AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[jaydeehess]

I guess you're forgetting about the presentations, the radio shows, the
open letters that PFT, AE, and other organizations continue to propagate

This means nothing at all if what you wish are answers from the NTSB concerning your contentions that the recorded data on the Flight 77 DFDR do not match the physical evidence of the path of the aircraft.

ONCE AGAIN then, when will a technical whitepaper illustrating these errros be presented to the NTSB, the pilot's unions and ICAO?

I don't have much time but from what I have read since I posted this last time, Turbofan still refuses to even acknowledge that fact that PfT nor any individual has produced a paper outlining why they arrive at the conclusion that the data on the DFDR does not match the physical evidence on the ground, of the path of Flight 77 and submitted it to the above listed agencies.
That is the logical next step!


Write it down, write it down in purely technical, unemotional, intricate detail just exactly how you arrive at the conclusion that the path of Flight 77 as described by the DFDR that is officially from that same craft, does not match the physical, empirical evidence on the ground for that path.
Write it down, write it down, write it down.
That is the logical next step!

This has little to do with the NTSB animation. I am referring specifically to the data only, and the physical evidence only.

Now I see that another has chimed in with, "We will certainly entertain anything you hve to offer as far as debate on a recorded line".
That is not a logical next step! That is simply running in place.

Once again then the question that has arose from such a query again finds light.

Just what could be accomplished by a verbal debate of such a technical issue? Absolutly nothing! Well nothing unless one is simply wishing to extend the discussion on the internet and does not truly want any comment from agencies that would have an interest in this topic.

Calling or writing the NTSB and telling them that they are covering up does not cut it as unemotional technical discussion. Telling them to go to a web site in which there are recorded there threats of revolution and retribution isn't going to cut it either.

Constantly railing against 'anonymous' internet forum posters doesn't cut either.

I was banned from PfT when I suggested writing it down as I describe above and sending it for publication in various mainstream magazines. With that in mind and the fact that Balsamo has been given this and similar suggestions over and over again and steadfastly refuses to act on them what conclusion are we to reach other than he truly does not want any technical discourse with the NTSB or the pilot's unions or ICAO or in any mainstream publications. One can then wonder at the reasons for such recalcitrance and note that it wel could be that he does not want the light of the technical world shone on his work.

 

[HyJinX]

Being proven wrong by the NTSB, or any other reputable organization, on a purely technical basis would simply bring Pfffffft to their knees. It would kill t-shirt and mug sales and Balsamo, the fraud that he is, would simply fade away. His reputation would lay in ruins and the fight would be over. Balsamo knows he's lying. He enjoys watching others defend his fantasy as he counts the dollars given freely to him by his knucklehead followers. It's sad. Very sad.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jesus... what was an informative thread went to AAH in a handbasket quickly.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Incredible!

These guys are basing their hopes on a whim that the FDR wasn't working 100%! LMAO

I keep seeing, can you prove the FDR was working properly?

YES!

You see, if the data was stored incorrectly, the parity and error bits contained
in the data string would show errors.

This didn't happen!

You see, the FDR is certified, and designed to work correctly. There are
parity and errors bits used to verify the integrity of data.

To spread a theory that the FDR might not have worked 100% is just
reaching! LMAO

Beachnut, you are wrong about the altitude, and now you are wrong about
the data storage. Too bad they didn't teach you about parity and checksums
in flight school! haha.

I

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 10 removed.

dare you to go live with me, or anyone else at PFT. We will bury
your false claims and dreams instantly.

Wake up world, Beachnut is waving his hands and sinking. Help him out!

Incredible, you are basing your hopes on everythign working perfectly and no human error throughout any point in the event or investigation. AND you are also dismissing all other evidence and replacing it with speculation. So if you wanna keep score kid, then you're pretty far behind.

You wanna play games? Please explain the bodies and the wreckage of flight 77 found at the scene. Explain the RADAR data showing the plane going to the Pentagon. Explain the 1000s of witnesses who saw it. We could go on and on kid.

Can you please prove to us that absolutely everything worked as intended and that there was no human error at any point anywhere? Can you rule out ever possible problem in existence?

See kid, what you are doing is poking a hole. A real researcher (unlike the cultists over at Pilots for untruth) actually follows through, They don't try to push their claims on the doubt o another. So unless you can present a more plausible theory, you haven't done our research. Simply providing one possible explanation for one single aspect does not cover everything. You need to explain ALL the evidence.

The best you have been able to do so far is a list of absurd assumptions and completely incorrect information. The difference between you and real researchers, is that they address everything, not just one thing.

Just because something is certified does not mean it is infallible. Just because something is supposed to work a certain way, does not mean it will always work that way. And the rest of the evidence makes it pretty clear that this is the case. Unless of course you can go ahead and explain the REST of the evidence kid. Because unless you and the cult members at PFT can address ALL the evidence, then you won't be taken seriously.

 

[WildCat]

Hey pal, have you spoken with L3 Communications?

Have you attempted to talk to anyone other than a salesman at L3? Have you contacted the engineering dept. at L3? Have you voiced your concerns about the FDR to the engineers at L3?

Or did you ask a salesman about one specific item and not tell him the context?

Is anyone at L3 a member of PffffT?

Does the PffT have any actual FDR experts? Rhetorical question of course, we all know they don't.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hey mods? Is it ok if i call those who i feel are "kids", kids? Or would i be warned for attacking the person instead of the argument as is spelled out in your rules.


Jonny-CLUELESSS, anytime you want to debate members of P4T, feel free to contact us.. kid! You do know how to find our email addy.. right Kid?

I hope you know more than Beachy or Anti-Sophist.. as they have truly proven themselves to be "kids" (or second childhood in the case of Beachy).

Jonny.. ready to step up to the plate? Contact us... We'll educate you.

If it turns into a ground school, you may have to pay regular price for any student learning pressure altitude vs. true as its clear you are a bit lost.

Find the email addy. We look forward to recording our debate with you. Our credentials against yours.. real names and faces. Surely you can expose us as "kids/frauds" in short order? Or can you not back up your claims/strawman.

I expect you to remain here.. .behind your screen.

As for chillzero warn posted elsewere regarding anonymity.. .here is us.. we fear no one...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Those certificated by the FAA can be searched at faa.gov.

I am a representative of P4T and such information offered above is available at http://pilotsfor911truth.com/forum

The "Duhbunkers" here have shown what they are made of in this thread.. period. Anonymous "experts" who "avoid debate", and those who follow.

Turbofan ran Anti-Sophist out of town. Beachnut is holding on for dear life.

steady....

Man, just keep running and hiding...

What, you can discuss this on Pilots for crap but you can't discuss it here? What happens differently on the cult web site? Somehow you can address ALL the evidence there, but you can't address the evidence outside of the cult? Please explain why you can't address these issues here. And you can stop playing victim of the mods. Let's avoid the cop outs, they are very childish and it's pretty obvious you are kids.

So when are you going to address the issues? I think I have asked you 4-5 times so far and you keep running away.


What strawman claims?

JUST ADDRESS THE ISSUES:

Can you (that means you kiddo) prove how everythign system was working 100% as intended and that at no point in time was there any user error anwhere or in any way? Can you then address the inevitable outcome of your claims? We both know what you are claiming is that the plane didn't hit the building. We both know you are making this claim by casting doubt on a few pieces of evidence while ignoring the rest. So finish the research kid and explain the Plane found at the pentagon, the bodies recovered at the Pentagon, etc. Please explain the light poles and the inward damage around the impact of the hole. Explain the witnesses who all saw the plane hit the building.

And you keep talking of anonymous experts. What's your name?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Just a reminder as to why the PFT cult is the laughing stock of the aviation community:

They expect us to believe that some diabolical caper was pulled off by some people they don't seem to be able to name that involves flying a plane over a building in front of 1000s of people in the hopes that no one happens to notice and that no one happens to be filming. And at the same time they set off bombs at the building at the same time without doing any damage to the plane and without the plane having any affect on the explosion. And this explosion somehow magically sucks debirs inward towards itself and out of the 1000s of people all there in the busiest time of the morning, no one happens to see a large commercial jet flying a couple hundred feet off the ground past the Pentagon, despite there even being other planes in the area who could easily see such a thing from anywhere.

And THEN they want us to believe that somehow these unknown "perps" manages to somehow crash or destroy the original flight and transport that plane and the bodies and the luggage of the passengers and plant it at the scene. They would have to do this between the time the plane took off and the time of impact. They would also then have to plant the evidence at the exact moment of impact and in front of 1000s of people. Just as they would have to plant the broken light poles in front of 100s o people and blocking oncoming trafic of the high way as they plant the poles there in rush hour traffic and not be seen.

They then have to get the cooperation of 10s of 1000s of people all participating and with no real motive other than to needlessly help in the murder o other people.

But hey, the FDR data doesn't add up. So it all makes sense right?

 

[WildCat]

pilots are not more qualified to talk about FDR specs than FDR Experts.

Of course.

That is why we called several FDR manufacturers and have several "FDR Experts" now on our team.

This is a lie. Why is "FDR Experts" in scare quotes? Is itbecause you have no actual FDR experts? Has anyone at PfffT ever been professionally employed designing, maintaining, interpreting etc FDRs? Or is it true that all you have arte a bunch of hacks calling themselves "FDR experts"?

Some anonymous (due to anonymous internet persona with an agenda of character assassination, discussed earlier in this thread, some not). However, "pilots" learn from FDR data every recurrent training to save lives (what not to do).

Except it is actual FDR experts who pull the data and format it so the pilots can understand it.

We will certainly entertain anything you hve to offer as far as debate on a recorded line considering we actually called FDR companies and have FDR Experts working on our team.

Stop lying by claiming you have actual FDR experts. No one at L3 is a member of PfffT, and no one from L3 supports PffffT.

Do you think "pilots" can learn FDR data interpretation? Or are we just dumb monkeys.

Sure, please list the training the pilots at PffffT have taken to become experts at FDR analysis.

 

[T.A.M.]

Given the obvious flame baiting and trolling by certain new members, I have decided to place them on ignore, as they have brought nothing meaningful (hard when discussing the PFT stuff anyway) to the table.

I'm out. (off to continue my day and night assassinations of the PQ911 list, maybe the pilots section...lol)

TAM

 

[Pape]

Only in your mind...

I guess you're forgetting about the presentations, the radio shows, the
open letters that PFT, AE, and other organizations continue to propagate.

And still there's not a peer revied paper on the issue. Why? And still no newspaper made any news about that stuff. Why? And still, you are using and FDR found in the pentagon to demonstrate that no plane hit the pentagon, which clarify your (and CIT) madness.

How about the increasing number of professionals that continue to join
these organizations.

We still wait for a peer reviewd paper on the subjet. It shold be easy to produce one, if so many "experts" are on your side.

How about the first responders and families of the victims that are pushing
for a new investigation.

No one of them is saying that AA77 did not hit pentagon.

Pape

 

[lapman]

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'?

Wow. So, the FDR can only lose data if there is an in-flight explosion or fire, but slamming into a building doesn't count. Priceless idiocy. So, instead of accepting the fact that FDR's do lose data, you basically say, "so what? The FDR in 77 couldn't have lost data because a salesmen told me so."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Has l3 made a public statement saying they agree with the PFT findings?

 

[DavidJames]

Has l3 made a public statement saying they agree with the PFT findings?

All they have are emails and a maybe recorded phone conversation with a salesmen regurgitating the specifications of the product. That's it!

That's what you do when you believe you know the U.S. government is behind the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history. You talk to salesmen. Oh wait, they do more, they challenge JREF posters to debates and let's not forget try and make money off it all.

I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[twinstead]

I'm confused. Does all this boil down to the government going through all the trouble of planting a FDR in the Pentagon that somehow proves the crash was faked?

 

[WildCat]

Of the 15 sub-forums at the PffffT, only 3 have had a post today, and one of those was in the "Wellstone assasination" thread. It's no wonder the Pffft have come here, they must be bored silly over at their own forum.

Maybe you guys would have more action there if you didn't ban everyone who had a different opinion?

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm confused. Does all this boil down to the government going through all the trouble of planting a FDR in the Pentagon that somehow proves the crash was faked?

yup.

I know, I know...not enough laughing dogs.

TAM

 

[stateofgrace]

I'm confused. Does all this boil down to the government going through all the trouble of planting a FDR in the Pentagon that somehow proves the crash was faked?

Maybe it was too simple to say “The FDR was badly damaged and all the data that was on it was unrecoverable”. Then simply don't bother releasing anything.

Of course this plan is far too simple, it is better to have the most mind blowing complex plan ever, which not only includes planting a FDR (which of course had the wrong data on it) but includes planting fake DNA, fake eyewitnesses and fake plane parts at the scene where only moments ago Hugh explosions, which fooled everybody into believing a plane had hit the place, had occurred.

ETA. I have a question for the pfffts.

The FDR was it recovered at the Pentagon? yes or no ?

 

[Turbofan]

Wow. So, the FDR can only lose data if there is an in-flight explosion or fire, but slamming into a building doesn't count. Priceless idiocy. So, instead of accepting the fact that FDR's do lose data, you basically say, "so what? The FDR in 77 couldn't have lost data because a salesmen told me so."

The only idiocy here is believing that AA77 produced anything remotely
close to 3400 g's upon impact!

Simply put, you are all hoping to find something that would cause the
power to fail before impact...then run with a weak theory.

What sort of logic is that? Pretending and hoping that everything needed to fail
on 9/11 to get your story to pan out?

BJE, what's with the deal breaker? I just got another warning, but
Bananman runs free for doing the same thing? Wow, nice!

I guess if I use more asterisks, then I can get by without a warning?

As for your 1000+ witnesses, why should I believe them when mine
are more credible? I've already discredited Mike and Leroy. They were
two of your most vocal witnesses. Their testimonies are garbage and
some of you agree that he probably didn't see what he stated (see
other thread re: Mike Walter).

Quite frankly, your 1000 witness accounts do not support the FDR, or the
photo evidence of impact damage.

I would much rather debate tangible evidence than hearsay.

Let me ask all of the whiners this question:

If I get a detailed reply from an engineer of L3 Communications (instead of
the salesman), would it clear up the arguement about the FDR function?

 

[Turbofan]

Of the 15 sub-forums at the PffffT, only 3 have had a post today, and one of those was in the "Wellstone assasination" thread. It's no wonder the Pffft have come here, they must be bored silly over at their own forum.

Maybe you guys would have more action there if you didn't ban everyone who had a different opinion?

We're too busy researching to be posting circular arguements like this thread.
You see, the PFT forum has a debate section which allows poeple to chat
about whatever.

The other forums are reserved for factual data.

You know very well that members don't get banned for different opinions.
PFT issues warnings just like here. If people don't adhere to the forum
rules, they get temp suspensions, and rare cases perm. bans.

It's up to the user to follow the rules. PFT does not discourage new members.
We are actually calling people out.

I guess most are just too chicken to debate with experienced industry pros?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Please don't insult real researchers by calling what you do research turbo. You don't research, you try to reinforce your pre-determined conclusions. This is why people laugh at you. Because while you kids think you are doign research, the rest of the world is asking questions like "I'm confused. Does all this boil down to the government going through all the trouble of planting a FDR in the Pentagon that somehow proves the crash was faked?"

But I ask again, does L3 oficially support your claims and """research"""?