AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[HyJinX]

Beachnut, you are incapable of comprehending the video, and graphic
content I posted.

The Pentagon police officers saw the plane north of the station and Annex.
They drew a line.

It's in the video.

Watch it. Listen to it.

There is nothing fake about it! You are in denial.

How can you possibly ignore officer Lagasse's testimony and believe
that AA77 hit the poles and path of destruction through the Pentagon?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Don't forget aboutthe other links I posted.
Have a nice day trying to deny this proof of testimony.

Lagasse is simply mistaken. It happens. Next.

 

[Turbofan]

This is not proof though. What exactly is "proof of testimony"? Wouldn't you want to rely more on physical evidence?

Why not? Why are your witnesses any better than mine?

Nice logic, and excuse!

There is more than just this video as proof. I've listed it here a billion
times, but it seems all of you just grasp at one item and make a semi-
complete theory to satisfy your denial.

Once again:

- Photo damage
- FDR
- E4-B
- Mineta

P.S. For those that didn't notice, Calum replied to me. What questions
should I ask him?

 

[Turbofan]

Lagasse is simply mistaken. It happens. Next.

But Beachnut says otherwise?

Gee, wowzers and Scooby Doo! JREF can't even agree on the same topic!

Nice stable and thorough research. I guess we can toss out all witness
testimony from either side then, huh?

What are we left with? FDR data and photo evidence.

Let's go with that alone shall we? Agreed?

 

[beachnut]

But Beachnut says otherwise?

Gee, wowzers and Scooby Doo! JREF can't even agree on the same topic!

Nice stable and thorough research. I guess we can toss out all witness
testimony from either side then, huh?

What are we left with? FDR data and photo evidence.

Let's go with that alone shall we? Agreed?

He means your videos are mistaken.

Do you get anything right? Why do you lack knowledge on 9/11 and post off topic?

 

[celestrin]

OK, I have received a reply from Calum. What shall I ask? Should I ask
him if he still believes "AA77" was too high to hit the Pentagon based
on the pressure and radar altitude?

Anything else before I respond?

As I've said, ask him why doesn't he laugh at PffT and your notions about "0.5-2 seconds" or "1600 feet" from the Pentagon. His own RADALT analysis totally rejects such numbers. Why has he failed to expose those misconceptions? Or did he change his mind about his own RADALT analysis? If that's the case - why? What did he do wrong?

How do you strip away one parameter when decoding a file from the
raw FDR file, and insert "Error" in all cells?

There was error in every cell for radalt in officially released csv?

Not sure, never tried. I would suspect the simulator would show an error,
or warning of some sort? Should I ask Calum this question as well?

So, you're just parroting some unsubtantiated claims from PffT then. Nice of you for being so honest. What makes you think Douglas would know anything about this? Remember, he presented a state of the art software for FDR analysis, software, which was made in 2007, tyring to compare it with software available in 2001.

 

[Turbofan]

FYI: I presented all questions to Calum, and awaiting a reply.

The e-mail also invited him back to this thread to reply directly.

 

[Myriad]

Ah, my mistake. It was the NTSB rather than the FAA that released Flight 77 FDR data that's missing data in the final seconds, which the manufacturer of the FDR knows with certainty could not really have been missing.

So, are you now going to show me where the manufacturer has contested this tampered data that wrongfully implies that their recorder was unreliable, in the press, in court, or in public?

No answer? No links? How predictably disappointing.

I guess everyone (including most Truthers) will just continue to conclude that the plane hit the Pentagon then.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[eeyore1954]

None. What are yours?

Who on this forum?

Do you have to be a scientist to understand a presentation made by an
industry professional?

I am sorry you misunderstood me. My question was what are the qualifications of the professionals you say interpreted the data.

What are your professionals qualifications in interpreting FDR data.

Why don't the Pilots for "Truth" do what is suggested by Reheat. Have an independent unbiased professional to examine the data .

Reheat
You're never going to get proper attention until someone competent and without a biased political agenda decodes and analyzes the data.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wowzer! Scooby Doo and oops!

Are you forgetting they contest the official flight path? They think they
saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

According to their testimony, the plane flew off course from the offical
story path.

SO WHAT HIT THE LIGHT POLES SMART GUY?!

edit: Wowzer! Oops! Selective research (scooby doo and Wile E!)

The selewctivity seems to be coming from your side TF.
the point is that there is not a single witness who had been in a position to witness impact who did not report that indeed, the plane hit the Pentagon. No one even states they had originally thought it hit an upper floor, which would be consistent with some being fooled that a plane that flew over the building had actually hit the building.

There are witnesses who put the plane over the widely accepted flight path and those who put it elsewhere. Someone is incorrect then. However the totality of physical evidence, the size and shape of the missing parts of the Pentagon wall, the damage patterns inside the Pentagon, the DNA etc., etc., etc., as well as the witnesses who describe the plane along the widely accepted flight path leads any honest person to conclude that the plane di indeed travel along the path described by the physical evidence and impact the Pentagon.

As for the DFDR data and the issues that Pft has with it;
I will look back at the last few pages of this thread in a bit but has the PfT or you written up a emotionless and technical paper on all the issues and submitted it to the NTSB? That is, have the technical details which you so wish to ask about here, have they been written down in purely technical fashion and been sent to the NTSB for comment?
If not, why not? It would seem quite the definition of 'spinning one's wheels' to be endlessly questioning people on internet forums or calling for face to face verbal debates on such technical details. there are many here who believe that Rob Balsamo actually wants to keep the status quo, that is to be constantly spinning his wheels. It would make his proclamations of attempting to get the truth[/] quite cynical if he is deliberatly keeping this an internet fringe discussion.

If you want expert opinions from the NTSB then you have to ask technical (not emotionally charged) questions of the NTSB.

 

[Turbofan]

No answer? No links? How predictably disappointing.

I guess everyone (including most Truthers) will just continue to conclude that the plane hit the Pentagon then.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You guys are quick to demand answers from me, and I'm doing my best
to respond to all of you at once.

I wish the same could be said about most of you in return. I'm still waiting
for answers, diagrams, proof....

With all that said, I'm trying to contact L-3 Communications to get the
specs and confirm their unit was installed on "AA77".

 

[jaydeehess]

Just for kicks does anyone know if the DFDR data from the SwissAir plane that crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia shows data being written all the way to impact? How about the Alasaka Airlines crash off the coast of California. IIRC that one has FDR data running out while the plane was still 500 feet or so asl. It was intact and plummeting to earth due to the loss of the trim control (horz stabilizer was free to move on its own), while SwissAir had lost electrical power.
Then there is the Egypt Air plane in which the pilot is presumed to have been commiting suicide, again an intact aircraft.

Now TF and Pft may state that in each of these instances the aircraft was experiencing conditions that could disrupt the flow of data or the writing of data, such as the loss of power by Swiss Air. However that would now eliminate just about every single air crash since most of the time this will be the case.
You must then look for aircraft that crashed but which did so while completely intact and running smoothly. Do we have an aircraft that hit a mountain in fog, or hit the ocean at night for eg.?
The crash must be a catastrophic and immediate break up on impact, not a shallow angle contact. Something must quickly and immediatly stop all systems withing milliseconds.(the time from first contact with the Pentagon wal to the time the end of the tail section reached the loacation of the wal would have been 200 milliseconds (+/- a few)
Given that PfT is doing research into how there could be missing data I am quite confident that they have researched crashes that would allow a comparison in this fashion. Anyone know here they have this?

 

[Turbofan]

I am sorry you misunderstood me. My question was what are the qualifications of the professionals you say interpreted the data.

Why don't the Pilots for "Truth" do what is suggested by Reheat. Have an independent unbiased professional to examine the data .

Who do you suggest has a look at this information that would satisfy
both sides of the argument?

Who is willing, qualified and not biased at this point in time?

Would it not be more effective, and/or easier to find someone on the
opposite end to try and disprove the PFT study?

 

[Reheat]

Would it not be more effective, and/or easier to find someone on the opposite end to try and disprove the PFT study?

You still don't understand, do you? Why would any of us (skeptics, debunkers, etc.) be interested in this at all. What do we have to prove?

There is a mountain of evidence that proves AA77 struck the Pentagon WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE FDR. This essentially makes the FDR irrelevant. Once you understand that, perhaps you'll then have a clue....

ETA: Since you keep referring to all of these aviation professionals at pffft, wouldn't it be in their best interests to determine questionable issues surrounding the FDR for the sake of FLIGHT SAFETY. After all, that is the purpose of the FDR in the first place. It is not a device to enable certain individuals to raise havoc on the Internet and sell DVD's to make a living or pursue a
politically motivated agenda.

 

[beachnut]

Who do you suggest has a look at this information that would satisfy
both sides of the argument?

Who is willing, qualified and not biased at this point in time?

Would it not be more effective, and/or easier to find someone on the
opposite end to try and disprove the PFT study?

What PFT study? p4t make no theories and have no conclusions.

How can they have a study? p4t only sell DVD filled with false implications about 9/11. Better rush over and buy them, they are on sale!
P4t is like chemtrail and bigfoot authors, in need of suckers to buy the wares of the internet versions of a snake oil salesman.

 

[Turbofan]

You still don't understand, do you? Why would any of us (skeptics, debunkers, etc.) be interested in this at all. What do we have to prove?

If you knew about the errors in the data, and how the FDR operates you
would not say this.

I've already tried to explain in basic terms how fault codes should be
written to the FDR when trouble is determined, but you fail to comprehend.

There is a mountain of evidence that proves AA77 struck the Pentagon

WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE FDR. This essentially makes the FDR irrelevant. Once you understand that, perhaps you'll then have a clue....

Show me. I see none. Have seen none.

 

[applecorped]

If you knew about the errors in the data, and how the FDR operates you
would not say this.

I've already tried to explain in basic terms how fault codes should be
written to the FDR when trouble is determined, but you fail to comprehend.

There is a mountain of evidence that proves AA77 struck the Pentagon

Show me. I see none. Have seen none.

That wasn't so hard to admit now, was it?

 

[~enigma~]

Show me. I see none. Have seen none.

After 7 years this argument from personal incredulity is all the vile truth movement could come up with?

 

[Turbofan]

What PFT study? p4t make no theories and have no conclusions.

How can they have a study? p4t only sell DVD filled with false implications about 9/11. Better rush over and buy them, they are on sale!
P4t is like chemtrail and bigfoot authors, in need of suckers to buy the wares of the internet versions of a snake oil salesman.

Here's the video. Enjoy!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522

Be sure to watch it all, because there will be a quiz. Ed Santana from L3
is feature via telephone interview.

Here is an e-mail exchance between L3 and PFT:

What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being
generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to the
protected memory of the recorder?

L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds,

Is the size of this recording delay regulated by industry or just
minimized by good design?

L-3 Response: Regulated per ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance
Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems.

In the case of a major accident like CFIT (controlled flight into
terrain) how much data (in terms of seconds of flight) is typically
lost? (For example signals still being processed by the DFDAU).

L-3Response:

With the use of the Solid State Flight Data Recorders,
typically, data is only lost at the point when power to the recorder or
FDAU is terminated.

 

[WildCat]

Show me. I see none. Have seen none.

So unless you personally see something happen it didn't happen?

 

[WildCat]

Ed Santana from L3

This is a salesman, right?

Ever wonder why actual FDR experts aren't on board with the PFT?