tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If your beliefs define reality you must be god.
AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
If your beliefs define reality you must be god.
Hi SDC,
I am getting my information from a recorded telephone interview between
Ed Santana and Rob Balsamo.
The same specs are available within the links I posted, so there is no
error in relay.
Here is some more reading for you and the others:http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf
P.S. To the guy with the analogy of highway speeds, and a speeding
car related to a computer?
Your assumption/theory about losing certain data cells upon impact is garbage!
First of all, the CRASH PROTECTED MEMORY is CERTIFIED to 3400 G's.
3 -4 -0 -0 g's
AA77 could not have produced anywhere near that value upon impact.
It would have made more sense if you stuck with the loss of power theory!
Last edited:
Likewise, just because you think something happened to the data upon
impact doesn't mean it happened.
At least I'm providing links and proof to show the capabilities, performance
and safety measures built into the FDR to protect the memory.
YOu are not; therefore my case is much better supported.
Inch accurate? Try like hundreds of feet discrepency!
That is far outside the limits of the altitude and DME tolerances.
Guess what, the DME value shows 1.5 nautical miles from the BEACON at DCA.
The RADALT shows hundreds of feet too high (giving the best case scenario).
The Pentagon video doesn't match the FDR
The raw data doesn't match the animation
So many inconsistencies, and your best response is "time slip error"?
Tell me something, if the time stamps are wrong, then why is DME 1.5 nautical
miles (last stored value)? You are taking the speed of the plane into consideration correct?
What is your case for the distance and speed then?
Once again, why does the animation stop short of the impact with missing
data in the CSV?
I don't believe anyone has posted the FDR build specs yet?
I don't believe anyone has asked the question about DME vs. Time stamps.
Please do tell.
Thanks.
Sorry, that is incorrect.
Crash protected memory states that the data is safe up to 3400 G's.
Check out the specifications to meet certification.
This means what ever is stored up until power is removed from the FDR
is kept safe.
P.S. For the person that asked why I have returned, it is because I now
have the chance to discuss this topic with Anti. I also posted information
pertaining to questions that I was asked to supply. I will not answer those
who are rude, or do not engage in topic related conversation.
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Of course you completely ignore the fact that the equipment when through hundreds, or even thousands of take-offs and landings. Even though it could take a single 3400 G jolt, the stresses of normal use can take it's toll. When was the FDR certified? What is the schedule of re-certification? When was that FDR last serviced?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
In my day-to-day life I too don't generally engage with persons that are rude to me. You however are asserting that your (FDR) evidence proves that the 64 people on board AA77 did not die in a crash into the Pentagon. That is a serious allegation. I would argue with the devil himself if I was so sure of my proof. I'd shout it from the rooftops, I'd stop paying my taxes to the corrupt United States federal government.
Why will rudeness from strangers on the Internet shut you up regarding such important information?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Forgive me Beachnut but if I read this correctly you are saying that the last recorded altitude was 2504 and the crash site is 2400 feet. That means that the last recorded altitude is 104 feet above the crash site and in that data frame of the DFDR it was doing 487.5 knots, banked at 142 deg and pitched down 41.1 deg. with a time to impact of approx 1/8th of a second.(approx 1/4 of the 500 ms spec that Turbofan quotes)
On another note I again ask why PfT and Calum Douglas and Rob Balsamo have not written up a technical report detailing the errors in the DFDR data as opposed to the accepted flight path of Flt 77 described by the bulk of witnesses and all the physical evidence.
This IS a very definite safety issue if the data stored on the DFDR is not reliable then something needs to be addressed and the sooner the better. DFDR data of crashes are used to determine the cause of crashes and what measures need to be taken to fix problems. This would not apply to Flt 77 as the plane was working just fine but it would apply to many other crash situations. Lives are at stake and those who believe that the DFDR data of Flt 77 is incorrect are busying themselves argueing about it on the internet rather than actually trying to do anything about it other than make bombastic phone inquiries to the NTSB. Where is the technical paper? Why has it not been submitted to the NYT, Aviation Weekly, Popular Science even? Why has it not been submitted to the NTSB, ICAO and the pilot's union, or Boeing and L3?
Perhaps TF would venture an answer to this. I do not expect him to know the thoughts of Douglas or Balsamo but would appreciate his thoughts on it.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
On the bombastic nature of PfT, an anecdote;
A local marina operator had a problem with Canadian Federal Wharf authority. Seems that in constructinga wharf they accidentally dumped a load of gravel next to his gas docks.
Whenever a Federal employee showed up at the wharf this operator would come out and scream and shout at him. He also screamed and shouted at the City engineer concerning this and he never got any action from anyone. I add that at no time did he calmly point out the problem. He went straight to shouting and threats of physical violence(he was a big guy).
He sold the marina and the next owner went up to the Fed employee doing the annual inspection of the wharf and calmly pointed out the underwater gravel pile and told him that it had been there since the wharf was built. A large backhoe was there 21 days later and removed the offending mass.
I leave it to others to see the significance of my story to the topic of this thread.
A local marina operator had a problem with Canadian Federal Wharf authority. Seems that in constructinga wharf they accidentally dumped a load of gravel next to his gas docks.
Whenever a Federal employee showed up at the wharf this operator would come out and scream and shout at him. He also screamed and shouted at the City engineer concerning this and he never got any action from anyone. I add that at no time did he calmly point out the problem. He went straight to shouting and threats of physical violence(he was a big guy).
He sold the marina and the next owner went up to the Fed employee doing the annual inspection of the wharf and calmly pointed out the underwater gravel pile and told him that it had been there since the wharf was built. A large backhoe was there 21 days later and removed the offending mass.
I leave it to others to see the significance of my story to the topic of this thread.
Good luck on getting a reasonable answer. I have pointed it out previously and earlier in this thread, but it was ignored.
This is the most important point brought up in this thread. It really is the crux of the matter of the alleged discrepancies with the FDR.
The Flight data record for 93 only stored 1/4 the data stored by 77.
93 had one more word of data stored after the final second.
There is lag in the pressure altitude (but darn, that would be in the other direction), I used an approximation for the pressure altitude correction, we need the real altimeter setting (what I call it) to be within 75 feet. Add some time for where the FDR is sitting on the airframe.
Was the spec p4t and turbofan stuck on, 0.5 sec lag, due to the problem with early digital storage. The speed to the secure chip is slow, the data pipeline was at 3072 bit/sec for 77, the same as the amount of data to be stored. As an engineer and a layperson, I see a problem! Any delays, and you have to buffer data outside the secure chip, to have it! If this is the case, if there were major delays and seconds missing, in 1996 the FAA order compliance with ED-55 for planes after 1996.
Poor Turbofan thinks 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and the reason the data is missing is a key? P4t and turbofan do not care about this stuff, they think it is a smoking gun, and they can not fit it logically into their non theory of 9/11. p4t make no theory, poor Turbofan does. Does he know Rob has lead him out on the weak branches?
Many FDR have lost data! Turbofan will find out Balsamo is a snake oil salesman. Someone who can keep classic, high performance cars in top running condition, is not dumb enough to fall for the lies and false information of Balsamo very long. Turbofan has much higher standards, he is the first one to POST real tech data to clear up some of the hearsay. If Turbofan wakes up, he will be better at recognizing fraud, and he will understand knowledge is the key for not falling for people making up lies due to their political biases and hate for others. (or to sell 15 dollar DVDs )
Turbofan will be mad when he realizes the .5 second does not mean anything for 9/11! Albeit, if 77's FDR was an old one, then it did not have to comply with ED-55, unless the model was specified to. It does not matter anyway. I should have told Turbofan this, as I have been told the same about this subject by others jrefers for a time!
Yes, if p4t cared about anything they would strive to improve the FDR. I suspect the specs required of FDR are in part due to failures in the past.
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Just the notion that a plan would be hashed just hoping that there would be a one in a million chance of no one seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon is hilarious.
What is the purpose of a FDR? Why is a tangent an electrical engineer and USAF Command Pilot interested in, have anything to do with the events of 9/11? Nothing!
Only the false information manufacturer (p4t), who says he has no theory at all on 9/11, makes an issue out of this! Why? To sell DVDs!
How many milliseconds go with the 3400 Gs?
If you keep this up, you will be more knowledgeable on flying and 9/11 than p4t! lol, and you will stop believing their paranoid inspired false information.
I learned much of this stuff in 1973 and in UPT in 1975 and continuously for all these years. No big deal, but you post some false junk, and there is no promise anyone will correct you, or cares to correct you. CAUTION, some of your posts contain data and idea not correct, and may not be correct, use that information with caution. lol
You are looking up more stuff than p4t know how to; how long before the light goes on for 9/11 issues with you? Bets?
Yours is the sort of devastating point that is so obvious that the frauds who are exposed by it have no choice but to close their eyes and ears and keep screaming. Yes, imagine the biggest conspiracy in history hinging on the possibility that NOT ONE PERSON would notice a commercial airliner diving toward the Pentagon and then pulling up at the last moment! I prefer to regard the CIT as frauds and liars, as the possibility that they might be serious just makes me very sad.
OldTigerCub
Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,619
I have been following this thread with a good bit of interest, though I have held off posting until now. I found the technical explanations offered by Anti-Sophist at the beginning to be fascinating, and they answered a lot of questions I might pose regarding the workings of a Flight Data Recorder. I would love to learn more about them (yeah...I'm a gadget geek) but doubt that I would be completely happy until I actually got to sit down and play with the real thing on a test bench.
As far as the discussion brought up by TF, I thought his questions were answered quite thoroughly.
A special thanks to Anti-Sophist, Reheat and Beachnut for a lesson well taught. I, for one, learned some valuable new information. It seems, though, it was apparently not well received by all.
I would have to conclude that in order to ignore or deny all of the information put forward by the specialists in their fields one would either:
(and please pardon my overuse of a beaten-down old analogy)
a) Not be able to see the forest because the trees are in the way.
b) Be so attached to one particular tree that they can't bring themselves around it to see the rest of the afformentioned forest.
c) Be intent on planting his trees in front of the forest in an attempt to hide it from others, and hoping that his trees attract more attention than the "hidden" forest.
or
d) Be a tree salesman who recognizes his sapplings are diseased, but who is desperate to sell them before they die.
Of course one could be totally disconnected from reality and think that any forest was planted just to keep people from seeing or buying his trees.
As far as the discussion brought up by TF, I thought his questions were answered quite thoroughly.
A special thanks to Anti-Sophist, Reheat and Beachnut for a lesson well taught. I, for one, learned some valuable new information. It seems, though, it was apparently not well received by all.
I would have to conclude that in order to ignore or deny all of the information put forward by the specialists in their fields one would either:
(and please pardon my overuse of a beaten-down old analogy)
a) Not be able to see the forest because the trees are in the way.
b) Be so attached to one particular tree that they can't bring themselves around it to see the rest of the afformentioned forest.
c) Be intent on planting his trees in front of the forest in an attempt to hide it from others, and hoping that his trees attract more attention than the "hidden" forest.
or
d) Be a tree salesman who recognizes his sapplings are diseased, but who is desperate to sell them before they die.
Of course one could be totally disconnected from reality and think that any forest was planted just to keep people from seeing or buying his trees.
Does anyone here actually look at the NTSB supplied CSV file?
If the last stored DME value was 1.5 nm, then how is you THEORY
about the time stamps being incorrect, valid?
Anti?
Reheat?
Beachnut?
Anyone else want to take a stab?
I see many of you conveniently forgot to comment about the FDR links.
So now that you know how to interpret the crash spec of the data recorder,
you can say good bye to the "IMPACT vs. Power" theory.
You can say good bye to the time stamp theory if you do the DME math
and airplane speed.
What's your next excuse and assumption going to be? What are you guys
going to do when I post the proof of L3 adhering to the spec before Sept 11th?
If the last stored DME value was 1.5 nm, then how is you THEORY
about the time stamps being incorrect, valid?
Anti?
Reheat?
Beachnut?
Anyone else want to take a stab?
I see many of you conveniently forgot to comment about the FDR links.
So now that you know how to interpret the crash spec of the data recorder,
you can say good bye to the "IMPACT vs. Power" theory.
You can say good bye to the time stamp theory if you do the DME math
and airplane speed.
What's your next excuse and assumption going to be? What are you guys
going to do when I post the proof of L3 adhering to the spec before Sept 11th?
Ok...I'm convinced or at least I almost was until I realized that you have this damning evidence that could convict so many people and honor the 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 yet you waste your time on here? What's your angle?
When are you going to stop looking up a goat's butt with one eyeball?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Turbo, again, please tell us what happened.