AA77 FDR Data, Explained

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Rolling my eyes and sighing....

So, explain it to me then? Show me (PFT) where we're wrong?

NTSB states an impact time.

The raw and CSV file shows too high at that time.

How does all of this wonderful data work in the real world?

P.S. Still waiting for an expert from Juris Pro

(someone is changing the subject )

The NTSB did not do an investigation.

You picked an impact time with 77 still over 2800 feet away, at 1.5 DME on a heading of 61.2 degrees.

This reminds me Balsamo did not know how many feet were in a nautical mile.

1.5 DME from DCS is 2816 feet from the Pentagon. At 771 f/s we get 3.6 seconds to hit the Pentagon. This is simple math, sorry you can't check my work due to math failure.

Why is 1.5 DME 2816 feet from the Pentagon impact, because 77 is on a heading of 61.2 degrees. There is only one point where 1.5 DME and 61.2 degrees lines up with the souls on board of 77 resting place. The people you disgrace with your lie that 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon.

Simple math, geometry and a little physics could help you understand this. Next time take the hard courses it will help you understand reality.

Do you know the errors in the DME! Do you ignore the things you can't answer?

The raw data does not show anything! The raw data is encoded and you can't see anything! What a crock!

You can't use 1.5 DME and any old impact time you want. Failure.

Have you plotted 1.5 DME yet?

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
The NTSB did not do an investigation.

You picked an impact time with 77 still over 2800 feet away, at 1.5 DME on a heading of 61.2 degrees.

The NTSB did a Flight Path Study. They calculated "impact time" at 09:37:45,
it is NOT a working copy (unless you can quote as such from the NTSB in
the Flight Path Study? didnt think so). You claim the NTSB is wrong.

When have you contacted the NTSB about this? The rest of your post is the
same old BS thats been addressed ad nauseum throughout this 50 + page
thread. Its clear why you wont take on aviation professionals and hide here.

1.5 DME from DCS is 2816 feet from the Pentagon. At 771 f/s we get 3.6 seconds to hit the Pentagon. This is simple math, sorry you can't check my work due to math failure.

Your failure is that you can't account for the rest of the flight data.

Did it just fall off into your fairytale land? Please tell the world where
that 3.6 seconds of data ended up!

Why is 1.5 DME 2816 feet from the Pentagon impact, because 77 is on a heading of 61.2 degrees. There is only one point where 1.5 DME and 61.2 degrees lines up with the souls on board of 77 resting place. The people you disgrace with your lie that 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon.

Tell that to the first responders and 3000+ families wanting an investigation.

Start with these people:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors

Do you know the errors in the DME! Do you ignore the things you can't answer?

The raw data does not show anything! The raw data is encoded and you can't see anything! What a crock!

You're a crock, and apparently forgetful! PFT DECODED the raw data file. if the Raw file cant be read, why do you keep using it?
LOL! Make sense much?

You can't use 1.5 DME and any old impact time you want. Failure.

That's right smart guy; that's why your stupid theory doesn't add up.
3.6 seconds LMAO.

jaydeehess · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Yup, still beating a dead horse

Refering to PfT's contentions. Well, you said it,not me.I guess.

As long as you're all still answering,
I'll keep replying as well.

Ok fine but I thought you actually wanted something to come of all of PfT's extensive research. I guess I was incorrect in that.

Jaydee, what are the chances that L3 as a company would endorse JREF,
or PFT?

Well given that it is now obvious, from past exclamations from PfT , that if they did comment negatively on PfT that they would be in for accusations of cover-up and of being traitors. So PfT has poisoned the well. Does that make you all gushy and warm inside?
Now just what from the pages of the JREF forum would you want L3 to "endorse"? Perhaps what you meant to say was that you wonder if L3 agrees that the data stored on their product, having come from Flight 77, illustrates the same flight path that the physical damage path on the ground does (within the acceptable errors). I believe that L3 would indeed endorse such a senario. Unless of course someone were to show them cause to challenge that senario. After all if a good case could be made that their equipment is faulty they would be very interested in knowing about it.

What are the chances all employees of L3 would agree with either side
of this debate?

I believe very strongly that they would agree that the data stored on their company's product, having come from Flight 77, illustrates the same flight path that the physical damage path on the ground does (within the acceptable errors). If you believe differently then perhaps you'd care to give them your case in a consise, comprehensive technical fashion.

I still don't see how getting their approval of a study would make the case
any stronger?

Decorum would prevent me from stating what I feel you just said about yourself with that statement.

We both know now that PFT has submitted their study, but no response
was given (for/against).

Actually we both know that PfT has done nothing of the sort. PfT has released a 'press release' in which they state their conclusions along with scant details on how they arrive at such conclusions, and a fair amount of accusation and vitriol with the request that the reader then watch a video. That hardly constitutes a "study" being submitted.

ETA: ,, and we also know that PfT has called L3 and made a few inquires about the FDR type in question. Still does not add up to "submitting" a study paper.

I've asked a couple of your members to find me a FDR expert from Juris Pro
that I may contact. Nothing.

Who do you feel I should contact to help the cause?

Well how about http://www.iata.org/ps/intelligence_statistics/fda.htm

or this organization. http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=8037They have done research using FDR data such as this

Here's another http://www.cefa-aviation.com/

Check out the author of this presentation.
http://www.asasi.org/papers/2003/Flight Data Analysis_Campbell.pdf

Oh and looky here http://www.avtoday.com/asw/categories/maintenance/2034.html The publication Air Safety Week is interested in FDR analysis too.

Aviation Week has also published many articles on FDR's and their tech and analysis. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/channel_.jsp?channel=awst In fact they did not shy away from reporting on the friction between the NTSB and the FBI during the TWA800 investigation. They should be a perfect venue for PfT's study.

So what will be your excuses for you and PfT not submitting a technical paper to any of these?

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Beachnut, i notice you bring up John Lear alot to argue your case against PFT.

... "Lear" is a household name and helped design
the famous jet. So lets compare credentials, shall we?

Everyone knows data can be missing in a FDR! It is a proven fact, example have been given, but your salesman FDR expert says data can't be missing. He is wrong, as you are wrong. Data has been missing, and even with the same FDR! But you have excuses. The 1.5 DME proves data is missing. You insist on using 1.5 DME, this give 3.6 seconds of missing data! Darn, you should have studied more.

John Lear? I think his ideas match your massive errors on the FDR and 9/11; perfect match. Aliens among us. Guess you got the best expert. What jet did John Lear design? I knew he was in Public relations for a short time. At least John knows he is crazy about things.

How does John crazy flying exploits and failed 9/11 ideas help you. You can't even plot 1.5 DME or 61.2 degrees. Better ask John's aliens for help!

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

jaydeehess said:
I believe very strongly

We expected an argument from incredulity based on bias.

Let's see some facts to back up these claims please.

The rest of your post has been addressed.

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
Everyone knows data can be missing in a FDR! It is a proven fact, example have been given

Just like your examples of TWA 800 , SwissAir 111, etc. which had in flight emergencies?

Tell us again how a single cell can be erased? You do know how the
flash memory is erased in blocks , right?

,but your salesman FDR expert says data can't be missing. He is wrong,

Beachnut, have you called L3 yet? No? Didn't think so!

John Lear? I think his ideas match your massive errors on the FDR and 9/11; perfect match.

Beachnut, why does John Lear have 9 pages of credentials at FAA.gov; the most
ever in FAA history and you have an avatar before colour photography was
even invented

This rest of your post is not worth addressing, because we beat it to death over the
last 50 pages! It's all junk like most of your theories.

Call me Beachnut! I need to hear your voice! Then again, we just might call you soon.
Be prepared to be recorded...

DavidJames · Sep 3, 2008

Hey body shop boy.

Turbofan said:
LMAO

Turbofan said:
LMAO!

Turbofan said:
LMAO!...LMAO!

Turbofan said:
LMAO!

Turbofan said:
LMAO.

(those are just from the last few pages)

Why don't you stop LMAO and start actually trying to do something. You claim the U.S. government is complicit in the murder of 3000 people yet all you seem to care about is arguing with people here and then you have the audacity to call the people here cowards.

Your and pffffft are the epitome of cowards. Oh wait, you cold call people and send them emails, how brave of you. How would you like it if your family was killed and a group claimed to have evidence pointing to the real killers and all they did was end out some emails. Oh wait, I forgot they do much more, they sell stuff about your family being killed.

Then to top things off, some body shop boy, while defended those morons, is constantly including LMAO all the time.

There you go, body shop boy, that's you and your friends.

Turbofan said:
Pathetic.

Indeed

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Beachnut, why doesn't have 9 pages of credentials at FAA.gov; the most
ever in FAA history and you have an avatar before colour photography was even invented

Why don't I believe in aliens?

Still you can't plot 1.5 DME!

3.6 seconds to impact. DME is only stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8. So 77 is really 5 to 6 seconds away as verified by RADAR.
Add in DME errors, and we have even more lead way. So p4t have no clue where 77 is, or how to figure it out. They have 11.2 down! Got math?

If you take 463 KIAS, and 2796 feet, you get 3.6 seconds. Got math? Yes, the yellow line goes to the Pentagon in 2796 feet.

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
Why don't I believe in aliens?

Still you can't plot 1.5 DME!

When are you going answer my questions about John Lear and his credentials?

You're on line with an Auto Tech and getting schooled about FDR's, and that's
why you wont debate with pilots at PFT. They would RUIN you 100 times over!

jaydeehess · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
We expected an argument from incredulity based on bias.

"We"? Is that PfT or are you using the 'Royal WE'?

Let's see some facts to back up these claims please.

You asked for my opinion as to whether or not L3 and the employees of L3 would stand behind their product. I stated that I believe they would do so until someone gave them cause to doubt their product in this instance. What more do you need? It is my contention that most professionals do stand by their work product and are very interested in knowing about flaws so that they can continue to improve them. Do you have a reason to doubt that this is the normal circumstance?

The rest of your post has been addressed.

PfT HAS NOT even created a comprehensive, technical paper outlining how they arrive at the conclusion that the FDR flight path and the physical damage flight path are grossly different, LET ALONE "submitted" such a study to anyone or any organization. If I am incorrect then perhaps, as with almost everything else PfT does, there is a link to that study? I remind you that such a study would not contain accusations of false data or cover ups or treason.

Slayhamlet · Sep 3, 2008

You mean the Learjet 23? And your evidence that John Lear had any part in the design of it is?

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
When are you going answer my questions about John Lear and his credentials?

You're on line with an Auto Tech and getting schooled about FDR's,

John Lear is the most qualified person in p4t, his fantasy ideas make him the most fantasy minded p4t member you got. You guys spew fantasy ideas, John Lear is the most qualified guy you have to spew fantasies not supported by fact or evidence. You are right his qualifications are perfect for p4t and making up lies and fantasies about 9/11.

You have not schooled anyone. You can't answer DME accuracy, you have no clue what X.0, X.2, X.5, and X.8 mean for storage of DME. You have no idea why p4t decode lists a DME every second, but the NTSB list correctly the DME every four seconds. You can't plot 1.5 DME, or figure out where 77 is.

What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?

All your experts and not one answer. School me with some answers.

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
You can't answer DME accuracy, you have no clue what X.0, X.2, X.5, and X.8 mean for storage of DME.

Here's your first lesson:

Why do you keep posting x.8?
(take note JREF, your expert is losing it!)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77FDRp4tNAV.jpg
Do you see an x.8 here Beachnut? Incoherent? Need to take those meds?

You have been doing that for the last few pages.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

The other questions have been addressed several times. Read back instead
of posting the same thing over and over again.

Why was PFT able to decode the raw file, and you with so much 'experience'
are unable to do so?

We already know why Anti-Sophist couldn't get a Data Frame Layout or
decode the raw file. Anti readily agrees he is no expert on the subjuct. So
why do so many 'critical thinkers' get suckered in to his sophism?

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Here's your first lesson:

Why do you keep posting x.8?
(take note JREF, your expert is losing it!)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77FDRp4tNAV.jpg
Do you see an x.8 here Beachnut? Incoherent? Need to take those meds?

You have been doing that for the last few pages.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

The other questions have been addressed several times. Read back instead
of posting the same thing over and over again.

Why was PFT able to decode the raw file, and you with so much 'experience'
are unable to do so?

We already know why Anti-Sophist coulndt get a Data Frame Layout or
decode the raw file. Anti readily agrees he is no expert on the subjuct. So
why do so many 'critical thinkers' get suckered in to his sophism?

Told you a long time ago when I was getting you to post the FAR on DME and FDR. The p4t decode has DME stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7; NTSB stores DME as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8; school out!

Go ahead look at the NTSB data, it has .8 and p4t data has .7. I explained this so when I talk about X.8, it is X.7 for expert p4t decode.

The p4t decoded the raw FDR information and have proof 77 flew all 25 hours of flight on the FDR. Proof of the FDR being 77 is in p4t hands. Good job!

Too high to hit and the FDR was in the Pentagon. As is the DNA. You disrespect those who died by making up fantasies. And you can't plot 1.5 DME, or remember who has X.8, and X.7. Good job. You can't remember the simple stuff I have taught you.

Do you know the feet in a nautical mile? What about fixing the 11.2 G error? 5 months!

No you never answered these, or you would!

What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?

Can John help you?

jaydeehess · Sep 3, 2008

jaydeehess said:
Well how about http://www.iata.org/ps/intelligence_statistics/fda.htm

or this organization. http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=8037They have done research using FDR data such as this

Here's another http://www.cefa-aviation.com/

Check out the author of this presentation.
http://www.asasi.org/papers/2003/Flight Data Analysis_Campbell.pdf

Oh and looky here http://www.avtoday.com/asw/categories/maintenance/2034.html The publication Air Safety Week is interested in FDR analysis too.

Aviation Week has also published many articles on FDR's and their tech and analysis. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/channel_.jsp?channel=awst In fact they did not shy away from reporting on the friction between the NTSB and the FBI during the TWA800 investigation. They should be a perfect venue for PfT's study.

So what will be your excuses for you and PfT not submitting a technical paper to any of these?

Well TF, will PfT create and submit a comprehensive, technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns to any of these organizations?
If so when?

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

jaydeehess said:
Well TF, will PfT create and submit a comprehensive, technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns to any of these organizations?
If so when?

How do you know they haven't? YOu will soon find out who we've contacted
and expose the spins Beachnut has been putting on 11.2G's. You're not
going to be too happy.

I'd like to see him squirm his way out of the clarified explanation.

Read this for further info:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
Told you a long time ago when I was getting you to post the FAR on DME and FDR. The p4t decode has DME stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.7; NTSB stores DME as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8; school out!

School out on backtalk too? I love how you twist stuff around, and try
to change the topic.

If you're so good, why don't you post up your crendentials so I can compare
them to Lear, and Latas?

Once again Beachnut, why didn't you decode the raw file like PFT did?
I guess you're not able to...I think I know why.

So, I'll wait for you to reply and write the same junk instead of answering
me.

Keep up the great work! 3.6 seconds @ 500 MPH and no data!

Reheat · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Call me Beachnut! I need to hear your voice! Then again, we just might call you soon.
Be prepared to be recorded...

Hay Beachnut, he's pulled the ultimate threat now! He's going to record your voice for his grandchildren to hear.

California Legal Code regarding recorded phone calls:

California

Although California is a two-party state, it is also legal to record a conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties to hear. This information was included with my telephone bill.

California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632). There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded. Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may recover the greater of $3,000 or three times the amount of any actual damages sustained.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
How do you know they haven't? YOu will soon find out who we've contacted
and expose the spins Beachnut has been putting on 11.2G's. You're not
going to be too happy.

I'd like to see him squirm his way out of the clarified explanation.

Read this for further info:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

Good you posted the 11.2 G error page. A physics blunder! Good job. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109066

Please explain why Balsamo messed that up and did not use the solutions offered here at JREF where physics is understood?

You can see here the RADAR return from DCA showing 77 at 13:37:47 still flying towards the Pentagon 2 seconds after your p4t expert impact time. How did you guys mess this up?

The FDR data stops near this green dot at the end of the yellow marker extension to ground. This is 4700 feet from the Pentagon, and falls within the possible errors of DME so 1.5 DME on the FDR still supports this position for people who understand DME and the errors I have explained. This position verified by RADAR makes impact about 6 seconds away. Impact becomes 13:37:50. The RADAR impact is about 13:37:52.

Being an engineer and a pilot helps with the math, physics, and flying. But only a grade school education is needed to debunk your fantasy of 77 not hitting the Pentagon.

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

Awww, lookie here. Reheat decides to post legal stuff as if I'm scared.

Can I call you in TN and get you on tape? Are you chicken too? Still
signing your research papers with "Reheat"

Classy, and brave...

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
Being an engineer and a pilot helps with the math, physics, and flying.

Being an engineer certainly didn't help you with speed and distance.

3.6 seconds at 500 MPH!

Where is the missing data?

If yuo're an engineer explain how you can wipe out 3.6 seconds of flash
memory.

It's electrically impossible. Did you forget that lesson about EEPROMs, and
the block addressing?

Remember this? Probably not:
http://www.procision-auto.com/911/911_mem_block.JPG

Sorry nice try Beachnut.

BTW: Why haven't you updated your medical for the past 8 years?

When are you going to debate us so we can explain your errors of 3.6 seconds?

I'm off to bed. Talk to you tomorrow Beachnut. Don't forget to take
your meds!

P.S. Reheat is scared to register at P4T with even his screename "Reheat". He
registered with "Foxy" and pretended to be a college female at Univ of Tenn.
We found out it was him through him posting at Loose Change forum with same IP.

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Reheat said:
Hay Beachnut, he's pulled the ultimate threat now! He's going to record your voice for his grandchildren to hear.

California Legal Code regarding recorded phone calls:

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

If he calls me, records me without my permission, I can make money. I better start picking up on the crank calls.

So all they have is "77 is too high to hit the Pentagon" with zero evidence and no understanding of the FDR. It looks like they are hung up on the NTSB animation. Remember those animations at the safety meetings?

So where did you go to UPT? I was at Moody trying NOT to feed the alligators.

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
they are hung up on the NTSB animation. Remember those animations at the safety meetings?

Remember ( if you can ) the data files are not a working copy.

Nice spin, and attempt to avoid fact.

Also remember, you and your JREF experts don't have the resources
or experience to decode a raw data file.

Keep hiding behind the screen with an expired medical.

jaydeehess · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
How do you know they haven't? YOu will soon find out who we've contacted
and expose the spins Beachnut has been putting on 11.2G's. You're not
going to be too happy.

I'd like to see him squirm his way out of the clarified explanation.

Read this for further info:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

I've seen it, I know why its utterly wrong when it does state

11.2 G's needed to arrest descent.

It is a problem worthy of a high school physics class and yet after months PfT has still not done it right.
Beachnut may be zealous but he ain't wrong about that ridiculous page.

I quote(bold mine)

224/3 seconds = 75 fps descent rate x 60 = 4480 fpm descent rate needed to reach top of pole 1 from top of VDOT Antenna.

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds.

Except that 75fps times 1.3 seconds is the distance the plane would travel vertically IF THERE WERE NO CHANGE IN THE DESCENT RATE. Therein lies one high school level error in the physics of this problem (BTW its customary to keep units consistent. If you calculate fps stay with fps , don't change to fpm without reason)

Next

97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's

Well that 32 is not fps but f/s²well if one divides feet by f/s² one gets a result in seconds squared which is meaningless.

Now back to my post above. Are you stating that PfT, after years of argueing on the internet to no avail, has finally produced a comprehensive technical analysis of the FDR data and the physical ground damage patterns and actually asked respected organizations to comment on it? No accusations of false data, no contentions of treason, no "line 'em up and shoot them in the head after the revolution" rhetoric?

....goody

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Being an engineer certainly didn't help you with speed and distance.

3.6 seconds at 500 MPH!

Where is the missing data?

So you guys were hitting on a man? Funny stuff. You guys track IP addresses, how paranoid; how big brother of you! I guess Balsamo is still the truth-NAZI; no truth for you! And you know who is posting at an IP address. Wowzer.

You must be using that new math, or think 500 mph is 5000 mph.
Take 463 KIAS (about 500 plus mph), that is 771 feet per second. We are 2796 feet away. Divide 2796 by 771 and we get, 3.6 seconds. Like I said, math comes in handy, and you are right, only a grade school education is needed to debunk p4t fantasies.

1.5 DME, plotted on 61.2 degrees give use 2796 feet to go! But 77 is further away, proven by RADAR! oops

The RADAR has 77 at the blue tack, and time is 13:37:47 over 5 seconds away from the Pentagon. There goes your impact time into the bit bucket. Did you miss this before? You never do cover all the issues.

The data stops, your EPROM stuff is funny!
Did I tell you my professor invented the integrated circuit? Guess what he taught us? You spewing bs is where my masters in engineering comes in handy; although I am in awe of all the laypeople who can see your failures easier than I.

Turbofan said:
BTW: Why haven't you updated your medical for the past 8 years?

As all military pilots know, we don't need an FAA medical to fly. We take a physical each year, we carry passengers, we don't have to have an FAA physical. When the Flight Surgeon is an FAA medical guy, we can get a Second Class. When our Flight Surgeon is not an FAA guy we have to go downtown if we want an FAA physical. Can't usually get a first class on base, the base does not have an EKG hooked up to the FAA, our EKGs are read by the Flight Surgeon.

For someone who knows nothing about flying, you have just been schooled again.

11.2 G see this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109066 and you will be schooled again.

Slayhamlet · Sep 3, 2008

Slayhamlet said:
You mean the Learjet 23? And your evidence that John Lear had any part in the design of it is?

Anything? What are this guy's credentials again?

Reheat · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
P.S. Reheat is scared to register at P4T with even his screename "Reheat". He registered with "Foxy" and pretended to be a college female at Univ of Tenn. We found out it was him through him posting at Loose Change forum with same IP.

Well, now, he is even clairvoyant. He knows how many computers I have in my house and who uses them. These pffft boys are might smart I tell you. They know everything. Everything, I tell you. I'm impressed!

ETA: Oh, Capt BoB said to Foxy. I'm better looking than my photo shows. It really doesn't do me justice. (snicker, snicker) How 'bout meeting me for a few drinks? This was AFTER accusing the female ROTC Cadet of being the British Porn Actress Samatha Fox.

[insert more dogs]

EvilBiker · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Keep hiding behind the screen with an expired medical.

That is Captain Bob's prerogative. You should know this, being surgically bound at the intellect.

TheLoneBedouin · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
Awww, lookie here. Reheat decides to post legal stuff as if I'm scared.

Can I call you in TN and get you on tape? Are you chicken too? Still
signing your research papers with "Reheat"

Research? You give him too much credit. I've already debunked his nonsense "paper" here. Apparently he's too busy watching flies gather over dog feces (odd hobby btw) to reply:

Reheat said:
I'll be busy for awhile as I see a neighbor's dog has just pooped in my yard and it's attracting some of those ugly green flies. It seems they are everywhere I look today.

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

TheLoneBedouin said:
Research? You give him too much credit. I've already debunked his nonsense "paper" here. Apparently he's too busy watching flies gather over dog feces (odd hobby btw) to reply:

The only thing you debunked; your physics skills. The flight paths are impossible, you failed and prove you don't understand flight, or physics. You really don't understand physics, and you don't know it.

Do you know the FDR like you know physics?

p4t have problem with physics too, they just close a thread when the questions are too hard.

p4t Capt Bob says:

Nice strawman, circular logic and putting words in my mouth. Typical govt loyalist slimy tactics. Consider this your first warning.

However, if thats how you rationalize it to yourself in order for you to understand the method, so be it. It seems you arent familiar with the concept of reducing margins for error.

I understand you are nervous that we have built a model, it certainly shows... and you should be.

Thread closed until we're done.

Over 5 months and they still have no physics skill that are visible. They are going to, or have a model to help them. It could be in Al Gore's lock box.

funk de fino · Sep 3, 2008

originally Posted by pfffft said:
Naomi Watson
Flight Attendant - Delta Airlines
Based Atlanta

I repeat

Is she more qualified than me to discuss FDR or aircraft tech details?

How about pulling one off your list who is?

funk de fino · Sep 3, 2008

TheLoneBedouin said:
Research? You give him too much credit. I've already debunked his nonsense "paper" here. Apparently he's too busy watching flies gather over dog feces (odd hobby btw) to reply:

TLB

Correct me if I am wrong, but do some of the triple corroborated completely infallible NOC CIT witness not contradict the too high to hit the Pentagon claim TF and Captain Bobs little helpers are making?

Caustic Logic · Sep 3, 2008

Turbofan said:
I hope I've answered everything in your post.

You did type some words in response. Thanks. Let's see if you answered anything...

Yes, I'm trying and I did look hence the link. I don't see any FDR experts
that everyone is crying about. Their credentials are no better than the
pros at PFT.

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

So please, help me find an FDR guy and i WILL contact him/her with
audio and/or e-mail history.

I don't know any and I don't care. We all know why you don't want to find any experts to ask real questions. You ignore all that haven't signed onto your echo chamber mentality of selectively applied expertise.

How do YOU arrive at 1.3 miles from impact? That's a new one! Check
that value. Are you thinking 1.5 nm DME perhaps?

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

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!
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.

What examples are those? Name the flights please. I can assure you
those planes had catastrophic failures before impact in order to lose data.

Maybe you're right. It was a case Beachnut cited somewhere and I don't know the circumstances.

Has anyone come up with a reason for AA77 to stop recording before impact?

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?

If they're wrong, then they wont admit it . They wont fix it. We're simply asking for an explanation and complete investigation.

If they don't admit it does that mean they're right? Does anyone but you care that they cited the wrong time and you refuse to recognize that? You'll accuse them of all sorts of sloppy cover-ups riddled with error you experts can spot, but they couldn't possibly be wrong when they decide there's no missing data. Because... why again?

Our analysis is just that. The plane didn't crash! The flight data shows it,
and it's NOT a working copy. are you not concerned?

I'm concerned for your mental health. The data shows the plane didn't crash at 9:37:45. Not until some seconds later. But you know there's only one official time it could ever crash, you 9/11 Commission official-story zombie.

1.5 DME, and the altitude is several hundred feet too high, and too close to
the Pentagon according to the impact time.

Not sure what you mean on the last, as it's shown too far away, as discussed. Too high AND the heading is a bit off, the pitch is wrong, and the wing bank too, as you guys have rightly pointed out. And the location is wrong! Good work. You've shown the data for last frame is NOT the data Flight 77 would record at impact! So it's 77 data from a different second, thanks for helping.

Bananaman · Sep 3, 2008

Let's face incontrivertible facts.

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for civility

Anyway, carry on.

Bananaman (who is too frustrated reading this thread to be diplomatic).

beachnut · Sep 3, 2008

Caustic Logic said:
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

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!

On take off the INS shows 77 2000 feet south of the runway. A 2000 to 3000 foot error in the INS is normal.

When you take the error out of the INS using RADAR data, you find 77 is about 6 seconds away from impact.

So the INS is only about 2000 to 1600 feet off at the end of flight. The INS drifts and is updated with VOR/DME.

Turbofan will talk about 1.5 DME as the last DME on the FDR, but he ignores the fact it is only stored in the FDR as .0, .2, .5, or .8 values. There for just the storage error alone is significant. When you add the DME systems errors to the storage error, you have up to a 0.355 NM error long on the DME. So 1.5 DME could be 1.855 DME from DCA VOR. I suspect the actual DME was 1.74 DME to 1.855 when you match 77 FDR to the RADAR data.

DC · Sep 3, 2008

funk de fino said:
I repeat

Is she more qualified than me to discuss FDR or aircraft tech details?

How about pulling one off your list who is?

can you backup your calims about your expertise about FDR's?
and where can i find your work or papers you published about the AA77 FDR data?

funk de fino · Sep 3, 2008

Dictator Cheney said:
can you backup your calims about your expertise about FDR's?
and where can i find your work or papers you published about the AA77 FDR data?

Ex RAF, tornado F3 electrical and electronic technician. 1st and 2nd line experience. Responsible for the FDR on the Aircraft amongst all the other systems.

Do you think I am lying? If I supplied you with proof of my claims would you apologise for doubting me?

I do not need to write a paper on flight 77 fdr because there is already one out there. The fact that TF has a complete inability to understand what the info is telling him is not my problem. Beachnut has destroyed him in this thread. TF keeps listing his experts and some of them are flight attendants.

the CIT clowns own witness even destroy the pffft claims

ETA look at post #2065 and see if you understand what beachnut is saying. this will go a long way to see where pffft are going wrong with the impact time claims etc.

DC · Sep 3, 2008

funk de fino said:
Ex RAF, tornado F3 electrical and electronic technician. 1st and 2nd line experience. Responsible for the FDR on the Aircraft amongst all the other systems.

Do you think I am lying? If I supplied you with proof of my claims would you apologise for doubting me?

I do not need to write a paper on flight 77 fdr because there is already one out there. The fact that TF has a complete inability to understand what the info is telling him is not my problem. Beachnut has destroyed him in this thread. TF keeps listing his experts and some of them are flight attendants.

the CIT clowns own witness even destroy the pffft claims

i didnt say i doubt it. i just would like to see some evidence.
and oc i will not apologise, nobody ever apologised to me for doubting that i am from switzerland.

and when you are an expert, it would be very interesting to read your work about it.

funk de fino · Sep 3, 2008

Dictator Cheney said:
i didnt say i doubt it. i just would like to see some evidence.
and oc i will not apologise, nobody ever apologised to me for doubting that i am from switzerland.

and when you are an expert, it would be very interesting to read your work about it.

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

Turbofan · Sep 3, 2008

beachnut said:
On take off the INS shows 77 2000 feet south of the runway. A 2000 to 3000 foot error in the INS is normal.

When you take the error out of the INS using RADAR data, you find 77 is about 6 seconds away from impact.

So the INS is only about 2000 to 1600 feet off at the end of flight. The INS drifts and is updated with VOR/DME.

Turbofan will talk about 1.5 DME as the last DME on the FDR, but he ignores the fact it is only stored in the FDR as .0, .2, .5, or .8 values. There for just the storage error alone is significant. When you add the DME systems errors to the storage error, you have up to a 0.355 NM error long on the DME. So 1.5 DME could be 1.855 DME from DCA VOR. I suspect the actual DME was 1.74 DME to 1.855 when you match 77 FDR to the RADAR data.

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.

AA77 FDR Data, Explained

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Illuminator

Spectral Challenger

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Dreaming of unicorns

Dreaming of unicorns

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Dreaming of unicorns

Banned

Dreaming of unicorns

Banned