verified authentic FAA?)
- conflicting government released data to the official story
- Llyod's impossible account involving the alleged aircraft

How can you call yourselves thorough investigators and reasonable thinkers
when you have GOVERNMENT data which conflicts the official story?

You'd rather listen to faceless members making up theories than research
the real stuff?

Get on the phone and start calling up manufacturers. Start interviewing
real people. Get educated.

 

[TjW]

Why the insistence on a performance rather than a paper?

 

[Turbofan]

Why the insistence on a performance rather than a paper?

Who says we don't have a paper?

Aside from that, video and audio presentations.

Radio interviews.

A growing list of professionals with real names standing up for this research.

Why the denial of independent research?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So where is this paper?

And I see that the record player is skipping again and the same arguments which have been proven wrong are getting repeated again.

But can you provide a link to this technical paper?

 

[dtugg]

When am I going to hear on the news that the courageous patriots of PfffffffT and CIT have proved that no plane hit the Pentagon by using the FDR found in the Pentagon and witnesses that say a plane hit the Pentagon?

 

[Bobert]

I have TF on ignore thankfully.
Am I following this correctly though?
PFTT are now trying to get personal info on MacGyver?
He was kind enough to come over here and he seemed to tolerate TF more then most sane folks would and this is how he is repaid by TF?
Seems like TF is a child standing in the corner throwing a fit.
Seriously TF the rest of the sane world views you as completely nuts with this type of behavior.
I do hope MacGyver comes back and sees this though and responds.
It makes for great entertainment though to see how everytime an outsider looks at the CIT/PFT they then turn on that outsider.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

When am I going to hear on the news that the courageous patriots of PfffffffT and CIT have proved that no plane hit the Pentagon by using the FDR found in the Pentagon and witnesses that say a plane hit the Pentagon?

Yes and apparently there's a technical paper. Just waiting for Turbo to provide the paper for us. I almost to think it was patriotstryingtomakeaprofitoff911.org.

 

[Turbofan]

So where is this paper?

And I see that the record player is skipping again and the same arguments which have been proven wrong are getting repeated again.

But can you provide a link to this technical paper?

Proven wrong huh?

Why don't you tell me the odds of 5 people (disconnected) drawing and
describing a north flight path?

What are the odds when 10 people do the same thing? How about 11, 12, 13, etc?

Try an experiment:

Go talk to 10 people around your city (who are not familiar with each other)
about a FAKE event.

Get them on video describing what they saw.

What are the chances that your ten testimonies will be able to tell you
the exact same thing?

What are the chances that these people could MAKE UP the same story
if it were fake?

Use your head.

 

[Turbofan]

I have TF on ignore thankfully.
Am I following this correctly though?
PFTT are now trying to get personal info on MacGyver?
He was kind enough to come over here and he seemed to tolerate TF more then most sane folks would and this is how he is repaid by TF?
Seems like TF is a child standing in the corner throwing a fit.
Seriously TF the rest of the sane world views you as completely nuts with this type of behavior.
I do hope MacGyver comes back and sees this though and responds.
It makes for great entertainment though to see how everytime an outsider looks at the CIT/PFT they then turn on that outsider.

I haven't turned on anyone.

I'm simply asking the same questions you all do about the experts.

Does Macgyver have any FDR experience? Has he worked on any?

If so, which ones? What type?

If not, how can he possibly know what's going on inside?

It turns out, there are some people that would like to question his knowledge
because it doesn't make sense. Like I said, I have his name...I'm not looking
to expose him. I'm just doing my research and it turns out he's not giving
a plausible theory.

We have experts with names standing by waiting for him to accept the
discussion and clear up any misconceptions.

Should be fun to watch huh guys?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

When it comes to eyewitness testimony? The odds are very good. Especially when we're talking about people trying to locate something in the sky which is very hard to do at the time, let alone many years later and through interviewers who are misleading and not very honest. I mean you seem to have no problem dismissing those people when they claim they say the plane hit the pentagon right? What are the chances of that many people seeing a plane hit the building? Your own argument doesn't really help you there does it?

And yet you have no problem with the chances of a huge airplane flying over top of the building in front of 10's of thousands of people and not a single one seeing it go over. What are the chances?

I guess it seems pretty suspicious until you remember that you are cherry picking information and dismissing far more evidence than you are accepting. They aren't making up a story. There's a reason why *real* investigator avoid relying on witness testimony. Classic crackpot technique is to use the least reliable evidence to try and dismiss the most reliable evidence.

But that technical paper you mentioned should clear a lot of things up.

Do you understand what a head is?

 

[beachnut]

Same ol' huh Beachnut?

Let's go over some simple facts for the folks here and those looking from the
outside in internet land:

- NTSB 'experts' do not claim missing seconds, or data erasure.

- L3 claims no more than 500 msecs. missing for thier product. This is also
built to a specification and certified in order to be used in a commerical aircraft.

- A flight data recorder is built to a higher specification than most home
electronics. A flight data recorder also has transient suppression and rejection
to handle extreme impact forces...unlike the typical consumer electronic
device.

If any of the "techs" here have had the opportunity to work on consumer
product vs. high end military grade devices, they will know the difference.

You will also know the testing, and workmanship standards between both.

Another guy on our side:
Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle UniversityManagement analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

and yes... he's an engineer too

Keep on denying the independent research and new data. Keep on denying
the conflicting government data sources. Keep on denying the science.

P.S. When:
- new experts join a forum
- more members join a forum
- new professional bodies organize a forum
- every seminar spoken captures a new audience
- petitions acquire more signatures
- etc., etc., etc.

This indicates a growing movement. Just remember, most of these forums
are only two years old. Check out the post counts, member lists of any
truth movement forum and public speaking events in your community.

Far from dead. You might want to focus on the growing numbers over the
next few months as well.

Oh yeah, Jaydee...have you found that tech paper yet?

You have zero people with rational ideas on 9/11. Your 77 flyover or no impact lie is backed up solely with paranoid hearsay. At least Balsamo adds humor to the practice of physics with 32 Gs and 11 G total junk analyses.

This is not an obsession with p4t, it is point out real stupid ideas and failed math skills, and faulty application of physics. I now have a great example why kids need to succeed in math and physics; so they will not look like complete idiots and make fantasies based on ignorance.

If you had evidence you would not be making up the big fantasy, waving your hands about the FDR and producing nothing to support your lie.

You do have the support of the only group in the world who can’t hit the side of a building in the safety of a flight simulator. Pilots for truth, who sell implications of lies on DVD. Your lack of evidence is proof of the p4t failure and the only thing you and p4t can do correctly is push nut case ideas on 9/11. Like Bigfoot and UFOs, you have failed to find evidence.

 

[Baylor]

Proven wrong huh?

Why don't you tell me the odds of 5 people (disconnected) drawing and
describing a north flight path?

What are the odds when 10 people do the same thing? How about 11, 12, 13, etc?

Try an experiment:

Go talk to 10 people around your city (who are not familiar with each other)
about a FAKE event.

Get them on video describing what they saw.

What are the chances that your ten testimonies will be able to tell you
the exact same thing?

What are the chances that these people could MAKE UP the same story
if it were fake?

Use your head.

No external validity. Experiment rendered useless.

However, there have been experiments in eyewitness testimonies in which validity was controlled. They found changing one buzz word from a question can completely alter an eyewitness's account of what he or she saw.