DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
yeah mister american nothinker......
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
yeah mister american nothinker......
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Now that's just wrong.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
What he is saying is that there is an entire body of physical evidence that illustrates where the plane went. PfT claims/asserts/theoizes that the FDR data does not match the path of the plane illustrated by the physical evidence.
There are four reasons that this could be:
1) the FDR data is erroneous causing it to reflect a slightly different path than the plane actually took
2) the FDR came from a different plane/was faked entirely, while a second aircraft flew along the physically evidenced path and into the Pentagon
3) the FDR data is from a different plane/faked entirely, and the physically evidenced path was also faked while the Pentagon was damaged in some other fashion
4) The PfT have made errors in their interpretation of the FDR data and, the FDR is missing the last few seconds of flight
2) and 3) require an enormous conspiracy to be undertaken in which the details of having the FDR match the physically evidenced path was somehow, inexplicably, overlooked.
1) would absolutly require that a review of FDR veracity be undertaken for the sake of aircraft safety. To this end one would expect the PfT to be writing up exactly, and in great detail, just how they arrive at the conclusion/claim/assertion/theory that the two flight paths differ and sending that technical explanation to all and every organization or publication that would be interested in such a matter.
HOWEVER, if such a technical paper is produced and 4) is determined by the recognized experts at those organizations then PfT completely loses its raison d'etre. Thus it would behoove PfT to NOT write and distribute such a paper to those organizations as it would be analogous to a turkey writing an glowing essay on the gratification that humans can get by stuffing themselves on Thanksgiving, and having the essay printed in "USA Today".
Last edited:
Hey, great non-answer! Boy, for someone with an IQ as low as yours, you sure know how to turn the tables on someone who has, once again, exposed you as a fool and a liar.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I too noticed the elementary school yard retort that DC managed to come up with.
So the answer to, "When will the truth movementget around to explaining why your imaginary conspiracy neglected to fake video footage of the crash?", is
,,,,,,,,,,,, Oh yeah!
Dave_46
Graduate Poster
roundhead. In post 1015 you said
In post 1067 I asked
In post 1250 I said
In post 1526 I said
Roundhead
You have had a week since my first request for the information in post 1067. (That is 10 days, minus the 3 days you were suspended.)
This was a very simple request for you to answer, as you said you had done an ad hoc experiment. The fact that you have declined to answer this simple request (asked in a polite manner please note) leads me to conclude that you did not do what you said you had.
That you are a LIAR.
How about trying to disprove this by answering my question.
What ignition source did you use?
<snip>
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.
<snip>
In post 1067 I asked
In post 1250 I said
In post 1526 I said
Roundhead
You have had a week since my first request for the information in post 1067. (That is 10 days, minus the 3 days you were suspended.)
This was a very simple request for you to answer, as you said you had done an ad hoc experiment. The fact that you have declined to answer this simple request (asked in a polite manner please note) leads me to conclude that you did not do what you said you had.
That you are a LIAR.
How about trying to disprove this by answering my question.
What ignition source did you use?
Last edited:
I've been away trying to figure out this mess, and make sense of all these
theories you are putting forth.
After communicating with a few people and studying actual ARINC documentation
supplied by one of the PFT members, I have finally come to the conclusion
that your claims do not make any sense.
While reading through this thread, I see that Undertow has already highlighted
most of these issues, and has done a good job.
Anti-Sophist, please clarify once again your understanding/position on these points:
1. You are stating that the NTSB claims the FDR regained power momentarily
and recorded partial frames at 9:35:46, and 9:35:47.
The NTSB puts the impact time at 9:35:45.
2. You are claiming that altitude was not recorded at 9:35:45, but rather
a 'certain' period of time within that second.
You do realize the word position for altitude, and that the time stamp is
referenced to that specific frame, correct?
3. DME is last recorded at 1.5 nm. If the plane was indeed two more seconds back, how do you figure 1.5 nm was recorded keeping in mind the plane is moving
~ 500 MPH? Error for DME is +/- 0.1 nm.
4. T4 and T5 appear to be radio transmission of flight data to the ground
station. What significance do you believe this 'time' has on the data stored
within flash memory?
The impact time relative to the FDR time is really 9:37:49 or :50. You fail to realize the FDR secure chip is missing the data at the time of impact, and the data recorded at :44 has 77 at 173 feet PA, this means the plane is 5 or 6 seconds away from the Pentagon on a true track course ~61.2 digress. The impact time based on RADES DATA is 13:37:27. You lack facts! These are the facts you ignore and you suspend rational thought and believe people who can not even make a rational theory.
p4t, make up lies, false information, and fantasy. They are paranoid and have threaten to kill people who do not agree with them. You have chosen the dumbest investigators in the world. Funny…
The reason nothing makes sense to you is your are not qualified in the fields of flying, FDRs, and 9/11.
It would be cool if you could prove an actual impact time. What is the real impact time! Using the NIST information blindly to make up your fantasy is stupid.
Last edited:
Since their rousting defeat over the false claim of "faked" RADES Data they are desperately clinging to the FDR as their savior.
Capt BoB just did an analysis of descent rate again to "prooove" that AA77 could not have hit the light poles using his "baby" the FDR and NTSB calculated impact time. (I won't link it)
Some day they will get a clue and will it ever be embarrassing.....
Capt BoB just did an analysis of descent rate again to "prooove" that AA77 could not have hit the light poles using his "baby" the FDR and NTSB calculated impact time. (I won't link it)
Some day they will get a clue and will it ever be embarrassing.....
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
I have a question. obviously there have been other plane crashes and they all seem to end with the plane hitting the ground somehow. Does the FDR recorder in other incidents stop at 0 feet, or do they usually stop short of the ground because the very end is lost by the impact?
Last time I checked, Anti-Sophist was spelled:
A - N - T - I - S - O - P - H - I - S - T
but thanks for answering a question that you know nothing about.
The plane can't be six seconds away because DME recoreded 1.5 nm!
Nice try...and you say I'm not qualified?
If the impact time was as you say, why does Jim Ritter sign off as 09:37:45?
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/jimritter.jpg
Are you saying Jim Ritter, Chief of Vehicle Performance at the NTSB is lying or
incompetent? Have you contacted the NTSB to have them correct their Flight
Path Study they are releasing through the FOIA?
If not, why havent you?
By the way,, its the NTSB which calculated impact time, not NIST. The NIST is the WTC.
Get YOUR facts straight.
Last edited:
Let me get this straight, you are using a time by the NTSB who you say manufactured the FDR information? Is this what you are doing?Last time I checked, Anti-Sophist was spelled:
A - N - T - I - S - O - P - H - I - S - T
but thanks for answering a question that you know nothing about.
The plane can't be six seconds away because DME recoreded 1.5 nm!
Nice try...and you say I'm not qualified?
If the impact time was as you say, why does Jim Ritter sign off as 09:37:45?
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/jimritter.jpg
Are you saying Jim Ritter, Chief of Vehicle Performance at the NTSB is lying or
incompetent? Have you contacted the NTSB to have them correct their Flight
Path Study they are releasing through the FOIA?
If not, why havent you?
By the way,, its the NTSB which calculated impact time, not NIST. The NIST is the WTC.
Get YOUR facts straight.
The FDR is missing data. Flight 77 was seen hitting the Pentagon. The FDR was found in the Pentagon. Data can be missing from FDRs. You can't figure this out since you hooked up with the idiots from p4t.
NTSB never calculated an impact time as 35:44 ! You are wrong again!
Oh noes you are unable to figure out I meant NTSB? Wait, you did! Wow.
Jim Ritter's working copy is your time of impact. Good for you! Have you fixed that 11.2 G error at p4t failed physics page? The animation is a working copy. There are no errors in the animation if you understand the fact the ground was place by hand and the FDR can only place the ground images added to the animation to 2000 to 4000 feet. This means you have no clue where 77 is.
I understand you can argue the 1.5 DME, but please list all the DME for the last 30 seconds of flight and explain why they are not exactly right? Next, please explain why the DME is only stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7? What does this mean to accuracy? Please tell me the DME accuracy of the DME station and receiver? You lack the knowledge to understand this due to the fact you have no idea what you are doing with FDR and NTSB information.
Sorry, the 1.5 DME does not mean much based on the major errors in distance seen with DME stored on the FDR. If you can show me all the errors involved in DME and explain why, then we can start a discussion. But you can't model the errors of DME, or explain the anomaly of DME storage in the FDR. Darn, you act as if you are so great, but you can't correct simple math errors for p4t! You know they have zero theory? The p4t was started to sell junk to stupid people.
You can use the 1.5 DME to show p4t are idiots, but that is about it. You have not explained why the RADES data places the impact at the Pentagon at 13:37:27 and have no clue why the FDR time scale places the impact in FDR time at 13:37:49 or 13:37:50. As you gain knowledge and correlate the FDR to the RADES, you may understand you have fantasy ideas on 9/11, and for instance, you not understanding real research is not new for you, you lack a coherent conclusion on 9/11.
Thanks for correcting my NIST/NTSB error, oh that changes the whole thing! Now you are wrong with the correct agency.
Last edited:
What is extremely funny you say the FDR, or the animation shows where you want 77 to be, or some other fantasy. The NTSB animation does not have the accuracy to show where 77 is, because at the time of impact you "cherry picked" from the NTSB 77 in the FDR says it is at But the FDR shows 77 to be at the second Yellow dot in this diagram. The other dots are radar returns for 77 from different RADARS. Note, the times are not synchronized to the same clock/time. Darn, what time did 77 impact?
The FDR says 77 was at the Yellow dot at 13:37:44. This is not near the IMPACT. OOPS, and it does not line up with the animation diagram of the Pentagon placed "manually" under the working copy animation. The animation of 77 is correct, the ground images were added; the runway lines up because the NTSB KNOWS 77 took off on the runway it is easy to place 77 on the runway even though the FDR says it was south of the runway 2000 FEET.
OOPS, the DME is 3.2, or is 1.5! OMG what DME do we use? Do you know?
So far you have tried to support p4t failed ideas. Your opinions are noted. I don’t think you have gotten close to finding new information. It is funny how the truth movement uncovers evidence that does not support their ideas. You have no idea where 77 was, it did hit the Pentagon. And you have zero evidence to support your ideas; I forgot what you believe, and since you are p4t cult member, you have zero theories, just hearsay and talk!
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Someone must be able to address this and I am sure not savy enough to find the answer myself. But I honestly think finding out could be very useful to these kind of conspiracy arguments. Do they even release the data from other FDRs for the public to see?
I'll take a rough stab at it. I don't work with FDRs (the aircraft I've worked with don't have them) and someone will correct my mistakes.
There is often some data release, but it's filtered. The FDR data goes through graphing utilities that create a "strip chart" appearance, and it's rare that the public actually sees the bit-level data itself. A data outage or blip might not be evident from the usual report. Also, as far as I know the Pilots For Truth or whatever they call themselves today have been working from a ".csv" file, or "comma separated value," rather than the raw data -- this is a text format, and the data is certainly not encoded as text on the FDR itself.
I do know that in the case of UA 93, the recorder actually kept working for a fraction of a second after impact, but this is unusual. Data losses, especially towards the end, are not at all uncommon. As we've discussed a thousand freaking times there are delays from sensor to recording device, and an aircraft in trouble may have other failures that interfere with recording besides. Modern FDRs are pretty robust, but trying to pin down point of impact to the last second is just not always possible.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Last time I checked, Anti-Sophist was spelled:
A - N - T - I - S - O - P - H - I - S - T
but thanks for answering a question that you know nothing about.
The plane can't be six seconds away because DME recoreded 1.5 nm!
Nice try...and you say I'm not qualified?
If the impact time was as you say, why does Jim Ritter sign off as 09:37:45?
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/jimritter.jpg
Are you saying Jim Ritter, Chief of Vehicle Performance at the NTSB is lying or
incompetent? Have you contacted the NTSB to have them correct their Flight
Path Study they are releasing through the FOIA?
If not, why havent you?
By the way,, its the NTSB which calculated impact time, not NIST. The NIST is the WTC.
Get YOUR facts straight.
Crooked facts are hard to swallow.
So we have "Jim Ritter, Chief of Vehicle Performance at the NTSB" lying or you're wrong
A plane that crashed in NYC, or near NYC, due to rudder failure, or hard over rudder, or pilot input to the rudder, the FDR is missing 13 seconds. Similar FDR to 77 and 93.
Flt 93, PA, the FDR seems to have all the data in the last second prior to impact. So the data for 93 is all there up to the last second.
Flt 77, could be missing 5 to 6 seconds. The only major thing I see different from 77 and 93 is the engines are from different manufacturers. I have no idea why the data stopped.
Other flights have missing data. FDR are made for accidents not terrorist events. The lack of FDR at the WTC could be due to the fact just the collapse of each tower was a kinetic energy event equal in energy to 100 TONS of TNT. (not relevant to your question, sorry)
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Well if other FDRs have lost data, how can the PFT crew rule that out?
But I guess what I am curious about is if missing data is common or rare. If it's even happened once it seems more than plausible to me (not that it's implausible even if it's never happened before).
But I guess what I am curious about is if missing data is common or rare. If it's even happened once it seems more than plausible to me (not that it's implausible even if it's never happened before).
Last edited:
Incorrect, PFT has the raw file and it was used to decode the info.
A thousand freakin' times more, and you will never understand that the parameters
are referenced to a TIME STAMP. The frame is complete, and the word
position for any parameter does NOT change.
This lag you are talking about DOES NOT exist! Once the buffer information
is captured and clocked out, it can take DAYS, YEARS, or DECADES to enter
crash protected memory. The bit level information doesn't change.
Get it?
You expect me, or any one else with background in data/networking to
believe that the time stamp, or altitude, or DME, or "insert parameter here"
changes after it has been read into the data stream? Thats not how it works.
Anti, Beach, and R. Mackey believe that sensor information enters a buffer,
or data frame and then propagation delay is added to the time stamp info!
LMAO!
Get a clue.
You need to take a course in data transfer my friend. Look up some basic
terms like Parity, error checking (CRC), and other age old techniques that
have been in place.
The data reached CPM in contiguous and intelligible condition.
Hey Beachy, what do you say we get on the phone tonight. I'll call you
at home and we'll talk this out man to man so I can explain how the world
works. It's obvious you still don't understand DME according to your
little pictures and heated replies.
Relax man, no need to get hot behind the ears. You should probably get
a copy of the ARINC documentation so you too can understand how this
all works.
