AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Reheat]

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.

Oh, I understand and comprehend obviously more than you. You have not established anything other than what pffft has brainwashed you into believing and your car computer example. Furthermore, you accuse us of speculating about a power failure, yet your entire premise is based on speculation.

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

Show me. I see none. Have seen none.

I fixed the quotes for you.

To quote a previous poster, "I'm not your servant, buddy".

If you open your myopic view and stay away from CT Internet sites, you might learn something new. I know this suggestion is in vain, but I'm obligated to provide it in the true educational spirit of this Forum. Have a good day, hard head!

 

[Turbofan]

This is a salesman, right?

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

What does it matter what his position is? He is verifiying the data to which
his products are certified.

What is your point?

Do you need an FDR engineer to read you the same information?

 

[~enigma~]

his products

his?

 

[Turbofan]

The NTSB provided data and animation reconstruction of that data (analysis)
from what they claim is the FDR from AA77. The NTSB calculates impact time
at 09:37:45 and many parameters which record many times per second are
recorded up till that time, such as pitch, roll, G forces.. et al..(the NTSB do
not claim there are "missing seconds").

The NTSB announced they want "everything as accurte as possible when
providing information through the FOIA". The NTSB makes a notation for the
clock annotation error (ETD/UTC) but does not account for any other errors
being claimed on the JREF (altimeter lag, rotated map, missing seconds, etc.).

The NTSB has been notified by P4T that their FDR data provided through the
FOIA does not support the govt story in terms of AA77 impact with light
poles and pentagon as plotted by the NTSB. The NTSB refuses to comment,
retract, correct, refute or offer side letters of explanation.

People who claim to be "experts" on the JREF (albeit anonymously) offer theory (FDR power loss at 0.2 G, absurd claim for anyone who looks at UA93
data) and allow the NTSB to distribute what JREFers claim is error filled data
through the FOIA to the American Public instead of contacting the NTSB
themselves. JREFers prefer to also plug their ears and close their eyes
instead of contacting L3 themselves regarding ED55 and TSO124.

Anonymous "Experts" have refused to debate P4T on air, on recorded line,
and have refused registration to those who would be able to debate the topic
(Rob wasnt banned, he was denied registration using his real name).

Some "experts" have refused to register to P4T forums and others have
doubled up their anonymity in the form of a sock (read: lie).

This thread, and many like it, are filled with ad homs, personal attacks and
attacking the person instead of the argument which is against JREF rules, yet
no one gets warned (except "troofers"). It is clear why you all hide out here
behind your screen instead of debating P4T on the topic.

It is also clear why many of you get banned at P4T as not one person with
any substance in their post can avoid ad hom and personal attacks.

Just for the record I have received two warning all the while many of you
continue to bash me. No big deal, just thought I'd mention it.

Sorry boys and girls, you can't have it both ways. Nothing you have said
adds up in the big picture.

 

[DavidJames]

his?

It's clear TurboFan has not worked in a business environment (or perhaps he has but wasn't able to comprehend it).

He seems to think a salesman's response about quality, reliablility and performance of a product to specifications under various circumstances would vary from the sales literature.

That he and his delusional friends would rely on a salesman for such clarifications is, well, delusional.

 

[Turbofan]

Here is a reply from Calum Douglas:

I am not in the slightest bit interested in getting into any sort of "debate" with anyone about 9.11; the evidence (either way) is
all out there and anyone with intelligence can form their own opinions.

However I am happy to answer your questions; if you want to post the answers on the JREF site thats absolutely
fine. I cannot answer all your questions right now in as full a manner as I would like as some of them require me to go and look at the data again (which
I have not done for several months).

However I can answer these right now, with varying degrees of accuracy.

1: "What are your overall thoughts about Pilots for Truth and their members
with respect to their credentials"

ANS: I`ve never met any of them in person so I cannot possibly say if they are real people or all made up by some
devious disinfo merchant. However I VERY much doubt that. Since I have no professional connections with their
activities in aviation I cannot give definite answers. All I can say is that there are alot of quite big names on the
member list (like Lt Col Jeff Latas) and the conversations I`ve had with Rob and others seem to be indicative of people
with a good knowledge of aviation issues and related technical matters. If you are suspicious it is up to you
to research aviation recorders and start talking to FDR companies to educate yourself and make your own descisions about people
based on their depth of knowledge in these matters. Personally I have total confidence in the people who have been involved in
the research done at PFT. Naturally I do not always agree 100% with all their conclusions; but such is the natural result from an organization
formed from human beings!

2: "What explanation do you have about the missing data at the end of
the FDR file?"

I don't have one, as far as my research went on this; the plane is about 1.5 >2 seconds away from the building at last position.
This is not particuarly surprising. All persons talking about having "8 seconds" or more missing are using the NAVLAT/LONG
positions which is via the inertial navigation system (basically using accelerometers to form a "relative positional map" based on a known
start point). These are NOT very accurate! An FDR expert in the UK informs me that you are lucky to get within a couple of miles
using the NAVLATLONG figures over a typical internal flight duration. These figures are NOT produced directly from GPS systems
(in this particular vintage of aircraft anyway).

3. "Based on the information extracted from the FDR file, do you believe
the aircraft was approximately 1600 feet from the Pentagon?"

I cannot remember off the top of my head, I will have to check this with the figures later this week.
But that figure sounds in the right "ballpark", thats just a guesstimate from memory! 1600 feet is about 530meters
and the plane was travelling about 240m/s, so very very roughly about 2 secs, which is -as I said- in the "ballpark".

4. "How does your analysis of RADAR altitude correlate to the distance
of the aircraft from the Pentagon?"

Pressure alt comes from a baseline of sea-level (29.92" Hg),Rad alt is bouncing off whatever surface is under the aircraft.
Subtracting pressure alt from Rad alt therefore gives you a somewhat primitiave ground elevation map. By plotting the known
flightpath into USGS (United states geographic survery) systems you can extract accurate elevation profiles for the path to the pentagon.
(the last few miles were fairly straight so its fairly useful). By matching major geographic features between delta pressure/rad alt against
ths USGS profiles you can correlate distance from the end of data. Knowing the speed and time, it is therefore pretty easy to find distance!
By itself I would not be able to use this to "find where a plane was" but because we know "roughly" we can get a useful correlation to help
judge the probabilities. I can go into this in much greater depth if you didnt get any of that.

5. "Since the video presentation posted on Pilots for Truth, have you
made any futher attempts to expose the omitted RADAR Alititude to
the public, or government authorities? If so, whom?"

I have not attempted to do so, I`m extremely buisy at university,

6. "Do you have any recent video analysis, or presentations that I may
view and share with others?"

See answer for Q5,

7. "What differences, or inaccuracies (if any) does the software you
used to analyse the data in 2007 have in comparison to any of the
software which might have been used in 2001?"

You are going to have to be ALOT more specific about that!
What software? Which particular anaysis etc....
I don`t have the software the NTSB used to do whatever it is they did; if that helps.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not expect me to get involved with any web forums. There are about 10% of people
any on any given forum (that is a general statement, nothing specifically about JREF) who are genuinely interested
in persuing analysis WHEREVER IT GOES, and 90% who will happily follow whatever that 10% think.
I do not get into online debates because they inevitably degenerate into insults and my time is far to precious to waste it
being called a "F****G truther"; whatever that is.

You are most welcome to post these responses and to relay back any further questions via this email address.
I make a point of putting this email address at the begining of my net videos so that persons can contact me directly rather than
engaging in fruitless bickering. Very very few people have ever directly emailed me with sensible questions. That fact is a matter of
great personal sadness for me.

Also; and this is FOR THE RECORD. I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL what really happened at the Pentagon and I will not
be goaded or persuaded otherwise until I am satisfied the data corroborates (within sensible reason) the other known evidence items.

I do not speak for PFT in this email, the opinions stated herein are my own and JUST my own.

I hope the answers help you and anyone else who feels it nessesary to make their own enquiries rather than trusting ANYONE else; and I do mean
anyone. I refuse to include statements in my talks that I have not personally gone over with a fine tooth comb. It is thus a grave mistake to "believe" me
or PFT at face value; just as it is a mistake to believe -at face value- that your government will never hurt you.

Educate yourself because nobody else will do it for you; and thats my best bit of advice.

Best regards

Calum Douglas

There you have it. If you have any follow up to this statement, you may
contact him directly.

 

[beachnut]

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:

A tripe filled video (where have you been, if this video had evidence to go with the innuendo and hearsay, the guy would be famous and have a Pulitzer Prize (do you understand reality, and how the real world works?). Good job finding the best example you could of no evidence, just hearsay and made up implications about 9/11. No Pulitzer Prize, why? Because it is made up fantasy, with hearsay.

You post a salesman for the FDR expert! You did great. You now see how someone can take what a person says and imply some super CT story, without having to prove it.

Now, you need to prove ED55 says what you said it says and that the FDR in 77 had to comply with ED55 according to the FAA. This is two things you need to do to confirm your expert salesman hearsay testimony which is not supported with the documents you are missing, and he failed to quote directly, or provide. Or do you believe hearsay, just what a person says without proof all the time?

When you find the FAA stuff, it says compliance with ED55 is not required if…

Can you find this FAA stuff? You sure did get me on the KDCA vs the DCA VOR. That was only a 3000 foot error for you; but you sure got me.

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.

Darn, he said typically. What was typical about 9/11? At least this is so definite, I now see how weak the salesman is for the nth time. So why did the FDR stop over 2500 feet or more from the Pentagon? Was it the FDAU being terminated, or was power lost? What did the salesman say?

 

[Turbofan]

A tripe filled video (where have you been, if this video had evidence to go with the innuendo and hearsay, the guy would be famous and have a Pulitzer Prize (do you understand reality, and how the real world works?). Good job finding the best example you could of no evidence, just hearsay and made up implications about 9/11. No Pulitzer Prize, why? Because it is made up fantasy, with hearsay.

You post a salesman for the FDR expert! You did great. You now see how someone can take what a person says and imply some super CT story, without having to prove it.

Now, you need to prove ED55 says what you said it says and that the FDR in 77 had to comply with ED55 according to the FAA. This is two things you need to do to confirm your expert salesman hearsay testimony which is not supported with the documents you are missing, and he failed to quote directly, or provide. Or do you believe hearsay, just what a person says without proof all the time?

No, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT TO YOURSELF! Get educated. You are basing your theory on
nothing. The spec and standards are out there.

When you find the FAA stuff, it says compliance with ED55 is not required if…

Can you find this FAA stuff? You sure did get me on the KDCA vs the DCA VOR. That was only a 3000 foot error for you; but you sure got me.

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.

Darn, he said typically. What was typical about 9/11? At least this is so definite, I now see how weak the salesman is for the nth time. So why did the FDR stop over 2500 feet or more from the Pentagon? Was it the FDAU being terminated, or was power lost? What did the salesman say?

I think I'm done here. Much to the happiness of many I'm sure.

You poor souls have trouble accepting data from salesmen who are relaying
specifications created and adhered to by the engineers of their company.

YOu poor souls would rather insult the messenger than call up and do
personal research on your own.

Great Approach. Have fun living in the dark.

I hope some of you will contact Calum, or other industry professionals
to help you understand what many of these anonymous 'experts' are
trying to feed you.

 

[applecorped]

I think I'm done here. Much to the happiness of many I'm sure.

You poor souls have trouble accepting data from salesmen who are relaying
specifications created and adhered to by the engineers of their company.

YOu poor souls would rather insult the messenger than call up and do
personal research on your own.

Great Approach. Have fun living in the dark.

I hope some of you will contact Calum, or other industry professionals
to help you understand what many of these anonymous 'experts' are
trying to feed you.

Goodbye. You will be missed.

 

[~enigma~]

Anonymous "Experts" have refused to debate P4T on air, on recorded line,
and have refused registration to those who would be able to debate the topic
(Rob wasnt banned, he was denied registration using his real name).

Anonymous - I suppose your first name is T-U-R-B-O and your last name F-A-N?

Oh, about Rob being denied registration here...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Big deal; that's only one slice of the pie my friend!

You still have to account for:

- Entry hole impact damage (photo)
- FDR data (NTSB)
- E4-B video from CNN
- Norman Mineta testimony on video
- The other witnesses contradicting your witnesses (video)
- Video of witness testimony claiming C-130 over 'AA77'

Why aren't you considering these facts?

Those factors are most certainly weighed in. What YOU are doing is trying to find only evidence that could suggest what you want to believe and using it to dismiss all the other testimony.

For example the impact damage disproves your claims.
The FDR data disproves your claim, you are simply manipulating it and using hearsay to try and pretend it supports your claim.
The video from CNN does not support your claim.
Minetta's testimony does not support your claim because his testimony has been shown to be off timing wise and even he does not agree with you. But Minetta is a good example of your logical fallacy. You have a room full of people who all agree on the timing and you have security logs and phone records that all agree with each other. Then you take one guy who's recollection of the time doesn't match and you try to use the one piece of evidence that doesn't match to dismiss all the rest of the evidence. That is what makes you a fraud.

In order to do this, you dismiss all the rest of the evidence, not us. You are the one dismissing all the security logs, the phone records, the eyewitnesses, the DNA testing, the RADAR records, the transcripts, and 1000 other things. YOU are the one who is selectively using evidence. And you use the weakest forms of it to try and dismiss the strongest forms.

This is why you and the other hacks at PFT are not taken seriously.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Bye Turbofan. Sorry your scam didn't work on the qualified experts. Back to convincing twoofers you go! Good luck cherry picking evidence!

 

[beachnut]

I think I'm done here. Much to the happiness of many I'm sure.

You poor souls have trouble accepting data from salesmen who are relaying
specifications created and adhered to by the engineers of their company.

YOu poor souls would rather insult the messenger than call up and do
personal research on your own.

Great Approach. Have fun living in the dark.

I hope some of you will contact Calum, or other industry professionals
to help you understand what many of these anonymous 'experts' are
trying to feed you.

Changing my post with your insult; good job.

I have looked up the FAA regs, you have not. You lack knowledge on this topic and have chosen poorly to remain in the dark on FAA reg and you can't post ED55, but, you seem to be posting for p4t expert pilot who has no idea how many feet are in a NM, let alone able to find ED55 and what the FAA says about 77's FDR, for 77, first flown in 1991, What was the date on the FAA directive for compliance with ED55? What does it say?


Calum told you he has nothing, and I have told you this is why he has no Pulitzer Prize.

1: "What are your overall thoughts about Pilots for Truth and their members with respect to their credentials"

They have pilots who believe in hearsay and manufactured ideas based on biases against the government, instead of facts and evidence. But they sell the ideas they make up for money! Cool.

2: "What explanation do you have about the missing data at the end of
the FDR file?"

He has no idea, but he is right, the best position you can get from the data is 2000 to 4000 feet off! So with the FDR, you are stuck with he don't know where 77 was! He tells you this. But if he was a pilot he could use the true track heading, and back that off from the Pentagon, and then use the DME to show where 77 could be. There is radar data also showing the path within the ability of ground based radar. There are witnesses who saw 77 hit the lamp posts, so we have a path of solid evidence, and the impact hole at the Pentagon to match to a flight path. When you really use all the data and stop throwing out real evidence, the FDR matches the flight path.

3. "Based on the information extracted from the FDR file, do you believe
the aircraft was approximately 1600 feet from the Pentagon?"

He just told you he can't place 77 from the FDR. But he gives you 2 seconds? What data does he use to pull out 2 seconds? The DME and true track heading have 77 about 4 to 4.59 seconds to away, all within the real path 77 was on. Not the fake non paths p4t are unable to support. He just posts 2 seconds based on nothing. Good job. At least he tells you he does not really know.

4. "How does your analysis of RADAR altitude correlate to the distance
of the aircraft from the Pentagon?"
If 77 is 3 to 5 seconds away from the Pentagon, the data fits fine.

5. "Since the video presentation posted on Pilots for Truth, have you
made any futher attempts to expose the omitted RADAR Alititude to
the public, or government authorities? If so, whom?"

The NTSB tell everyone they did not decode the RADALT. This is just fodder for people who want to make up lies about 9/11. The answer is posted by the NTSB for all to download in the FDR file. So sad to see manufactured false information.

You poor souls have trouble accepting data from salesmen who are relaying specifications created and adhered to by the engineers of their company.

You have a salesman, he tells you the specification required from the European agency, not his company! He does not tell you what the FAA said about 77 in 1991. Why are you using hearsay blindly? You have failed to have anyone in 9/11 truth, or p4t, supply you with ED55, and the dates of FAA compliance for 77 which first flew in 1991.

You are using pure hearsay so far to support your fantasy idea 77 did not hit the Pentagon, proven wrong on 9/11! You have been wrong before you posted over 6 years ago.

The terrorist know what happen on 9/11, the passengers on flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes! You have had over 6 years and the best you can do is produce hearsay and spread lies and false information from others. It is not even original thinking.

Can you produce the documents needed or not?

No, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT TO YOURSELF! Get educated. You are basing your theory on
nothing. The spec and standards are out there.

Is this your advice to yourself, you spewed into my post? Next time put it in your own post. Fixed

When will you produce the spec and the standard applicable to 77?

I think I'm done here. ...

Never... ?

 

[WildCat]

Here is a reply from Calum Douglas:



There you have it. If you have any follow up to this statement, you may
contact him directly.

No need to contact him, it's obvious from his answer there are no actual FDR experts at the PFT.

A pilot is no more of an FDR expert than a truck driver is an expert in how his truck's computer works.

 

[beachnut]

People who claim to be "experts" on the JREF (albeit anonymously) offer theory (FDR power loss at 0.2 G, absurd claim for anyone who looks at UA93 data) and allow the NTSB to distribute what JREFers claim is error filled data through the FOIA to the American Public instead of contacting the NTSB themselves. JREFers prefer to also plug their ears and close their eyes instead of contacting L3 themselves regarding ED55 and TSO124.

I may be anonymous to you, but others have used my real name. Research is grand.

I said low G can effect loss of generators in some planes. That is true, and as an instructor in the jets I flew, I had to teach the recovery steps to other pilots for this loss of GEN.

You mention flight 93 had no problem with negative Gs, I assume you meant something, but failed to tell everyone the rest.

Different engines, and different FDR system, different airlines! Did they have the same generator drive, on a entirely different engine system from a different company? What do you know, p4t have no clue and since they call those who look up this crap, government loyalist (GL)? Maybe 77 is resistant to negative G, and low g generator loss like many planes. I flew a plane which lost generators when upset and placed in a low g, below .2 g, to some negative or zero G. This is called a discussion. If you want to be like Rob and p4t, make a big deal and stop trying to figure out a small part of 9/11, that does not affect what happen because many things can happen to have missing data from a FDR! For all those expert at p4t, they are mighty slim on out of the box thinking.

Since FDRs can have lost data for many reasons, and there are many examples; I present one of many;

September 2, 1998: At 21:18 Atlantic daylight time (ADT), Swissair Flight 111 Took off! It crashed later.
September 15, 1998: The TSB investigation team determines that both the FDR and CVR stopped recording while the aircraft was at an altitude of approximately 10 000 feet, approximately six minutes before the aircraft struck the water.

An aircraft which lost data. Not 2 to 8 seconds, but 360 seconds.

Oh no; SwissAir FDR was an L3 Communications (formerly Loral/Fairchild) Model F1000 ; L3, now a history of lost data. Lots of lost data! 93 had a Allied Signal SSFDR, not L3? No wonder the data on 93 was there for the most part! ........../tic

I expect a goal post movment soon.

I think I'm done here. ...

or not...

I can think of many ways data can be missing from the FDR, on the model installed in 77. The discussion is kind of a waste, 77 did hit the Pentagon, and the FDR does support all the other data if you study it.

When I tell you Rob is deficient in physics, Rob provides the web site with the proof! It is not an attack on Rob, it is showing you who you are working with. If Rob worked with you, an error like his 11.2 g in your business would trash engines!

When Rob tells you everyone is a government loyalist who disagrees with him, Rob is a liar! He has no proof of the GL term to be true! rob ignores the fact he has no evidence to support his position on calling everyone who disagrees with him a GL, just like the ideas he tries to imply without making a real commitment to making a theory or conclusion. He expects to sell these idea to you and others who will agree with the implications made by you, not enough for Rob to refine a real position, and not a single shred of evidence to back up the leap you make based on Rob's false ideas! He is only guilty of spreading hearsay and you do the rest with your own CT mind.

So, when you get advice form the expert pilot running p4t, who has no idea what part of the electromagnetic spectrum a radar altimeter operates, you should question it and get the source material, which Rob will not give you, and examine it yourself so you can be the one who uses logic and rational thought to come to a reality based conclusion, and stop following others.

 

[ktesibios]

Turbofan's attempt to tell us what an SSDFDR should do by analogy to an EFI controller in a car is genuyinely hilarious. The one is a data recording system used in a product manufactured in rather low volume while the other is an embedded controller used in products that are manufactured in the millions.

For the automotive industry, the kind of standardization prescribed in the OBDICII standard is beneficial, as it makes troubleshooting and repair generally accessible. In fact, even the smog test machines used here in CA plug into the OBDIC port.

Airlines, however, aren't taking their planes to Joe's Shadetree Mechanics for maintenance and repair, and when a gummint agency has to get involved with FDR data, as in a crash investigation, they can count on the full cooperation and support of the aircraft manufacturer and the FDR manufacturer to sort out the airplane's particular data format and whatever customizations of it were done for the airline.

If Turbofan wants to convince anyone sane about how a particular SSDFDR should respond to wonky power or funky incoming data, the only acceptable support would be a citation from the SSDFDR manufacturer's technical literature for that product. Since he claims to be trying to obtain tech data from L3, it's clear that he has no such information to cite and is only regurgitating what some conspiracist Web site claims.

If I were to tell you that when the automation software crashes on an SSL 9000K computer the OS should save a register dump and other diagnostic information to a text file in a specific location on the hard disk, how would you determine whether or not this is a credible claim?* I could probably boost my personal credibility on this issue by citing my rather extensive work experience with the techie side of this product, but if you wanted really proper corroboration you would have to hold out for a cite from SSL's technical lit. Failing that, you would be perfectly justified in rejecting the claim as "not proven", and if my only support were making an analogy to how a piece of word processing software worked you would be perfectly justified in saying "Tell it to Sweeney".

*As it happens, this is true, but if I were to post proof from the service manuals or service bulletins I would be violating an NDA as well as my personal sense of ethics.

 

[Turbofan]

I'm sorry, Beachnut's post was so bad I had to repsond again.

I said low G can effect loss of generators in some planes. That is true, and as an instructor in the jets I flew, I had to teach the recovery steps to other pilots for this loss of GEN.

Prove this applies to 757-200 jets.

You mention flight 93 had no problem with negative Gs, I assume you meant something, but failed to tell everyone the rest. Different engines, and different FDR system, different airlines.

Oh no, different airlines and different FDR!!! What shall I do?!

Please tell me what your point is, and what bearing this may have?

This is exactly like saying a DELL computer and an IBM computer can't
run the same software!

The name of the airline doesn't matter, and neither does the MFG of the
FDR!!

They confrom to a SPEC and are certified the same way. Either FDR must
meet the 500 millisecond store time!

You call yourself a competent individual, yet you show now knowledge of
the system!

An aircraft which lost data. Not 2 to 8 seconds, but 360 seconds.

Oh no; SwissAir FDR was an L3 Communications (formerly Loral/Fairchild) Model F1000 ; L3, now a history of lost data. Lots of lost data! 93 had a Allied Signal SSFDR, not L3? No wonder the data on 93 was there for the most part! ........../tic

I expect a goal post movment soon. or not...

Once again, you have no clue of how this all works. You forgot to tell
everyone one important thing about Swiss Air and why it lost 360 seconds
of data.

Why don't you tell everyone WHEN and HOW the FDR lost power. Is it
anything close to what happened to UA93, or AA77?

Even JAYDEEHESS understands how to compare apples to apples. He's looking
for FDR's of planes which struck mountains to draw some sort of parallel.

YOu could learn a thing of two from JAYDEEHESS and how to set up experiments
and do research!

I can think of many ways data can be missing from the FDR, on the model installed in 77.

We're all waiting...please humour me.

When I tell you Rob is deficient in physics, Rob provides the web site with the proof! It is not an attack on Rob, it is showing you who you are working with. If Rob worked with you, an error like his 11.2 g in your business would trash engines!

Show your math and correction for the math. Use forumlas, images, or
diagrams if you need to.

So, when you get advice form the expert pilot running p4t, who has no idea what part of the electromagnetic spectrum a radar altimeter operates, you should question it and get the source material, which Rob will not give you, and examine it yourself so you can be the one who uses logic and rational thought to come to a reality based conclusion, and stop following others.

[/QUOTE]

I pray that anyone reading this thread understands how incorrect Beachnut's
claims are.

For the record, nobody has come forth with the following:

- Explanation of odd entry damage to support right engine and tail section of AA77 passing through.

- FDR RADAR Altimeter missing from CSV File

- Up to two seconds missing for CSV file

- Pressure altimeter not correctly set on descent in NTSB video

- Why NTSB Animation stops short of impact to Pentagon wall

- How an FDR functions and stores data

- Proof that an FDR takes longer than 500 milliseconds to store data
while powered

- Explanation of E4-B video (CNN)

- Norman Mineta's testimony (C-SPAN video)

 

[Turbofan]

Turbofan's attempt to tell us what an SSDFDR should do by analogy to an EFI controller in a car is genuyinely hilarious

Is it really that funny? Tell me ktesibios, are you stating for the record
that an FDR does not store fault codes if a sensor fails to respond, or
other trouble occurs on the aircraft?

Are you also stating that the write time from sensor read to SS storage takes
longer than my scanner from sensor to screen (displayed)?

Hint: ED55 and TSO-124

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow. I had no idea how absurd Turbo's logic was until now. While Beachnut can explain why, another reminder that for the sake of argument we were to say that the FDR was faked and there was no plane or whatever fairytale version of an insane conspiracy theory with no factual basis other than trying to nit pick on the work of real researchers...

That you are left with an explanation that is out o a really badly written and impossible science fiction action movie staring bruce willis. And as always ignoring all the data that proves all of these things imossible and instead pretending to nitpick on details that no one can conclusively prove one way or the other and instead making huge assumptions on them so as to fit a pre-determined conclusion because using all of the data would force him to dismiss his own conspiracy fantasy. Ah, the motto of PFT.

Go ahead Turbo and tell us what happened. Take it away!

 

[SDC]

I thought he already said goodbye. How can we miss him if he won't go away? (Song cue!)