AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[beachnut]

Incredible!
...
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.

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

I explained the altitude, and I was right. If I was wrong you would offer evidence and explain. You failed to do that.

The world can see you offered no rebuttal, no evidence, just talk and waving hands.

 

[bje]

BJE, what's with the deal breaker?

I explained it quite clearly. Is there something that confuses you?

As for your 1000+ witnesses, why should I believe them when mine
are more credible?

They are not "my" witnesses. Whatever gave you that idea??? They are eyewitnesses whose accounts I've asked you several times to post. What are their statements? Why won't you post them?

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

How do you know what any of those 1,000 eyewitnesses stated, Turbofan? How do you know they disagree with you? So far, you have refused to publish the statements of those 1,000+ people who saw or removed the wreckage from inside the pentagon, or who sorted the wreckage openly on the Pentagon lawn. I am asking YOU to please present their statements. I am asking YOU to tell us what physical evidence these people saw and handled.

I would much rather debate tangible evidence than hearsay.

That's exactly what I am trying to get you to do. Why do you continue to refuse to answer the question, Turbofan?

 

[WildCat]

We're too busy researching to be posting circular arguements like this thread.

Has this "research" of yours produced a single flyover witness yet? Has it produced any witness who claims that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? This is why you guys are a joke, zero evidence for your central premise. And no, you have no FDR experts supporting you, certainly no one from L3.

You see, the PFT forum has a debate section which allows poeple to chat about whatever.

Sure you do, and you keep it hidden from lurkers. That way Robbie can ban anyone who makes him look stupid (99% of the population as it turns out) and then either delete the thread or edit other people's posts to make his stupidity become invisible for a little while.

The other forums are reserved for factual data.

As if the PfffT would recognize it if it smacked them upside the head.

You know very well that members don't get banned for different opinions.

Of course they do, and everyone here knows it. Many of us have been banned simply for disagreeing with Robbie, and some were even banned before they even posted because Robbie recognized the name from here. Really, who do you think you're crappin' with that claim?

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

I notice Robbie himself has been posting here today, and not doing very well...

 

[Turbofan]

I explained the altitude, and I was right. If I was wrong you would offer evidence and explain. You failed to do that.

The world can see you offered no rebuttal, no evidence, just talk and waving hands.

But you forgot to mention the actual height of the plane when the pressure
altitude is corrected in the animation ... therefore the plane is too high.

What's wrong, are you scared to type the actual facts in your reply?

 

[uk_dave]

"Beachnut", you have earned little respect in the aviation community. Some of our guys have checked you out (you may want to visit our core member page again, many have more access than you have ever claimed to have, you have also lied about some of your qualifications. We can only verify such if you debate us with your real name. We know why you refuse.). We also know why you refuse to register for P4t or debate on air. We also know why Anti-Sophist has disappeared from this thread.

This rather sinister post suggests that Beachnut has the p4t rattled.

But one should wonder why they even bother to post on this forum. What purpose does it serve?

Well, it is very likely that the p4t mantra is being ignored left, right and centre in the real world and their only outlet to reach people who may be swayed be their arguments is on this forum. That is a very sad indictment of p4t.

Can Beachnut, anti-sophist, reheat et al be such a thorn in their side that they need to come here to bluster and posture, when if there was even the slightest merit in their claims they would have presented a coherent and cogent paper to every professional body, political party and media outlet available?

Is it all just an 'internet thing' now? The internet of funky user names and over inflated egos versus the reality of obscurity and failure?

Fair enough, the 'truther' faithful found themselves, for reasons as varied as political orientation, ignorance and paranoia, disbelieving the accepted narrative of 9-11. But at each turn they find themselves presented with plausible alternative explanations for the events which fuel their conspiracy fantasy. And at each plausible alternative explanation they slap their hands to their ears (metaphorically) and cry "I'm not listening" because that arrogant certainty they started out with cannot, in their eyes, be seen to be flawed.

I had a quick look at the listings of the 'pilots' on the 'patriots' website. Interestingly, most don't seem to list any reason for their apparent support. But of those that do, we have 'pilots' who apparently believe 9-11 was an inside job because buildings just don't collapse that way. Pilots mind you, not structural engineers. We even have one pilot who was certain that the flight crews of the hijacked planes weren't in control of those planes when they hit the towers! Think about that for a moment and go figure. Though to be fair to the individual concerned, his comments were plucked from a 2002 portuguese newspaper article.

Hell, we don't even know if he, or any, of the supposed professional p(structural engineers)ilots have renewed their support for the 9-11 conspiracy fantasist websites they are listed upon.

Such is the way of the 'truth' movement.

 

[Turbofan]

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"""?

Hey Jonnuy, can you provide at least one example where any one in this
thread refereance an actual FDR document, or company to support their
BS lies?

No, you can't because they aren't any examples.

You have a bunch of faceless kids without any clue of FDR operation, or
data transfer posting up assumptions and you're all eating it up.

Whenever you're confronted with a piece of information from a credible
source, you all cry "he's a loon", or "he's not an engineer of L3"

You continue to claim that your assumptions and hand waving trumps
the verified data! Wow, that's great research guys!

Earlier questions:

Yes the FDR was found at the Pentagon. Planted, or manipulated.

Witnesses...say they saw airplane parts, and pulled bodies from the Pentagon.
You can't prove those bodies came from AA77; they were employees, or
contract workers at the Pentgon. Since none of those witnesses were
qualified airplane investigators, they could have idea whether the parts
were from a missile, or smaller aircraft.

Nice try guys. Try finding some credible sources to backup your theories.

Come back when you can explain how a wing can pass through a solid
wall, but cut steel beams?

Come back when you can explain how animation software of a "working
copy" contains errors which are read from the data files.

Beachnut, please come back when you learn about data transfer and power supplies in aircraft.

 

[WildCat]

Since none of those witnesses were
qualified airplane investigators, they could have idea whether the parts
were from a missile, or smaller aircraft.

...Come back when you can explain how a wing can pass through a solid wall, but cut steel beams?

Hmmmm...

 

[D'rok]

Yes the FDR was found at the Pentagon. Planted, or manipulated.

Witnesses...say they saw airplane parts, and pulled bodies from the Pentagon.
You can't prove those bodies came from AA77; they were employees, or
contract workers at the Pentgon. Since none of those witnesses were
qualified airplane investigators, they could have idea whether the parts
were from a missile, or smaller aircraft.

Amazing.

 

[roundhead]

Turbofan...i would say you have pretty much owned this debate, lock stock and barrel.

I think it very credible you have stuck to facts in spite of childish attacks.

 

[WildCat]

Hmmmm...

C'mon Turbofan, I'm dying to hear how the wings of a 757 couldn't do the damage to the Pentagon, but a smaller aircraft could.

Oh, and after that explain how the damage seen is consistent with what a missile does.

 

[stateofgrace]

Yes the FDR was found at the Pentagon. Planted, or manipulated.

.

I just want to be crystal clear on this point. You are absolutely certain that the FDR was recovered from the Pentagon? Yes or no?

This is the PFT position? Yes or no ?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hey Jonnuy, can you provide at least one example where any one in this
thread refereance an actual FDR document, or company to support their
BS lies?

No, you can't because they aren't any examples.

You have a bunch of faceless kids without any clue of FDR operation, or
data transfer posting up assumptions and you're all eating it up.

Whenever you're confronted with a piece of information from a credible
source, you all cry "he's a loon", or "he's not an engineer of L3"

You continue to claim that your assumptions and hand waving trumps
the verified data! Wow, that's great research guys!

Earlier questions:

Yes the FDR was found at the Pentagon. Planted, or manipulated.

Witnesses...say they saw airplane parts, and pulled bodies from the Pentagon.
You can't prove those bodies came from AA77; they were employees, or
contract workers at the Pentgon. Since none of those witnesses were
qualified airplane investigators, they could have idea whether the parts
were from a missile, or smaller aircraft.

Nice try guys. Try finding some credible sources to backup your theories.

Come back when you can explain how a wing can pass through a solid
wall, but cut steel beams?

Come back when you can explain how animation software of a "working
copy" contains errors which are read from the data files.

Beachnut, please come back when you learn about data transfer and power supplies in aircraft.

And neither can you kid. you talked to a sale rep at an FDR company. great. Give us his name and I will call and ask him what he or she thinks of your claims about the Pentagon. let's see if these people you refer to as your experts agree with you OK kid?

And as for nameless? As if turbofan is your real name? Wow, you're a real brave soul there! Ya know, if you wanna criticize people for not using real names (as is common since conspiracy nuts have a habit of getting violanet and talking people (just ask Rob)), then you might not want to be anonymous yourself. Are ya seeing what I am getting at kid? Did ya think that one through? No you didn't did ya?

So the FDR was planted at the Pentagon or manipulated? Does it make much sense that someone would plant or manipulate an FDR to intentionally prove them guilty? Call me crazy, but if I were to do such a thing would do jsut the opposite. I would make it so it actually proves my story, not contradicts it. Or are you going to claim that these people were clever enough to pull off this magically impossible feat yet were too stupid to correctly plant evidence? Why don't you see what L3 has to say about that with your "experts" you have been using form them? If not, how about giving me the name of your contact, and I will ask him or her myself?

Yes we CAN prove that the bodies were from flight 77 because the DNA proved it so. And if you are going to claim they weren't from flight 77 then it's up to you to explain to us how they managed to plant those bodies at the exact moment of impact in front of 1000s of people without anyone noticing. I would LOVE to heard you "research" on that. But you're gonna need more than simple speculation that is meant simply to try and reinforce your one piece of evidence that doesn't fit the rest.

And to say that no one there was an expert plane investigator is simply a flat out lie. You made that up and you know it. There were experts there and people don't need to be experts anyways to understand what plane parts look like. Not to mention the countless pictures that can be verified and that it would be impossible to plant the "mystery" parts in front of 1000s of people anyways. You didn't really think this through did you?

And credible sources? Did you actually tell L3 what your beliefs are? Did you mention the whole conspiracy theory part? No, you didn't did you. You simply tried to get only the info you wanted to hear, not everything. Had you actually explained to L3 what your research was you know they would have laughed at you like everyone else.

And their expertise is simply in how a FDR is supposed to work under its intended conditions. Not what actually happened. yeah and every car manufacturer says their cars will go for x amount of miles with no problems. In reality it doesn't work that way does it? You think getting specs is evidence? It's not. And again, this is why you can't get your arguments past web forums on a cult tabloid. Because in the real world you have to actually research, not play pretend.

Explaining how a plane can crash through a solid wall and slice steel is very VERY easy. Velocity. If you hit anything fast enough, you will break it. It's not really that hard to understand is it? It's all about pressure over area. Did you expect that the planes should have bounced off the Pentagon and the WTC? Really? And people don't take you seriously?

And while I understand you have a brain problem, the reason that there can be errors in the working copy animation is because IT IS NOT SIMPLY READ IN BY THE COMPUTER. I know you like to keep repeating this despite everyone explaining to you that it doesn't work that way, but living in denial does not make it true. No, the computer does not magically create all the graphical objects and displays that show you the animation. That is all done by hand by a computer programmer. No magic rendering involved, sorry. but not surprising coming from someone trying to use a working reference video as evidence.


You guys really didn't think this through very far did ya?

 

[jhunter1163]

The other forums are reserved for factual data.

Well, that explains the lack of activity.

 

[tsig]

Turbofan...i would say you have pretty much owned this debate, lock stock and barrel.

I think it very credible you have stuck to facts in spite of childish attacks.

Well that would make two of you.

Turbofan has never mounted an argument just innuendo.

Real people died strapped to their seats in terror.

 

[roundhead]

I find it hilarious you jref types think the wings on AA77 wouldnt have been completely broken off at impact and been laying on the Pentagon lawn.
Its incredible seemingly intelligent people would think otherwise.

They sure didnt plow through the building, they are mostly air, with spars, and have fuel only in they're roots.

Regarding DNA..I have only the FBI'S word that dna "found"matches the passenger "list"..far from making it believable to me.

As far as the wings, they should have been mostly intact.The major 7 minute fire was inside the building, not outside.


Btw, over the weekend, i had a chance to test a question posed on the internet....

I have a steel wheelbarrow...i dumped two gallons of kerosene in it, after throwing a coke can in it i had just drank, and lit it....and let it burn out.

Guess what, the coke can was perfectly intact, except it was fairly hard to tell it was still a coke...could have been a pepsi.

The ACSE damage report and the dimensions of the plane just plain dont jive. And anyone who looks at the damage, lack of wings and large engine pieces(As Ed Plauger INITIALLY stated)would only have to have at most a mediocre elementary school education to deduce flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon.

I never would have figured this country could produce so many sheep, thank god for the shearers like turbofan and others who protect and maintain your marginally worthwhile carcasses..........................


Sadly, Hitler said it best:

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.



The above should be the byword around here

 

[D'rok]

I have a steel wheelbarrow...i dumped two gallons of kerosene in it, after throwing a coke can in it i had just drank, and lit it....and let it burn out.

Guess what, the coke can was perfectly intact, except it was fairly hard to tell it was still a coke...could have been a pepsi.

I'm convinced.

 

[Arus808]

I find it hilarious that you make such claims without evidence to back it up. care to explain why the wings would just 'fall' off an be laying on the pentagon lawn?

 

[WildCat]

I find it hilarious you jref types think the wings on AA77 wouldnt have been completely broken off at impact and been laying on the Pentagon lawn.
Its incredible seemingly intelligent people would think otherwise.

You have any other high-speed impacts where an airplane's wings survived? Should be lots of examples if your not as foolish as you appear.

They sure didnt plow through the building, they are mostly air, with spars, and have fuel only in they're roots.

No one claims they "plowed through the building" intact. Pieces of them sure did!

Regarding DNA..I have only the FBI'S word that dna "found"matches the passenger "list"..far from making it believable to me.

So the FBI is in on it too? How about the judge who admitted it as evidence in the Moussaui trial, is he in on it also? Just how many people are in on this conspiracy roundhead? And not one whistleblower! Damn that NWO sure has some loyal employees!

As far as the wings, they should have been mostly intact.The major 7 minute fire was inside the building, not outside.

You keep saying this, yet offer no evidence. Please post a pic of a high-speed jet crash where the wings were "mostly intact".

Btw, over the weekend, i had a chance to test a question posed on the internet....

I have a steel wheelbarrow...i dumped two gallons of kerosene in it, after throwing a coke can in it i had just drank, and lit it....and let it burn out.

Guess what, the coke can was perfectly intact, except it was fairly hard to tell it was still a coke...could have been a pepsi.

OMFG, this is the most hilarious truther experimnent since the chicken wire laugh riot!

The ACSE damage report and the dimensions of the plane just plain dont jive. And anyone who looks at the damage, lack of wings and large engine pieces(As Ed Plauger INITIALLY stated)would only have to have at most a mediocre elementary school education to deduce flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon.

And yet the truthers are laughed at wherever they go. And the PfffT are laughed at even by other truthers!

I never would have figured this country could produce so many sheep, thank god for the shearers like turbofan and others who protect and maintain your marginally worthwhile carcasses..........................

Either 99.9% of the country are sheep, or you and Turbofan aren't as bright as you think you are. A real brain teaser!

 

[Athyrio]

....Sadly, Hitler said it best:

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.....

Good thing that the truther parrots are small in number.

 

[beachnut]

Hey Jonnuy, can you provide at least one example where any one in this thread refereance an actual FDR document, or company to support their BS lies?
...
Beachnut, please come back when you learn about data transfer and power supplies in aircraft.

Wrong again, I cited by second the data in the FDR, and you failed to find it. Failure is the standard for 9/11 truth, you have exceeded the standard. I mean, 77 not hitting the Pentagon is not supported by anything. Please provide one example where your ideas support your conclusion.

This is it, you make a beachnut statement and are void of evidence to support your ideas. That beachnut statement makes your buddy a liar.

But you forgot to mention the actual height of the plane when the pressure altitude is corrected in the animation ... therefore the plane is too high.

What's wrong, are you scared to type the actual facts in your reply?

Cute, you can't tell me the exact altitude better than +-75 feet if you knew how to find it.

I explained explicitly the altitude, I can't help it if you do not understand PA and 2992.

The plane is too high for what? Sounds like you are making a leap of faith based on failed ideas generated by an 11.2 G error expert.

Where is the plane when it is 173 feet PA? Where is the plane?

I can give you a hint. 77 was far enough away from the Pentagon with 173 PA, to hit the Pentagon as witnesses saw! The only people making up false ideas about 77 are you and p4t.

Since you can't place 77 with any accuracy, anywhere, how can you say too high? Too high for what? Your fantasy?

Take you FDR facts and show me where 77 was when the PA was 173 feet. You can't do it!

The sad part of your fantasy, the FDR shows you the path with a degree or two of the final impact track (the path of damage that people saw 77 hit lamppost and impact the Pentagon on this heading)! You may want to understand the heading data is more accurate than the altitude data (sort of)! You may also want to independently confirm the junk p4t is spewing and spinning before you dig a hole so deep you will have to stop posting due to complete embarrassment when you learn more than the standard p4t poster and member. You and p4t have never explained why some aircraft experienced lost FDR information with similar FDRs to 77.

Gee, you have no idea where 77 was when you say it was too high, you are using p4t false information to base you conclusion, and forgot Rob's main purpose is not to make theories, but to sell DVDs. He can't make a living doing physics problems, so he sells DVDs with false information so you make up conclusions that are lies. Your conclusion is 77 did not hit the Pentagon. That is a lie you made up using false information from p4t.

The heading, why do I think the heading is a smoking gun that the FDR is on target for impact at the Pentagon (a done deal when you discover and the fact the FDR was found in the Pentagon, and contained the actual data for 24 hours of the plane Flight 77 had flown). When 77 was accelerating to 473 knots, the bank angles 77 experienced changed the heading only slightly! The last 20 seconds the heading does not change more than 2.9 degrees, and the last 10 seconds not more than 1.1 degrees. You are chasing the wrong data to show you what 77 did! You have also chosen to ignore witnesses who saw 77 hit the lampposts and the Pentagon, backed up with aircraft parts from 77 (all of them), and DNA from the passengers. How does someone ignore the real evidence and fall for manufactured ideas of p4t?


This is it? You say it is too high, no evidence where 77 is, but it is too high! Too high? No wonder you have to ignore the real evidence and every single witness you can't cherry pick or quote mine. Tell me how you can ignore the DNA again, and your proof to support your DNA ignorance policy? Ignore, is that the base word for ignorance?

Turbofan...i would say you have pretty much owned this debate, lock stock and barrel.

I think it very credible you have stuck to facts in spite of childish attacks.

Turbofan, you have company! This guy is capable of ignoring facts and evidence to agree with your failed ideas. He lacks evidence to support his ideas and has used outright lies when he argues for his pet ideas that were proven false at first sight!. Sign him up, he is overqualified to be a member of p4t.