Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum AA77 FDR Data, Explained

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags aa77 , flight data recorder

 2nd September 2008, 07:07 PM #2041 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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? Last edited by beachnut; 2nd September 2008 at 07:13 PM.
 2nd September 2008, 07:50 PM #2044 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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!
 2nd September 2008, 07:57 PM #2045 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 Originally Posted by jaydeehess 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.
 2nd September 2008, 08:01 PM #2046 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 Originally Posted by beachnut [color=black][font=Verdana] 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? Quote: ,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! Quote: [color=black][font=Verdana]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... Last edited by Turbofan; 2nd September 2008 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Typo
 2nd September 2008, 08:02 PM #2047 DavidJames Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 10,493 Hey body shop boy. Originally Posted by Turbofan LMAO Originally Posted by Turbofan LMAO! Originally Posted by Turbofan LMAO! Originally Posted by Turbofan LMAO! Originally Posted by Turbofan LMAO!...LMAO! Originally Posted by Turbofan LMAO! Originally Posted by Turbofan 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. Originally Posted by Turbofan Pathetic. Indeed
 2nd September 2008, 08:06 PM #2048 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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. Last edited by beachnut; 2nd September 2008 at 08:24 PM. Reason: 7
 2nd September 2008, 08:12 PM #2049 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 Originally Posted by beachnut 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!
 2nd September 2008, 08:14 PM #2050 jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,843 Originally Posted by Turbofan We expected an argument from incredulity based on bias. "We"? Is that PfT or are you using the 'Royal WE'? Quote: 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? Quote: 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. Last edited by jaydeehess; 2nd September 2008 at 08:42 PM.
 2nd September 2008, 08:25 PM #2051 Slayhamlet Master Poster   Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,423 You mean the Learjet 23? And your evidence that John Lear had any part in the design of it is?
 2nd September 2008, 08:31 PM #2052 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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.
 2nd September 2008, 08:55 PM #2055 jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,843 Originally Posted by jaydeehess 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/Fli...s_Campbell.pdf Oh and looky here http://www.avtoday.com/asw/categorie...ance/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/gener...p?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?
 2nd September 2008, 09:05 PM #2056 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 Originally Posted by jaydeehess 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 Last edited by Turbofan; 2nd September 2008 at 09:06 PM. Reason: Adding Link
 2nd September 2008, 09:10 PM #2057 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 Originally Posted by beachnut [color=black][font=Verdana][color=black][font=Verdana]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! Last edited by Turbofan; 2nd September 2008 at 09:12 PM. Reason: Typo
 2nd September 2008, 09:12 PM #2058 Reheat Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 3,693 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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: Quote: 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-reco...aw-america.htm __________________ [Noc]
 2nd September 2008, 09:19 PM #2059 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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...d.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. Last edited by beachnut; 2nd September 2008 at 11:18 PM.
 2nd September 2008, 09:19 PM #2060 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 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...
 2nd September 2008, 09:26 PM #2061 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 Originally Posted by beachnut 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. Last edited by Turbofan; 2nd September 2008 at 09:26 PM. Reason: Add: Reheat
 2nd September 2008, 09:30 PM #2062 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by Reheat 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-reco...aw-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.
 2nd September 2008, 09:34 PM #2063 Turbofan Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143 Originally Posted by beachnut 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. Last edited by Turbofan; 2nd September 2008 at 09:37 PM. Reason: fix quote
 2nd September 2008, 09:36 PM #2064 jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,843 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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 Quote: 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) Quote: 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 Quote: 97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's Well that 32 is not fps but f/s2 well 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 Last edited by jaydeehess; 2nd September 2008 at 09:44 PM.
 2nd September 2008, 09:42 PM #2066 Slayhamlet Master Poster   Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,423 Originally Posted by Slayhamlet 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?
 2nd September 2008, 09:43 PM #2067 Reheat Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 3,693 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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] __________________ [Noc] Last edited by Reheat; 2nd September 2008 at 09:51 PM.
 2nd September 2008, 10:13 PM #2068 EvilBiker Spectral Challenger     Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,518 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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. __________________ Flat Earth Theory: The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
 3rd September 2008, 12:18 AM #2069 TheLoneBedouin Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 733 Originally Posted by Turbofan 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: Originally Posted by Reheat 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.
 3rd September 2008, 12:33 AM #2070 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin 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. Quote: p4t Capt Bob says: Quote: 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. Last edited by beachnut; 3rd September 2008 at 01:00 AM.
 3rd September 2008, 12:41 AM #2071 funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UAE Posts: 11,938 Originally Posted by originally Posted by pfffft 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? __________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
 3rd September 2008, 12:45 AM #2072 funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UAE Posts: 11,938 Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin 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? __________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
3rd September 2008, 02:23 AM   #2074
Bananaman
Banned

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 299
Let's face incontrivertible facts.
 Edited by chillzero: Edited for civility

Anyway, carry on.

Last edited by chillzero; 3rd September 2008 at 10:06 AM.

 3rd September 2008, 03:03 AM #2075 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,112 Originally Posted by Caustic Logic 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.
 3rd September 2008, 04:21 AM #2076 DC Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064 Originally Posted by funk de fino 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?
 3rd September 2008, 06:37 AM #2077 funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UAE Posts: 11,938 Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney 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. __________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Last edited by funk de fino; 3rd September 2008 at 06:45 AM.
 3rd September 2008, 06:45 AM #2078 DC Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064 Originally Posted by funk de fino 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.
 3rd September 2008, 06:47 AM #2079 funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UAE Posts: 11,938 Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney 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 __________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.

International Skeptics Forum

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Welcome to ISF     Welcome!     International Skeptics     Other Skeptical Organizations         JREF     Skeptical Events         TAM Scholarship Auction Reference     The Repository         Forum Newsletters     Book Reviews     Forum Spotlight General Topics     General Skepticism and The Paranormal     Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology     Education     Economics, Business and Finance     History, Literature, and the Arts     Religion and Philosophy     Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories         9/11 Conspiracy Theories     USA Politics     Non-USA & General Politics     Social Issues & Current Events     Trials and Errors     Computers and the Internet     Conjuror's Corner Members Only     Forum Community         In memoriam...     Humor     Hobbies, DIY and Interests     Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment     Puzzles     Sports     Archive         Old TAM Auction Threads

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 PM.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.
 -- ISF Blue ---- Aqua ---- Drab Olive ---- Dull Day ---- Eco ---- Purple Haze ---- Nobby's classy style ---- The Red One ---- The Blues ---- Vimto ---- Mobile Contact Us - International Skeptics - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top