• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AA77 FDR Data, Explained

jaydeehess said:
pFt , the same group from which the 11 g balls'd up display of gross ineptitude with basic physics comes from?
A tech paper from them you say? Submitted, I am sure, for publication in Aviation Week or Scientific American and outling how the path of the aircraft is grossly different than that illustrated by the DFDR and including a path consistent with witness statements and the unwitnessed flyover? Right?
Click to expand...

Jaydeehess, how many more times do I have to say this?

You have never agreed with the NTSB released data and conclusions!

Apart from the fact that the alleged FDR data doesn't add up with the alleged impact, there's no verifiable evidence that it actually came from "AA77".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8689240&postcount=358
 
mudlark said:
Jaydeehess, how many more times do I have to say this?

You have never agreed with the NTSB released data and conclusions!

Apart from the fact that the alleged FDR data doesn't add up with the alleged impact, there's no verifiable evidence that it actually came from "AA77".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8689240&postcount=358
Click to expand...

There is an entire thread on this forum dedicated to discussion about the DFDR and the data contained therein, and as I recall it, it was determined that this data DOES agree with the physical damage path.
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
Jaydeehess, how many more times do I have to say this?

You have never agreed with the NTSB released data and conclusions!

Apart from the fact that the alleged FDR data doesn't add up with the alleged impact, there's no verifiable evidence that it actually came from "AA77".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8689240&postcount=358
Click to expand...

The NTSB and FAA data proves 77 hit the Pentagon. It is a fact the FDR is from 77, and can be verified many ways.

You can't refute RADAR proof 77 impacted the Pentagon, which can be verified by using the data ourselves. Are you unable to understand RADAR, it is easy and is reality?

The FDR is real, and you have offered zero evidence was not verified. When will you offer reality based evidence? The testimony of all the witnesses verifies the real flight path. All the flight paths you have are impossible to fly. Why do you fail to offer one possible flight path?

Every single entry in the FDR is proof it was from 77. You can't prove otherwise, and never will.

RADAR tracks 77 from takeoff to Pentagon impact - FDR found in Pentagon. FDR data matches to the second all RADAR from flight of 77 for the past 25 flight hours. OOPS.

Have you taken the time to verify or refute the FDR information, bit by bit? No, you say it is not the FDR? No.

The FDR adds up to impact, the last altitude recorded is 4 feet, then impact. The lateral acceleration of impact with the first object next to the Pengtagon is in the FDR. The exact course lines up with the damage to the Pentagon. This alone makes your statement false.
mudlark said:
... Apart from the fact that the alleged FDR data doesn't add up with the alleged impact, there's no verifiable evidence that it actually came from "AA77". ...
Click to expand...
A false statement. There are no missing seconds on the FDR. The NTSB decoding software can't do the last four seconds because data is missing from the frame, a frame is four seconds. It can be decoded, and was. The NTSB does not do crime, there is no need to decode the FDR to solve 911. The FDR is used to solve why a plane crashes in an accident, not solve why terrorists killed people.

You can't say the FDR is fake is you don't offer evidence. You offer no facts to support the FDR is not 77. Whereas the data in the FDR proves it was 77, by presenting to the second information where 77 was, for the past 25 hours of flight, which match what 77 did, and can be verified by RADAR. Then you have DNA which proves 77 impacted the Pentagon. Are you saying the airlines faked the manifests?
 
I was looking for the thread with anti-sophist and gumboot(IIRC) but found this courtesy of beachnut
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102924&page=9
post 331
At 1.5 DME based on heading and an exact 1.5 NM from DCA and if you use the RAD ALT, giving you 400 MSL, and an impact of 40 MSL, you have to loose 360 feet in 3.57 seonds and you only have to do 100.67 feet per second to impact the Pentagon. The last stick input by the terrorist pilot would guarantee descent in excess of 101 feet per second, it was the biggest stick input for going down inputted by the terrorist as the data stops. Earlier his biggest input resulted in excess of 6060 feet per minute descent rate; this input was bigger.

If you take/understand the fact the DME could have been 1.65 DME and stored as 1.5 DME at the time the RAD ALT said 273 feet, you add the local feet o 129 and have 402, you only need about 70 feet per second to impact the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
 
LSSBB said:
Legge and Stutt showed that the FDR data does add up with an impact.
Click to expand...

Not only adds up to an impact, it detects it. Full-rate accelerometer readings, hatch closure warnings, and system failures were recorded all over the ship on the last sample, once Mr. Stutt managed to recover the data.

This is actually one of the few cases where the "debunkers" were not only proven right, but in fact predicted what actually happened, using data that was only later available. Doesn't get much more scientifically ironclad than that.
 
It should be noted that LashL could have chosen a couple of different threads to move discussion of the DFDR data to.
I have been looking for the first post in which Warren Stutt posts his decode of the last 4 seconds of the DFDR showing a RADALT altitude of 4 feet (indicating the guselage at that time was 16 feet above the ground).
I feel sure its in this thread and its mentioned at least as far back as December 2009 on this page
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047&highlight=frame&page=102

Big time fail for mudlark to say that the DFDR does not show the same path as the physical damage.
 
Hi jaydeehess,

jaydeehess said:
<snip>
I have been looking for the first post in which Warren Stutt posts his decode of the last 4 seconds of the DFDR showing a RADALT altitude of 4 feet (indicating the guselage at that time was 16 feet above the ground).
I feel sure its in this thread and its mentioned at least as far back as December 2009 on this page
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047&highlight=frame&page=102

<snip>
Click to expand...
Here's a post where I discussed the last RADALT altitudes in the DFDR.

Warren.
 
Hi R.Mackey,

R.Mackey said:
Not only adds up to an impact, it detects it. Full-rate accelerometer readings, hatch closure warnings, and system failures were recorded all over the ship on the last sample, once Mr. Stutt managed to recover the data.

<snip>
Click to expand...
Actually the hatch closure warnings and some system failures appeared in the last second of the NTSB decode but not at the same point in my decode. That was due to the same error correcting code problem that stopped the NTSB decoding the last four seconds.

The last longitudinal acceleration in my decode did have the most negative value that could be recorded though like you said along with a sudden change in the last lateral acceleration to approximately 0.5G.

I noticed that the ENG EPR-ACTUAL - L (RATIO) and ENG EPR-ACTUAL - R (RATIO) values both suddenly drop to zero in the second to last subframe of my decode (roughly two seconds before the end of the data). Perhaps this was due to impact with the light poles?

Warren.
 
My mistake. It's been years. :D

In my opinion EPR suddenly reading zero can only be a sensor or electronics failure -- a severe one that makes the engines uncontrollable. A more gradual drop to zero could theoretically happen with a bad unstart, total destruction of the core, or delamination of the sensors themselves, but even then I'd expect to see some wacky but nonzero result.

ETA: Other possibility is "zero" is the algorithm's default for "this is totally outside any and all calibration," but it's not that difficult to calculate if you have working pressure sensors at stations 2 and 8.
 
Last edited:
wstutt said:
Hi jaydeehess,

Here's a post where I discussed the last RADALT altitudes in the DFDR.

Warren.
Click to expand...

As Ryan says, its been years.
Warren, perhaps you can refresh everyone's memory, and confirm or refute my statement a few posts above, that the DFDR data does in fact illustrate a flightpath consistent with the path displayed by the physical damage to poles and the entry direction/location at the Pentagon?
 
Hi jaydeehess,

jaydeehess said:
As Ryan says, its been years.
Warren, perhaps you can refresh everyone's memory, and confirm or refute my statement a few posts above, that the DFDR data does in fact illustrate a flightpath consistent with the path displayed by the physical damage to poles and the entry direction/location at the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
I confirm your statement. I co-authored a paper with Frank Legge on this.

Warren.
 
mudlark said:
Originally Posted by jaydeehess
mudlark, these witness statements are not consistent with the DFDR data but the so called official flightpath indeed does.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=4334
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8689240&postcount=358
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047&page=109

Posts concerning the DFDR are now being routed to this thread mudlark, thus I linked to it. You may have also noticed that posts were moved there.
I see you have not bothered to respond.
 
Hi Ryan,

R.Mackey said:
Not only adds up to an impact, it detects it. Full-rate accelerometer readings, hatch closure warnings, and system failures were recorded all over the ship on the last sample, once Mr. Stutt managed to recover the data.

This is actually one of the few cases where the "debunkers" were not only proven right, but in fact predicted what actually happened, using data that was only later available. Doesn't get much more scientifically ironclad than that.
Click to expand...
It also seems to me that not only "debunkers", but P4T members themselves made successful predictions about what would be later found in the FDR data.

For example, Calum Douglas (aka snowygrouch) regarding the 4 seconds of FDR data which was apparently missing:
celestrin said:
<snip>

This is what I'm talking about, Turbofan. This graphics from Douglas' presentation proves that PffT's (and by inheritance yours) insistance on 500ms is wrong.



Their own data. Their own analysis. Their own guy! And now you come here, proudly showing off multiple lines, hooks and sinkers embedded into your throat. Why? Didn't you find anything wrong with that analysis by Douglas? Don't you think there is a very simple step missing? So simple, that it had to have been omitted by choice? Douglas is not as dumb as some of the other PffT leaders (which shall remain bibless).

Even if we take their magical "2 seconds at most" (BTW, the 2s for which they have failed to present any logical explanation either), even if we allow a 2000feet error for Douglas' analysis, the data still doesn't fit. The plane is still at very best 2.5s away from the Pentagon, but, according to Douglas' very own method, it's much more likely that it was about 4-6s out. Have you ever wondered why hasn't snowygrouch expanded on that? He did the analysis, he's got the method, why didn't he show the details?

<snip>
Click to expand...

There is also this transcript I made of a part of an interview Rob Balsamo did of former member Dennis Cimino starting at approximately 28:22 regarding the approximately last two seconds of EPR values that I referred to. The interview was originally posted on the P4T site on 1 September 2007 :
Dennis Cimino: I think the most prevalent indictaion based on the spacing of the engines on that aircraft plus the supposed wing impact points with the poles themselves would have given a very pronounced spike in the pressure on the EPR probes inside the engines themselves.

Robert Balsamo: Yeah and you know and as a matter of fact, we have a new video up on the forums of a seven fifty se... talk about your V1 cuts, this aircraft sucked a bird in to the right engine just as it was rotating and the crew and ATC did just an excellent job of it and you can see the puffs and the flames of smoke coming out of the back of the engine and they went around, they landed the aircraft but this was just a small bird now there's one claim out there from one of the so called Pentagon researchers that says that the right engine sucked in some leaves from trees where pole number one was because you can see kind of in a pixellated picture that there's kind of a little bit of an outline of a semi-circle at the top of the tree but you can't tell and it's a far leap of logic to even suggest that the engine actually did that but anyway if the engine had injested some type of leafy substance or top of a tree or something like that, you'd certainly see it in the flight data recorder.

Dennis Cimino: That's right. You would've probably would have seen it in the EPR probes inside the engine and potentially because of the way shockwaves manifest themselves on impact you potentially would've seen this on the pitot static system of the aircraft itself with the airspeed.
Click to expand...
Warren.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom