AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

Maybe not, but perhaps they're more honest. If you didn't see any experts, than how do you know their credentials?

YOu see, I checked that site because a couple members asked why
we had not contacted any experienced FDR specialists. I then asked
who they consider "experts" and i was given a link to Juris Pro.

Within that list, I could not find a single person with "FDR Expert" in
their list of credentials.

Do you see any?

I'm thinking the distance I measure from the wall to the INS lat/long reading for 9:37:45, your 'moment of [alleged] impact.' 38 51 43 N 77 4 48 W
[qimg]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/final_position.jpg[/qimg]

As explained above, this does not make sense because of the synchronized
time stamps, DME, and missing data of up to 3.6 seconds.

When Beachnut creates a theory, he forgets to account for many things
which exposes him. His posts are very incoherent at best...

For this to be the moment of impact, the INS would have to be in error about 1.33 land miles, correct? So what evidence do you have that INS can be this far off? I'm inclined to believe the expert posting here, even though I don't know his name, when he says INS error is up to app 1/2 mile. Silly me, show me wrong!

See above. Also check the manufacturer sites and FAA regulations for
certifying a device in a commerical airliner.

These are high tech devices, not hampster wheels. The amount of tolerance
allowed is much tighter than Beachnut wants you to believe. Once again,
check the MFG sites.

As Beachnut points out: there are multiple independent RADAR returns verifying 77 was actually 4700 feet from the Pentagon when the FDR stops.
That's a discrepancy of about 2700 feet. Nearly a mile from impact.

He looking at the wrong data, and does not understand the data. For a third
time, he's not accouting for the synchronized clock, NTSB impact time,
3.6 seconds of missing data @ 64 words per second, nor does he included
that the DME receiver recorded 1.5 nm from the beacon!

Beachnut did have a thought i found interesting but didn't understand. Had to do with powering up. Beachnut? Myself, I've also wondered if it was deliberately cut off later. It is a good question and one that hasn't been totally answered that I've seen. Anyway, why are you so sure data ISN'T missing?

beachnut is reaching for excuses to make his theories make sense. Once
we expose one of them and explain why it can't work, he starts on another
bandwagon theory.

He has yet to explain how/why the could FDR lose power before impact.

If the NTSB stated the impact time and the FDR has recorded up to that
point, then we have a problem. Agree?

At that point, the aircraft is too high to hit poles and the Pentagon according
to the data. Agree?

 

[funk de fino]

TF

I hate to break it to you but certifying something for aircraft use does not mean that it beomes unbreakable or will never fail or become out of spec

If that was the case then I would never have had to replace any parts on the jets I serviced and certified. I only wish this had indeed been the case, I would have had an easier career.

Flash memory can be unstable, it can fail, the data on it can become corrupt.

Please tell me exactly what you think the impact time is and how you come by this assertion.

Then explain the picture of the radar track in beachnut post # 2065

 

[DC]

you are obvioulsy doubting it, i have assured you i have what i claim i have

if you want me to supply you privately with back up to my claims i can do that but not right this minute

i would also have to have a guarantee that anything i supplied you with would never be passed on or shown to anyone else

well i would be interested to see it. but i think i cannot give you a guaranty that will be acceptable to you (wich i understand) i could only give you my word, which does not mean much on the internet. While i know i would never forward something that would disclose your real name or something privatly to anyone else, i cannot expect you to trust me on that, i doubt i would do it.

as a technican was you responsible for the maintaince and relacement/repair of those components or did you also actually do FDR data readouts? and then what is even more important, did you have to work with that data or just do the readout and forward the data to someone else?

 

[funk de fino]

well i would be interested to see it. but i think i cannot give you a guaranty that will be acceptable to you (wich i understand) i could only give you my word, which does not mean much on the internet. While i know i would never forward something that would disclose your real name or something privatly to anyone else, i cannot expect you to trust me on that, i doubt i would do it.

I could probably scan some of my docs and black out any stuff that could be used for nefarious purposes if this was acceptable or supply it to a mod who could confirm it?

as a technican was you responsible for the maintaince and relacement/repair of those components or did you also actually do FDR data readouts? and then what is even more important, did you have to work with that data or just do the readout and forward the data to someone else?

we used to be responsible :-

1st line - fitting, removing, testing FDR/CVR units and associated circuits and parts

2nd line - repair and maintenance to component level, test, calibrate, download data, print data and help to analyze data for pilot/engineering use

we once had a pilot abort at take off speed on the runway and he severely damaged the front landing gear. the reason he aborted was found to be a glitch in the front cockpit AOA gauge which he did not cross check with the rear and HUD and panicked and aborted. he was 100% certain he had not left the ground when he aborted but the damage looked to us like he had. when we removed the FDR and run the plot it bacame clear that he had in fact left the ground with all three landing gear. the fdr proved his story wrong.

the strange thing is now in my jobs we look at Formation Evaluation logs for oil well analysis and i find this much more difficult to understand than the aircraft plots even though it is a similar technique (then again old dog new tricks if you know ahat i mean)

 

[Turbofan]

TF

I hate to break it to you but certifying something for aircraft use does not mean that it beomes unbreakable or will never fail or become out of spec

I hate to break it to you, but ALL of your theories involve something
breaking, failing, or going out of spec in order to make sense.

Wow, does everything need to break on 9/11 to make the OGCT make sense?

Sorry to say, but there is more than one sensor pointing to the anomalies.

You want us to believe several sensors failed and went out of spec all at
once on 9/11?

Flash memory can be unstable, it can fail, the data on it can become corrupt.

Right...but the data recovered from the FDR was contiguous, coherent and
intelligible. If the data was corrupt, it would be jumbled and not in the form
of numbers that we all clearly see in the CSV file.

Please tell me exactly what you think the impact time is and how you come by this assertion.

The NTSB states the impact time, and the time stamps which are synchronized
support the data written to this time, along with sensor updates.

Then explain the picture of the radar track in beachnut post # 2065

There is nothing to explain. It's a made up guess, and he cannot account
for the missing data, DME, or sync'd clocks.

 

[WildCat]

I hate to break it to you, but ALL of your theories involve something
breaking, failing, or going out of spec in order to make sense.

I hate to break it to you, but all of your evidence relies on pretend FDR experts motivated by a political agenda who refuse to have their findings corroborated by real FDR experts. It is also at odds with the wreckage, DNA evidence, the fact the FDR was found in the Pentagon, thousands of witnesses, and other physical evidence (light poles etc).

This is why no one takes the PfffT seriously.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah guys, how can you expect something to break in a 500mph head on plane collision? That's just silly. Clearly the plane crashed in the air just before the building.

 

[Disbelief]

YOu see, I checked that site because a couple members asked why
we had not contacted any experienced FDR specialists. I then asked
who they consider "experts" and i was given a link to Juris Pro.

Within that list, I could not find a single person with "FDR Expert" in
their list of credentials.

Do you see any?

You mean you can't figure out how to use it and you want us to do all your work for you? You are the one who needs FDR experts to help (and your group is severely lacking in that department), yet you do not get any. Why is that?

Besides, you were also linked to other places to locate FDR experts (which is where your group is severely lacking), yet you have not done so. Why is that?

 

[Gamolon]

Turbofan,

I've been reading this thread, the PFT site forums, PFT's explanations, looked at photos, and read many other articles and posts concerning the Pentagon attack.

I have no FDR experience whatsoever.

I have read all the above information and have this to say:

It seems PFT's sole existence is to provide information to the general public and ask questions as to why there are anomalies in the government's official story. It seems to me that PFT is trying to bring these anomalies to the attention of the general public so that they may ask their own questions regarding what happened and find the truth.

All these inconsistencies PFT has supposedly found...

What do all these anomalies and inconsistencies mean to Joe Q. Public? As an unbiased person trying to sift through all the information out there, I have to tell you that what you have provided is very unconvincing and lacking in all respects. The only people who seem to buy into the information you are providing are those that have an axe to grind against the current government regime. I say that because many of the conspiracy supporters use terms like "government loyalist", "government shill", Bush Loyalist", "infiltrator", etc., when posting. This is very suspect to me.

Again, what do all the inconsistencies really mean when the end result is shown to be the same. The Pentagon was hit by a plane. This has been verified by PFT's own witnesses. The same witnesses that claim the NOC flight path. I find it very peculiar that PFT uses one part of the witnesses testimony as proof of the NOC flight path and that something bogus happened at the Pentagon, yet those same witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon and you ignore it or explain it away.

I don't care if the plane flew NOC. I don't care if the FDR shows the plane being too high to hit the light poles. I don't care about the technical data contained in the FDR. The problem is that your own witnesses say that the plane hit the Pentagon. Why do they say that? If what PFT says is true, then the witnesses are lying. Do you have one witness that says that saw a plane fly OVER the Pentagon on the same path you guys propose?

Another question I have, and you may have addressed this, is why haven't you contacted the salesperson who claimed that the FDR doesn't just lose data and tell him what has happened? Did you tell him that it is apparent that data is missing? I'm sure the manufacturer would want to know that their equipment is possibly faulty and that they need to address it.

There are just so many far fetched assumptions that had to be made in order for PFT's explanations to be correct. For example, planted light poles. How in the world can your witnesses spot another plane, or the NOC flight path, but everyone missed the light poles being planted? How is that possible? How is it possible that everyone missed body parts being planted? How is it that everyone missed parts of the plane being planted at the site?

Can you also please explain to me why perps would have a plan to have the debris pattern, flight path, and witnesses ALL agree with the official story yet fly a VISIBLE jet on another flight path (NOC) that negates EVERYTHING they just planned?

Can you also explain why would the perps have planted people claim that the plane hit the light poles, then stage the downed light poles to agree with the planted witnesses, and then fake or tamper with the FDR data to show that the plane DID NOT hit the light poles?

I really don't get how you guys at PFT can look at the large amount of evidence for the plane hitting the Pentagon and then look at the small amount of evidence against it and say, "A plane didn't hit at the Penatgon." Truly amazing.

On a final note, your claim that PFT points no fingers or has no theory is just a plain (or is that "plane", no pun intended) is just ridiculous. That to me is just an excuse not to have to answer any questions about it. I think it shows you guys have a theory, but have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. Very suspect.

I guess in the end, your success is based on how many people actually believe you guys. Right now, it doesn't look to good. You are failing to convince hardly ANYONE.

I know you probably don't give a rat's ass about my opinion because I have spoken out against you and PFT, but your group is failing miserably. In 7 years, you guys haven't done a damn thing to progress forward. The whole conspiracy movement is a failure. Why? Because most people aren’t stupid enough to believe your garbage.

All in all, to me, you guys are nothing more than fame seeking, attention wanting kids and nothing more. You guys are just trying to make a name for yourselves, but it's the wrong name. You may think you've captured the limelight, but it's always among the same group of truthers. You'll never break the truther bubble to reach the majority of the people you really need to convince. It's sad that you don't realize this yet. If it hasn't happened yet in 7 years, it'll never happen. You haven't even come up with anything new. How are you supposed to convince those who have already read through your stuff and rejected it?

You are just doomed to fail.

 

[Turbofan]

Yeah guys, how can you expect something to break in a 500mph head on plane collision? That's just silly. Clearly the plane crashed in the air just before the building.

I would expect to break upon impact, or shortly thereafter.

it is your 'faceless experts' that claim the FDR broke before impact (between
3.6 and 8 seconds)!

Look at everyone getting angry because they can't come up with a logical
explanation to support their theories.

Just remember, PFT decoded the raw data file with help from industry pros
and have actual ARINC documentation. None of which your JREF 'experts'
can claim. They are clueless about the system and how it works, yet you
all blindly support them.

 

[funk de fino]

I hate to break it to you, but ALL of your theories involve something
breaking, failing, or going out of spec in order to make sense.

There is a list of failures as long as my arm. This is why 911 happened. If everything worked as it should have 911 would not have happened the way it did.

Wow, does everything need to break on 9/11 to make the OGCT make sense?

NO

Sorry to say, but there is more than one sensor pointing to the anomalies.

You want us to believe several sensors failed and went out of spec all at
once on 9/11?

I am not saying sensors failed. I am not saying all. I am saying they can and will regardless of whether they have been certified for Mil spec. Guess what? The tools I use now use Mil Spec componenets and they fail as well.

What aircraft do you have tech experience on that you can claim to know about certifying aircraft parts? How many jobs have you signed off in an aircraft 700 log? How many times have you been specially selected to be a self supervising technician on fast jet aircraft? How many times have you removed, fitted and serviced and tested and FDR/CVR unit in an aircraft?

Right...but the data recovered from the FDR was contiguous, coherent and
intelligible. If the data was corrupt, it would be jumbled and not in the form
of numbers that we all clearly see in the CSV file.

If this is the case then why does the NTSB Flight 77 report state this?

Only validated parameters are included in the plots and tabular data in this report. A list of these parameters is in Attachments I-1 to I-4. The remaining parameters were either not recorded properly or were not confirmed to have been recorded properly, and are not included in this report. A list of these parameters is in Attachments I-5 to I-13.

More than 8 pages of parameters not recorded or confirmed?? Why is this if FDR memory is infallible? How can there be missing data? You said this was electrically impossible?

The NTSB states the impact time, and the time stamps which are synchronized support the data written to this time, along with sensor updates

Have you written to the NTSB to see if you can clarify exactly how they came to the impact time you claim they have? Have you written to them to see if they can explain any missing data that would be the result of an incorrect impact time? Have you checked with the CIT clowns witness' who place the plane lower than you say it must have been? have you checked with the CIT clown witness' who say flight 77 hit the pentagon?

There is nothing to explain. It's a made up guess, and he cannot account for the missing data, DME, or sync'd clocks.

Not an acceptable answer and not very technical? He made it up?

How do you counter John farmer assertions that he thinks the FDR data stops 6 secs (+/- 2 secs) before impact time and that the CSV file and FDR data are 4 secs out of alignment?

Care to bring a name from your list of pilots and flight attendants this time? FDR/CVR 1st and 2nd line experience? Just one?

 

[funk de fino]

I would expect to break upon impact, or shortly thereafter.

it is your 'faceless experts' that claim the FDR broke before impact (between
3.6 and 8 seconds)!

Look at everyone getting angry because they can't come up with a logical
explanation to support their theories.

Just remember, PFT decoded the raw data file with help from industry pros
and have actual ARINC documentation. None of which your JREF 'experts'
can claim. They are clueless about the system and how it works, yet you
all blindly support them.

I cannot remember seeing it but did you come up with a manufacturing date for the Intel chip mentioned earlier?

ETA the only one getting angry here seems to be you

 

[Turbofan]

There is a list of failures as long as my arm. This is why 911 happened. If everything worked as it should have 911 would not have happened the way it did.

You are HOPING, or BETTING on the fact that several sensors failed on the
plane and went out of tolerance to make the story make sense!

That's funny, and unlikely!

If this is the case then why does the NTSB Flight 77 report state this?

More than 8 pages of parameters not recorded or confirmed?? Why is this if FDR memory is infallible? How can there be missing data? You said this was electrically impossible?

They are referring to PARAMETERS not recorded, not DATA that has been
stored in CPM! There's a difference.

Also keep in mind PFT decoded RAD ALT which confirms Pressure Altitude!

How do you counter John farmer assertions that he thinks the FDR data stops 6 secs (+/- 2 secs) before impact time and that the CSV file and FDR data are 4 secs out of alignment?

Fourth time: Clocks sync'd, data transfer rate of 64 words per second,
DME of 1.5 nm, etc.

Read back a few posts, I mentioned three other times.

 

[DC]

I could probably scan some of my docs and black out any stuff that could be used for nefarious purposes if this was acceptable or supply it to a mod who could confirm it?



we used to be responsible :-

1st line - fitting, removing, testing FDR/CVR units and associated circuits and parts

2nd line - repair and maintenance to component level, test, calibrate, download data, print data and help to analyze data for pilot/engineering use

we once had a pilot abort at take off speed on the runway and he severely damaged the front landing gear. the reason he aborted was found to be a glitch in the front cockpit AOA gauge which he did not cross check with the rear and HUD and panicked and aborted. he was 100% certain he had not left the ground when he aborted but the damage looked to us like he had. when we removed the FDR and run the plot it bacame clear that he had in fact left the ground with all three landing gear. the fdr proved his story wrong.

the strange thing is now in my jobs we look at Formation Evaluation logs for oil well analysis and i find this much more difficult to understand than the aircraft plots even though it is a similar technique (then again old dog new tricks if you know ahat i mean)

i think blackout things are ok for me.

 

[DC]

a few months ago i found an FDR report on the net, i think it was from the NTSB.
i was very suprised to read all the details they wrote about the FDR and why there was the last 0.2 seconds of FDR data missing.
especially when you compare it to the FDR report on AA77, where they do not mention any missing data.

does anyone know that report? i think it was from 1992

 

[funk de fino]

You are HOPING, or BETTING on the fact that several sensors failed on the
plane and went out of tolerance to make the story make sense!

That's funny, and unlikely!

Your reading comprehension fails you again. I am talking about everything that happened that day. If airport security had been better, if communications between FAA and military had been easier and better, if intelligence warnings had been understood a little better etc etc.

I am not claiming any sensor failures, this is a straw man, I am saying they can and do to your claims they do not. All sensors can drift out of tolerance, especially IN's. Would you try and claim they do not?

They are referring to PARAMETERS not recorded, not DATA that has been stored in CPM! There's a difference.

Explain the difference. There are parameters not recorded or recorded properly. Why not? What would have caused that?

Also keep in mind PFT decoded RAD ALT which confirms Pressure Altitude!

And?

Fourth time: Clocks sync'd, data transfer rate of 64 words per second,
DME of 1.5 nm, etc.
Read back a few posts, I mentioned three other times.

Explain clocks synced. Please give a step by step rebuttal of John Farmers work if you think it is wrong.

You missed this again

"Care to bring a name from your list of pilots and flight attendants this time? FDR/CVR 1st and 2nd line experience? Just one?"

Why do you snip out stuff you cannot answer TF? Very dishonest no?

 

[funk de fino]

i think blackout things are ok for me.

against my better judgment i will see what i can do

do not hold your breath though as i travel to the states on monday for 3 weeks and may have to hunt around in dusty shelves for my stuff

i havent seen it for a few years, do you want pics of my medals also?

 

[funk de fino]

a few months ago i found an FDR report on the net, i think it was from the NTSB.
i was very suprised to read all the details they wrote about the FDR and why there was the last 0.2 seconds of FDR data missing.
especially when you compare it to the FDR report on AA77, where they do not mention any missing data.

does anyone know that report? i think it was from 1992

The difference would have been that the report would have been for accident investigation reports most likely. The data loss would have been something unusual that could have had something to do wiuth what caused the accident.

The Flight 77 report is not a standard investigative report. They know what caused the incident and it was not parts failure. The only reason the NTSB got involved in the 911 aircraft was because the FBI asked them for help. Not because they had to.

You have claimed before that previous reports always mentioned the serial number or mentioned why it was not mentioned and I have also shown you both these claimns are untrue.

The John Farmer analysis has some answers about the data missing and possible impact time errors if you care to read it.

TF and the like are flip flopping between two arguments.

 

[DC]

The difference would have been that the report would have been for accident investigation reports most likely. The data loss would have been something unusual that could have had something to do wiuth what caused the accident.

The Flight 77 report is not a standard investigative report. They know what caused the incident and it was not parts failure. The only reason the NTSB got involved in the 911 aircraft was because the FBI asked them for help. Not because they had to.

You have claimed before that previous reports always mentioned the serial number or mentioned why it was not mentioned and I have also shown you both these claimns are untrue.

The John Farmer analysis has some answers about the data missing and possible impact time errors if you care to read it.

TF and the like are flip flopping between two arguments.

i claimed usualy NTSB mentions the Serial numbers and when they are missing they mentions this, i still claim this.

NTSB did the data outread and made that report , for another agency, i find it strange they do not mention the serial numbers especially beacuse it is for another agency and not for themself.
also in case that indeed the last few seconds of data would be missing, i find it very strange they dont mention that, especially because they did the dataoutread for another agency.

 

[beachnut]

You are talking out of your butt. If yuo knew how DME worked, you wouldn't
type such nonsense.

The DME receivers cannot receive a value of 1.5 unless the aircraft is within
1.5 nm, +/- 0.1 nm of the beacon!

Another problem with your theory is that you cannot account for 3.6 seconds
of data!

You are aware that the transfer rate is 64 words per SECOND correct?

You do know the clocks are sync'd up , right?

The NTSB states the impact time. You have problems with the time stamp
and missing data as well as the 1.5 DME!

Try another theory Beachnut, nobody's buying this one.

Sorry the DME accuracy in 2001 according to AIM is less than 1/2 mile or 3 percent which ever is greater. The typical error for an aircraft in 77 generation was about .23 NM. The .1 NM you have is from the transmitter set test. Apples and Oranges. You must use aircraft accuracy, not transmitter test information. Plus you should look in AIM for 2001 and stop using today's standards as you miss the point on most of the FDR data for a 2001 incident and an even older plane.

For the on lookers it is significant if Turbofan thinks 1.5 DME is 1.5 DME; the FDR only stores DME as .0, .2, .5, .8. (i left out the X, it confueses the p4t math experts) We need a stat, or math major to explain the possible errors in DME. In addition the aircraft DME error for 77 can be as high as .23 NM, this matches the AIM (Airman's Information Manual) from 2001, for errors less than ½ mile or 3% whichever is higher.

The proof the DME in 77 is not a much better than .23 NM is the fact the DME is used to update the INS which is off over 2000 feet on take off and over 1600 feet when 4700 feet from the Pentagon. Remember the INS says 77 is over 8 seconds away from the Pentagon. Gee whiz, I forgot you are using an animation that placed an image of the Pentagon in front of the animation without regard for where 77 is. You p4t guys have based a religion on a working copy animation and your own ignorance of flight, math, and physics; propelled by your bias and hate for the man, the government, the military, the FAA, the Navy, and others you are saying did 9/11; you must really like UBL to cover for him!

There are 5 to 6 seconds of data missing, and you have no clue why! But you salesman expert from L3 never said data can't be missing for a variety of reasons. Many FDR have missing data which you have an excuse that something happen. The RADAR data verifies 77 is still 5 or 6 seconds away from the Pentagon when the FDR stops. The impact time on the FDR is 13:37:50 to 52. You are leaving out data, how can you make up a fantasy when it is easy to see 77 hit the Pentagon and your ideas are wrong out of the box.



The transfer rate is not 64 words per second! LOL Please try again. Why is your research and analysis always flawed due to errors? you are only off by a factor of four