AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[R.Mackey]

Hunting around just to gratify my own curiosity about ARINC standards, I found and read the very same Condor Engineering tutorial that Turbofan cites.

Bingo. The sites he provided are exactly the three that a knucklehead, having never heard of ARINC or the 717 standard before, would first find doing a Google search.

As others have attempted to explain, ARINC 717 is a data standard. There is nothing in there that governs the actual latency at the sensor, what averaging is used, conversion to engineering units, etc. It only handles how data travels over a bus. Nor does it dictate what happens inside the FDR itself.

However, even if we were to accept this latest assuming the consequent argument from the Pilots For Truth in their many guises, and we accept that the FDR should not have stopped recording a few seconds before impact, all it would prove is that the FDR system was out of spec. I fail to see what could have happened in those few seconds that even could prove Inside Jerb!

In short, my respect to anyone who can just walk away from this torrent of idiocy, but unfortunately (and barring any other sign of life in the Truth Movement) it's probably destined for 100 pages.

 

[Reheat]

It also requires no technical background at all to perceive that our PffT shills have no real interest in arriving at a technically defensible conclusion about AA77 but are instead seeking a never-ending, pointless argument.

Exactly! Which is why they came here, why they want a debate on Hardfire, why they don't produce a technical paper delineating the issues, why they don't get a qualified expert to decode and analyze the data.....

All they want is publicity to sell DVDs, T-Shirts, BBQ Aprons (out of stock) and to promoted a diabolical perverted agenda. There is no sincere interest in anything else.

As I said a long time ago, one does not need the FDR to determine that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. To a rational person that is irrefutable in view of the total body of evidence. The purpose of the FDR is for ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION. Even in accident investigations the NTSB uses it as only one item in the vast array of evidence to reach a conclusion on why an aircraft crashed. They do not use it exclusively to reach a non-conclusion as the "gaggle of wankers" attempt to do. That is quite simply a perverted use of the item and the information.

Everyone to include the NTSB already knew the aircraft crashed and they knew why. There was no need for an accident investigation (which takes months if not a year or more to accomplish) since it wasn't an accident. The NTSB simply performed a basic function of whatever it was the FBI asked them to do. That's all.

If you'll notice Balsamo hxstamper uses the word Unprecedented any time the NTSB information is referenced in context with the product they produced. In fact, yes, it was. It was the first time radical Islamic terrorists crashed bloody aircraft into buildings and the NTSB was tasked to NOT PERFORM an accident investigation, but to merely provide a basic product for FBI use.

So, your point in the paragraph I quoted is truly one of the most important in this entire ultra long thread. Indeed, it is a never ending pointless argument serving only the selfish interests of the "gaggle of wankers" calling themselves pfffft.

 

[OldTigerCub]

In short, my respect to anyone who can just walk away from this torrent of idiocy, but unfortunately (and barring any other sign of life in the Truth Movement) it's probably destined for 100 pages.

I have my crucifix and holy water ready to give Last Rites to pfft's failed argument. Memorial services will be held at the next "Twoofstock".

(Disclaimer: I am not really a priest, but I did stay at a Holliday Inn Express last night)

 

[twinstead]

Reaheat, "Never-ending pointless argument" pretty much sums it up. To those folks, the internet is the front lines; not because it will further "the truth" but because it sells DVDs.

 

[beachnut]

Reaheat, "Never-ending pointless argument" pretty much sums it up. To those folks, the internet is the front lines; not because it will further "the truth" but because it sells DVDs.

Using the internet, people can find all the claims of p4t for free.

They have nothing to offer but misleading information. Many people have used p4t claptrap to say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but not p4t, they have "NO THEORY". BINGO - therefore p4t are misleading people. That explains the FDR no theory p4t last stand DVD sales techniques and false information implication campaign.




(pilots for 911 truth, 9/11, Pentagon, 77 Flight,) for free.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose… We do not offer theory… truth movement

 

[Turbofan]

Thank you for finally proving once and for all that you have zero concept of what you're talking about. The quote I posted from page 14 is referring to the tables on page 13. Here is the quote again with notes since you are incapable of reading and comprehending.

You do know that the instrumentation shares the same data bus as the
FDR, correct?

The text you quoted below describes the sensor data behaviour to the
bus! The FDR input circuitry clocks in this very same data!

Typically, messages are sent repetitively(this means both BCD and BNR messages). For example, measured airspeed(One of the many messages, but this applies to all message types)
is transmitted from the sensor to the instrument at intervals not less than
100 milliseconds or greater than 200 milliseconds.(notice how it says message interval and not transmit time) Messages may also be
sent in repetitive word sequences or frames. Messages from each fuel tank
level sensor are sent in sequence, and then the sequence is repeated after a
specified time. The specific data source to which the data applies is
determined either by the Label or the SDI.

Nowhere in here or anywhere else in the document does it state that the Tx Rates designate time from sensor to memory.

Here is a fifth source to send you further into denial:

Page 2, point #11
http://admmatapp.forces.gc.ca/TAA/ADSM/TOC/PT_4_SECT_F_CH_13_-_CVR_FDR.pdf

11. Recording shall commence in the crash protected memory within 250 milliseconds for audio and 500 milliseconds for flight data after power is applied and the start criteria are satisfied. After power interruptions greater than 5 minutes, up to 10 seconds are allowed for flight data sensor initialization and calibration.

How many times are you, Beach, and Anti going to deny this fact?

Maybe you guys should bring someone to the battle that can actually interpret
the data, and keep up with me?

 

[Turbofan]

Here's a 6th source:

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Data_-_Digital_Communications.pdf

3.9.2. Timing Characteristics
The SSDVDR begins storing data to the crash survivable memory within two hundred fifty (250)
milliseconds from the application of electrical power. The delay in recording of flight data from the time of
SSDVDR input reception to the time of recording in the crash survivable memory does not exceed five
hundred (500) milliseconds. The delay in recording digital audio information, from the time of reception of
the SSDVDR inputs to the time of recording in the crash survivable memory, does not exceed fifty (50)
milliseconds. The recorded digital audio data on each of the four channels is synchronized in time to
within four (5) milliseconds. The time correlation of the arrival time at the SSDVDR of any CMU message
is within five (5) seconds.

3.9.3 Flight Data Recording Operation

The flight data received from the ARINC 717 input source is recorded into crash survivable memory no
less frequently than once every 125 milliseconds

 

[jhunter1163]

Once again back to the same nonsense from the wankergaggle that is PffffT.

"Blah blah blah RADALT blah blah blah ARINC blah blah blah L3 blah blah blah PWNED!!!!1111!!1!!!"

Even though the actual experts here have repeatedly demonstrated that PfffffT has no clue about any technical issue whatsoever related to the FDR.

Balsamo is nothing but an hour-padding, grave-pissing, wannabe-piloting, garbage-spewing charlatan. Good thing he's not a member here anymore so I can say that and not get a warning.

 

[Turbofan]

Don't be sad because I proved you and Anti wrong six times

If you don't want to believe PFT, that's fine...but please don't misinterpret
how the data system works. That's just funny having pointed out all of these
timing diagrams and PDF's.

 

[beachnut]

Here's a 6th source:

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Data_-_Digital_Communications.pdf



3.9.3 Flight Data Recording Operation

This is the FDR in 77? ??? Is this the Fairchild model 2100? BTW, it does not matter what the document says, there are examples of FDRs missing data.
It does not matter what the FDR is suppose to do, FDR have lost data during flight. Explain why 77 can not be missing data. You can't, you won't and Rob can't.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon, how can you call him and others liars, with no real evidence? Why does p4t have no theories? Who, and how did someone destroyed the data on all investigation that the FDR was missing data, and 77, who did it? Who faked the FDR? When? How? Explain why other people saw 77 hit and enter the pentagon with kinetic energy of 1000 pound of TNT, and the fireball was exactly the size commensurate with the fuel on 77 at impact! Explain why you ignore facts to side with some implications of… what? I can not figure out why 500 ms is a factor and I understand the FDR system better than you and p4t want to admit.

You have proven to me 77 could hit the Pentagon from 1.5 DME on a true track heading of 61 degrees. You debunked your theory 77 did not hit the Pentagon, yet your p4t does not support your theory, they NEVER did. They are letting you act like a fool and push a 500 millisecond smoking gun with no purpose! 500 millisecond can not explain missing data, or stop it from being lost.

FDR in 77, you are using a document created after 9/11?
The entire document was created after 77 crashed.

You can't tell me if the some of the terrorist were in the cockpit standing; you can't tell me if the crew tried to sabotage the aircraft' you can't tell me why a FDR can't be missing data. You can't do much for 9/11, 77 hit the Pentagon; where have you been for 6 years. The terrorists who supported the 19 killers know what happen. Flight 93 heroes figured out 9/11 in minutes, you and p4t honor the victims by making up false ideas, taking 6 years to have other talk conclusions of lies driven by p4t mindless rant of false implications; to sell DVDs! Outstanding CT minded Americans and Canadians, it is great you are a very tiny fringe group, it is sad you have no evidence but posture yourselves as if you do, and then this pointless quests for the 500 ms tangent leading to nothing.

Answer one question about the 500 millisecond quest. What does it mean, please tie it to a real theory in detail. Spell it out and tie it to something. Else you are just posting junk with nothing to do with 9/11. Can you tie your ideas together, or not? Do not bring up your failed ideas answer the question.

You are going to leave out the hard stuff, why?

Do you understand this?

FDR in 77, you are using a document created after 9/11?

The entire document was created after 77 crashed.

Bet you left this out. See below.

FDR in 77, you are using a document created after 9/11?

The entire document was created after 77 crashed.

You left out the hard stuff, and picked the ignore method of hiding in the back of the room.

You can not use a document for a different system, and written after the device was installed. Wrong system, wrong date. But more over, you have no story to go with your quest of 500 ms. So sad. You will have to come backwards to see this! Your FDR days are over, you keep failing to make your point and act like a kid who discovered something, but you have not. You keep claiming AS stuff is wrong, but you fail to understand why your assessment is wrong. You better put me on ignore you ignore most my posts anyway. I have to go get the fuel pump in the 66 mustang, and install the clutch in the Porsche, the engine is in the back of the garage with spiders, good luck with the FDR, so far you are about 6 years behind.

 

[Turbofan]

This is the FDR in 77? ??? Is this the Fairchild model 2100?

It doesn't matter, they must all meet the same specifications to be certified
and installed in a commercail airliner!!! Are you guys at all familiar with this
fact? You must have missed the certifications at the top of the document
which are coincidently the same certifications L3 Comm. requires!

BTW, it does not matter what the document says, there are examples of FDRs missing data.

BTW, you are wrong and you haven't found a similar case to compare against.
You can't use flights which caught fire , exploded in mid air, etc. It's not
quite the same! Nice try to spin that too!

Explain why 77 can not be missing data. You can't, you won't and Rob can't.

It had no reason to be missing data. 0.2 g's?

There was nothing in that flight data/Official government theory to suggest
the plane would cause the FDR to stop recording.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon, how can you call him and others liars, with no real evidence?

Maybe it was a different aircraft! Something hit the Pentagon...but certainly
not AA77

Why does p4t have no theories?

Because theories get you no where. Any time we are asked to give our
thoughts on what happens, it gets spun around anyway.

We all have our own opinions of what happened, but we'd rather work from
the material and push for the investigation.

Who, and how did someone destroyed the data on all investigation that the FDR was missing data, and 77, who did it? Who faked the FDR? When? How? Explain why other people saw 77 hit and enter the pentagon with kinetic energy of 1000 pound of TNT, and the fireball was exactly the size commensurate with the fuel on 77 at impact! Explain why you ignore facts to side with some implications of… what?

I'd rather discuss the FDR than go through another 40 pages of this...

I can not figure out why 500 ms is a factor and I understand the FDR system better than you and p4t want to admit.

Because of Anti's incorrect assumption about old data being written to CPM.
That's all the 500 ms is about.

Like I said, you can believe what you want about the Pentagon attack, but
please don't deny the function/timing of the FDR. It's silly to deny facts
printed on MFG sites.

You have proven to me 77 could hit the Pentagon from 1.5 DME on a true track heading of 61 degrees.

Ummm...possibly, but not the light poles from that ALT. Yet again, the FDR
data doesn't even suggest that...so...I disagree.

500 millisecond can not explain missing data, or stop it from being lost.

Correct. That's not what the argument is about; it's about how long it takes
said data to be written from sensor to CPM. That is all.

Answer one question about the 500 millisecond quest. What does it mean, please tie it to a real theory in detail. Spell it out and tie it to something. Else you are just posting junk with nothing to do with 9/11. Can you tie your ideas together, or not?

YOu are getting all upset for nothing. I replied to this post to show all of you
that Anti's old data assumption was incorrect based on the fact that he
thought sensor information could remain in the system and write itself to
CPM.

The 500 ms confirmation simpy proves that the data shown by the NTSB
is current sensor info linked to the corresponding time stamp.

Do you understand what I'm talking about now (and I mean that sincerely)?

 

[beachnut]

So who do p4t members talk about?

Hmmm....

Wildcat, …"Reheat", Beachnut" and "Anti-Sophist"

And who is the most talked about? What was that?

"Beachnut", …

read:liar), …

Hi Beachnut, …

Bottom line Beachnut, …
debate "Beachnut". …
Looking forward to your email.

What is your email address Rob?
And who is the greatest pilot you know?

… is … "Beachnut" ...

What else do you guys talk about at p4t meetings?

Beachnuts' theory ...
... wonder why "Beachnut" ...

... that "Beachnut" ...

Beachnut, ...

...Bottom line Beachnut...

Thank you "Beachnut".

'beachnuts' ...

Thanks "Beachnut"! ...
"Beachnut", if ...

Beachnut, ... hmmm....

Who are the three biggest threats to p4t failed FDR ideas?

you Beachnut, ...
Beachnut...
Beachnut, ...

Next, a two part question!
Who do p4t member talk about all the time? Who knows more about FDR than p4t?

... you Beachnut. ...

Beachnut..

…P4T. How much time to they spend talking about you?

All the time?

Next, what line did you steal from a Tom Cruise movie? Who do p4t talk about all the time, again for the record? Please repeat that answer until you get it out of your system.

These are the facts and they are undisputed:

watching you "Beachnut" ...
"Beachnut", you ...
and Beachnut ...
Beachnut. ...
Beachnut and ...
Beachnut ...

Sounds like Monty Python; SPAM, but Beachnut is the ham in the can.
Next question.
If you had on person to trust on 9/11, who would it be? Who is your FDR expert?

…

Beachnut, please …

Another great ... "Beachnut".

As I searched for evidence supporting FDR, I found nothing but more beachnut junk.
Then…

Beachy... our pilots actually flew F-15's in Desert Storm and Fighters in Vietnam. They actually put their name to it and can be verified.. .you?

I looked up Beachy, he had some relative, Beachey, who did not fly in Desert Storm, but Beachy flew the first night to refuel some stinkbugs who went downtown. As you can see, p4t have verified my ATP, the PhD of flying, but laughed at by Balsamo, cause he lacks one, the rating needed to fly in the Captains position in the MAJOR Airlines. Ironic, or what is it called when they can verify their people, and me, but say the opposite?
Searching for more evidence, and who they talk about at p4t.

Found some evidence in this thread, this post, but …

hx:

SO since you have been here, you have provided ZERO evidence, you have whined about character assassination…

What next?
Hx, answer is, " Four people, one named after a cat, one flew 111s, one flew KCs, and one proved p4t FDR junk is that?"

Hmmm....

Wildcat, … "Reheat", Beachnut" and "Anti-Sophist" ...

NO, you forgot, "who is". Sorry.
Looking for some FDR stink in the thread, I am looking.

How do you think we got the decode of the raw data? The software to decode such data is over 100k. Why couldnt Anti-Sophist and/or Beachnut get the decode? Anti-Sophist or Beachnut cant even get their own data frame layout. LMAO! They arent real "experts". You all been fooled. This is why they refuse to debate using real names. Wake up "critical thinkers".

(by the way, Beachnut uses "25 flights on raw data decoded by P4T" as one of his excuses it data from AA77. P4T decoded the raw data and never decoded 25 flights! Go figure...)

For those a bit lost, Beachnut is trying to use information from P4T to argue his theory, when P4T doesnt even have that information!

This is funny I was saying the p4t have all 25 hours of flight data from 77 FDR, proves 77 FDR is the one and only. Then, hxstamper posted the 25 flight error, like 11.2 G math stuff (think about it)!, and his post prove my point, if p4t want to check what they have! Irony or what?

Hmmm....

http://www.aa77fdr.com/ReadOut2Personal.html
Now why couldnt any "FDR Experts" from JREF do the same?

I know why "Wildcat" wants to know all our "FDR Experts", so T.A.M. can continue his character assassination thread.

Wildcat, just get "Reheat", Beachnut" and "Anti-Sophist" to step up to the plate for debate (no from behind their screen), and we'll see who knows more about "FDR's".

The link says this…

There were no problems or delays in loading the data and seeing that the file is good.
About 11-13 flights were evident just by displaying airspeed in graph for the length of the file.

25 HOURS, not flights. Please next time do some research and understand what I said. Hard to do, I am an engineer, and a pilot. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
I corrected you again. But gee, if I said 25 flights or day by accident, I have also said 25 hours, as posted already more than once; please be civil and correct me; now you owe me more beer, and when you recover from selective ignorance, you owe a few more rounds.
…
AND, Four more beachnuts, who do p4t talk about most? Who has the most correct claims?

Beachnut ...

Beachnuts claims ...

Name your top debunkers, in order!?

jaydahees.

... "Reheat", "Anti-Sophist" and "Beachnut"

Do you have evidence of who is talked about most at p4t, and who is he? Is that in that secret pilot ready room?

pretty substantial ... Beachy.

Beachy, we know who you are,
Beachy, ...
Prove me wrong. ....

... and "Beachnut" ...

So tell us again Beachy.... how an FDR loses power at less than 0.2 G's. We really enjoyed that one... …

Some planes' generators trip when subject to low G. True. Your aviation experts have so much knowledge, they know this is a true statement, why don't you. Is that really your real name, or are you being a hypocrite? Have not found any FDR evidence yet, the search continues for two things.
What is the biggest threat to p4t "no theory" theory?

"expert" Beachnut. ...
... Beachnut is

..., Beachy.. ....

Thought hxstamper (Balsamo-clone) was implying p4t never talked about me. If they talked about FDR stuff to support their "do not offer theory" stuff more, they might be ahead.
With 76 posts, almost 50 beachnut/beachy, no evidence to support the "no theory". Is that irony;, or is there a better term?

Do they talk about evidence? With NO THEORY, there is no need for evidence, … is there? Bottom line, p4t do not offer theory, they sell DVDs and other stuff to make some money. At .45 cents a DVD, you do the math, p4t can't (see 11.2 Gs).

Turbofan is posting a lot of junk! If he understood all he posted, he would be the only expert formally supporting p4t! He finds more stuff, some looks confidential, I hope p4t are not setting him up for the leak, looks like a Bush White House tactic. Let the leak guy take the heat. There could be a CT in p4t yet!

No FDR evidence found in 76 posts, to support the "we do not offer theory". Just beachnuts; lots of them.

 

[jhunter1163]

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'apfn@apfn.org '"


Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk
you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker.

Turbo, you might have missed this in the other thread. Care to offer any thoughts, particularly on the bolded parts?

 

[Hokulele]

So who do p4t members talk about?

<snipping the awesome>

No FDR evidence found in 76 posts, to support the "we do not offer theory". Just beachnuts; lots of them.

 

[Bananaman]

Pfffffffffffffffft's argument:

That's all I see.

Bananaman.

 

[lapman]

You do know that the instrumentation shares the same data bus as the
FDR, correct?

Ok, but that has nothing to do with what happens when the FDR receives the data from the instruments. Do you somehow think that there is a direct link between the instrumentation and the protected memory?

The text you quoted below describes the sensor data behaviour to the
bus! The FDR input circuitry clocks in this very same data!

Woohoo, you are still saying a bunch of words that prove you have no idea what you are talking about. The time intervals that sensors send data and the time interval that the FDR polls the buffer are not related. The ARINC table on that document only deals with the data rate the sensor sends data.

Here is a fifth source to send you further into denial:

Page 2, point #11
http://admmatapp.forces.gc.ca/TAA/ADSM/TOC/PT_4_SECT_F_CH_13_-_CVR_FDR.pdf

Thank you for providing a fifth example of your complete lack of understanding anything. That is the time it is supposed to take from when power is applied to the unit until the first data is recorded. This has nothing to do with when it receives data. Some day, you'll grow up enough to understand this.

How many times are you, Beach, and Anti going to deny this fact?

We don't deny this fact. However we do, unlike you, understand what it says.

Maybe you guys should bring someone to the battle that can actually interpret
the data, and keep up with me?

Funny, we have been asking that of you all along.

 

[lapman]

Here's a 6th source:

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Data_-_Digital_Communications.pdf



3.9.3 Flight Data Recording Operation

A 6th source of idiocrity. Interesting how you missed this important part of your posted quote:

The time correlation of the arrival time at the SSDVDR of any CMU message is within five (5) seconds.

So, 5 seconds of data could be lost. You do understand that the FDR is not directly connected to the sensors? If not, look on page 33 of the pdf. You do understand what the FDAU is, don't you?

 

[Anti-sophist]

This is amazing. You pretending to teach me how these systems work by showing me marketing versions of tech sheets and tutorials for systems I used to spec out, buy, build, and test. I've never met a truther so completely ignorant and so completely arrogant in my life.

That being said...

LMAO! Are YOU telling me that the PDF links that I posted do NOT explain the data transfer rates that you had no clue about as per your questions?!

First, let's be clear. I know exactly how it works and that's why I wrote this post and spent so much time proving all your ignorant fools wrong. I am using my questions as a rhetorical technique to expose how utterly ignorant you are.

To answer your question: Not even close.

Here are the links again, PAGE 13
http://digilander.libero.it/LeoDaga/Corsi/AD/Documenti/ARINCTutorial.pdf
http://www.pc104.com.cn/Avion-Documentation/PCMCIA429-1_717.pdf
http://www.ballardtech.com/products.aspx/dir/protocol/ARINC_717/

Please state for me whether or not these documents tend to, and answer
your question about t1-t5 timing, and refreshing buffers.

No, not even close. Page 13, in particular, is describing data transfer between two components. Not through the entire system. Look...

ARINC 429 is the most commonly used data bus for commercial and transport aircraft.

All you are doing is showing me the time requirements of the interconnect between the sensor and the DFDAU and pretending it applies it to T1 through T5. Let's look at T1 through T5, shall we?

T0: The time at which an event actually occurs (plane is X feet above ground)
T1: The time it takes from T0 for an instrument to generate a measurement
T1.5: The time it takes for that measurement to be digitally buffered at the recorder (this is effectively 0, so it can be ignored)
T2: The time it takes from T1 for the measurement to be included in the bit-stream. This is the time that the measurement remains in the buffer waiting for his turn to enter the bitstream.
T3: The time it takes from T2 for the measurement to be written to the media. This is the time it takes to encode the bitstream, compress it, and store it
T4: The time from T3 for when that sub-frame is "completed" on the media, ie, you have a "complete" sub-frame
T5: The time from T4 when data was lost for whatever reason (any and all missing sub-frames, including the impact one)

The only time interval on this list that ARINC429 applies to is T1.5 The one I told you can be effectively ignored.

I'll await your YES, or NO response so I can quote it, and highlight it.

No, not even close. The tutorial you have shown me only represents a TINY FRACTION of the system.

Here's a picture:

Can you find ARINC 429 on this image? Are YOU going to sit there and tell ME that ARINC 429 governs the entire time requirements of a full FDR system? I'll await your YES, or NO response so I can quote it, and highlight it.

11. Recording shall commence in the crash protected memory within 250 milliseconds for audio and 500 milliseconds for flight data after power is applied and the start criteria are satisfied. After power interruptions greater than 5 minutes, up to 10 seconds are allowed for flight data sensor initialization and calibration.

Nowhere have I denied it. That statement is absolutely true. You just have absolutely no idea what it means. The bitstream resumes recording within some time frame after powerloss. That has absolutely nothing to do with the latency of the elements inside the bistream, nor any of the other numerous factors in T1-T5.

The flight data received from the ARINC 717 input source is recorded into crash survivable memory no
less frequently than once every 125 milliseconds

Again, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what this means. ARINC 717 data has already undergone digital buffering and time multiplexing. You think this means FROM THE SENSORS and you are wrong. Not to mention this is a tech sheet for some other system -- not the one installed on AA77. You are wrong twice.

The delay in recording of flight data from the time of
SSDVDR input reception to the time of recording in the crash survivable memory does not exceed five
hundred (500) milliseconds.

Tech information on systems not installed on AA77 aren't relevant. Even still, see two above, as you still have no idea what this means.

Alright, so I've successfully demonstrated that ALL of your supposed proof is nothing but you FINDING numbers and pretending they apply to things that they don't.

I am STILL waiting for your FULL and logically consistent estimate of T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5.

 

[lapman]

BTW, you are wrong and you haven't found a similar case to compare against.
You can't use flights which caught fire , exploded in mid air, etc. It's not
quite the same! Nice try to spin that too!

So a mid-air explosion can cause data lose, but and explosion caused by slamming into a building won't. Hmm. Please explain this.

Maybe it was a different aircraft! Something hit the Pentagon...but certainly
not AA77

Then where is AA77 and it's passengers and crew?

Like I said, you can believe what you want about the Pentagon attack, but
please don't deny the function/timing of the FDR. It's silly to deny facts
printed on MFG sites.

We're not denying what the MFG sites say. However, we are pointing out that what they say is vastly different than what you misinterpret them to say.

Correct. That's not what the argument is about; it's about how long it takes said data to be written from sensor to CPM. That is all.

And your timing is 100% wrong every single time.

The 500 ms confirmation simpy proves that the data shown by the NTSB is current sensor info linked to the corresponding time stamp.

Do you understand what I'm talking about now (and I mean that sincerely)?

The only thing that you've confirment is that you have no understanding of how electronic systems work. You incorrectly believe that there is a direct link from the sensor to the CPM. You completely ignore the fact that the data is buffered before it's sent to the FDR and that once the link is severed, that data is lost. According you the spec you posted, that could be as much as 5 seconds of data.

 

[WildCat]

Actually, I'd like you to flesh out a bit more what you think happened at the Pentagon. Here's what we have so far, based on your posts:

Flight 77 disappears from radar screens, and is replaced by either a "smaller plane" or a missile, above it which flys a Boeing E-4B. Making impossibly tight turns at high speed no other airplane is capable of, the "smaller plane" or missile strikes the Pentagon, while the E4B flys over the Pentagon. Teams of conspirators immediately swoop down on the scene, tearing light poles out of the ground, sticking one in Lloyd England's cab. Other conspirators tear up tree branches, knock over construction equipment and material, fences, and marking poles where they figure Flight 77 would hit if it had actually taken the flight path they programmed into the FDR, which the crack team of conspirators also planted in the Pentagon. Other teams of conspirators spread airplane parts all over the lawn of the Pentagon, inside the Pentagon, and in the alley beyond the C-Ring. They blow a hole in the C-Ring with a wall breaching kit for good measure. At the same time, other conspirators go inside the burning Pentagon and plant the remains of the Flight 77 passengers and crew, which have been ground into hamburger a short time earlier when Flight 77 was diverted to some other airport where everyone on board was killed.

All of this was done in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses - from people on their way to work, to Pentagon employees, to firemen, paramedics, and policemen arriving on the scene. And nobody notices!

But there was one problem - one of the doofuses at the NWO accidentally programmed the flight path of the decoy plane into the planted FDR instead of the fllight path they would officially claim for Flight 77. The NTSB ignores these discrepancies, because they are also in on the conspiracy.

Everything is going smoothly until the crack team of FDR experts and researchers at the PfffT files a FOIA request and the NTSB turns over the incorrect data. Now they have blown the whole scheme wide open!

Is this an accurate summary of what you believe happened Turbofan?

My oh my how Turbofan runs from this simple question!

I can only assume it is because he realizes how absolutely crazy it sounds when you put all his claims together in one narrative. And, of course, he will not abandon a single one of his claims because they are interdependent.

Right, Turbofan?