AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

[

Ed Santana said your ideas are nut case ideas on 9/11. Check it out! Call him up, tell him 77 did not hit the Pentagon. What a joke!

We spoke to him, had permission to record him, and its on our front page. He said no such thing. Produce evidence of your above claim or admit you lie.

John Ritter says your ideas on 9/11 are pure junk. Check it out, call him up and tell him how 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

LOL... John ritter is dead.

Did you mean Jim Ritter? Beachnut, you dont even know who signed off on the Flight Path Study. I dont expect you to have proof of your claims. But we already spoke to Jim. Did you miss it?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=904

The rest of your post is the same old repeated nonsense which has been addressed repeatedly.

Beachnut, you're fun to play with. You remind me of my grandpa... awwww.. kisses.

 

[beachnut]

We spoke to him, had permission to record him, and its on our front page. He said no such thing. Produce evidence of your above claim or admit you lie.



LOL... John ritter is dead.


Did you mean Jim Ritter? Beachnut, you dont even know who signed off on the Flight Path Study. I dont expect you to have proof of your claims. But we already spoke to Jim. Did you miss it?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=904

The rest of your post is the same old repeated nonsense which has been addressed repeatedly.

Beachnut, you're fun to play with. You remind me of my grandpa... awwww.. kisses.

Jim Ritter thinks your ideas on 9/11 are stupid and insane. Did not miss that! Did you?

Like I said, tell him you think 77 did not hit the Pentagon and see what he thinks about your idea! Did Balsamo tell him what he thinks? Did you call Jim and tell him your ideas on 9/11?




You have failed to show 77 did not impact the Pentagon with FDR information.
You can't produce anything from your lies of experts to support your ideas on 9/11.

At least you have the expert physics of Balsamo which brought us 11.2 Gs of stupid calculations. Not one of the experts at p4t could help Balsamo before he posted his stupid analysis.

Yes, it was Jim Ritter, not John. Jim Ritter thinks your ideas are stupid. Call him and tell him you think 77 did not hit the Pentagon based on your exert FDR. When will you tell us what he thinks of your idea?

How cute. You don't remind me of my grandkids, they can take evidence and form rational ideas, unlike you who ignores evidence and says 77 did not impact the Pentagon.

Guess your list of evidence from your experts is very short.

Oh, I have it here:
1.

That was short. Thanks

Seriously, please list their support for your ideas. So far the stuff I found from your experts does not support a thing you say.
The Jim Ritter stuff does not support anything you say. In fact, trying to use him to support your ideas is not very smart; you don’t have his permission. He does no support your ideas. This is typical Balsamo twisting stuff and pathetically trying to use what people say to support his insane ideas on 9/11.

Thanks

 

[Turbofan]

Jim Ritter thinks your ideas on 9/11 are stupid and insane. Did not miss that! Did you?

So you have no evidence of such a claim. Thought so...

Yes, it was Jim Ritter, not John.

Yes, i saw you edited your post after i corrected you. Glad to help you out Beachnut.

Jim Ritter thinks your ideas are stupid.

See, now heres a lesson in "hearsay" Beachnut. What you claim above is "hearsay". (i personally think its a lie). What we provide is recordings, not hearsay. I hope you are able to understand the difference now.

Call him

We called both Ed Santana and Jim Ritter. They both do not agree with your "missing seconds" claim and think your theory is absurd.

Kisses and Hugs

 

[beachnut]

So you have no evidence of such a claim. Thought so...



Yes, i saw you edited your post after i corrected you. Glad to help you out Beachnut.



See, now heres a lesson in "hearsay" Beachnut. What you claim above is "hearsay". (i personally think its a lie). What we provide is recordings, not hearsay. I hope you are able to understand the difference now.



We called both Ed Santana and Jim Ritter. They both do not agree with your "missing seconds" claim and think your theory is absurd.

Kisses and Hugs

Go ahead tell Jim Ritter and Ed Santana you think 77 did not impact the Pentagon due to your expertise in analyzing the FDR.

You never told Jim Ritter or Ed Santana your ideas; Ideas they find repugnant and false.

You can prove me wrong by having them say they support your idea 77 did not impact the Pentagon on tape, just like your drive by cherry picking stupid stuff Balsamo does to sell implications of lies on DVD.

Gee, have you got the papers on the aircraft accident investigation courses yet?

What about the statements from your experts supporting your FDR study that you use to say 77 did not impact the Pentagon?



Prove me wrong, present to the world a recording of Ed Santana (your salesman you use as an FDR expert) and Jim Ritter, saying your idea of 77 not impacting the Pentagon is a great idea. Come on, do something beside repeating the cherry picking of Balsamo to support dumb ideas he makes up.
What were Balsamo's big FDR contributions? 11.2 Gs? What?

 

[Turbofan]

hearsay

Edited by Tricky: 

Do not change the words of other posters in your quote boxes.

Beachnut, once again you provide zero proof of your claims. You are a liar.

If you had taken the time to listen to our recordings with the NTSB, much of it is No Comment from them. I know you said you had listened to it, but perhaps you forgot.

Bottom line, the NTSB nor L3 makes no such claim of "missing seconds" and you are soon about to find out why, and then rest of your JREF cheerleaders will then realize why so-called "experts" like you refuse to debate P4T, yet you spend more than 9000 posts on the JREF obsessed with P4T. Thanks for the publicity.

 

[jaydeehess]

You've posted the names of your experts TF. Thank you, I for one await the posts by Ed Santana and Jim Ritter that will refute what MacgyverS2000 has had to say.

 

[dtugg]

CIT didnt draw the flight paths. The witnesses did when filmed on location. If you are going to debate the topic (which is actually off topic), you may want to at least watch the film.

Which eyewitness drew this one:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/DewittLocations.jpg

The fact remains, the North Of Citgo flight path is aerodynamically possible. No one can expect a witness to state exact path down to the inch, within knots... etc, except of course JREFers like you?

Sure, A North of Citgo path is possible. I could just draw a straight line and a plane could, aerodynamically do that. But we don't want any old one, we want one that is more or less consistent with what CIT's witnesses say. And no, nobody expects them to get it exactly right, an approximation is good enough. After all, there are 13 of them, so if you average it all out, it should come close to what it "really" was.

Make up your minds. If i do the math, its impossible due to witnesses. If i dont do the math, its impossible because i didnt do the math. Bottom line, e^n proved the North of Citgo flight path is aerodynamically possible. Make your minds.

As stated above, we don't want just any old North of Citgo flight path, we want one that is more or less consistent with what the independently cooberated CIT witnesses say.

 

[Turbofan]

You've posted the names of your experts TF. Thank you, I for one await the posts by Ed Santana and Jim Ritter that will refute what MacgyverS2000 has had to say.

You really think those guys are going to waste their time on here? Why don't
you pick up the phone like we did?

Mac. and other theorists:


Here are a few reasons why a transient cannot initiate an erase procedure.
You can order up your own copy of this document as did our experts. Maybe
Mac has a copy since he works with Flash EEPROM



Reference Intel Stratflash
253856-001

7.1 Block Erase Overview

To initiate an erase operation, the Block Erase Setup (0x20) and Confirm (0xD0) commands are

issued to an address within the partition or block to be erased (see Figure 8). If the device is placed

in standby (CE# deasserted) during an erase operation, the device completes the block-erase

operation before entering standby. Also, VPP must be above VPPLK and the block must be

unlocked.

During a block erase operation, the Write State Machine (WSM) executes a sequence of internallytimed

events that conditions, erases, and verifies all bits within the addressed block. Erasing

changes “zeros” to “ones” - memory array bits that are ones can be changed to zeros only through

programming.

The Status Register can be examined for block-erase progress and errors by reading any address

within the partition or block that is being erased. The partition/block remains in a Read Status

Register state until another command is written to that partition or block.

SR7 indicates partition or block erase status while the sequence executes. SR7 = 0b0 indicates the

device is busy; SR7 = 0b1 indicates the erase operation has finished, and the Status Register

contents should be examined. If set, SR5 indicates an erase failure, SR3 indicates VPP was outside

of its acceptable range, and SR1 indicates the erase operation attempted to erase a locked block. In

all cases, any error(s) will cause the erase operation to abort.

Before issuing a new command, the Status Register should be cleared of any errors using the Clear

Status Register command. Any valid command can follow, once the block erase operation has

completed.

Here is a flow chart of the quote. Understand what needs to happen in
order for an erase command to execute. A few transients which are filtered
out by circuits are not able to write codes and confirm

Some basic electronics and essential transient protection circuits:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/zener.html

http://www.satcure-focus.com/tutor/page5.htm

Notice the output difference when transients are filtered:

This is the reason why the NTSB does not claim any missing seconds of data as do the
annoymous "experts" here.

 

[Bobert]

You really think those guys are going to waste their time on here? Why don't
you pick up the phone like we did?

In other words AS USUAL these people DON'T support CIT and if you call them THEY WILL TELL YOU THIS.
These people don't know that terrorist hugging frauds like TF and the CIT are throwing their GOOD NAMES around.
You have COMPLETELY FAILED TF at trying to muddy MAC's good reputation.
He was kind enough to engage you despite your false pretenses and then you turned on in typical CIT fashion when it was discovered that he doesn't support your delusional frauds.
Seek help.

 

[R.Mackey]

Once again. That is how a normal erase happens.

What you are claiming is like saying the only way to make a written letter illegible is to use correction fluid. It Ain't So.

Twenty pages and you still haven't absorbed this fact. It's time to hang it up, son.

 

[beachnut]

...
Here are a few reasons why a transient cannot initiate an erase procedure.
...

Please explain why what you posted supports what you said.

You posted junk and waved your hands, and said transients cannot erase data. Why are you always wrong on these issues?

 

[Turbofan]

Once again. That is how a normal erase happens.

What you are claiming is like saying the only way to make a written letter illegible is to use correction fluid. It Ain't So.

Twenty pages and you still haven't absorbed this fact. It's time to hang it up, son.

You still haven't caught onto the fact that electronic circuits are not a piece
of paper upon which you can dump correction fluid.

You must obey the erase procedure required by the EERPOM MFG! Last time
I check, Intel didn't use "WhiteOut" to remove data and reset gates.

I thought you were an electrical engineer Beachnut? Don't you understand?
Just like I have to repeat for mackey, the gates require voltage to reset
to a '1' state, along with a set of instructions which must be confirmed
before the erasure occurs.

 

[Bobert]

TF,
I know that the truth hurts but please dont send me nasty PM's.
I have never PM'd you and would appreciate it if you WOULD NEVER PM me again.
You should send the same nasty PM to other JREF members.
Please let me know how that works out for you.
Maybe you should spend more time dragging MAC through the mud, I dont think you have done enough of that.

 

[R.Mackey]

You still haven't caught onto the fact that electronic circuits are not a piece
of paper upon which you can dump correction fluid.

We'll just add "simile" to the list of concepts you can't grasp, and leave it at that.

You must obey the erase procedure required by the EERPOM MFG! Last time
I check, Intel didn't use "WhiteOut" to remove data and reset gates.

You only "must" if you want (a) predictable results and (b) a valid product warranty. There are other ways to screw up EEPROMs. It's all been explained to you over and over and over again. You have no excuse other than sheer incompetence for still not knowing this.


Never mind. Welcome to Ignore, enjoy your stay.

 

[Turbofan]

I would appreciate it if you stay out of tech threads and quit following
me around with your nonsense.

The PM was sent to keep the board clean, but you're not smart enough
to handle this via PM.

Be a man, and take it elsewhere. This thread is meant for tech., not
your games.

Hopefully the mods will see it my way ...

 

[Turbofan]

We'll just add "simile" to the list of concepts you can't grasp, and leave it at that.



You only "must" if you want (a) predictable results and (b) a valid product warranty. There are other ways to screw up EEPROMs. It's all been explained to you over and over and over again. You have no excuse other than sheer incompetence for still not knowing this.


Never mind. Welcome to Ignore, enjoy your stay.

Please explain to me and the world how a transient gets through the regulators
and manages to issue the commands and confirmations to set the erase
process?

Please...please tell me how the spike escapes the circuits, all the while
power is decaying and not able to bias the gate.

Your explanations fall short, and now since posting the Intel docs, you
simply ignore the facts.

 

[jaydeehess]

You really think those guys are going to waste their time on here? Why don't
you pick up the phone like we did?

You said that your experts would post here and when pressed about who your experts were YOU listed those two men. Now you wish to say they will not post here, that they are not your experts. So you list them when you deem it convienient but minimize them when it isn't.

Mac. and other theorists:


Here are a few reasons why a transient cannot initiate an erase procedure.
You can order up your own copy of this document as did our experts. Maybe
Mac has a copy since he works with Flash EEPROM..............

all of which deal with normal operating conditions. I have seen spikes from discharging capacitors exceed 10 times normal operating voltages when a switching power supply carps out. I have seen protection ccts get destroyed on both ends of a long data line and still not protect the equipment on either end. THAT should not happen. It is analogous to taking a row of stamps and pulling on them and having the perforations between them rip such that the center stamp falls to the floor.

This is the reason why the NTSB does not claim any missing seconds of data as do the
annoymous "experts" here.

So you have a quote from the NTSB stating as much do you?
PfT has a statement from L3, Santana, Ritter, the NTSB, ICAO, a pilot's union, or a recogized expert in the feild of FDR crash data analysis stating that an FDR cannot, under any circumstances, have the last few seconds of a flight of an intact aircraft be unrecoverable?

Those statements would be listed right next to those of the flyover witnesses and those who saw agents scurrying about with lamp posts I suppose.

 

[Bobert]

LOL I think most of the people on this forum are still waiting for you to post ONE THING and get it correct.
MAC has already spoken and basically exposed you further.
If you have a problem with a post of mine you are more then well aware that you can report it.
The vile that you post via PM igoes beyond what you are stating here.
Also TF you are a mod so you can dictate who is allowed to post within a thread.
Get a clue.

 

[funk de fino]

Be a man, and take it elsewhere. This thread is meant for tech., not
your games.

Yet you have failed to provide an avionics tech or engineer from your list at pft that has direct experience with FDR of around 10 year? Presidents of boards do not work with FDR.

Why do you want to talk about mil spec now when you did not before?

 

[dtugg]

Hey Turbofan, when again is your fantasy going to hit the news and the perps put on trial?

Oh and where is the flightpath that is consistent with what the CIT eyewitnesses describe and proven possible using math?