AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Does the salesman understand the engineering soecs? Why didn't PffffT contact an engineer at L3?Oh dear, oh my! A salesman can't read engineering specs?
Why don't you ask an engineer at L3 if the FDR in Flight 77 recorded everything up until the last 500 milliseconds of the crash? And if the data was 100% accurate?
Fixed that for you.
Last edited:
-Over 28 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--USAF Aircraft Accident Chief Investigator
--USAF Aircraft Accident Scene Commander
--USAF Chief of Safety for over 10,000 people
--5th Allied Tactical Air Force's Director Current Operations Airlift Combined Air Operations Center 1999
--Over 4000 hours in heavy jets
--Combat experience, Desert Storm, Squadron Commander/Operations Officer and Chief Instructor.
--Chief of Training KC-135 squadrons, responsible for training, over 200-crewmembers.
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner
--ATP, too bad Rob has failed to use his money from his false DVD to get his ATP.
I have most of your heroes at p4t beat with experience. I am also an Engineer and I actually understand the timing diagrams you post, even though you have no clue the FDR issues you bring up do not explain why 77's FDR is missing data. I have programmed systems from assembly language through higher level language and I can see you lack knowledge and do not understand the FDR at a working level yet. I am educated in IC manufacture and understand the use of digital systems. This means when you mistakenly take a portion of the FDR system and present the timing of a single area in a large complex system, you have failed to make a point that can support your pathetic idea of 77 not hitting the Pentagon. What formal education do you have past high school that has failed you?
The proof you have no clue on FDR and the NTSB animation, is the fact there is no data in the FDR that lines up the path of 77 with the ground better than 2000 to 4000 feet. Why are you so lacking in knowledge on something I have worked with for many years. I understand the animation, why are you deficient on any rational knowledge concerning the NTSB animation. BTW, the dynamics of flight shown by the animation are not tied directly to the actual ground track. Why are you not able to understand this and reality? The p4t spread false information; they let you make up lies to pass on your own, about 77 not hitting the Pentagon. Clearly you ignore real evidence for the hearsay junk ideas of p4t. And you are lacking a working relationship with FDRs.
You left out John Lear and all the aliens he has to help you and p4t! Your experts seem to have nut case ideas on 9/11. So sad.
I happen to know personally that "bje", "Beachnut", "R. Mackey", "Anti-Sophist", "Reheat" (aside from trying to portray himself as a college female, read:liar), ... well.. thats about it for the so-called "experts" here... have never registered for P4T, nor stepped up to the plate to debate on air.
Yes, there has been plenty excuses made, mixed in with ALOT of noise, ad homs, personal attacks (as is apparent in every P4T thread initiated here).
The people who get banned at P4T use the same style of debate used in this very thread (and many other threads seen here), which by the way, breaks JREF forum rules (attackig the person/organization, instead of the argument). Wonder why the mods look the other way, yet warn "troofers" for the slightest infraction that may be questionable? Is it any wonder why all the so-called 'experts' here remain anonymous, always make excuses to not debate (aside from behind their screen on the JREF, where they are 'protected') , while P4T lists grow, they contact L3, NTSB, FBI with their real names and faces?
patriotsquestion911*com/pilots
No offense, but you people are your own worst enemy. You give real debunkers/skeptics a bad name.
It is clear Turbofan has single handedly shown what the Original post is about. Ironically, sophism.
If there were true experts here, they would be concerned with the NTSB/FBI distributing what JREF'ers claim is error filled data through the FOIA to the American Public, unprecedented.
I also notice "Myriad" has gotten very quiet. He must now realize his mistakes. He is going to realize more. So will R. Mackey.
Keep up the good work Debunkers! You validate the "troofers" every time you post.
OldTigerCub
Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,619
Are you always wrong as you post false information? Thins you do not know are true, and you just say so? You have no idea if those people have posted at p4t. Some have, you are wrong, just like you are on ideas about 9/11. You must enjoy the false information of p4t.
The cool thing, not a single shred of evidence to support your buddy, or the failed ideas of p4t.
Then you post patriou8ts for 9/11 truth, a group of pilots who have no evidence to support their false ideas on 9/11. Failure! Just like the ideas of 9/11 truth and p4t.
I guess you think 77 did not hit the Pentagon either and still have zero evidence or knowledge to support that pathetic idea. Do you?
Funny stuff, the p4t are so paranoid they track down the IP addresses of posters to see who they are. That sounds like they are the NSA and truthNAZIs! Sad. You can't post where you want in p4t, when the truth comes out, Rob closes the thread, or restricts the truth to some section for those who do not agree with the lies and false information Rob is selling, and you bought because you lack the knowledge and the skills to see Rob is a passing false information so you come to conclusions that are pure lies!
You personally are wrong, so of those you listed have posted at p4t. But why post at a place where stupidity is welcomed and facts and evidence are ignored. One day you may gain enough experience and knowledge to see p4t are anti-intellectual, and anti-truth. How long will it take? Why is Balsamo not flying? When will Rob use another sock puppet here? Did you help Balsamo with the 11.2 G error in his work, or do you lack knowledge in Physics like the rest of p4t? Can you do some real work to help p4t understand basic physics?
The super fantastic implication of p4t would be Pulitzer Prize material. The sad fact for you, p4t have nothing, no evidence to support their failed implications. Zero evidence. You have been fooled, and you can’t do any better than p4t.
Last edited:
Hi Beachnut,
Thank you for yuor reply.
Can you answer these questions? Or will you avoid them.
1. Have you registered for P4T?
If you havent, why not?
2. Have you ever emailed P4T for debate? If not, why not?
3. Why did you back down and instead remained behind your screen typing for pages during AAR debate when the host of Hardfire said -
I guess you arent qualified to discuss the subject? What is your excuse for remaining behind your screen offering nothing but ad homs and personal attacks in the very thread Ron asked you to join on air debate?
Bottom line Beachnut, i been following your progress, You hurt the debunkers argument more than help. Your posts are filled with ad homs and personal attacks. You refuse to debate P4T. You refuse to register for P4T. You refuse to do anything regarding "facts" unless you call them as such from this JREF platform where they warn/ban those who show a bit of emotion if they are a "troofer", yet let "duhbunkers" (wonder if i will get a warn for "duhbunker") title threads with "troofer".
(by the way.. you over-use "failure"... it hurts your case and looks desperate).
We'll be waiting for on air and/or P4T forum debate "Beachnut". Or perhaps you will use the same excuse that there is "nothing to debate" when you do just that day and night on the JREF?
Looking forward to your email.
Thank you for yuor reply.
Can you answer these questions? Or will you avoid them.
1. Have you registered for P4T?
If you havent, why not?
2. Have you ever emailed P4T for debate? If not, why not?
3. Why did you back down and instead remained behind your screen typing for pages during AAR debate when the host of Hardfire said -
I guess you arent qualified to discuss the subject? What is your excuse for remaining behind your screen offering nothing but ad homs and personal attacks in the very thread Ron asked you to join on air debate?
Bottom line Beachnut, i been following your progress, You hurt the debunkers argument more than help. Your posts are filled with ad homs and personal attacks. You refuse to debate P4T. You refuse to register for P4T. You refuse to do anything regarding "facts" unless you call them as such from this JREF platform where they warn/ban those who show a bit of emotion if they are a "troofer", yet let "duhbunkers" (wonder if i will get a warn for "duhbunker") title threads with "troofer".
(by the way.. you over-use "failure"... it hurts your case and looks desperate).
We'll be waiting for on air and/or P4T forum debate "Beachnut". Or perhaps you will use the same excuse that there is "nothing to debate" when you do just that day and night on the JREF?
Looking forward to your email.
Thank you hxstamper.
Beachnut, the problem I have with you is: You can't explain how/why the
FDR could lose data before impact?
You make assumptions, and excuses with hopes that your "WHAT IF" claims
can magically make the FDR lose data?
With all of your 'experience' you certainly don't prove yourself. I haven't
seen one technical red cent from any of your posts.
Ready to prove me wrong? I ask you the same question I asked the others:
How and why is the pressure altitude incorrect in the NTSB animation.
Explain how the animation software can display a value different than the data file which it reads from.
Explain why the altitude is showing lower than actual.
Beachnut, the problem I have with you is: You can't explain how/why the
FDR could lose data before impact?
You make assumptions, and excuses with hopes that your "WHAT IF" claims
can magically make the FDR lose data?
With all of your 'experience' you certainly don't prove yourself. I haven't
seen one technical red cent from any of your posts.
Ready to prove me wrong? I ask you the same question I asked the others:
How and why is the pressure altitude incorrect in the NTSB animation.
Explain how the animation software can display a value different than the data file which it reads from.
Explain why the altitude is showing lower than actual.
Ohh.. but he did.. Remember?
Beachnuts' theory is that the FDR, a piece of equipment designed for flight safety, loses power at less than 0.2 G's.
Is it any wonder why "Beachnut" doesnt register for P4T for debate and/or makes excuses to debate on air with his real name behind his claims?
0.2 G's and the FDR loses power... too funny.
Last edited:
0.2 G's is a joke.
Even funnier is the cockpit instrumentation shares the same power bus as
the FDR.
I guess the airplane and pilots play in the dark at (+/-) 0.2 G's?
Incredible fabrication going on here. I can't believe people are falling for it too!
Even funnier is the cockpit instrumentation shares the same power bus as
the FDR.
I guess the airplane and pilots play in the dark at (+/-) 0.2 G's?
Incredible fabrication going on here. I can't believe people are falling for it too!
Last edited:
Whats even funnier is that "Beachnut" has tried to use TWA800 as precedent for an FDR "losing power" prior to "impact". Others have tried to use Swissair 111.
Funny stuff.
I'd love to hear the theories of inflight fires and/or explosions among AA77 for their parallel theories.
As i said, own worst enemy...
No, I said some aircraft's generators trip when subjected to negative or low G. The Vomit Comet had to have special generators to be used for Astronaut training, because some 135 generators do not work under low G. But then you could ask for clarification.
93 had different engines than 77, they may have different generator systems, but I think most modern generator system do not suffer from low G problems that some planes had in the past. The exact problem involves the CSD in the 135 system, I believe it has to do with oil, or something in the drive system. It was a problem in the planes I flew, if we got into bad weather we could have an electrical failure, and we had to execute procedures to supply power to our essential bus. But then I am a pilot, seems like you are not or you would not of screwed up my ideas so bad and left out huge portions of my ideas. I doubt 77 had problems with generators falling off due to low g.
It is common knowledge FDRs have lost data. Minutes, seconds, and more. The fact is this lost data has happened to FDRs just like 77. Fact is, FDRs can have lost data.
Looks like you registered here, but have no evidence. Why?
Please, tell me why you have no Pulitzer Prize with all the fact and evidence you have from p4t, you have the biggest story ever. Why have you failed to get the Pulitzer Prize? Posting on the Internet will not get the prize. The truth is, you have no evidence or you would have a prize. No Prize for you, or p4t, they only have nut case conclusions, they can't even make, but only imply so people like you spew them.
When you can prove 77 did not hit the Pentagon please come back and present the evidence you are hiding! Got Physics. 11.2 G, and you join the most challenged people on physics on earth! Funny stuff. You, Turbofan and p4t, are constant amusement, on how not to conduct an investigation. Please take your stuff to nearest new agency, and ask they why they think p4t have nothing.
No evidence yet, no Prize yet? Why does it take over 6 years for these math/physics challenged pilots to break a major story blaming the US government for something 19 terrorist did?
Funny, each time a new p4t expert drops in, I think of how the pilots of p4t can't hit a building in the safety of a simulator they have flown for years, yet the terrorist hit 75 percent of their buildings first time ever in a plane. BTW, I have put kids in real jet simulators, and they could hit buildings with no training, and some can land the first time, with no training. Landing and hitting buildings are good indications of the same. So pilots for truth, p4t, are zero (0) percent at hitting buildings, terrorist are 75 percent, kids who never flew are 100 percent at hitting buildings. Looks like p4t pilots are the worse pilots in the world, and this is evidence from p4t! Funny stuff.
Beachnut,
Havent you learned internet readers/lurkers skip convoluted and sophism type posts?
Bottom line Beachnut.... (second time asked)
Can you answer these questions? Or will you avoid them.
1. Have you registered for P4T?
If you havent, why not?
2. Have you ever emailed P4T for debate? If not, why not?
3. Why did you back down and instead remained behind your screen typing for pages during AAR debate when the host of Hardfire said -
Quote:
What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience. - Ron "pomeroo" Weick
I'll add to this questioning by saying,
If the NTSB data is "missing seconds" as you claim, have you contacted the NTSB to correct their information they say they want "as accurate as possible when providiing data through the FOIA"?
Have you contacted L3? At all? If not, why not?
Why do you refuse to place your name, face, credentials, background, experience on your claims? (such as the FDR losing power at 0.2 G's)
Do you know more than the NTSB, or a 'salesman' at L3 who sells the product to fleets worldwide?
Why do you hide here and never registered for P4T and refused to debate such "wacko's, loons, dolts" on air? Surely you can expose them in short order?
Why is P4T more confident in their material/aeronautical knowledge than you?
(by the way, Rob Balsamo gave 'Pinch' his personal phone number for debate, and/or hammer out details for debate with other pilots in our .org if he so inclined. Pinch hasnt called)
Answer the questions Beachnut as they will only be repeated till you do. (but im sure i'll be warned for spam perhaps?)
Havent you learned internet readers/lurkers skip convoluted and sophism type posts?
Bottom line Beachnut.... (second time asked)
Can you answer these questions? Or will you avoid them.
1. Have you registered for P4T?
If you havent, why not?
2. Have you ever emailed P4T for debate? If not, why not?
3. Why did you back down and instead remained behind your screen typing for pages during AAR debate when the host of Hardfire said -
Quote:
What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience. - Ron "pomeroo" Weick
I'll add to this questioning by saying,
If the NTSB data is "missing seconds" as you claim, have you contacted the NTSB to correct their information they say they want "as accurate as possible when providiing data through the FOIA"?
Have you contacted L3? At all? If not, why not?
Why do you refuse to place your name, face, credentials, background, experience on your claims? (such as the FDR losing power at 0.2 G's)
Do you know more than the NTSB, or a 'salesman' at L3 who sells the product to fleets worldwide?
Why do you hide here and never registered for P4T and refused to debate such "wacko's, loons, dolts" on air? Surely you can expose them in short order?
Why is P4T more confident in their material/aeronautical knowledge than you?
(by the way, Rob Balsamo gave 'Pinch' his personal phone number for debate, and/or hammer out details for debate with other pilots in our .org if he so inclined. Pinch hasnt called)
Answer the questions Beachnut as they will only be repeated till you do. (but im sure i'll be warned for spam perhaps?)
Yes, thanks for not posting a single piece of evidence to support p4t failed non-theory, non-conclusions. Why are p4t unable to post conclusions or theories on 9/11?
As all who are reading can see in the past I showed you lost data from a FDR like 77, and you ignored it, you failed to discuss it, you failed to even acknowledge it. So I have shown you many times FDR have lost data. There are many. So prove FDR can’t be missing data. You can’t, they have missing data for unknown reasons. Sometimes the specification/standard are changed to fix these problems; on of the most resent requirements is to have emergency power! Oops. With a few terrorist in charge of the plane, I figure there is good chance the missing data is due to the idiots touching the wrong things when they were floating in the cockpit and hitting switches in the last 20 seconds when the idiot pilot was going from .2 g to 1.7 g in the time of a few seconds. His last push over just before the missing data, could have been zero G, and that maneuver is supported by witnesses. Guess what they said?
FDRs can be missing data, I have even given you a FDR model similar to 77, it lost several seconds. Why? Are you saying FDRs can’t be missing data?
I don’t care, lacking knowledge on 9/11 and FDRs is self critiquing, you have proven that.
You are about to prove you lack knowledge on FDRs and aircraft systems.
The PA is not incorrect in the animation. Why can’t you explain why it is not incorrect?
The animation is developed from the FDR, the NTSB can adjust the altimeter with the current altimeter setting to show what the pilots saw. Since 77s NTSB animation is a working copy, those times it reflects the PA, the NTSB did not apply corrections for the local altimeter since they never finished their working copy. At those time the altimeter displayed the raw PA, with the altimeter set to 2992. Oops, I did it. I am a pilot! I actually understand this stuff! I only have been working with NTSB products since 1973, in relation to flying and flying safety at a working, practical level. How many years have you worked with NTSB products?
The altimeter in the final frames of the NTSB working copy animation is from PA, with the altimeter setting at 2992. It is showing PA. This explains why you think the altimeter is showing lower, it is not, with the proper correction, the altimeter is displaying the actual altitude (MSL), plus or minus 75 feet.
MarkyX
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,157
There wasn't a small entry hole, plus pieces of the plane were found in there as well as human remains.
Norman is the only one with the conflicting timeframe. Even then, he doesn't believe any foul play was involved. Why do you refuse to address this point?
The plane was nearby, nothing suspicious about that. It flew past the guy.
Pieces of the engine, pieces of the fuelsage, pieces of human remains, the FDR was found there.
Looks like a plane to me.
The plane has been identified, the DNA was examined, and the FDR was recovered.
Again, all pointing to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.
Red herring. This is irrelevant as the physical evidence shows Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Above.
Red herring again. Physical evidence shown the plane damaged the lightpoles, generator, and Pentagon.
So then why did you try to imply AA77 FDR lost power below 0.2 G's back on page 11 and 12? Sophism perhaps? Are you now saying AA77 lost power to the FDR by some other means? Why didnt the NTSB catch on that?
Agreed. As the examples you tried to pass off to the "critical thinkers" here for TWA800, Swissair 111 and others with inflight emergencies, fires, explosions. Shall i get the post you made to set 'precedent'? Or did you delete/edit to "save space" as you have done in the past. What exactly is your theory for AA77 losing power to the FDR 2,3,4, - 6 seconds from the pentagon wall? Why hasnt the NTSB offered the same theory in their cover letter where they say they want "everything as accurate as possible through the FOIA"? If you are a real pilot and "Accident Investigator", why are you allowing the NTSB to distribute data you feel is errored through the FOIA to the American Public?
Anytime you are ready to debate P4T Beachnut, we are ready to put you in your place. You call P4T frauds? We can be verified in the FAA database. Can you? Can "Reheat"? Can "Anti-Sophist"? Can any of your 'experts" here be verified?
I thought this forum was about "critical thinking". hmmm....
Last edited:
unusual to have someone "lurk" for as long as you clearly have hxstamper, and not post until now. Yet when you do it is with such venom, such clarity for past details in terms of what others have posted in the past.
Interesting...
TAM
Interesting...
TAM
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Here is a slightly modified version of an early post I made to TurboFan. It helps explains why I think you are frauds.
DavidJames said:
unusual to have someone "lurk" for as long as you clearly have hxstamper, and not post until now. Yet when you do it is with such venom, such clarity for past details in terms of what others have posted in the past.
Interesting...
TAM
What i find "interesting" 'T.A.M', is that you spent your days and nights behind your screen attempting to assassinate character for those who speak out with their real name and faces on patriotsquestion911, while you yourself remain anonymous.
Care to post the link? I cant yet.. and dont really feel like looking for it (yet..)
ETA: (And they wonder why more arent 'speaking out', little do you know, you help us more than you harm. The people you have to worry about are the ones working behind the scenes)
Last edited: