AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[beachnut]

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?

CSV file, yes.
What about the time stamps being incorrect, what do you think you mean? 1.5 DME is stored, so? DME is not updated every second. As was said earlier by others, Douglas, and I, there is no way to place the position of 77 closer than 2000 to 4000 feet. Even RADES data is off by some error, and is only collected every 12 seconds or 5 seconds depending on the system.

What FDR links?

You seem to missing tons of evidence, have you studied this much? I mean the whole Pentagon. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary you need to go back and review each link here before you waste time on the FDR which does not have anything to do with 9/11 except it has the data from the last flight of 77. Not just 9/11 but 25 hours of the aircraft. Proving the FDR is real, and making your ideas on 9/11 false.

What is the time stamp theory and why does 1.5 DME make a difference?

When you post proof the FDR on 77 has to adhere to .5 second delay/lag/time/junk, it will not prove any of your 9/11 ideas about 77. Sad to say, the only thing you can prove is you lack knowledge and believe the lies of p4t, yet p4t never say 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Or have they dropped their no theory mantra and now standby a lie? You really mean to say when you prove the FDR has to meet ED-55! It will me NOTHING. This is a dead-end tangent that has nothing to do with the fact, the FACT, 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11 flown by a terrorist, albeit poorly flown, but then he did crash into the largest target there was besides PA on 9/11!

Think about this as you pursue a tangent which means nothing, even if the FDR meets the spec of ED-55.

77 hit the Pentagon. Anyone who has evidence to prove 77 did not hit the Pentagon has a Pulitzer Prize! Do you have a Pulitzer Prize yet? Does p4t? No, the only thing p4t has is the badge of crazy for making up wild ideas and more crazy is the fact they can't produce one theory or conclusion. You make up the theories and conclusions for p4t from their false ideas they plant in your head. Not much of an free thinker, are you?

Got a Pulitzer Prize yet? It took less than 2 years for Woodward and Bernstein, and the President had to resign. 9/11 truth has yet to produce a single piece of evidence to support their ideas on 9/11. You are in the same boat.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Your assumption/theory about losing certain data cells upon impact is garbage!

If you are completely ignorant of how they are built, you might believe that. Someone with even the most trivial understanding of how solid state recording works understands perfectly well what will happen during failures to the locale being written to. This has absolutely nothing to do with the memory's capabilities to withstand g-forces.

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.

Interesting yet irrelevant. Please learn the argument I am making before attempting to debunk it.

This fact is completely and utterly irrelevant to the equally true fact that the data that was being written during the crash was most certainly corrupted. This seems to be a re-occuring thing with ALL of you pilots for truth people, you think one non-related thing can just be repeated over and over and make the very complex issues all go away.

Just like the "500ms" doesn't mean what you think it means, and doesn't cover as much as you think it does, equally, the 3400 Gs doesn't mean what you think it means and doesn't doesn't cover what you think it covers.

No amount of quoting G-force ratings changes the fact that the area being written to will be corrupted during a crash just by nature of the fact that it was interrupted mid-write.

At least I'm providing links and proof to show the capabilities, performance
and safety measures built into the FDR to protect the memory.

Irrelevant links that neither disprove my theory, not support your own.

Inch accurate? Try like hundreds of feet discrepency!

That is far outside the limits of the altitude and DME tolerances

So? The animation wasn't made within "limits of altitude and DME tolerances". I repeat: neither the CSV nor the animation was made to be forensicly analysed. Therefore, your forensic analysis of both is fundamentally flawed before we've even gotten started.

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"?

Please stop with the strawman already. ALL of your silly "inconsistencies" have trivial answers. I've only given you one because up till now we've only talked about one. Please don't pretend that "time slip error" is the answer to all your profound misunderstandings.

I see many of you conveniently forgot to comment about the FDR links.

I've commented no less then 4 times. Nothing in ANY of your links supports your assertion because you've neglected to take into account numerous other effects. I am trying to explain this to you but you absolutely positively refuse to discuss the issue. Instead, you continuously change the subject.

 

[Anti-sophist]

By the way, you've ignored this question:

Ok, I re-read some of the arguing that I skipped over the first time and I am really sick of repeating this, so I'm going to pose a question, and maybe from here we can isolate the problem.

The final RADALT reading from your decoding, how much time occurred (or what range of times) between the moment the plane was that high and the plane impacted the Pentagon. Give me a number. And then justify your answer. Was it at most 500ms between the moment the plane was X feet above the ground before impact? Is that your assertion?

And hopefully you've read and understand the original post, because there are -so- many issues I believe you to be completely ignoring (or assuming to be equal to 0 time) that are covered there.

Please answer it if you want to continue this discussion with me. I'm not going to play these silly subject changing games with. Either you can justify your theories, or you can't.

I want to know at what time, t, was the plane X feet off the ground, where X is the final RADALT number. And I want you to justify that answer. We both know your entire theory hinges upon this magical number so please do your best to convince us that has convinced you.

 

[funk de fino]

Well, I guess you haven't read the document, or the follow up quote:

You have maybe read it but you do not understand it

So , yes it does mean that specifically. It's a SPECIFICATION.

Does not specify what you think it does.

Well, for your information, in order to certify a passenger jet, the
FDR must meet that criteria. Don't worry, I'll provide that info as well.

Again it does not mean what you think it does. I think you need english lessons

In the mean time, maybe you can call up some sources and ask them what it takes to get an airplane certified for flight.

carry on, certified does not mean what you think it does either

epic failure posting

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Are we to believe that the plane crash that was severe enough to make the voice recorder unreadable could have damaged some of the FDR recorder? Does the voice recorder not have the same standards and requirements? How does one explain that one survived and one did not. The FDR is made infallible while the VCR is not? Why wouldn't they make both infallible?

 

[Turbofan]

This fact is completely and utterly irrelevant to the equally true fact that the data that was being written during the crash was most certainly corrupted. This seems to be a re-occuring thing with ALL of you pilots for truth people, you think one non-related thing can just be repeated over and over and make the very complex issues all go away.

It seems to me you are overlooking and ignoring the fact that the animation
stops before impact.

There are cells of data missing before POWER INTERRUPT, or IMPACT!

If YOU understood how things worked, you would be very concerned
that the animiation particulars do not match the file!

Why?

Because the Animation is based on the data file! If something doesn't
match, it indicates TAMPERING. You load the file. The animation plots
the activity of the jet based on the values.

Do you now see a problem?

Just like the "500ms" doesn't mean what you think it means, and doesn't cover as much as you think it does, equally, the 3400 Gs doesn't mean what you think it means and doesn't doesn't cover what you think it covers.

"Think" it means? No...how about KNOW it means. It's also listed in the
documents I linked.

Once again:

500 ms absoluate maximum time for sensor information to be written to
crash protected memory.

3400 G is the rating at which the FDR information is certified to be safe
in the event of a crash.

Are you going to dispute the documents that everyone has access to?

No amount of quoting G-force ratings changes the fact that the area being written to will be corrupted during a crash just by nature of the fact that it was interrupted mid-write.

I would agree, however there was no power interrupt, or impact at the
time these cells were 'effected'.

So? The animation wasn't made within "limits of altitude and DME tolerances".

For the trillionth time: the animation ends before impact! Why is the data
missing if there was no impact, or power interrupt?!!

You can't go back in time and erase data AFTER the impact point.

Capice?

I repeat: neither the CSV nor the animation was made to be forensicly analysed. Therefore, your forensic analysis of both is fundamentally flawed before we've even gotten started.

I repeat. The animation is based on the data file input. If there are mistakes
in the animation that are found inconsistent with the raw files it has been
tampered with!

Keep on avoiding the questions and black and white info. I'm not going to
answer any more of your requests until you back up and start answering
mine.

Until I see some math, or a complete case study contesting PFT's research
I consider you just another GL, or theorist.

I need not redo the information that is already available through PFT. I
support and agree with all of it 100%. That's the answer to your question.

 

[Turbofan]

By the way, you've ignored this question:

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist
Ok, I re-read some of the arguing that I skipped over the first time and I am really sick of repeating this, so I'm going to pose a question, and maybe from here we can isolate the problem.

The final RADALT reading from your decoding, how much time occurred (or what range of times) between the moment the plane was that high and the plane impacted the Pentagon. Give me a number. And then justify your answer. Was it at most 500ms between the moment the plane was X feet above the ground before impact? Is that your assertion?

And hopefully you've read and understand the original post, because there are -so- many issues I believe you to be completely ignoring (or assuming to be equal to 0 time) that are covered there.

Please answer it if you want to continue this discussion with me. I'm not going to play these silly subject changing games with. Either you can justify your theories, or you can't.

I want to know at what time, t, was the plane X feet off the ground, where X is the final RADALT number. And I want you to justify that answer. We both know your entire theory hinges upon this magical number so please do your best to convince us that has convinced you.

I find this to be one of your funnier arguments, and the reason i replied to
this thread upon reading the OP.

According to you, there can't be more than two seconds missing:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2237875&postcount=337
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2239284&postcount=341

I don't think there is that many data points missing. My best guess is 1-2, so 2 at the most. The problem, of course, is the altimeter is not correct because it's not calibrated for those speeds and pressures.

If you have a way of quantifying the altimeter error given the airspeed, I'd love to see it. From my initial research on the issue, I thought that question was a non-starter.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2002910&postcount=43

You will also note the video presentation I linked by Calum Douglas.
You will also note the image linked showing the min/recorded/max DME
values from the beacon at DCA.

Let me ask you this:

If DME is not sampled every second (I'll have to look up the polling time),
then the last stored update occured on, or before the LAST poll request
of the RAD ALT sensor , CORRECT?

You can put that DME value at an EARLIER time stamp, and then it makes
it worse for your arguement.

If you leave it as-is, the plane is still too high to hit the poles.

If you advance the time stamp, the plane does not line up with the light
poles because a 1.5 nm radius gets you outside of the window at 500 MPH.

I'll be back with my calculations, even though I already stated that I agree
with Calum and PFT's findings.

 

[Turbofan]

Here is another good link for you to follow. I believe you are featured in
this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4801

If the FDR is missing seconds as many claim, why did the NTSB plot many
CSV file parameters up to the 'impact' time they calculated?

Why havent they corrected it?

Why do you people make excuses and accept the NTSB/FBI distributing
error filled data through the FOIA to the American Public? Unprecedented!

Why do you people refuse to debate P4T and/or register at P4T?

Why do you refuse to go live with me, or others to shut us down? It's
no cost to you, and I promise I wont spread your personal info.

In fact, you can call me collect. I'll PM you with the number if you're
up to the task (Anti-sophist)?

 

[Anti-sophist]

It seems to me you are overlooking and ignoring the fact that the animation stops before impact.

Please see previous explanation of why "appeal to animation" is flawed reasoning.

Because the Animation is based on the data file! If something doesn't
match, it indicates TAMPERING. You load the file. The animation plots
the activity of the jet based on the values.

Do you now see a problem?

Other then the fact that you just made that up? No.

500 ms absoluate maximum time for sensor information to be written to
crash protected memory.

This does not mean what you think it means.

3400 G is the rating at which the FDR information is certified to be safe
in the event of a crash.

Neither does this.

For the trillionth time: the animation ends before impact! Why is the data
missing if there was no impact, or power interrupt?!!

See previous explanation of why "appeal to animation" is flawed.

I repeat. The animation is based on the data file input. If there are mistakes
in the animation that are found inconsistent with the raw files it has been
tampered with!

False. Animation involves at least some human input.

Keep on avoiding the questions and black and white info. I'm not going to
answer any more of your requests until you back up and start answering
mine.

Until I see some math, or a complete case study contesting PFT's research
I consider you just another GL, or theorist.

We've already provided the math demolishing every claim PFT has ever made. It's not my job to repeat the calculations for every convert to the pft-gibberish who wanders in and is too lazy to read the threads and/or use the search feature.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist
Ok, I re-read some of the arguing that I skipped over the first time and I am really sick of repeating this, so I'm going to pose a question, and maybe from here we can isolate the problem.

The final RADALT reading from your decoding, how much time occurred (or what range of times) between the moment the plane was that high and the plane impacted the Pentagon. Give me a number. And then justify your answer. Was it at most 500ms between the moment the plane was X feet above the ground before impact? Is that your assertion?

And hopefully you've read and understand the original post, because there are -so- many issues I believe you to be completely ignoring (or assuming to be equal to 0 time) that are covered there.

Please answer it if you want to continue this discussion with me. I'm not going to play these silly subject changing games with. Either you can justify your theories, or you can't.

I want to know at what time, t, was the plane X feet off the ground, where X is the final RADALT number. And I want you to justify that answer. We both know your entire theory hinges upon this magical number so please do your best to convince us that has convinced you.

I find this to be one of your funnier arguments, and the reason i replied to
this thread upon reading the OP.

It's not an "argument", it's a question. A question you've dodged twice. Answer it.

Tell me how much time passed between the moment the plane was at height X until impact, where X is the final RADALT reading. Justify your answer. How long are you going to make we wait on this?

I snipped the rest of your post because it was yet another attempt at changing the subject. I'm done letting you change the subject. Either defend your assumptions or go away.

 

[Turbofan]

We've already provided the math demolishing every claim PFT has ever made. Please stop demanding it and start reading.

Where? Link me up.

By the way, you are good at avoiding my questions and pawning off more
of your questions to stall.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Where? Link me up.

I don't want to pull a "proof by overwhelming" but I have no other option. PFT has made many stupid claims and they've all been analyzed in detail. All of the following posts contain debunking of at least one PFT myth:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109066
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108837
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77938
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69539
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65369
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65765
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65819
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62446

And many of the best pieces of information happen deep into the threads. I suggest you start reading.

By the way, you are good at avoiding my questions and pawning off more
of your questions to stall.

I am desperately trying to answer your questions but you refuse to stick to a single topic nor answer any of questions on the issue. I can assure you I want nothing more than to explain to you why your 500ms (your original point) doesn't mean what you claim it means.

 

[TjW]

Turbo, aren't you the least bit bothered by how clever and how stupid your hypothetical conspiracists are?

They're clever enough to plant light poles in broad daylight without anyone noticing.
They're clever enough to organize an illusion allowing a huge aircraft to fly away from a huge explosion in a huge building, with no one, from any vantage point whatsoever, noticing that it didn't actually crash. This even worked for thousands of people on the departure side of the Pentagon, whose attention would have been drawn by the sound of the explosion.
They're clever enough to plant airplane parts in the alleged crash that not only fooled first responders, but also experienced NTSB crash investigators.
They're clever enough to place their explosives in such a way that the damage they do completely fools the university engineers who evaluate the structural performance of the building.
That's seriously clever. And serious attention to detail.
But when it comes to the FDR, it's: "Ah, what the hell. I know there's still a few seconds left to fake, but it's beer-thirty, screw it, who'll notice if we leave it out?"

 

[lapman]

It seems to me you are overlooking and ignoring the fact that the animation
stops before impact.

Nobody is doing that. However, we understand that a working copy is not a final product, therefore, it's inaccuracies are irrelevant.

There are cells of data missing before POWER INTERRUPT, or IMPACT!

As been pointed out, the data goes into a buffer first. If the power interrupt or impact occurs before that data goes into protected memory, it's lost.

If YOU understood how things worked, you would be very concerned
that the animiation particulars do not match the file!

You obvious that you haven't a clue about how things really work. You think that things work to spec 100% of the time no matter what. It's a nice fantasy, but in reality, it doesn't work that way.

Because the Animation is based on the data file! If something doesn't
match, it indicates TAMPERING. You load the file. The animation plots
the activity of the jet based on the values.

Both values and parameters. If the parameters are wrong, the animation can be off. Go watch the special features of Shrek. They got just one parameter wrong and Donkey turned into a ChiaPet.

Do you now see a problem?

Yes. You need to finish school.

500 ms absoluate maximum time for sensor information to be written to
crash protected memory.

According to spec. However, in reality it didn't. Things like this happen to electronics all the time. Again, what is the schedule of re-certification of the equipment? What about it's preventative maintenance schedule?

3400 G is the rating at which the FDR information is certified to be safe
in the event of a crash.

See above.

Are you going to dispute the documents that everyone has access to?

I don't think that anybody is disputing the documents. However, we understand the reality of the situation.

No need to address the rest. It's all covered above.

 

[WildCat]

Why do you people refuse to debate P4T and/or register at P4T?

You have got to be kidding! Balsamo instantly bans anyone who disagrees with him, sometimes even before they can post.

 

[Turbofan]

False. Animation involves at least some human input.

What? File, Open, Click?

Maybe manipulating the data to change the altimeter on descent?


Here again is the video showing the calcs. I support it 100%
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947&hl=en

My support for this is:

- Cell DD, 37798 shown in the CSV file supplied by the NTSB

- The obvious cover up and error in the altitude shown in the animation

- The finding of RAD Altitude by PFT showing 273 feet AGL

Approx. 8000 FT linear descent rate to kiss the top of the light poles?!

When do I start laughing?

 

[Turbofan]

You have got to be kidding! Balsamo instantly bans anyone who disagrees with him, sometimes even before they can post.

I doubt it. You might want to try again.

As a matter of fact, I will personally guarantee that if Reheat, Anti-sophist,
Beachnut, or anyone here signs up that they will not get banned while
complying with forum rules.

It's a sincere invite. Take 2 minutes to sign up and show your concerns
to PFT's presented data.

 

[nicepants]

Don't waste your time at PFT

Why do you people refuse to debate P4T and/or register at P4T?

You have got to be kidding! Balsamo instantly bans anyone who disagrees with him, sometimes even before they can post.

I DID register there, but my attempts to carry on a meaningful discussion/debate were met with name-calling, personal attacks, and ultimately banning....this despite the fact that I never once broke the posted rules. Rob & his tween cohorts frequently broke their own rules, though...if I didn't know how old Rob was, I would assume he was 17.

I was banned because I was "getting on the nerves of the other members" and because the mod stated that he "doesn't believe in allowing one's enemy into one's own tent". (So much for any intelligent debate)

Turbo: I hope you recognize that members of this forum do not treat you in the manner with which members of PFT treat skeptics

Turbo, many of us are very interested in your answer to the question below:

I want to know at what time, t, was the plane X feet off the ground, where X is the final RADALT number. And I want you to justify that answer. We both know your entire theory hinges upon this magical number so please do your best to convince us that has convinced you.

 

[WildCat]

I doubt it. You might want to try again.

As a matter of fact, I will personally guarantee that if Reheat, Anti-sophist,
Beachnut, or anyone here signs up that they will not get banned while
complying with forum rules.

It's a sincere invite. Take 2 minutes to sign up and show your concerns
to PFT's presented data.

Sorry, the pffffft has shown time and time again they do not tolerate debate or disagreement. Robbie once posted here by pretending he was someone else, but his account was banned because there were multiple people posting on the same account. Since then he has used the CIT to post here on his behalf, and has answered not a single question put to him nor responded to criticism.

The only thing the PffffT cares about is selling dvd's and other merch to suckers.

 

[Turbofan]

Nicepants, I already answered that question a couple of posts back.

Here it is again:

What? File, Open, Click?

Maybe manipulating the data to change the altimeter on descent?


Here again is the video showing the calcs. I support it 100%
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947&hl=en

My support for this is:

- Cell DD, 37798 shown in the CSV file supplied by the NTSB

- The obvious cover up and error in the altitude shown in the animation

- The finding of RAD Altitude by PFT showing 273 feet AGL

Approx. 8000 FT linear descent rate to kiss the top of the light poles?!

When do I start laughing?

As for the banning, you were given warnings, and asked several times to
provide sources for your data. YOu did not. The posts are still available
for anyone here to review. I know first hand as you and I had exchanges
in several threads.

If you read through the replies of this thread, you can't possible say that
I have been treated in a polite manner. Just look at all of the insults
coming from several members.