AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[X]

I'll be back with more soon. First of all, I need to work on Mackey and his claim that FDR's shouldn't stop recording before impact...yet the data stops 6 seconds before impact.

Gotta love when you catch someone in a contradiction.

There is no contradiction.

In fact, Mr. Mackey didn't even say what you claim he did.

Your post, quoted above, is a Straw Man.


Let's review what Mr. Mackey actually said, shall we?

ETA: The FDR data did stop. Since the FDR shows the aircraft well above the impact point, there can be no doubt that it did not record all the way to impact. And if there was no impact at all (as the no-planers will argue), there's no reason for it to stop at all. Very simple.

He is not saying that "FDR's shouldn't stop recording before impact".
He is saying that had there been no impact, the FDR would have continued to add data.

This does not mean what you so desperately want it to mean.
It means that data would have been recorded. It makes no mention of pauses, buffer time, data loss due to impacty, etc.
It makes no comment on whether or not the data should have stopped at impact, 6 seconds before impact, or an hour before impact.
It simply says that had there been no crash, more data would have been recored at some point in time.


You are either deliberately misrepresenting his words, or you are incapable of comprehending them. I'm at a loss to determine which.

 

[jaydeehess]

I will bring that to Rob's attention just for you, although the page clearly
outlines and explains the issue.

Maybe we can put a link to the video at the bottom?

More importantly, let's get back to the FDAU and word positions.

Well it seems TF's claim that the "11.2 G" (sic) calculations page has been corrected is false. It hasn't been corrected and instead PfT produced a video in which this is dealt with badly.

At no point does the video manage to prove the calculations done by Mackey to be false. In fact Mackey's approach is consistent with the way parabolic trajectories are dealt with in physics classrooms around the world.

Instead of doing calculations they drew a picture representation of the approach and then made some assumptions in drawing lines perpendicular to the supposed aircraft path. No explanation as to how perpendicularity at those points was established and one must conclude that they were drawn as they were simply because it looked perpendicular.

Next, instead of a parabolic flight path they assume a circular flight path and then calculate the centripetal acceleration that would result for an aircraft on such a path. How is it obvious that they path they choose is circular?The perpendicular lines they draw are equal radi. Geometrically that can only occur in a circle.

Far from 'exposing' Beechnut or Mackey all PfT have done is expose themselves once again as challenged in the feild of physics and mathematics.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh look at this, lapman replied and I didn't get a notice. Still no Anti?

He must have gone into hiding since he can't find his frame layout.

I'll be back with more soon. First of all, I need to work on Mackey and
his claim that FDR's shouldn't stop recording before impact...yet the
data stops 6 seconds before impact.

Gotta love when you catch someone in a contradiction.

you haven't caught anyone in a contradiction, you're just not too observant. Why do you assume he was saying the FDR stoped recording before the impact?

The CVR was mostly unusable. Does that mean that most of it didn't record before the impact? Why was data not recoverable from the CVR?

 

[ktesibios]

Instead of doing calculations they drew a picture representation of the approach and then made some assumptions in drawing lines perpendicular to the supposed aircraft path. No explanation as to how perpendicularity at those points was established and one must conclude that they were drawn as they were simply because it looked perpendicular.

Next, instead of a parabolic flight path they assume a circular flight path and then calculate the centripetal acceleration that would result for an aircraft on such a path. How is it obvious that they path they choose is circular?The perpendicular lines they draw are equal radi. Geometrically that can only occur in a circle.

In another thread Myriad examined the load factors that would be imposed by a circular trajectory passing through the points claimed by PfT- the top of the VDOT tower, the light pole and the impact point. Instead of trying to eyeball a picture, he did it using that handy tool coordinate geometry and proposed a method for checking the center and radius he came up with:

To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet. The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius.

It turns out that when you do this, the three results lie within an error band of +- 0.0001%, which is pretty darned good. Using that trajectory and the velocity also claimed by PfT, the resulting maximum load factor is 1.65.

To sum up: trajectories exist which pass through all three points claimed by PfT at the velocity claimed by PfT and which don't require extreme or even interesting load factors. This has been demonstrated by RMackey and Myriad, both of whom have explained their methods so clearly that anyone who paid attention in high school can haul out pencil, paper and calculator and check up on their results.

These findings explode the claim that AA77 would, in passing through the known points where it left traces of its passage at its last known velocity, have necessarily experienced frame-breaking loads.

Meanwhile, PfT offers nothing more than a lot of pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and expects them to be taken as Gospel, methodology and repeatability be damned. In doing this, their leading lights have routinely engaged in the equivalent of multiplying three apples by five oranges to get eight bananas, proving conclusively that they have no comprehension of how distance, time, velocity and acceleration relate to each other.

Such people aren't competent to do the books for a fruit stand. They have no business expecting to be taken seriously as analysts of FDR data.

 

[Turbofan]

There is no contradiction.

In fact, Mr. Mackey didn't even say what you claim he did.

Your post, quoted above, is a Straw Man.


Let's review what Mr. Mackey actually said, shall we?




He is not saying that "FDR's shouldn't stop recording before impact".
He is saying that had there been no impact, the FDR would have continued to add data.

This does not mean what you so desperately want it to mean.
It means that data would have been recorded. It makes no mention of pauses, buffer time, data loss due to impacty, etc.
It makes no comment on whether or not the data should have stopped at impact, 6 seconds before impact, or an hour before impact.
It simply says that had there been no crash, more data would have been recored at some point in time.


You are either deliberately misrepresenting his words, or you are incapable of comprehending them. I'm at a loss to determine which.

No, he said as quoted:

And if there was no impact at all (as the no-planers will argue), there's no reason for it to stop at all. Very simple.

Which directly contradicts his theory about 'six seconds of data missing".

He can't claim six seconds or clock sync error.

He cant' claim six seconds of data was erased upon impact.

None of his theories are complete and neither of them satisfy all of the
available info.

He was caught, and since then he has been changing his position.

The latest excuse is "4 seconds of NTSB impact time error", but now his
plotted positions don't equate with a speed of 500+ MPH.

His credibility as weak as it was prior to being exposed, is now even weaker.

P.S. Anti, still waiting for those word positions. You'll also be happy to know
I have transmit times for the RADAR altimeter at:

Minimum : 32 ms (Milliseconds)
Typical : 35 ms
Maximum: 42 ms

I'm just waiting on FDAU specs so I can bury your unsupported theory.

I'll post the contact info and tracking number if anyone wants to verify
the timing above.

 

[R.Mackey]

Care to explain that "contradiction" a little bit further? How does "if there's no impact at all, there's no reason for it to stop at all" translate into a conflict with "[an impact leads to] six seconds of data missing?"

I honestly can't tell if you're really that confused, or you're so desperate for a "gotcha" that you'll try the most far-fetched semantic argument I've ever seen.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't think he can get past confusing the end of the data with the impact time.

 

[Turbofan]

Come on Mr. Mackey.

I have you quoted as saying the FDR stopped recording six seconds prior
to impact.

Then you state there's no reason for the FDR to stop recording before
impact.

Do I need to waste my time, and another post to quote the passages?

 

[beachnut]

Come on Mr. Mackey.

I have you quoted as saying the FDR stopped recording six seconds prior
to impact.

Then you state there's no reason for the FDR to stop recording before
impact.

Do I need to waste my time, and another post to quote the passages?

You fail to comprehend the simple stuff.

You used 1.5 DME despite it is stored every .25 NM, only required to be store at 1 NM resolution. Your ignorance on accuracy and resolution make it impossible for you to understand why 77 is lined up for impact, proven by the last data stored in the FDR.

You will not learn. You have nothing right about the DME; why? This is just like your 64 wpm.

 

[R.Mackey]

You already quoted me, and the quote already clarifies that there is no contradiction.

See the quote in your previous post?

See where it says And if there was no impact at all?

That means the conclusion does not apply when there is an impact.

The loss of data was caused by the impact. Therefore, the quote does not apply.

There is no contradiction.

I tire of arguing the English language with you. You have been refuted quite comprehensively by multiple sources. I strongly suggest you start debating in good faith, if indeed that was ever your intent.

 

[jhunter1163]

Then you state there's no reason for the FDR to stop recording before impact.

Mr. Fan:

Mr. Mackey did not say this.

Thank you, Mr. Hunter

 

[funk de fino]

I don't think he can get past confusing the end of the data with the impact time.

this is it in a nutshell

regardless of what caused the missing data (and there is lists of other missing data in the FDR report) it is certain there is missing data

the convolutions and handwaves required to support the pfft position is beyond ridiculous

 

[ktesibios]

I'm just waiting on FDAU specs so I can bury your unsupported theory.

I think I see your problem. You've already decided what the conclusion should be, in the absence of the very data you need to draw a conclusion. Some things only work when they're done in the right order. Perhaps a picture would be helpful:

Don't get 'em mixed up.

 

[Turbofan]

Wow, guys. English, or read much?

Post 2381 of this page has [X] quoting Mackey.

This thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123618&page=9

Post 333 and 311 (orignal contradiction made)

Let me paste it again for those who don't bother reading:

The FDR data did stop. Since the FDR shows the aircraft well above the impact point, there can be no doubt that it did not record all the way to impact.

As for the cart before the horse, we already have the data. I'm doing
your work and Anti's work to prove once again, that his theory is garbage.

Guess how many times the RADAR Altimeter can transmit information in
one second (worst case max.)?

 

[bje]

Wow, guys. English, or read much?

Are you really that confused about the word "impact", Turb?

 

[R.Mackey]

Ah, is that what you're confused about?

You've confused retrievable archiving of data with the actual operation of the FDR itself. While it is possible the FDR actually lost power before impact, due to lesser impacts with poles or maneuvers, it seems most likely that it functioned until the aircraft contacted the Pentagon.

But, due to latency and data corruption, that means a loss of data. So:

The data that we have stops before impact.
The FDR itself was functioning until impact, but it was (as it always does) processing slightly stale data.
Look very carefully at the quote. It states, unambiguously, "the FDR data did stop." The two aren't the same thing.

Don't you think it would be easier to ask, rather than trumpeting about "contradictions" that you simply don't understand?

 

[Turbofan]

You already quoted me, and the quote already clarifies that there is no contradiction.

See the quote in your previous post?

See where it says And if there was no impact at all?

That means the conclusion does not apply when there is an impact.

The loss of data was caused by the impact. Therefore, the quote does not apply.

There is no contradiction.

I tire of arguing the English language with you. You have been refuted quite comprehensively by multiple sources. I strongly suggest you start debating in good faith, if indeed that was ever your intent.

Wake up! I already told you to come back after you learn how EEPROM flash
memory erases data.

Hint: Electrical

Hint: #2 Pages, blocks

Hint: #3, see image. Notice how the gates are arranged and how you can't
single out just a few seconds, or six seconds. They transistors are tied together in
parallel by an address line.

http://www.procision-auto.com/911/911_mem_block.JPG

Show me electrically how you can pick off any SINGLE tranisistor please

http://www.tigerdirectnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/flash-memory-operation-diagram.gif

Sorry Mackey, you can't fool me... maybe some of the guys here that don't
understand electronics and the real world.

Also keep in mind that after the plane crashes and there is no power to
record data in the FDR...there is also no power left to erase an EEPROM!

Try another guess.

 

[beachnut]

Wake up! I already told you to come back after you learn how EEPROM flash
memory erases data.

Hint: Electrical

Hint: #2 Pages, blocks

Hint: #3, see image. Notice how the gates are arranged and how you can't
single out just a few seconds, or six seconds. They transistors are tied together in
parallel by an address line.

http://www.procision-auto.com/911/911_mem_block.JPG

Show me electrically how you can pick off any SINGLE tranisistor please

http://www.tigerdirectnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/flash-memory-operation-diagram.gif

Sorry Mackey, you can't fool me... maybe some of the guys here that don't
understand electronics and the real world.

Also keep in mind that after the plane crashes and there is not power to
record data in the FDR...there is also no power left to erase an EEPROM!

Try another guess.

Not a thing you said has any relationship to 9/11 and your lie 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Mackey understands you are confused and you keep bringing up EEPROMS.

You don't understand how 1.5 DME is not the actual distance of 77 from the VOR due to resolution and accuracy. Fact, many possible causes for the FDR data stopping. I know how to stop the FDR, but you don't; why? I can also erase/change blocks of data with spurious signals.

I need you to explain why p4t failed to decode the second of data the NTSB did. This is real FDR stuff. Why did p4t industry experts fail to decode the last second the NTSB has?

 

[R.Mackey]

Wake up! I already told you to come back after you learn how EEPROM flash
memory erases data.

I know how EEPROMs work. I also know that damage mechanisms work in a way totally different than the intended function of an EEPROM. Should be obvious.

Show me electrically how you can pick off any SINGLE tranisistor please

Already told you. An overvoltage or unstable power during a write operation, caused in this case by collision leading to arcing in power supplies, can easily cause damage to nearby cells through parasitic capacitance. This is well understood.

And before you change the subject again, do you now understand your confusion about the "contradiction," or are you still confused?

 

[Turbofan]

I know how EEPROMs work. I also know that damage mechanisms work in a way totally different than the intended function of an EEPROM. Should be obvious.



Already told you. An overvoltage or unstable power during a write operation, caused in this case by collision leading to arcing in power supplies, can easily cause damage to nearby cells through parasitic capacitance. This is well understood.

And before you change the subject again, do you now understand your confusion about the "contradiction," or are you still confused?

No you don't know how they work, or you never would have touched the
six second "erased upon impact" nonsense.

Overvoltage? Did you forget about the integral LRC filter circuits and regulators?

Damage nearby cells! LMFAO!

You would smoke the entire chip before you 'damaged a cell'. We're talking
microns here, not miles buddy.

Give it up. Seriously, give it up. You are a joke. Any electronics engineer
would slap you if they read your reply.