Turbofan's Engineering forum links (split from: AA77 FDR Data, Explained)

[applecorped]

:jaw-dropp:rolleyes:

[Turbofan]

TF was given every oppurtunity here to learn from people with more experience about these things than himself yet chose not to. This is denialism not truth seeking.

Still waiting for MacGyver to address the word structure from UT's post.

I'm willing to learn, and I'll accept a theory that covers all of the available
info.

So far we've addressed that the transient manipulation is possible, but we
haven't addressed the six seconds of missing data, ground clock sync, nor
the power resets.

[Jonnyclueless]

We also haven't discussed the hours of lsot data on the CVR.

[cludgie]

Maybe give Hani a call and ask him why he took the extended loop route
in restricted air space, while Rumsfeld was playing Space Invaders on the
radar screens during a 'terrorist attack'.

I guess someone should get their butt spanked for leaving the world's most
protected building free of jet fighter protection just in time for Hani and his
plastic knife to command the cockpit and rush the crew to the rear of the
plane. Gee, it only took them a few mintues.

A trillion dollar defense system that doesn't work. Nice.

Hell, he'll be asking about why the Pentagon's automatic missile defence system didn't work next.

[MacGyverS2000]

Still waiting for MacGyver to address the word structure from UT's post.
I was actually composing a post when I saw this. You'll have to be more specific in your question as I do not know what "word structure" issue arose (or who UT is without thumbing through previous posts).

Here's the post I just finished:
So in a fit of boredom I decided to read a few pages of the thread this one was split from. I expect it on any public forum, but it would be a lot easier if a mod would go through and remove all of the "Hey, what's up?" and "You're an idiot, but I won't explain myself!" posts. I imagine it would cut the number of pages down by a third.

Anyway, I came across a snippet (page 3 of the thread) of the Loral Fairchild 2100 FDR manual, explaining the basic data capture and storage routine. It makes things a bit more complicated than I was originally led to believe from the less-detailed posts found in this thread (and this is why I expected numbers to change as more info came my way). Without reading and rereading to make sure I'm 100% accurate, this is what I gleaned from the manual:
1) Sensor data comes in as 12-bit words (we knew that already).
2) The 2100 model accepts a range of data rates, including 64, 128, 256, 512, and 1024 Words/sec... a prior post suggests Flight AA77 used 64 W/s for a subframe, with a frame consisting of 4 subframes.
3) A subframe and a frame both begin with a sync word (assumed to be 12-bit, as well), but the syncword appears to be in addition to the 64 Words of subframe data (making a subframe actually 65 Words in length, and a frame 261 Words in length).
4) A failure to recognize sync words for 10 seconds or longer is characterized as a failure and any following sensor data is written in uncompressed form.
5) After baseline measurements are taken and a first frame of these baselines are created, all further frames are deltas to the prior frame.
6) All data is compressed using Huffman coding.
7) The output of the Huffman coder is bit-packed into 64-Word "pages" (again, a 12-bit Word is assumed)
8) Hamming error correction codes are added to each "page"
9) A read-after-write check is performed for each Word written to flash.

Notes:
For 3), there is supposedly a picture associated with this, but until some posts it I cannot verify. A more logical expectation is the subframe consists of 63 sensor data Words and one sync Word. This would still make for a 257-Word frame (includes the sync Word).
For 4), the term "uncompressed" was undefined. At the moment, I assume that to mean sensor data is no longer viewed as delta from the last frame but absolute readings.
For 6), we do not know the compression table used. Is it dynamic (most likely not)? Is it published?
For 8), do we know what the Hamming code length is?
For 9), nothing is specified as to the action taken should this read-after-write show an error has occurred. Is it flagged as a bad Word? Do we jump to a new block?

Neglecting my current gaps in information, the problem of decoding is significantly more complex than one would hope. Without the Huffman code table, reverse-engineering the actual data is challenging, to say the least. Without knowing the Hamming code length, same deal. Is there some form of protocol running on the recorder side in the case of failed attempts at writing Words? Does it add more bits, change future bits, etc.?

Adding in all of this info I can say that the "packet" length is, by necessity of the Huffman coding, not fixed... that's a royal PITA! If you have the table, however, it's easy enough for a computer to chug through. I'm used to doing this stuff by hand one bit at a time. There is also nothing that says incoming serial data or even the compacted data cannot be affected by electrical transients before having the Hamming code added to it.

[funk de fino]

Still waiting for MacGyver to address the word structure from UT's post.

I'm willing to learn, and I'll accept a theory that covers all of the available
info.

So far we've addressed that the transient manipulation is possible, but we
haven't addressed the six seconds of missing data, ground clock sync, nor
the power resets.

have you read the Time Correlation report from the NTSB yet?

[jaydeehess]

I guess someone should get their butt spanked for leaving the world's most
protected building free of jet fighter protection just in time for Hani and his
plastic knife to command the cockpit and rush the crew to the rear of the
plane. Gee, it only took them a few mintues.

A steel bladed knife commonly used to cut carpeting and card board boxes. Quite sufficient to open an artery.
Still trying the ol' minimize game?

A trillion dollar defense system that doesn't work. Nice.

Wasn't designed for attack from domestic aircraft. The trillion was for outward looking defense, but then you already knew that.

Anyone care to explain UT's quote regarding power resets? Is this indicative
of block erasure, or bit manipulation by transient? Just a coincidence?
I think not.


Upon loss of power the FDR isolates from the 28Vdc and runs soley on the stored voltage in the capacitor to keep recording. However what would be coming to the DFDR if power was interrupted to the FDAU at the same time? Nothing, thus a couple of parameters missing.

Macgyver2000 was quite clear that there are senarios in which several seconds worth of data could be corrupted. That he went into detail on but one is not an excuse for dismissing his opinion. Perhaps he will go into some other senarios, perhaps not. The general case of corrupted data has been addressed.

I suspect that he understands that if he were to list several more possibilities that you would pooh-pooh them, misconstrue them, take his explanation out of context, or simply dismiss/ignore the suggesstions.

Is PfT getting ready to flame away at the person known as Macgyver2000?

[Turbofan]

I have to say, Turbofan, you certainly seem to be walking a thin line when reading/quoting what I've said. You haven't directly taken what I've said and twisted it for your own purposes (at least while I've been posting here directly and not at eng-tips), but you are really pushing the limits.

If that's how it comes across, then I apologize. I'm trying to be as factual
as possible. Even on the Eng-Tips forum my initial post didn't mention any
information about AA77, or the Pentagon to minimize bias.

Interesting that some of the other engineers had a different outlook on
the transients with respect to the certifications associated with the
FDR, and the MIL spec.

You should probably have a look at Pilots for Truth for more a more in depth
perspective on data erasure. According to Undertow and his findings, the
resets and frame counts indicate anything but data erasure via
transients.

Since we're not allowed to post at Eng-Tips, could you do me a favour and
ask the structural engineers a question?

Here is it (an example):

Which way will a building tip if an airplane crashes into it from North to South
(entry on east)? ~40% of the support columns are cut on the South side of
the building.

Example:
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/plane4.jpg

Also, a follow up:

How does the top 300 foot section of this tower blow apart before the support
struture decends, and still have enough mass to squish 1000 feet of
tower in ~10 seconds?
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

[funk de fino]

If that's how it comes across, then I apologize. I'm trying to be as factual
as possible. Even on the Eng-Tips forum my initial post didn't mention any
information about AA77, or the Pentagon to minimize bias.

Interesting that some of the other engineers had a different outlook on
the transients with respect to the certifications associated with the
FDR, and the MIL spec.

You should probably have a look at Pilots for Truth for more a more in depth
perspective on data erasure. According to Undertow and his findings, the
resets and frame counts indicate anything but data erasure via
transients.

Since we're not allowed to post at Eng-Tips, could you do me a favour and
ask the structural engineers a question?

Here is it (an example):

Which way will a building tip if an airplane crashes into it from North to South
(entry on east)? ~40% of the support columns are cut on the South side of
the building.

Example:
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/plane4.jpg

Also, a follow up:

How does the top 300 foot section of this tower blow apart before the support
struture decends, and still have enough mass to squish 1000 feet of
tower in ~10 seconds?
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

Do you read and understand anything he says?

You are reported for being off topic again.

He is not interested in CT. He is looking at the engineering side of this question. You are asking him to be a sock for you? Are you serious?

I suspect you may be trying to drive him off.

I say again to Macgyver, do not go to PFT forum, they will steal your ip and track you down and start harrassing you if you disagree with them.

[Turbofan]

Wasn't designed for attack from domestic aircraft. The trillion was for outward looking defense, but then you already knew that.

That's a neat answer. YOu seem to know quite a bit about this defense
system. Can you tell me how it works, and why it could not defend againt
'domestic aircraft'?

Was it only designed to handle foreign aircraft, or imports? If AA77 was
built in China, would the Pentagon be saved? LOL!

Or do you mean, if Hani picked up an F-15 instead of commercial airliner,
things may have been different? Cause, we all know those 757 are real
fast in comparison!

Upon loss of power the FDR isolates from the 28Vdc and runs soley on the stored voltage in the capacitor to keep recording.

Are you sure that wasn't connected to a 400 Hz, 115 AC source?


Macgyver2000 was quite clear that there are senarios in which several seconds worth of data could be corrupted. That he went into detail on but one is not an excuse for dismissing his opinion.

Did you see the quote from UT?

I suspect that he understands that if he were to list several more possibilities that you would pooh-pooh them, misconstrue them, take his explanation out of context, or simply dismiss/ignore the suggesstions.

No, just apply them to the info and make sure it works. YOu know, the
'big picture'? ;)

[beachnut]

Funny Beachnut, what piece of DME equipment do your specs address?

Care to link up a MFG site and their specs for once? Maybe a model number,
or do you just generalize specifications for all electronic equipment?

Have you called the NTSB to correct the impact time error yet?

Maybe give Hani a call and ask him why he took the extended loop route
in restricted air space, while Rumsfeld was playing Space Invaders on the
radar screens during a 'terrorist attack'.

I guess someone should get their butt spanked for leaving the world's most
protected building free of jet fighter protection just in time for Hani and his
plastic knife to command the cockpit and rush the crew to the rear of the
plane. Gee, it only took them a few mintues.

A trillion dollar defense system that doesn't work. Nice.



This means you have no source for you 0.1 NM, but you see, 77 can be at 1.72 NM from DCA with your numbers, and still record 1.5 DME though the plane is at 1.72 NM from DCA, end you p4t lies, end of cherry picking till your next pathetic post of lies and false information.

But you can't source you DME accuracy but I did with AIM.

You failed again. Try harder.

Got a source? I think not!

Balsamo is dumb on flying, Hani did the turn because he was too high. Why are you so flying challenged? Don't use Balsamo's junk ideas, he is always wrong.

He can't get the DME accuracy, he thinks it is perfect, he can't figure out the C-130 departure, he is bad!


The arriving too high is proof Hani was flying, most pilots have ROT to get down in time, but a turn is the only way to get down, you can't even see the Pentagon under the nose he was so high, go fly it in FS. Are you this bad on flying? Wish Hani had nosed over from altitude, the plane may of fallen apart or he would have missed. But Hani did what all pilots do, ask Balsamo what he would do when he arrives too high, bet he does it all the time. Wait, he does not fly heavy jets, forget it.

That video with Rob talking is the dumbest statements I have ever heard from a pilot! No wonder everyone thought Balsamo was not a pilot, he sounds like a idiot.

[MacGyverS2000]

Even on the Eng-Tips forum my initial post didn't mention any information about AA77, or the Pentagon to minimize bias.
No, but it also did not include enough information for a valid response, either. By the time we did have enough, the cat was already out of the bag. As a side note, a true engineer will not let his own biases ruin his conclusions... it may color his decision on what possibilities he chases down, but it should not affect his final conclusions. A true engineer will disregard faulty premises because they are factually faulty, not because they don't fit his world view. The comments offered on eng-tips would stand regardless of the reason given for asking the question, but they also stand based upon the information available at the time they were given (and therefore could be wrong or off-base due to incorrect assumptions).

Interesting that some of the other engineers had a different outlook on the transients with respect to the certifications associated with the FDR, and the MIL spec.
You will have to be more specific as to what outlooks you find differ. I do not remember any post from a respected engineer on eng-tips that did not offer a valid (possible) explanation (given the available data at the time), but my memory isn't what it used to be. You supposedly saved the entire thread, so posting those points should not prove difficult. But please, do not cherry pick single-line answers taken out of context... I speak online with all of the people who posted in that thread on a near-daily basis, and I will know if something cherry-picked shows up.

You should probably have a look at Pilots for Truth for more a more in depth perspective on data erasure. According to Undertow and his findings, the resets and frame counts indicate anything but data erasure via transients.
I fail to see how useful it would be to have members on yet another forum tell me what I already know and practice. I'm quite aware of the problems with data loss. If you have specifics that point towards a loss of data not due to transients, by all means, post them here and I'll support or rebut those specifics as logic dictates... but I'm not going off on a fact-finding mission to satisfy someone else's curiosity, only my own. I'll gladly look at data you post here, but I'm not jumping through 50 link loops to get it.

Since we're not allowed to post at Eng-Tips, could you do me a favour and ask the structural engineers a question?
Unfortunately, I'm going to say 'no' to this request. I am spending time here of my own accord, and I do not wish to force that choice on others who may wish to stay clear of such discussions. The eng-tips fora are for practicing engineers to (mostly) deal with work-related issues, and I do not feel that such a question would be appropriate.

[jaydeehess]

That's a neat answer. YOu seem to know quite a bit about this defense
system. Can you tell me how it works, and why it could not defend againt
'domestic aircraft'?

Was it only designed to handle foreign aircraft, or imports? If AA77 was
built in China, would the Pentagon be saved? LOL!

Or do you mean, if Hani picked up an F-15 instead of commercial airliner,
things may have been different? Cause, we all know those 757 are real
fast in comparison!

Hating myself for continuing this topic derail
YOU stated a "trillion dollar" defense system so unless you wish to show that sum of money was used to specifically protect the Pentagon from aerial attack then I would assume that you were refering to NORAD. NORAD was tasked with protecting N.America from attacks coming accross the international borders.
So, had Hani decided to use a Mig and fly it over the north pole then yes that trillion dollar defense system would have come into play. For that matter had Hani chosen a 7x7 or similar aircraft but waited until it was within the borders of the USA before his compatriots seized control of the aircraft NORAD would still have had the same amount of involvement that they did on 9/11. They would have had to contend with stricter security measures prior to boarding though.
But then you already knew all this.



Are you sure that wasn't connected to a 400 Hz, 115 AC source?
Back on topic
Makes little difference
when the FDR lost its outside power source momentarily it would continue to function using the stored power of the capacitor. No matter which power source it is connected to, if that source suffers a momentarily loss then it would not be unusual for other devices to also see a loss of power even if they are on other supplies. That is unless you have some way to determine if the loss of power was specifically isolated to the power supply serving the DFDR.

Did you see the quote from UT?

Yep, and,,,,,



No, just apply them to the info and make sure it works. YOu know, the
'big picture'? ;)


Which, in the case of any senario in which it can be shown that a corruption of data would be similar to what is seen in the Flt 77 DFDR, would have you and PfT minimizing it and cherry-picking to attempt to show that it could not apply to the picture you so desperately wish to paint!

funk de fino writes;I suspect you may be trying to drive him off.
That thought crossed my mind as well.
I suspect that by spamming this thread with off topic posts he would like either to have Macgyver2000 quit posting here in disgust at the tactics he employs, and/or have Macgyver2000 register at PfT in order to add him to their roster and imply that he supports their contentions.

[Turbofan]

Do you read and understand anything he says?

You are reported for being off topic again.

Reported for being off topic? Gee thanks! We have an opportunity to
get answers from a group of structural engineers via MacGyver and you
report me?

can you answer my question then Funk? Any idea how a building with a
hole on the south side, would want to tip Eastward?

He is not interested in CT. He is looking at the engineering side of this question. You are asking him to be a sock for you? Are you serious?

See above


I suspect you may be trying to drive him off.

By asking him to relay a question? I'm sure he wont be driven off that
easily if that was my intent to begin with. Stop with the BS already.

I say again to Macgyver, do not go to PFT forum, they will steal your ip and track you down and start harrassing you if you disagree with them.

This has already been addressed, yet you continue to spread lies.

Here is most of the thread MacGyver. There were some other posts about
you asking the relevance of bit rate, which I responded with facts about
the FDR and word length of 12 bits. After that, all hell broke loose (CTexposer)
and the thread was deleted. IRStuff made one final post which I did
not capture. The meat is here however:

ProcisionAuto (Electrical)
21 Sep 08 23:19
Dear All,

With your experiences in designing and working with EEPROM
flash memory, have you ever had a case where a power supply
encoutering severe trauma created transients which re-wrote
bit states or previously recorded data?

To clarify, the scenario would include:
- a power supply that has been impacted with great force (125 g).

- flash memory IC not damaged by impact. Data retrieved.

- Control unit damaged. IE: no logic, or addressing function
capable.

- VCC 28 VDC

I can understand that data which is currently undergoing
a write cycle may be lost as power became unstable or a
spike is introduced, however I'm not familiar with
previously biased gates changing state.

Due to the design of EEPROM, and the sensitivity of the
components to over-voltage, I would expect a complete loss
(IC failure), or at least blocks of data missing.

Thank you for your time.

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


itsmoked (Electrical)
22 Sep 08 0:58
An EEPROM is designed to work within certain electrical conditions. If you try to write one outside of the allowed conditions the results are undefined.

You could have all sorts of unexpected results. The same invalid conditions applied to the same make and model EEPROM will result in similar results each time.

You could easily have random bits written. The line and row amplifiers can be randomly selected.

Also because of the structural regularity of memory devices an over voltage event can disrupt some area of the die. This area becomes the lowest resistance and effectively shunts further damage from occurring elsewhere on the die. This can also create various bit issues since the byte/bit topology of memory devices are not always as expected.

In an impact the crystal oscillator running the system will always be upset. This can upset the entire system clocking. You can get multiple fast transitions that trip up many different setup and hold requirements.

And lastly SMD ceramic capacitors are piezo-electrical and can generate high voltage spikes in the circuitry they are supposedly decoupling when mechanically shocked.
Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com


Thank itsmoked
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


IRstuff (Aerospace)
22 Sep 08 2:53
Why not? Now that you know what could happen, you should make changes to mitigate any future occurrences. Since your processor got fried, there's no knowing what mischief was caused by the power supply transients. In any case, there's not that large a difference between the write/erase voltage and the read voltage, so a sufficient large transient on the read lines could do odd things.

Moreover, it could simply be a flaky part. While the physics and processing approaches are old news, people often do forget and attempt to "improve" the process without understanding what the impacts are.

At a previous job, we did indeed make a "minor" process change of dropping the polysilicon oxidation temperature from 1100ºC to 1050ºC, to prolong the life of the furnace tubes. Sure enough, every time we read a row, it would get erased. Two months of "tiger teams" before we found an IBM Technical Journal article from 15 yrs prior that exactly described why 1050ºC was a BAD oxidation temperature.
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies


Thank IRstuff
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


VE1BLL (Military)
22 Sep 08 11:03
Aircraft "black boxes" use various types of solid state memories; I don't the exact technology of the memory. But they're expected to survive almost anything including the sort of trauma you've described.



Thank VE1BLL
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


macgyvers2000 (Electrical)
22 Sep 08 14:20
Side note... anyone know when (if?) they completely stopped using nicked wire as a recording medium in black boxes?
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com


Thank macgyvers2000
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


VE1BLL (Military)
22 Sep 08 16:32
"stopped using"?

Stopped 'building it into new products' versus 'probably still flying it even today on some ancient aircraft'.

The 'old' systems (1970s) I've seen were using an endless tape similar to 8-track technology where they yanked the tape out from the middle of the reel and wrapped it back around the outside.

The new FDRs and CVRs are all solid state.



Thank VE1BLL
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


ProcisionAuto (Electrical)
22 Sep 08 21:54
I believe FDR's went solid state as of 1992 in all commercial aircraft by regulation.


Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


ProcisionAuto (Electrical)
23 Sep 08 22:54
I have been reading about the FDR found in the Pentagon after the crash there on Sept 11/01, and that it seems to be missing the last several seconds of data. That would represent several full frames of data.

If the FDR was working properly right up to impact then how can more than just the last word in the last frame be lost? After all, the previous words would have already been recorded and set.

I know that transients can corrupt an EEPROM and obviously the power down procedure was not carried out but how could that explain a loss of up to 6 seconds without completely corrupting everything?

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


bogeyman (Aerospace)
24 Sep 08 7:00
For our products.
Wire ADR systems went out in the 1970's when they got replaced by multitrack tape systems, the very latest use solid state storage but this is by no means a fully developed solution mostly due the the continueing emergence of new bigger capacity parts. Some SS units record to RAM and copy it to flash, methinks these are not the best idea.
A power input spike suppressor is used to provide OV protection and brown out hold up, thats a fuse+fat zener and a big electrolytic cap across the 28v supply.


Thank bogeyman
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


ProcisionAuto (Electrical)
25 Sep 08 12:46
Bogeyman, thanks for the info. I have a couple of questions
for you and anyone else that has experience with Flash memory
and FDR's.

Without infringing on your proprietary info, are you able
to explain, or give estimates to the amount of time it
takes parameter data (ARINC std.) to store itself in crash
protected memory once generated from the sensor?

I have MFG data for the LRA-900 device which states a maximum
transmit inteval of 42 mseconds to the input of the FDAU.

The only other figure I have is the maximum time by regulation
of 500 milliseconds from sensor to crash protected memory.

What are the chances that a transient caused by aircraft impact
could erase six seconds worth of data on a solid state EEPROM flash recorder?

I have seen crash ratings from 1000-3400g's for solid state
recorders, and tests for certifaction where high power
cannons, and flame throwers are used.

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


macgyvers2000 (Electrical)
25 Sep 08 14:57
Quote (ProcisionAuto):
What are the chances that a transient caused by aircraft impact could erase six seconds worth of data on a solid state EEPROM flash recorder?
If the software was written incorrectly, extremely high... if the software failed to transfer the data within the specified window and left it in RAM, it's toast. Once it's actually in the EEPROM, only electrical transactions not strictly adhering to the chip's specs, bad memory, or physical damage could cause it to be lost.

A prime example are PIC chips... the security fuses can be rewritten and/or ignored by the proper use of transients.
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com


Thank macgyvers2000
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


TVtech (Electrical)
25 Sep 08 15:30
Itsmoked wrote;
Quote:
Also because of the structural regularity of memory devices an over voltage event can disrupt some area of the die. This area becomes the lowest resistance and effectively shunts further damage from occurring elsewhere on the die. This can also create various bit issues since the byte/bit topology of memory devices are not always as expected.

macqyvers2000 wrote;

Quote:
Once it's actually in the EEPROM, only electrical transactions not strictly adhering to the chip's specs, bad memory, or physical damage could cause it to be lost.


Would I be correct then in believeing that the loss of 6 seconds of the last data to be written to the flash memory of the FDR in question could have been due to a transient electrical spike occuring upon impact with the wall of the Pentagon. The transient would have greatest access to the cells being written to at that instant and these cells could be expected to physically reside on the IC in close proximity to the cells which held the last few prior seconds worth of data input and that if the transient were to affect any cells other than the ones presently be written to it would be those cells the most recently written to prior to impact?

Obviously the final instant of an FDR operation in a crash may include electrical excursions well outside of the normal operating specs for the FDR recording medium as well as possible physical damage.

Thank TVtech
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


IRstuff (Aerospace)
25 Sep 08 16:00
That's a lot of speculation, given that there's no explicit description of the nature of the loss.

One would have to assume that the design requirements for the FDR included such potentialities, and that the FDR has a minimum of the full complement of MIL-STD-464 EMI protection, which would include both filters and clamps.

The data may simply have been in buffer and was caught outside of the actual flash memory. The R/W endurance is usually specified at only about 100,000 cycles: http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/docoutput.aspx?id=696. This limits the smallness a data chunk being written, given a relatively long service life.
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies


Thank IRstuff
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


TVtech (Electrical)
25 Sep 08 16:25
Quote:
The data may simply have been in buffer and was caught outside of the actual flash memory

Would it be typical for several seconds of data (IIRC the rate is 256 wps) to be in the buffer? I believe that this is the case with the RAID drives I babysit but what about EEPROM?

Just trying to get a handle on the loss of several seconds of flight in this FDR. Other FDr's in other crashes do similarily lose data but in most cases there was electrical problems with the aircraft as a whole prior to crashing, not utter destruction in milliseconds as was the case with Flight 77.

Thank TVtech
for this valuable post!

Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


ProcisionAuto (Electrical)
25 Sep 08 20:04
For the engineers:

The flash memory used in the FDR was:

FA2100 CSMU
Prior Intel 32 Mbit Binary Devices, Intel Part Number DDI28F032SA100 (5V)
2000.6 Intel 32 Mbit Strata Flash Devices, Intel Part Number E28F320J5-120 (5V)
2005.8 Intel 128 Mbit Strata Flash Memory, Intel Part Number TE28F128J3C-150 (3V)

http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf...F320J5-120.html

Here is a link to a photo:
http://www.aa77fdr.com/pft_forum/CSMU_MPlate.jpg




Inappropriate post?
If so, Red Flag it!

Check out the FAQ
area for this forum!


macgyvers2000 (Electrical)
25 Sep 08 21:30
Flash is written in blocks... data is buffered until an entire block is ready to be written. Blocks are typically multiple kB in size. 256 kW/s, at 4B/W, would be 1kB/s. Assuming an 8kB block, that's 8 seconds worth of data.

YMMV...
Dan - Owner

[jaydeehess]

TF, if you want a thread about WTC tower 2 then start a thread about WTC tower 2, or join one of them that already exist!

Same goes for NORAD response, the weapons used, WTC 7 etc.

[Turbofan]

You guys are getting all bent because I asked him to relay a question, but
more than one of you are filling this thread with cry baby posts about going
off topic.

How many more times do you want to highlight the issue that I went off
topic? Mods, I will await my 21st warning in PM Inbox shortly. :cool:

Yep, and,,,,,

Yep, and ,,,,the transient wrote a boot-up sequence by coincidence?

[Bobert]

You guys are getting all bent because I asked him to relay a question, but
more than one of you are filling this thread with cry baby posts about going
off topic.
And he already told you that he WAS NOT going to relay your question

How many more times do you want to highlight the issue that I went off
topic? Mods, I will await my 21st warning in PM Inbox shortly. :cool:
You are just asking for a ban, eh?
That way you can go report to your PFT masters and do your victory dance
BTW did you lie about being an engineer in order to post over at MG's forum?
I see that when you try and register you have to list what type of enginerr that you are.

Yep, and ,,,,the transient wrote a boot-up sequence by coincidence?
AKA no matter what ANYONE TELLS ME my fantasy COMES FIRST over facts, evidence, witness statements, etc etc etc.

[jaydeehess]

No, power loss was temporary, it was restored quickly and the device went through a perfectly understandable sequence after power came back.

Where's the beef?

[rwguinn]

TF, if you want a thread about WTC tower 2 then start a thread about WTC tower 2, or join one of them that already exist!

Same goes for NORAD response, the weapons used, WTC 7 etc.

You gotta forgive him. A Turbofan is a high-bypass axial-flow turbojet....
In typical fashion, he has bee fed an answer that destroys the truther notion of "Truth", and is desperately trying to change the subject.
Structural engineers on an EE forum. That's pretty desperate...

[Turbofan]

You gotta forgive him. A Turbofan is a high-bypass axial-flow turbojet....
In typical fashion, he has bee fed an answer that destroys the truther notion of "Truth", and is desperately trying to change the subject.
Structural engineers on an EE forum. That's pretty desperate...


Stupid.

There are structual engineers on that forum. It's not soley an EE forum.

Bobert, is just slow...he's about three posts behind now.

Jaydee: When did the power reset happen?

[MacGyverS2000]

Here is most of the thread MacGyver. There were some other posts about you asking the relevance of bit rate, which I responded with facts about the FDR and word length of 12 bits. After that, all hell broke loose (CTexposer) and the thread was deleted. IRStuff made one final post which I did not capture. The meat is here however:
Please remember my original post and request... questions should be clear and concise. Posting the entire eng-tips thread is certainly not concise, nor is it remotely clear what you're trying to have answered. To quote my last post, "You will have to be more specific as to what outlooks you find differ." Don't throw me an encyclopedia and ask "Why don't theories agree?", point to a specific paragraph and ask that question. I'm happy to answer, but I won't waste much more of my time asking for specifics with each go 'round of posts... for lack of a more PC term, **** or get off of the pot. There's either a question to be asked or there isn't, but I'm not going to pull teeth getting to it.



rwguinn, in all fairness, eng-tips is a multi-disciplinary set of forums, not just EE. Turbofan was correct in asking me to be his portal to the board due to me being a valid member (rather than trying to sign up under a different handle himself), but my reason for turning down his request still stands. The question is simply not appropriate for the members there.

[Turbofan]

Found more:

TVtech (Electrical) 25 Sep 08 23:08
That would certainly explain it. Thanks.


ProcisionAuto (Electrical) 27 Sep 08 9:30
256 words per second comprised of 4 x 64 word sub frames.

3072 bits per second.


macgyvers2000 (Electrical) 27 Sep 08 17:14
3072 bps... for what? And what does the bps rate matter? Flash is written in 8/16/32-bit words, not bits.
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com




ProcisionAuto (Electrical) 28 Sep 08 23:45
Hi Macgyvers2000,

I'm just listing some facts about the system.

The FDR receives a serial stream of 12 bit words as per ARINC 573/717 standard.

We are trying to determine the likelihood of a transient
erasing six seconds worth of data already stored in the
crash survivable memory unit (Flash Memory).

Thank you.

[rwguinn]

Please remember my original post and request... questions should be clear and concise. Posting the entire eng-tips thread is certainly not concise, nor is it remotely clear what you're trying to have answered. To quote my last post, "You will have to be more specific as to what outlooks you find differ." Don't throw me an encyclopedia and ask "Why don't theories agree?", point to a specific paragraph and ask that question. I'm happy to answer, but I won't waste much more of my time asking for specifics with each go 'round of posts... for lack of a more PC term, **** or get off of the pot. There's either a question to be asked or there isn't, but I'm not going to pull teeth getting to it.



rwguinn, in all fairness, eng-tips is a multi-disciplinary set of forums, not just EE. Turbofan was correct in asking me to be his portal to the board due to me being a valid member (rather than trying to sign up under a different handle himself), but my reason for turning down his request still stands. The question is simply not appropriate for the members there.

Thank you sir. I guess I'll have to visit (I AM and Engineeer--a PE (Mechanical)) so If I find it interesting, maybe I'll join up.
My apologies, TF. I jumped a conclusion from a standing start based on what I read in this thread only.

[tsig]

True, but one could verify these numbers as being 'stray' by studying the
previous frames for trends.

In the case of this particular FDR (and data), we have an impact time of
9:37:45 and a frame of data written to that time stamp.

Unless the NTSB stated an incorrect impact time (off by six seconds), what
are the chances the clock sync would be in error by that much? The spec.
shows +/- 0.01 seconds maximum.

If you would like a more technical forum to review the data, you
may find more info here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showforum=9

You will find a member by the name of Undertow who helped decode the
raw data file.

There is also a link on this forum explaining the last few seconds of data recovered:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047&page=5

Post # 186



Thanks for your time.
Turbo take a flash memory stick insert it into your computer and record something on it. Now remove and throw it against the wall as hard as you can.

How much data can you read now?

[Turbofan]

Everyone settle down. I posted the thread for reference, I'll ask the
questions now:

IRStuff seems to think the transient(s) would be handled by the input
circuitry according to the following:

One would have to assume that the design requirements for the FDR included such potentialities, and that the FDR has a minimum of the full complement of MIL-STD-464 EMI protection, which would include both filters and clamps.

The data may simply have been in buffer and was caught outside of the actual flash memory. The R/W endurance is usually specified at only about 100,000 cycles: http://www.l-3com.com/products-servi...ut.aspx?id=696. This limits the smallness a data chunk being written, given a relatively long service life.

From what I take, he is stating that the data lost was from a buffer, and
that the CSMU would be protected by the MIL-STD-464 spec?

Furthermore, a member by the name of Undertow saw that the FDR recorded
27 words (all low bit states) after the alleged impact time.

Without power available to select the address lines, or write the words,
how would this be possible? The flash memory by default is set to a '1' state.
What are the chances the transient lasted more than a few hundred milliseconds,
with enough stable voltage to write 27 words?

[Turbofan]

Turbo take a flash memory stick insert it into your computer and record something on it. Now remove and throw it against the wall as hard as you can.

How much data can you read now?

It would probably still work, however your analogy is flawed.

Your $5.00 USB drive is not rated for 1000 to 3400 g's of impact is it?

What's the case made of, plastic?

OK next...

If i threw my USB stick against the wall, and could not ready any data
it'slikely due to the connector receiving damage; not the flash chip itself.

You could probably heat flow the chip onto another circuit board, insert
into your computer and read the data.

[beachnut]

Furthermore, a member by the name of Undertow saw that the FDR recorded 27 words (all low bit states) after the alleged impact time.

The impact time is 6 second more. Sorry, you can't use the NTSB impact time when RADAR has 77 6 seconds or more away before impact.

You are making up stuff. Present solid evidence for an impact time based on evidence not p4t made up numbers. Yes, using NTSB impact time is made up. There is conflicting data, you have to use logic and all the evidence, not the cherry picked numbers you want.

Why did UT not decode the final second the NTSB does have? Why did he repeat the DME every single second, instead of every 4th?

Waiting for you source on DME accuracy, I have posted AIM and the real numbers, why are you unable to find it?

I am also waiting for you to acknowledge the resolution storage at 0.25 and what ranges that gives to DME?

Show the protection circuit, so far just talk, no real evidence.

[Turbofan]

This has already been covered, but you fail to comprehend.

I can't post circuitry of the FDR. I can't get it if I tried, is't called
"Proprietary Information". I'm sure you can understand how difficult
this might be? Maybe R. Mackey, or MacGyver can explain the trouble
they might get into if they leaked a design of one of their products to
the public?

I've already quoted the DME tolerance of error. If you want more, just
go to ARINC and buy a copy of the document.

Maybe you can sell a few aprons of your own to afford one?

[funk de fino]

Reported for being off topic? Gee thanks! We have an opportunity to
get answers from a group of structural engineers via MacGyver and you
report me?

Its OT

can you answer my question then Funk? Any idea how a building with a hole on the south side, would want to tip Eastward?

Read the NIST report, then start a new thread with your concerns.

This has already been addressed, yet you continue to spread lies.


No no, you are lying. I have seen Balsamos threats, I have heard his threats and I believe you (or balsamo) posted details about reheat by tracing his IP in this forum. You have also claimed to know all about beachnut and called him a fraud.

Frauds, cowards and Liars.

[beachnut]

This has already been covered, but you fail to comprehend.

I can't post circuitry of the FDR. I can't get it if I tried, is't called
"Proprietary Information". I'm sure you can understand how difficult
this might be? Maybe R. Mackey, or MacGyver can explain the trouble
they might get into if they leaked a design of one of their products to
the public?

I've already quoted the DME tolerance of error. If you want more, just
go to ARINC and buy a copy of the document.

Maybe you can sell a few aprons of your own to afford one?
Hearsay on the circuit. Hearsay on where the circuit is, and hearsay on what it can do in a catastrophic impact at 800 feet per second. Good

No, the DME accuracy is no 0.1 NM, sorry, you have no source and lack understanding of the accuracy of DME. Why are airways 8 miles wide if DME is 0.1 max NM off? Produce 0.1 DME or live with better than 1/2 mile and for 77 it is 0.35 NM to 0.23 NM.

Once again you fail to tell us what the resolution storage alone does to the value stored in the FDR. Resolution is 0.25 NM of all DME values stored in the FDR. 0.25 NM resolution.

ARINC is not a DME doc. You can't produce an accuracy figure for DME from ARINC for 77. Just talk and walk tactics, you never do well until you look it up. Like 64 words per second becoming 256 words per second. Keep up the cherry picking.

I can use your 0.1 NM accuracy and I have proven 1.72 NM from DCA can be stored as 1.5 DME, busts your failed ideas on where 77 really is.

Accuracy stands at 0.23 NM to 3 percent of the distance whichever is GREATER. Greater is a math term no wonder Balsamo is not able to grasp the meaning.

[Bobert]

Everyone settle down. I posted the thread for reference, I'll ask the
questions now:

IRStuff seems to think the transient(s) would be handled by the input
circuitry according to the following:



From what I take, he is stating that the data lost was from a buffer, and
that the CSMU would be protected by the MIL-STD-464 spec?

Furthermore, a member by the name of Undertow saw that the FDR recorded
27 words (all low bit states) after the alleged impact time.

Without power available to select the address lines, or write the words,
how would this be possible? The flash memory by default is set to a '1' state.
What are the chances the transient lasted more than a few hundred milliseconds,
with enough stable voltage to write 27 words?

You really should stop quoting people from another forum who are not here to clarify what they meant.
In addition to that the thread you are quoting from no longer exists.

[Turbofan]

Right, after a few attempts at directing you to the MFG site, I gave up.

Here you go (again):

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/DME-900.html

[Turbofan]

You really should stop quoting people from another forum who are not here to clarify what they meant.
In addition to that the thread you are quoting from no longer exists.

Yes it does.

Look it up on AA77 explained, page 5, post 186 :cool:

[beachnut]

Right, after a few attempts at directing you to the MFG site, I gave up.

Here you go (again):

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/DME-900.html
FRAUD, I think you picked a unit that did not exist on 9/11 in it's current accuracy.

You post a DME unit introduced in 2003.

Good job cherry picking a lie.

BTW, it has 0.3 NM accuracy, but you missed it

BTW, the 0.1 accuracy has 7.2 NM from DCA recorded as 1.5 DME in the FDR..

Try again, do over.

Do you understand 0.1 NM is all I need? You forgot to tell me about resolution and how it affects the DME stored vs real DME value.

Have you retracted the navigation system can't be updated by VOR/DME? What is your stand now?

[tsig]

It would probably still work, however your analogy is flawed.

Your $5.00 USB drive is not rated for 1000 to 3400 g's of impact is it?

What's the case made of, plastic?

OK next...

If i threw my USB stick against the wall, and could not ready any data
it'slikely due to the connector receiving damage; not the flash chip itself.

You could probably heat flow the chip onto another circuit board, insert
into your computer and read the data.

Hi turbo


What g force was the FDR subjected to?

Could it have been more than spec?

I would think that a fdr impacting a solid object at 500 miles an hour would seriously scramble its circuits.

[MacGyverS2000]

IRStuff seems to think the transient(s) would be handled by the input circuitry according to the following:

One would have to assume that the design requirements for the FDR included such potentialities, and that the FDR has a minimum of the full complement of MIL-STD-464 EMI protection, which would include both filters and clamps.

The data may simply have been in buffer and was caught outside of the actual flash memory. The R/W endurance is usually specified at only about 100,000 cycles: <link removed due to my lack of posts>. This limits the smallness a data chunk being written, given a relatively long service life.
If his paraphrasing of the listed standard's title is truly EMI, then that standard has to do with electromagnetic interference (i.e., interference from radiated emissions), not electrical transients like overvoltages on the bus lines, etc. Those are two totally different subjects, and mitigating one often has little to no effect on the other. I do not presume to know for certain what he meant, but he's a sharp guy who knows the difference between the two. Therefore, I imagine he misunderstood the original question. Filters and clamps for EMI would have practically zero effect on electrical transients that could be responsible for trashing flash data.

From what I take, he is stating that the data lost was from a buffer, and that the CSMU would be protected by the MIL-STD-464 spec?
He offers the possibility of the data being lost in a buffer (as I have in a past post).

On that note, I would like to add you really should be more careful in your choice of words... I won't bust someone's chops for the occasional poor choice, but so far all of your statements seem to make a definitive conclusion based upon someone's mention of possibilities.

To expound on his mention of limited R/W cycles. It's the erase cycle that is the most "damaging" to each cell, and therefore the number of erase cycles is typically the limiting factor. Considering the size of the flash and the amount of compressed sensor data that will fit on a page, a typical flash page will only see an erase cycle every few flights... this easily gives several 100k flights before a single byte may start to have a bad bit (R/W limits are often in the million cycle range these days, extending this even farther).

I'm going to touch the last portion of your post in my next post, I just want to get this one posted as I would hate to lose what I've typed so far...

[WildCat]

I'm going to touch the last portion of your post in my next post, I just want to get this one posted as I would hate to lose what I've typed so far...
I find it worthwhile on this forum to paste replies into Notepad before hitting "submit", especially with long replies. Saves a lot of frustration when they disappear into the forum ether!

[MacGyverS2000]

Furthermore, a member by the name of Undertow saw that the FDR recorded 27 words (all low bit states) after the alleged impact time.

Without power available to select the address lines, or write the words, how would this be possible? The flash memory by default is set to a '1' state. What are the chances the transient lasted more than a few hundred milliseconds, with enough stable voltage to write 27 words?
Without power, it is indeed not possible to write to the flash. Yes, an erased block will consist of all ones (assuming the erase operation was not interrupted).

That said, there seems to be a mixture of problems being rolled into one, and I don't believe I have the information to properly separate them (I'll leave that to you guys to make it clear and concise for me).
1) You mention a (evidently specific) transient that I do not have knowledge of.
2) You mention a transient length of several hundred milliseconds, but transients are typically on the order of a few milliseconds (e.g., voltage spikes, dropouts). I can only assume you mean a power loss lasting several hundred milliseconds.

At the risk of making a statement that will need to change when someone defines what I've requested, I'll say this: If the 32-Word burst-write buffer is being filled when a transient occurs, the buffer may get partially filled with valid data and partially filled with zeros. Remember, the burst-write buffer itself is not flash, it is RAM, and therefore does not follow the "erase = 1" rule, it follows the "bits are random during voltage upsets" rule. In fact, nothing says the buffer has to be in the middle of a write, so it could be filled with junk at any time. I would have to look at the datasheet to verify, but it's wholly possible the buffer is tristated between uses to conserve power, and a random activation would mean random data. Also note that "random" here does not mean a random selection of ones and zeros, it simply means the value is undefined by the manufacturer and not guaranteed to be any one value... it could remain all zeros or float to all ones. A single chip will typically float to the same value every time, but that value is not necessarily the same as the next one off of the assembly line.

Let me give you another practical example. Many of my products use EEPROM to store data values between power cycles. On one unit I was working on years back, I forgot to enable the brown-out detection circuit, which determines if the supply voltage has dipped below a set level and keeps the circuit in reset if it does. The main portion of code was bug free, and would write values to EEPROM when a pin was shorted to ground. If I cycled power on/off/on within about half of a second, the supply transient caused some ground bounce which made the code think the user was grounding that pin. Since the supply had not stabilized, the data written to EEPROM was corrupt (and the values were rarely legal). Code worked perfectly, but the hardware let me down. Two weeks were lost tracking that one down, and I haven't made that mistake since... brown-out circuit always gets enabled now.

[Turbofan]

I won't bust someone's chops for the occasional poor choice, but so far all of your statements seem to make a definitive conclusion based upon someone's mention of possibilities.

And this is the reason we're debating in the first place (not you, but all of
us here). Even some of the claims and threads started here claiming
function of systems is based on assumptions. See "AA77 FDR Data Explained"
if you can handle 60+ pages of this...

Either side feels the same way based on weight of proof and information
available (or lack thereof).

With that statement, I'd like to bring this thread to a close.

I thank you for your time, and professional views.

If anyone wants to get a hold of me (yeah right ;)), send me a PM.

[WildCat]

With that statement, I'd like to bring this thread to a close.
So you now agree that 6 seconds of data could be lost/corrupted in the crash of Flight 77?

[beachnut]

So you now agree that 6 seconds of data could be lost/corrupted in the crash of Flight 77?
Does this mean Turbofan only crashed one EE site?

Wonder how many people he has presented his iron clad proof 77 did not hit the Pentagon based on the failed physics and math of p4t terrorist apologist false 9/11 ideas DVD sales team.

[Turbofan]

1) You mention a (evidently specific) transient that I do not have knowledge of.
2) You mention a transient length of several hundred milliseconds, but transients are typically on the order of a few milliseconds (e.g., voltage spikes, dropouts). I can only assume you mean a power loss lasting several hundred milliseconds.


I don't have any specific info about these transients. It was merely a
hypothetical transient of sorts...

Your post is very thorough and answered many of my questions. Thanks.

[Turbofan]

So you now agree that 6 seconds of data could be lost/corrupted in the crash of Flight 77?

No, not entirely. There are still other factors that need to be addressed
(mainly DME w/altitude, and clock sync).

I do not wish to spend another 60 pages , and several months debating
a topic that neither side is going to 'move on'.

For me, I can't see past the towers (tipping to the wrong side, exploding
before descent, FDR data, Pentagon damage, fire phenomenon, etc.)

You guys can't see past the other aspects of 9/11.

Either side thinks their info is more compelling. It's just a waste to be
debating on here (I should have listened to a few of you :cool:).

If anything jumps out that needs a reply, I'll be around.

[Bobert]

Hi turbo


What g force was the FDR subjected to?

Could it have been more than spec?

I would think that a fdr impacting a solid object at 500 miles an hour would seriously scramble its circuits.

Please remember that this is the most powerful mitlitary in the universe!!!!
DONT YOU THINK THAT HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY?
They are the MOST POWERFUL MILITARY in all the known galaxies!
You dont think that wouldnt just simply put a FDR into the plane that can defy laws of physics?

[TjW]

With that statement, I'd like to bring this thread to a close.



Yep, and American wanted to bring this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=15814&highlight=Speedwagon+Elton+John) to a close.

I find post 20 amusing.

[Bobert]

No, not entirely. There are still other factors that need to be addressed
(mainly DME w/altitude, and clock sync).
If there is other factors then be a man and debate them instead of calling for thread to be closed.
This isnt up to you anyway to close a thread.

I do not wish to spend another 60 pages , and several months debating
a topic that neither side is going to 'move on'.
Sorry bud but "our side" isnt throwing a blanket net and accusing several hundred if not 1000's of people of being involved in MASS MURDER!
BTW Turbo did you see this post of Craigs over at the ATS WHERE HE NOW IMPLIES THAT THE SECRET SERVICE PLANTED FLIGHT 77 PARTS?
Its a hoot check it out:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/5052589.html (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/5052589.html)

For me, I can't see past the towers (tipping to the wrong side, exploding
before descent, FDR data, Pentagon damage, fire phenomenon, etc.)
Yes you have demonstrated many many times how NO MATTER WHAT your will NEVER abaondon your fantasy.

You guys can't see past the other aspects of 9/11.
That is because EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US who disagrees with you receives a PHAT BONUS CHECK at the end of the year.
NUT NUT BABY!

Either side thinks their info is more compelling. It's just a waste to be
debating on here (I should have listened to a few of you :cool:).
That would be great if you left.
Perhaps you can set up a booth at your local mall and sell
Terrorist Aplogist TShirts.
Let me know how that works out for you buddy.

If anything jumps out that needs a reply, I'll be around.
YES PLEASE!!!!!!!
I have only 2 months left to earn my Vegas bonus from my handler!
NUT NUT BABY!

[Turbofan]

For tsig

That depends where you figure the "rest point" for the FDR.

I'm getting anything from ~50 to 125 g


My variables are 800 fps, and 200 feet (generous).

Feel free to check my math.

[DavidJames]

Yep, and American wanted to bring this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=15814&highlight=Speedwagon+Elton+John) to a close.

I find post 20 amusing.
I enjoyed American's posts. A complete loon, but sometimes it appeared he didn't even take himself that seriously. A great attribute.

[DavidJames]

For me, I can't see past the towers (tipping to the wrong side, exploding before descent, FDR data, Pentagon damage, fire phenomenon, etc.)I would suggest that an effective cure for your inability to "see past" is education. To your credit, you posted on an EE board, well done. Sadly, when you didn't get the answers you expected, you tried to cherry pick comments and ignore the overwhelming negative response to your claims. You were refuted, but refused to accept your defeat.

We all are ignorant in some subject(s). The difference between CTists and others is how they deal with their ignorance. CTists, tend to ignore it and arrogantly make claims or reach conclusions regarding subjects they clearly don't understand.

You have some knowledge in electronics, but fail to realize it's limitations. You have zero knowledge in structural engineering, hence your comments about the tower "tipping to the wrong side".

I would suggest trying to do some honest research. Good luck.

[Myriad]

For tsig

That depends where you figure the "rest point" for the FDR.

I'm getting anything from ~50 to 125 g


My variables are 800 fps, and 200 feet (generous).

Feel free to check my math.


Your math appears correct. The assumption of steady deceleration over a distance of 200 feet yields 50 g.

However, the key issue isn't where the FDR came to rest, it's how. Suppose instead of uniformly decelerating over 200 feet (which seems unlikely unless that floor of the Pentagon was filled with foam rubber), it slowed down very little as the plane shattered around it until it hit the side of a filing cabinet, denting the filing cabinet a foot deep and thus coming to rest over a distance of 1 foot. That calculation yields 10,000 g.

Or maybe it was first slowed down to 400 fps by the crushing of the airframe, and then hit a steel column causing it to come to rest in half an inch. That's 120,000 g.

Without more information I don't think any peak g force short of about a quarter million g can be decisively ruled out.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Turbofan]

True Myriad, however we can look at physical evidence to estimate the
impact forces. I would imagine an FDR impacting at 10K+ g, would look
pretty awful.

[Turbofan]

You have some knowledge in electronics, but fail to realize it's limitations. You have zero knowledge in structural engineering, hence your comments about the tower "tipping to the wrong side".

I would suggest trying to do some honest research. Good luck.

Sorry DJ, I just don't see it your way.

One side of the tower has 40% of the columns cut. All other sides have
much more intact (up to 100%).

Which side is the weakest?

In any case, I'll continue my honest research, hopefully you will do the same.

[jaydeehess]

True Myriad, however we can look at physical evidence to estimate the
impact forces. I would imagine an FDR impacting at 10K+ g, would look
pretty awful.

I know you will be incapable of understanding this but,,,,,,,,,

Your statement is a clear example of what Macgyver2000 was refering to when he said that you " make a definitive conclusion based upon someone's mention of possibilities.".

Myriad was pointing out that there is a range of possibilities above even those you calculated. Yes, we can eliminate those above which the FDR would have been reduced to a crumpled and torn mass. We cannot however eliminate g loads that approach the tested max of the FDR.
Nor do we know what post crash impacts it received when the building collapsed.

Indeed the CVR was unreadable thus indicating that more severe damage than the FDR received was possible.

[chillzero]

Everybody, please raise the civility levels in this thread.

[MacGyverS2000]

So you now agree that 6 seconds of data could be lost/corrupted in the crash of Flight 77?
No, not entirely. There are still other factors that need to be addressed (mainly DME w/altitude, and clock sync).
Here is where a direct question and the answer do not line up, and they do so in such a way as to continue a disagreement, even when one of the major tenets has been shown to be flawed. To be specific, the question originally asked (and re-asked by WildCat, as I have bolded above) was "Could flash EEPROM have it's data corrupted by an electrical transient?" If even one realistic method exists, no matter how improbable it might be, to cause that corruption, then the original supposition is false.

In this particular discussion, I have not only described multiple scenarios in which such corruption could occur, I have provided multiple cases in real life in which it did happen. Given those facts, for you to answer an incredulous 'no' when asked if your original question has been answered is stupefying, to say the least.

I'm not about to get into personal attacks here, as it's a no-win situation. To be non-PC again, fighting over the net is like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded. But it's difficult... nay, impossible... to view any individual (let alone an entire group) with respect who chooses to ignore plain, hard facts simply because they don't fit their world view. If you don't agree with some point I have argued, let it be known... but don't insult my intelligence by agreeing on a point by point basis throughout the discussion and then tell me nothing made sense at the end.

I've either answered your questions about the corruption possibility or I haven't, but you can't have it both ways. You either agree that the FDR could have corrupted data or you don't, but don't pull a topic change in the middle of the conversation because you're not happy the original topic isn't helping your overall case. Argue things on a point by point basis... some you may win, some may end in a stalemate, and some you'll lose... but don't pull logical fallacies out of your hat, don't being personal insults into it, just let logic resolve the issues. Emotion has zero place in an investigation (other than frustration), let logic dictate the answers, not bullied or cherry-picked answers. It serves no purpose other than to make someone feel delusional superiority.

I do not wish to spend another 60 pages , and several months debating a topic that neither side is going to 'move on'.
What's to move? A theory was created, but the facts proved it moot. Create another theory based on the facts you are now aware of. Let people try to shoot logical holes in it. Once you create a theory that people can't shoot holes in, then you'll really have something worth screaming over. Until then, it's just supposition with no backing.

I personally don't believe in a Supreme Being (e.g., God) controlling us... but I'm willing to, if someone can prove it to me that one (or more) exists. No one has offered me sufficient evidence yet, but someday they may be able to. Until then, my own personal theory on the Universe stands. I'm happy with it, it hurts no one that I'm aware of, but I don't need to make everyone else believe it.

[DavidJames]

Sorry DJ, I just don't see it your way. You don't get it. It's not a matter of what you or I see, it's a matter of the facts, evidence, science and engineering. What you or I see is 100% irrelevant. Now, if you were an engineer and were guessing, I would look at your guess with a different perspective. A guess still wouldn't trump analysis, however. You, however, are not an engineer so your guess is irrelevant. Why do you believe your guess has any value?
In any case, I'll continue my honest researchSince you've been here, I've seen only one example of you trying to do honest research (the EE forum post). You failed miserably, you refused to accept what you found out. Keep trying.

[A W Smith]

Sorry DJ, I just don't see it your way.

One side of the tower has 40% of the columns cut. All other sides have
much more intact (up to 100%).

Which side is the weakest?

In any case, I'll continue my honest research, hopefully you will do the same.

thats been answered in other threads and posts here over two years ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2165176&postcount=488

[Turbofan]

Well, you don't see very much of what happens behind the scenes then.

As mentioned several times, we purchase documentation, we call and e-mail
manufacturers, we contact people in the business and work with them.

The holes in the official conspiracy theory from my point of view are as follows (just a few off the top):

- Multiple eye witness testimony verifying a north side approach
- Lack of impact damage to entry wall of Pentagon
- FDR data anomalies (including, but not limited to: impact time, clock sync, altitude, DME)
- Lack of evidence produced by FBI, DoD, etc. by way of photos and video
- Exit hole oddity
- Bush and Cheney's dual testimony against wishes of commission
- Bush left sitting in a class room for 30 minutes during a 'terror attack'
- Lloyd's impossible story of a light pole sticking out of this windshield
- Mike Walter's poor account vs. ASCE report
- Initial and original news broadcasts on morning on 9/11 vs. rebroadcast coverage
- E4-B and C130 involvement withheld
- Pentagon left defenseless
- Hani's loop in restricted airspace

That's not too bad for questionable items related to the Pentagon alone.

[Turbofan]

thats been answered in other threads and posts here over two years ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2165176&postcount=488

Oh god, the "it's not solid" BS again.

Do you know of any buildings that ARE solid? If so, how do you get into
them?

These posts have been torn apart by structrual engineers already. That
post you linked still doesn't provide a reasonable explanation for the tipping,
nor the 300 ft. of tower disappearing before the support structure descends.

I gotta go, nobody here has provided anything worth processing. It's the
same ol' stuff unfortunately.

[nicepants]

One side of the tower has 40% of the columns cut. All other sides have
much more intact (up to 100%).

Which side is the weakest?

Fire damage is not a factor?
(We're getting into off-topic territory here...if you'd like to discuss this issue, please start a new thread)

[Bobert]

So whats the nest step TF?
Will you be bringing your evidence to a court?

[WildCat]

Note how Turbofan avoids addressing the facts and instead engages in a desperate attempt to change the subject.

[Turbofan]

Fire damage is not a factor?
(We're getting into off-topic territory here...if you'd like to discuss this issue, please start a new thread)

What's weaker in your opinion: a missing column, or one weakened by fire?

WC, I've already told you that the clock sync, DME and Altitude do not
explain the six seconds missing by transient.

If you want to provide a theory that can solve the variables, I'll be happy
to listen/read.

[funk de fino]

Note how Turbofan avoids addressing the facts and instead engages in a desperate attempt to change the subject.

By posting a huge list of false claims.

[beachnut]

Here is where a direct question and the answer do not line up, and they do so in such a way as to continue a disagreement, even when one of the major tenets has been shown to be flawed. To be specific, the question originally asked (and re-asked by WildCat, as I have bolded above) was "Could flash EEPROM have it's data corrupted by an electrical transient?" If even one realistic method exists, no matter how improbable it might be, to cause that corruption, then the original supposition is false.

In this particular discussion, I have not only described multiple scenarios in which such corruption could occur, I have provided multiple cases in real life in which it did happen. Given those facts, for you to answer an incredulous 'no' when asked if your original question has been answered is stupefying, to say the least.

I'm not about to get into personal attacks here, as it's a no-win situation. To be non-PC again, fighting over the net is like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded. But it's difficult... nay, impossible... to view any individual (let alone an entire group) with respect who chooses to ignore plain, hard facts simply because they don't fit their world view. If you don't agree with some point I have argued, let it be known... but don't insult my intelligence by agreeing on a point by point basis throughout the discussion and then tell me nothing made sense at the end.

I've either answered your questions about the corruption possibility or I haven't, but you can't have it both ways. You either agree that the FDR could have corrupted data or you don't, but don't pull a topic change in the middle of the conversation because you're not happy the original topic isn't helping your overall case. Argue things on a point by point basis... some you may win, some may end in a stalemate, and some you'll lose... but don't pull logical fallacies out of your hat, don't being personal insults into it, just let logic resolve the issues. Emotion has zero place in an investigation (other than frustration), let logic dictate the answers, not bullied or cherry-picked answers. It serves no purpose other than to make someone feel delusional superiority.


What's to move? A theory was created, but the facts proved it moot. Create another theory based on the facts you are now aware of. Let people try to shoot logical holes in it. Once you create a theory that people can't shoot holes in, then you'll really have something worth screaming over. Until then, it's just supposition with no backing.

I personally don't believe in a Supreme Being (e.g., God) controlling us... but I'm willing to, if someone can prove it to me that one (or more) exists. No one has offered me sufficient evidence yet, but someday they may be able to. Until then, my own personal theory on the Universe stands. I'm happy with it, it hurts no one that I'm aware of, but I don't need to make everyone else believe it.
Outstanding post;

[DC]

but I don't need to make everyone else believe it.

very nice

[Dave Rogers]

What's weaker in your opinion: a missing column, or one weakened by fire?

Brilliant argument, TF. Except that it's more a question of: what's weaker in real life, forty straight columns or a hundred buckled columns? I suggest you join another engineering forum, ask them that question, then explain to us why that answer means the opposite of what it says.

Dave

[Turbofan]

Right...from less than an hour of office fires :rolleyes:

[jaydeehess]

Well, you don't see very much of what happens behind the scenes then.

As mentioned several times, we purchase documentation, we call and e-mail
manufacturers, we contact people in the business and work with them.

The holes in the official conspiracy theory from my point of view are as follows (just a few off the top):
................


You asked about a specific item at the eng-tips forum. You got responses and one member actually posted here with more. That is all that was expected of him and his statements indicate without any doubt that missing/corrupted data on the FDR is not anomolous.

Can you bring yourself to now agree that the corrupted data on the FDR is not an anomoly and will you indicate to PfT's Undertow and Rob Balsamo that it is not?

[/randi prize prediction] TF will not agree and will bluster his way through to a topic change[/prediction]

[Dave Rogers]

Right...from less than an hour of office fires :rolleyes:

Nicely quoted from the script. From contents fires over an unprecedentedly large area, accelerated by jet fuel to generate a far more widespread hot zone than any normal building fire, producing buckling of the exterior columns that was photographed at the time, said photographs being reproduced in the NIST report. But please feel free to check all this in another engineering forum, too, as that's the topic of this thread.

Dave

[beachnut]

WC, I've already told you that the clock sync, DME and Altitude do not
explain the six seconds missing by transient.

If you want to provide a theory that can solve the variables, I'll be happy
to listen/read.
You lost the FDR can't loose data, you and Balsamo were told a long time ago FDR can be missing data. With a masters degree in electrical engineering, I tried to tell you the big picture answer. I told you about 256 wps, I try to help you discover the truth instead of spewing lies.

If you do not understand where 77 is, then you lack the ability to listen and figure it out yourself, you need Balsamo who is math challenged?

Everyone told you missing data is possible, even showing other FDR missing data. You wave you hands and move the goal post like the Balsamo math master.

0.25 NM resolution on the DME, use 0.1 NM accuracy, 77 can easily be at 1.72 NM from DCA at exactly 401 feet MSL. This takes math, Balsamo will fail to help you. Someone here can explain the math.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77fromDCA.jpg


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77farmerRADAR.jpg
The 1.72 NM from DCA is near the right blue dot. The altitude is 401 feet MSL, don't even try the PA altitude.

Did you know the building between 77 and the DME station are not helping the DME behave correctly? Usually a plane is not this low. Do you really have a clue about the line of sight DME? How does it behave below 500 feet AGL?

The accuracy is not as important as the resolution DME is stored at. Remembers we have a 0.25 storage problem you ignore.

But the 0.1NM accuracy with the 0.25 storage resolution makes 1.72 NM from DCA very possible. Thus it is very probable 1.72 NM from DCA is stored as 1.5 DME in the FDR. Using 0.1 nm accuracy! Finally you commit to an accuracy I can live with. Bravo.

[beachnut]

Right...from less than an hour of office fires :rolleyes:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg

In your world steel must be stronger than wood in fire.

Insulation was removed by a big impact!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg
Wall board covered some of the steel to protect it. The impact removed it. Steel lost strength quickly. This is why we have insulation and we fight fires. WTC lost insulation had zero firefighting.

With two impacts equal in energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT, I have to ask why you have problems with reality?

This means you have agreed seconds can be missing, just like in other FDR, from the FDR. Don’t tell Balsamo you are learning, he will ban you. His implications of lies depends on total 9/11 ignorance in his followers.

[Turbofan]

Nicely quoted from the script. From contents fires over an unprecedentedly large area, accelerated by jet fuel to generate a far more widespread hot zone than any normal building fire

Oh yeah, that fire was hot! Enough to hide from view and all!

I'm not buying it.

JayDee, maybe you've forgotten or want to leave out other important
details like the time stamps and DME?

So it's possible that a transient can wipe out blocks of data , but six seconds
worth? Clock sync errors of six seconds? DME values outside of recording
tolerance?

What's your theory on all of the above?

[MacGyverS2000]

WildCat,

As this thread was originally started to deal with the electrical issues of the FDR (i.e., corruption caused by transients, or other), and the issue has been dealt with to (I guess) everyone's satisfaction, might I suggest closing it and creating another with a specific topic in the title? This would prevent further discourse on non-EE topics, thereby muddying the waters should someone wish to review the material here.

[GlennB]

Oh yeah, that fire was hot! Enough to hide from view and all!

I'm not buying it.


"hide from view" ???? what ????

In what way did it hide from view? The only place it could reasonable be seen would be at the fringes of the building and, lo! , there it was (for example) :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/WTC1latefires.jpg

p.s. Dave forgot to mention about the stripped-off fireproofing, I believe.

[beachnut]

WildCat,

As this thread was originally started to deal with the electrical issues of the FDR (i.e., corruption caused by transients, or other), and the issue has been dealt with to (I guess) everyone's satisfaction, might I suggest closing it and creating another with a specific topic in the title? This would prevent further discourse on non-EE topics, thereby muddying the waters should someone wish to review the material here.

Good post earlier; something to strive for.

time for Turbofan to start a fire in the WTC thread.

Turbofan believes on faith 77 never hit the Pentagon, the place where all the souls on board 77 ended up with the FDR too. To be rational and keep a thread on topic is not a strong suit of a p4t terrorist apologist who will not listen, or learn.

[Turbofan]

Show me a picture of the South tower 10 minutes before 'collapse' and
notice the lack of fire.

Explain how the top section blew apart first, then the 1000 feet came
down in about 10 seconds.

Explain how less than an hour of office fires are able to reduce the entire
building account for the core and perimeter columns.

Please don't say it's a new phenomenon. Even some of the members here
don't buy that BS...yet they stick with the spoon fed lie of the OGCT.

[WildCat]

WildCat,

As this thread was originally started to deal with the electrical issues of the FDR (i.e., corruption caused by transients, or other), and the issue has been dealt with to (I guess) everyone's satisfaction, might I suggest closing it and creating another with a specific topic in the title? This would prevent further discourse on non-EE topics, thereby muddying the waters should someone wish to review the material here.
I'm not a mod and have no control over such things. And this is a standard tactic 9/11 conspiracy nutters (since none actually has a coherent theory as to what happened I can't call the theorists) use when cornered - change the subject, throw mud on the wall and hope something sticks, or disappear for a few days and then come back with the same tired old arguments hoping nobody noticed they were debunked already.

We've been having the same arguments here for over 3 years now...

[beachnut]

So it's possible that a transient can wipe out blocks of data , but six seconds
worth? Clock sync errors of six seconds? DME values outside of recording
tolerance?
You have to live with it.

DME is stored with a resolution of 0.25 DME, the only values that can be stored are x.0, x.2, x.5, x.8! This is the reason a value of 1.72 can be stored as 1.5 DME. The value 1.72 actual DME is seen as 1.62 (accuracy, 0.1nn used) and that is stored as 1.5 DME not 1.8 DME the only values in the FDR used. Resolution.

The DME was recorded as 1.5 DME but 77 was at 1.72 DME from DCA, 6 seconds from impact. This is all possible.

Start a turbofan learns about steel fire and impacts, thread!

[jaydeehess]

JayDee, maybe you've forgotten or want to leave out other important
details like the time stamps and DME?

So it's possible that a transient can wipe out blocks of data , but six seconds
worth? Clock sync errors of six seconds? DME values outside of recording
tolerance?

What's your theory on all of the above?

Your supposed clock sync error of 6 seconds is predicated upon the last time stamp in the FDR data being the time of impact. That premise is erroneous. If you wish to continue in willfull ignorance then by all means, whatever floats your boat.


Beachnut has shown you a dozen times if he has shown you once, that the DME reading in the FDR is NOT precise and that radar data puts the aircraft in a position at the right time that would fall within the degree of error inherent with the DME data in the FDR.
Perhaps you'd like to find a forum populated by aerospace engineers (other than the eng-tips since such questions do not adhere to their forum policy) and find out what precision could be expected in the DME data stored in an FDR from a plane within 2 NM of the DME and flying ubder 500 feet.
If you wish to remain willfully ignorant then by all means, whatever floats your boat.

As for six seconds of corrupted data, MacgyverS2000 has been quite clear that he sees no anomolie in that.
If you wish to remain willfully ignorant then by all means, whatever floats your boat.

[Turbofan]

Beachnut has done nothing except list values without references (typical).

When he grows the balls to call up L3, or Rockwell like I did, and/or post
MFG links, then we'll talk.

The NTSB signed off on the impact time. Same thing applies - get them
to issue a correction and explain the data with all of their pros. Give them
a call, grow some balls. Do some research.

[WildCat]

When he grows the balls to call up L3, or Rockwell like I did, and/or post
MFG links, then we'll talk.
And yet, for some reason, L3 and Rockwell want nothing to do with PfffT or their idiotic conclusions. Nor has the PfffT had the findings of their pretend FDR experts corroborated by real FDR experts, and your little foray into an engineering forum revealed your level of understanding on the topic is pathetic at best.

And yet, here you are, full of bluster and bravado! Monty Python's Black Knight come to life in the real world!

What a joke.

[jaydeehess]

Beachnut has done nothing except list values without references (typical).

When he grows the balls to call up L3, or Rockwell like I did, and/or post
MFG links, then we'll talk.

YOU and PfT are the ones making the extrodinary claims. It is up to you to prove them. You called up L3 and did what? Did you explain that you believe that the flight path described by the data recorded on their product does not match the flight path illsutrated by the damage on the ground?

NO, you asked a sales person about the time to record.

Customer: What is the power and torgue o/p of the engine?
Sales person: It comes in your choice of color and with a/c standard.



The NTSB signed off on the impact time. Same thing applies - get them
to issue a correction and explain the data with all of their pros. Give them
a call, grow some balls. Do some research.

So you just decide to take the NTSB as gospel on this then? I thought you were accusing the NTSB of a shoddy report and a cover up?
Which is it?
Again, you are making the extrodinary claims, you prove them!

Once again: do you or do you not agree that 4 - 6 seconds of corupted data in the FDR is not an a anomoly according to the statements by MacgyverS2000?

[bje]

Well, you don't see very much of what happens behind the scenes then.

As mentioned several times, we purchase documentation, we call and e-mail
manufacturers, we contact people in the business and work with them.

The holes in the official conspiracy theory from my point of view are as follows (just a few off the top):

- Multiple eye witness testimony verifying a north side approach
- Lack of impact damage to entry wall of Pentagon
- FDR data anomalies (including, but not limited to: impact time, clock sync, altitude, DME)
- Lack of evidence produced by FBI, DoD, etc. by way of photos and video
- Exit hole oddity
- Bush and Cheney's dual testimony against wishes of commission
- Bush left sitting in a class room for 30 minutes during a 'terror attack'
- Lloyd's impossible story of a light pole sticking out of this windshield
- Mike Walter's poor account vs. ASCE report
- Initial and original news broadcasts on morning on 9/11 vs. rebroadcast coverage
- E4-B and C130 involvement withheld
- Pentagon left defenseless
- Hani's loop in restricted airspace

That's not too bad for questionable items related to the Pentagon alone.

It is really bad, Turbofan, demonstrating the outright weakness of your claims. Nothing you have listed is in any way positive evidence that AA77 flew over the Pentagon. What we have is these facts.

1. CIT's outright refusal to interview any of over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the pentagon, including over 700 FBI investigators. No one at CIT of P4T can describe the physical evidence of what the recovered wreckage was yet thousands of people are available to be interviewed by CIT's "investigative" team:

Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions


Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
2. CIT has failed to produce any eyewitnesses to a flyover on the other side of the Pentagon, eyewitnesses on freeways, bridges, in their homes, or in their businesses. Out of thousands of people in position to see an extremely low-flying, fast-moving jet flying away the Pentagon as an "explosion" occurs, CIT and P4T cannot produce one single eyewitness nor any media reports of a jet flying away from the Pentagon on 9/11. When asked why, both groups, including Turbofan, simply ignore the question or claim any eyewitnesses were "shut up" by the government.

So Turbofan can neither refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon nor can he provide any evidence whatsoever that AA77 flew over the Pentagon. He's quite content to support the fraudulent charlatans that are CIT and P4T.

I look forward to Turbofan's eventual confession and apology.

[beachnut]

Beachnut has done nothing except list values without references (typical).

When he grows the balls to call up L3, or Rockwell like I did, and/or post
MFG links, then we'll talk.

The NTSB signed off on the impact time. Same thing applies - get them
to issue a correction and explain the data with all of their pros. Give them
a call, grow some balls. Do some research.

The NTSB did no report on the crash of 77, they are not the lead. END of that BS. You go to the NTSB.

The time of impact is not 45, there is a time stamp of 46 on the NTSB readout.

The RADAR has 77 6 seconds away at 13:37:47. Two seconds after the NTSB impact time take from what?

Very specific of you.

I used your accuracy to show 77 can be at 1.72 DME from DCA and the FDR can have 1.5 DME stored.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77fromDCA.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77farmerRADAR.jpg

Values, referenced to the area. 1.72 NM from DCA, sensed as 1.62 DME, stored as 1.5 DME. All explained over and over again. This is based on 0.1 NM accuracy. Sources, explained, shown. You can lead a… but you can't…

Values, referenced to the area. 1.72 NM from DCA, sensed as 1.62 DME, stored as 1.5 DME. All explained over and over again. This is based on 0.1 NM accuracy. Sources, explained, shown. You can lead a… but you can't…

Stop telling lies. L3 has nothing to add! You contact them to protect your lie. I already know 77 impacted the Pentagon. You need the help.

[Bobert]

Not to derail but YOU KNOW YOU ARE OUT THERE IN LALA LAND when NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of the JREF truth community comes to your defense.
How does that feel TF?

[chillzero]

Please make better attempts to keep this thread civil, and on topic. I believe the topic concerned discussion of engineering issues? We are receiving a lot of reports from this one thread. If it continues, the thread will be closed.

[Turbofan]

I'm not here to win votes Bob. The tables would be turned at a truth site.

What's your point?

You must believe in the newly discovered 9/11 phenomenon. That alone is
funny stuff. Thanks NIST. :cool:

[beachnut]

Well, you don't see very much of what happens behind the scenes then.
As mentioned several times, we purchase documentation, we call and e-mail manufacturers, we contact people in the business and work with them.
It takes a certain bias, and paranoid lack of knowledge to make up the worse fantasies of p4t. You guys badger people and have been told not to bother people! Your leader Balsamo has threaded lives due to his paranoia.
I have no idea why you suspend individual thought and let your biases drive you to spew Balsamo's failed ideas.

You lack knolwdgte4 and lack evidence a fatal combination which leads to Balsamo's implications of lies freely stated by you as facts.
The holes in the official conspiracy theory from my point of view are as follows (just a few off the top):
- Multiple eye witness testimony verifying a north side approach
They all drew impossible paths based on physics, FDR, RADAR, real data. Did you watch the videos, they point to the south path! Funny stuff.

- Lack of impact damage to entry wall of Pentagon
What? You failed to read the report on the performance of the Pentagon.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf failure
- FDR data anomalies (including, but not limited to: impact time, clock sync, altitude, DME)
FDR does not show impact time, DME is stored with 0.25 nm resolution you don't understand math, altitude from PA is not accurate, +- 100 or more feet at 463 KIAS, but we have RADALT, puts the nail on your too high ideas because 77 is not near the Pentagon when the data stops. Just far enough away to impact as seen by real people. DNA kills your did not hit lie.
- Lack of evidence produced by FBI, DoD, etc. by way of photos and video What a lie. There are photos showing 77 all over the place.
- Exit hole oddity If you only understood physics. nuff said.
- Bush and Cheney's dual testimony against wishes of commission
The privilege of being boss.
Were you hiding under you bed. What a stupid smoking gun.
[quote=Turbofan;4090888]- Lloyd's impossible story of a light pole sticking out of this windshield A breakaway pole? You lack of understanding reality is known.
This is the best you can do.
[quote=Turbofan;4090888- Initial and original news broadcasts on morning on 9/11 vs. rebroadcast coverage Good idea to base your understanding of 9/11 on the perfect news. Bravo
- E4-B and C130 involvement withheld
Why not imply a lie! The E4 took off after 77 hit, I wonder why when we are under attack an E4 would takeoff. You want me to ask the crew? The C-130 is neat your idiot pilot Balsamo says he can't fly the departure he did due to traffic, when the departure is made to avoid the traffic. Balsamo is the dumbest pilot I have heard.

This one topic makes you look like the poor researcher you are, and the p4t the paranoid terrorist apologist, or is terrorist loyalist, they are?
- Pentagon left defenseless
Yep, just what I want is SAM sites going off with SAMs landing in a school yard! Good job wanting a police state but protesting a fictional police state in your mind.
- Hani's loop in restricted airspace
Another lie, Hani did not fly into restricted airspace this is a stupid fantasy of CIT and p4t. Loop? The slowest turn ever, anyone can do. Failure.
That's not too bad for questionable items related to the Pentagon alone.
All of them based on your lack of knowledge in the related fields.

I have no idea why you suspend individual thought and let your biases drive you to spew Balsamo's failed ideas.

[Turbofan]

Real good answers there BN my little hero. There are some funny new ones
for once. Let me reply just to those to break the boredom:

The privilege of being boss.

Great answer! Wow, I can see how this bit of info alone will change me.

Were you hiding under you bed. What a stupid smoking gun.
A breakaway pole? You lack of understanding reality is known.
This is the best you can do.
You better check out Llyod's testimony again and also review the photos
of his car. Once you're done there, map out the direction of the pole
falling against the direction of the car. Maybe then you'll clue in. Maybe.


Good idea to base your understanding of 9/11 on the perfect news. Bravo
I don't believe I've ever called a news station for FDR specs, or any of my
research. You fail to understand the point. Not surprised.

Why not imply a lie! The E4 took off after 77 hit, I wonder why when we are under attack an E4 would takeoff. You want me to ask the crew?

Not before, but after? Must be a sign of that trillion dollar system. If the
jets were half as quick ... no wait, they were playing space invaders! Oops
I forgot! :rolleyes:


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Another lie, Hani did not fly into restricted airspace this is a stupid fantasy of CIT and p4t. Loop? The slowest turn ever, anyone can do. Failure.
Pentagon airspace is not restricted? Wow...good one.

A slow turn in restricted air space. Exposed for more time. Why not hit
the Pentagon directly like shown by PFT? How dumb are these terrorists?
YOu crack me up.

Most of the people here crack me up. Poor Chill; I know you're not on my
side, but I do feel bad for all of these posts you have to deal with. I hope
JREF pays you well!

[beachnut]

Great answer! Wow, I can see how this bit of info alone will change me.
I give you facts, and you don't even know it. You should have studied civic, American civics. Lack of knowledge as you post stupid question in the form of paranoid things Balsamo doesn't get because he too lacks knowledge on the topics.



A slow turn in restricted air space. Exposed for more time. Why not hit
the Pentagon directly like shown by PFT? How dumb are these terrorists?
YOu crack me up.
Dumb stuff that Balsamo makes up. Why not dive and hit the Pentagon? What angle does he need to hit from 7000 feet?

Dive angle for the straight in dive please; include airspeeds from the dive and more! Show us the restricted air space Hani was in?

Real critical thinking needs some numbers. You never present the case, you just spew hearsay, wave your hands and say false junk.

You do all this talking and no showing. Do something!

Why didn't Hani just dive from 7000 feet? He did but he did it in a turn. How many time have you taken an airliner and dove it into something from 7000 feet, 5000 feet to high for a even the steep approach later used by Hani. What was the dive angle needed for Balsamo's smart remark from his failed video?

You failed to present the physics of the dive from 7000 feet? Is it possible to control the plane in a steep dive? Have you tried it?

What speed will 77 reach in a sustained dive from 7000 feet? Oh, what angle is it? Numbers please or stop wasting time making up stuff.

[lapman]

Pentagon airspace is not restricted? Wow...good one.
Another piece of idiocy without a shred of evidence. Of course you ignore the huge airport that is nearby and the fact that there is no restricted airspace over the Pentagon to this date. Please point out your fictitious restricted airspace here:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=93&pictureid=391

A slow turn in restricted air space. Exposed for more time. Why not hit
the Pentagon directly like shown by PFT? How dumb are these terrorists?
YOu crack me up.As been pointed out many times by those of us that are pilots, the turn is proof that neither a professional pilot nor a remote controlled system was in control of the aircraft. You have effectively debunks yourself. That does crack us up.

[beachnut]

Another piece of idiocy without a shred of evidence. Of course you ignore the huge airport that is nearby and the fact that there is no restricted airspace over the Pentagon to this date. Please point out your fictitious restricted airspace here:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=93&pictureid=391
As been pointed out many times by those of us that are pilots, the turn is proof that neither a professional pilot nor a remote controlled system was in control of the aircraft. You have effectively debunks yourself. That does crack us up.
That is why they have an airport next to the Pentagon! Restricted airspace! This is pathetic. But remember his is using the CIT flight path supported only by the idiot team of CIT super duper researchers and false ideas squad.

You would think he would check this stuff since he is calling the US military liars and murderers.

[jaydeehess]

Once again: do you or do you not agree that 4 - 6 seconds of corupted data in the FDR is not an a anomoly according to the statements by MacgyverS2000?

Ahem!?

[Turbofan]

Class Bravo

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=115e51d8b4389cdb9d312042802d1a19&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.18&idno=14

Jaydee, read my replies again. Thanks.

[beachnut]

Class Bravo

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=115e51d8b4389cdb9d312042802d1a19&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.18&idno=14

Jaydee, read my replies again. Thanks.

Do you understand anything. If so explain this post complete and stop the spam.


There is nothing stopping anyone from entering Class B airspace. No shoot down CAP, not anti-aircraft! You know not what you post, 77 did not enter restricted airspace, Class B is not restricted airspace.

Did Balsamo try to pass Class B as restricted airspace?

[Turbofan]

It's not a 'no fly zone', and it's not 'non restricted', so what do you call it?

"Semi restricted space"? "Pass only with authorization space"? "Semantics space"?

[beachnut]

It's not a 'no fly zone', and it's not 'non restricted', so what do you call it?

"Semi restricted space"? "Pass only with authorization space"? "Semantics space"?
You said
""Pentagon airspace is not restricted? Wow...good one.""

Show me that the pentagon is restricted airspace? Right next to an airport?

Now explain what happens if you fly through Class B airspace? Every single nuance. Please tell us why this is a smoking gun, and for what?

You call the airspace around the airport Class B. Period, no fighters are there to enforce it before 9/11. They would track traffic breaking the airspace and take away their FAA stuff! Was Balsamo dumb enough to use this failed card?

[Turbofan]

I guess you didn't read the link huh?


(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with §91.129 and the following rules:

(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.

(2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral limits of that area.

Is that not some sort of restriction? Am I using the wrong terminology?

How did Hani manage to get in that air space without getting noticed?

[jhunter1163]

I'm not here to win votes Bob. The tables would be turned at a truth site.

Not quite. Debunkers are usually banned within minutes at truth sites.

[WildCat]

I guess you didn't read the link huh?




Is that not some sort of restriction? Am I using the wrong terminology?

How did Hani manage to get in that air space without getting noticed?
Holy crap, Hani risked getting fined or losing his pilot's license! :rolleyes:

[TjW]

I guess you didn't read the link huh?




Is that not some sort of restriction? Am I using the wrong terminology?

How did Hani manage to get in that air space without getting noticed?

Class B airspace is not Restricted airspace. It's a class of controlled airspace. The class of airspace tells you which set of rules you must follow in that airspace. Everything except Class G airspace is considered controlled.
Indeed, Class A airspace, which has even more "restrictive" rules, is also not Restricted airspace, and covers the entire U.S. above 18000 feet pressure altitude.

So, yeah, I'd say you were using the wrong terminology. The FARs are very clear on what Restricted airspace is.

[Metullus]

WildCat,

As this thread was originally started to deal with the electrical issues of the FDR (i.e., corruption caused by transients, or other), and the issue has been dealt with to (I guess) everyone's satisfaction, might I suggest closing it and creating another with a specific topic in the title? This would prevent further discourse on non-EE topics, thereby muddying the waters should someone wish to review the material here.I, for one, would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to Turbofan's questions in such a civil and detailed manner. Your explanations were intelligible even to those of us who claim no particular expertise in the subject.

While it is entirely possible that your explanations were lost on some of the posters here I can assure you that most of us very much appreciate your efforts.

[beachnut]

I guess you didn't read the link huh?

Is that not some sort of restriction? Am I using the wrong terminology?

How did Hani manage to get in that air space without getting noticed?
I flew jets! lol

I actually know this stuff! I have flown into Class B airspace since 1973! You are not schooling anyone your are looking silly.

This is why the controllers said to the NEWS dolts, they thought the plane, Flight 77 which they had no idea what kind of plane it was on the RADAR scope, was military, the Military is the only guys who break the rules by accident speeding in the Class B airspace!

Your lack of understanding is why you think there was somehting up with the FAA controllers said they were unsafe. YOu are the one who needs to read more and try to understand! There are reasons for the dumb NEWS stories, this Class B airspace is a hint of one reason. The terrorist was flying without regard to airspace!

You lack so much knowledge, you read and think what. No the plane does not blow up breaking rules, they have to catch him to punish him. We all obey the rules because we want to fly more.

Balsamo could use some schooling take it to him.

They saw the plane speeding through Class B airspace; what are you talking about; hate to tell you the don't shoot down planes because the break the rules in Class B airspace and they did not have the military chase them.
They have RADAR it records where they go. They meet the idiot and take away their FAA licenses etc. They would remove Hani's license. But he died in the Pentagon impact. They followed the plane on RADAR to the Pentagon where it crashed. Proves your fly over is a lie.

[Turbofan]

OK, I'll used "contorlled airspace" instead of restricted.

Aside from losing his license, he would probably get noticed by ATC, especially
since everyone knew the country was under attack.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/RO2withDMEText.jpg

[WildCat]

OK, I'll used "contorlled airspace" instead of restricted.

Aside from losing his license, he would probably get noticed by ATC, especially
since everyone knew the country was under attack.
And then what? The NWO starship would decloak and incinerate him with a death ray?

[Turbofan]

And then what? The NWO starship would decloak and incinerate him with a death ray?

No, then the Hani mobile would extend the anal probe and drill your butt hole
until you said stop...but then, you probably wouldn't say stop! :D

[WildCat]

No, then the Hani mobile would extend the anal probe and drill your butt hole
until you said stop...but then, you probably wouldn't say stop! :D
I see you're trying to dodge the question with homophobic toilet humor, so I'll ask again: What do you think happens when a passenger aircraft is discovered in controlled airspace?

[Turbofan]

One that is not responding to ATC, after the twins were hit and a third
reported hi-jacked?

Hmmm...maybe an intercept order?

[WildCat]

One that is not responding to ATC, after the twins were hit and a third
reported hi-jacked?

Hmmm...maybe an intercept order?
There was an intercept order... :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

No, then the Hani mobile would extend the anal probe and drill your butt hole
until you said stop...but then, you probably wouldn't say stop! :D
You never answered the DME resolution issue? Why?

[Turbofan]

Because:

a. I don't like you

b. You haven't provided a shred of reference to any MFG, or system document.

c. I don't like you

Please remember to be civil and polite. Personalizing the argument is against your Membership Agreement.

[Jonnyclueless]

Any luck getting anyone from L3 to support your claims? Any luck getting someone who is a REAL expert in FDR recovery to support your claims?

[WildCat]

Because:

a. I don't like you

b. You haven't provided a shred of reference to any MFG, or system document.

c. I don't like you
You forgot:

d. It destroys the fantasy you have structured your life around.

[D'rok]

To: Turbofan
Re: The six second issue

If you have any interest in salvaging a shred of credibility in the eyes of spectators, please concede that it is possible for six seconds of FDR data to be lost/corrupted by crash impact.

Sincerely,

The Lurkers

[beachnut]

Because:

a. I don't like you

b. You haven't provided a shred of reference to any MFG, or system document.

c. I don't like you
You have no idea what the resolution is; just like Balsamo.

You are unable to understand the resolution issue and DME, because Balsamo does not understand 0.25 NM due to it being like math stuff.

You never will understand 9/11 if you listen to the 34 G junk of Balsamo, so the resolution storage issue of DME is beyond p4t capabilities.

Or you can't figure out resolution cause I used a variable and you have not had algebra yet?

The X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8 being the only values stored for DME, you don't understand the X.

But is it cool using your value for accuracy, 0.1 NM on the DME, and the resolution issue. A 1.72 NM actual distance from DCA can be stored as 1.5 DME in the FDR.

you and Balsamo can't figure it out!

It means 77 can be 6 seconds away from the Pentagon right near the blue dot! Not where you say it is! All because you can't do math, or you can't think for yourself?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77fromDCA.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77farmerRADAR.jpg
Farmer got all the RADAR data to help you guys understand there is no NoC, no fly over. Why is he able to get things you guys don't understand?

[Bobert]

Say goodnight TF!
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:TnCz2n5vKSOr5M:http://bp0.blogger.com/_0ikf8kb5Jg8/RvFufX4QE0I/AAAAAAAAA6A/YUMqvalAIXs/s320/knockout.jpg

[DC]

While i can understand frustration on both sides. I must say. Would more people post and behave like MacGyver2000S, the debunkers would have alot more succes i think.
He seems to be totaly anti CT, he thinks it is propagandistic BS.He might even agree that we are terrorist appologists.
Nontheless he is able to be very polite and stay factual. Without any ad homs.

While I cannot really imagen the scenario with loose solder in an FDR after several years of operation, it oc can happen, but i think it is unlikely. But I found his other examples very convincing. Not that i ever thought loosing data etc cannot happen, I have read atleast 2 NTSB reports that talked about lost or not recorded Data.

[Jonnyclueless]

OH look, a CTer complaining about people not being polite. Someone put that in a picture frame.

[DC]

actually i was pointing out someone that is strongly disagreeing and still beeing very polite.....

but one can oc twist that so it fits his prejudice :)

[beachnut]

While i can understand frustration on both sides. I must say. Would more people post and behave like MacGyver2000S, the debunkers would have alot more succes i think.
He seems to be totaly anti CT, he thinks it is propagandistic BS.He might even agree that we are terrorist appologists.
Nontheless he is able to be very polite and stay factual. Without any ad homs.

While I cannot really imagen the scenario with loose solder in an FDR after several years of operation, it oc can happen, but i think it is unlikely. But I found his other examples very convincing. Not that i ever thought loosing data etc cannot happen, I have read atleast 2 NTSB reports that talked about lost or not recorded Data.

The lack of evidence by Turbofan is what frustrates others. His delusional ideas are based on no evidence; or faulty physics, failed math, or just hearsay and fantasy.

We told him data can be missing, he was hunkered down on the chip and FDR circuitry where as you were able to find data missing in other scenarios and many of those are not known why the data was missing.

The fact he spreads the lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon without evidence deserves no polite talk. He does not try to learn. You can repeat the resolution of stored DME as 0.25 NM and he as no clue what that means to the value of 1.5 DME.

Turbofan will rationalize away what you present as lost data in other NTSB studies, and he ignores the possibility! But then seeks out other experts, and is shut down, but still quibbles about it.

Like you sig; I am right and you have no clue how stupid your sig is to other pilots who understand flight envelopes of aircraft. You actually have one thing right on 9/11, now another understanding it is possible to have missing data for unknown reasons in the FDR system due to many factors; and your sig is right too, but you think it is a joke on me. But it is on you.

[DC]

The lack of evidence by Turbofan is what frustrates others. His delusional ideas are based on no evidence; or faulty physics, failed math, or just hearsay and fantasy.

We told him data can be missing, he was hunkered down on the chip and FDR circuitry where as you were able to find data missing in other scenarios and many of those are not known why the data was missing.

The fact he spreads the lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon without evidence deserves no polite talk. He does not try to learn. You can repeat the resolution of stored DME as 0.25 NM and he as no clue what that means to the value of 1.5 DME.

Turbofan will rationalize away what you present as lost data in other NTSB studies, and he ignores the possibility! But then seeks out other experts, and is shut down, but still quibbles about it.

Like you sig; I am right and you have no clue how stupid your sig is to other pilots who understand flight envelopes of aircraft. You actually have one thing right on 9/11, now another understanding it is possible to have missing data for unknown reasons in the FDR system due to many factors; and your sig is right too, but you think it is a joke on me. But it is on you.

a few polite words can gain more than all your and my rant posts together :)

[beachnut]

a few polite words can gain more than all your and my rant posts together :)
I hope he does hate me so he will try harder to show me up, so he learns more than I will ever know and shut down the liars, the false information merchants, and fantasy makers known as 9/11 truth.

The skills to understand 9/11 were taught in grade school, were we listening? We have the skills, it is sad to see people make up junk based on zero evidence.

The many truthers who were fooled now know 9/11 truth is false information.

Even you got your sig right, but you don't know it, and you know a FDR can have data missing.

I don't need to know why 77 has missing data, I know 77 impacted the Pentagon. I was in the military we don't cover-up stuff like 9/11, we would report CT one way or another!

Turbofan is making up a lie, he says 77 did not impact the Pentagon. He things there are problems in the FDR, he lacks the skill and knowledge to correctly interpret what others are feeding him.

I have to badger him to get him to stand by numbers, like 0.1 NM accuracy on the DME, then I show him how far off the 1.5 DME can be, and I show him the RADAR data to help confirm the uncertainty in the DME. I don't care if he gets the accuracy from a new DME set not in 77. I only need 0.1 NM accuracy to prove 1.5 DME stored in the FDR can be 1.72 NM from DCA. Which is about 6 seconds away from the Pentagon on course to impact.

Do you have any clue what the final heading and course are of 77?

This is not polite stuff, it is just evidence, dry junk no need to get pretty and nice, he needs to learn faster and stop telling lies.

[DC]

I hope he does hate me so he will try harder to show me up, so he learns more than I will ever know and shut down the liars, the false information merchants, and fantasy makers known as 9/11 truth.

The skills to understand 9/11 were taught in grade school, were we listening? We have the skills, it is sad to see people make up junk based on zero evidence.

The many truthers who were fooled now know 9/11 truth is false information.

Even you got your sig right, but you don't know it, and you know a FDR can have data missing.

I don't need to know why 77 has missing data, I know 77 impacted the Pentagon. I was in the military we don't cover-up stuff like 9/11, we would report CT one way or another!

Turbofan is making up a lie, he says 77 did not impact the Pentagon. He things there are problems in the FDR, he lacks the skill and knowledge to correctly interpret what others are feeding him.

I have to badger him to get him to stand by numbers, like 0.1 NM accuracy on the DME, then I show him how far off the 1.5 DME can be, and I show him the RADAR data to help confirm the uncertainty in the DME. I don't care if he gets the accuracy from a new DME set not in 77. I only need 0.1 NM accuracy to prove 1.5 DME stored in the FDR can be 1.72 NM from DCA. Which is about 6 seconds away from the Pentagon on course to impact.

Do you have any clue what the final heading and course are of 77?

This is not polite stuff, it is just evidence, dry junk no need to get pretty and nice, he needs to learn faster and stop telling lies.

would i have had any teacher that was remotly such an rules10 rule10 like you are, i would have never listened to him. :)

I was listening to my teachers, but when i thought he just told us something that is not true, what indeed happened, i took a closer look, searched for more information and then correct the teacher in a polite and friendly way.

[beachnut]

would i have had any teacher that was remotly such an rules10 rule10 like you are, i would have never listened to him. :)

I was listening to my teachers, but when i thought he just told us something that is not true, what indeed happened, i took a closer look, searched for more information and then correct the teacher in a polite and friendly way.
Get over the nice/bad teacher crap. Does that limit your learning like it appears to?

You want to support the truth movement but can't learn anything or find evidence to support your failed ideas on 9/11 because people are mean?

At least you have some evidence on this topic! Yep, you know FDR can loose data.

[funk de fino]

OH look, a CTer complaining about people not being polite. Someone put that in a picture frame.

One that called me a duhbunker and dishonest yesterday.

[DC]

Get over the nice/bad teacher crap. Does that limit your learning like it appears to?

You want to support the truth movement but can't learn anything or find evidence to support your failed ideas on 9/11 because people are mean?

At least you have some evidence on this topic! Yep, you know FDR can loose data.

oh dear, you really have some serious problems.

[beachnut]

oh dear, you really have some serious problems.
At least you sig is correct.

[DC]

At least you sig is correct.

yes my sig is a correct reflection of your huge huge ego's :)

[beachnut]

One that is not responding to ATC, after the twins were hit and a third
reported hi-jacked?

Hmmm...maybe an intercept order?
Are you going to tie this to some scenario that makes sense?

Have you abandoned your 77 did not hit the Pentagon story?

What intercept order; who would send it? Who was seeing 77 on RADAR, who would they call on 9/11?
Does this mean you understand the resolution issue of DME and how it relates to the actual distance from DCA for 77?

[Bananaman]

Why are you doing this to yourself, Turbo? Seriously, WHY?

Edited for personal attack

[chillzero]

Last warning. If you all continue to ignore the previous mod box, and are incapable of holding a civil, impersonal discussion here, the thread will be closed.

[nicepants]

To: Turbofan
Re: The six second issue

If you have any interest in salvaging a shred of credibility in the eyes of spectators, please concede that it is possible for six seconds of FDR data to be lost/corrupted by crash impact.

Sincerely,

The Lurkers

Seconded.

Turbo? Where did you go?

[Turbofan]

If the tansient is able to wipe out six seconds of data, that's fine.

The problem I have with that is DME and time stamps do not
support the six seconds missing claim.

MacGyver says it's possible to wipe out six seconds with
transients, and has provided real life examples, however is
this in an system with a prolonged duration of transients
and sufficient power available?

If yes, then we need to tie in the theory with the available
info (DME and time stamps) to make sense.

Beachnut, I really do love you, but I'd love you more if you gave me links
to your sources, or called up a manufacturer with specs. That will allow
everyone to check your work, and numbers you post.

[Bobert]

Did Macgyver really say that?

[Bobert]

At least you sig is correct.
If his sig made any sense that might actually help.
I dont think that his schooling taught him all that much.

[jaydeehess]

Class Bravo

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=115e51d8b4389cdb9d312042802d1a19&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.18&idno=14

.


If I were the type to do so , this is where the laughing dog would appear.

Class B airspace is the aerodrome control space and the rules are there to keep things orderly around major airports. Was Hani supposedly worried about having his license revoked?

ETA: I see this has already been brought up by others.

[jaydeehess]

Turbofan, does the PfT contention that impact time was the same as the end of data on the FDR depend primarily on the assumption that the NTSB has officially stated that this is so?

[Turbofan]

I think Hani would be more concerned spending time in controlled airspace
while ATC was looking for hi-jacked aircraft.

PFT not only wants an explanation of the impact time, we want to know
why the plane was too high and too close to hit the light poles, among
other strange things.

I'm sure you already know this. All the info you need is on their web site.
You know the link ;)

[Bobert]

I think Hani would be more concerned spending time in controlled airspace
while ATC was looking for hi-jacked aircraft.
Why do you think Hani would be concerned?

[lapman]

OK, I'll used "contorlled airspace" instead of restricted.

Aside from losing his license, he would probably get noticed by ATC, especially
since everyone knew the country was under attack.

You are forgetting the fact that they had no idea that the blip they were seeing on their screens was a passenger aircraft. Remember, the transponder was on standby, so here was nothing to identify the aircraft. You must also remember that ATC did ask the C-130 to identify AA 77, so you can't say that they did nothing.

[lapman]

I think Hani would be more concerned spending time in controlled airspace while ATC was looking for hi-jacked aircraft.Do you think that the Kamikaze pilots were all that concerned about flying into the intense AA fire from the ships that they targeted? Did bomber pilots abort their missions because they were in enemy controlled airspace?

[beachnut]

If the tansient is able to wipe out six seconds of data, that's fine.

The problem I have with that is DME and time stamps do not
support the six seconds missing claim.

If yes, then we need to tie in the theory with the available
info (DME and time stamps) to make sense.
I have shown the actual distance from DCA can be 1.72 DME and stored as 1.5 DME; p4t will not do the math, they can't understand numbers.

Best to skip this and sell terrorist loyalist DVDs.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77fromDCA.jpg


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77farmerRADAR.jpg
NOT FOR p4t math challenges pilots. Hope you can understand this Turbofan so you can stop spreading lies for p4t.

1.72 DME is based on 0.1 nm DME accuracy, and 0.25 nm DME storage resolution.

I can not get simple enough for p4t to understand. 77 can be 1.72 NM from DCA, the DME set on 77 can see, due to accuracy, 1.62 DME; due to resolution being 0.25 NM, 1.62 will be stored as 1.5 DME.

Depending on p4t sources for DME accuracy the signal for best conditions is 0.1 DME and not good 0.3 DME. I can use their accuracy and it show it possible of an uncertain in DME of 1350 feet. Which makes 77 1800 more feet away from the Pentagon.

This is like the 6 second missing.

Oh, yes the FBI has impact/crash at 39 past the hour! There goes the NTSB time.

It will take the p4t 6 months to mess this up; Turbofan you can break away from the 34 G wizards.

[beachnut]

I think Hani would be more concerned spending time in controlled airspace
while ATC was looking for hi-jacked aircraft.

PFT not only wants an explanation of the impact time, we want to know
why the plane was too high and too close to hit the light poles, among
other strange things.

I'm sure you already know this. All the info you need is on their web site.
You know the link ;)
Stop using Balsamo's doltish idea! stop being a p4t repeater of junk
Hani was in controlled airspace most of the flight. He broke the rules.

Controlled airspace; 8:38 Hani flew in CONTROLLED AIRSPACE to 9:24 ; what use to be called Positive Control Airspace, now Class A airspace!

Balsamo is full of false ideas and is only good for selling terrorist loyalist DVDs; he has poor flying knowledge and bad math skills; why is will not understand DME.

WOWZER p4t guy, Hani was tooling around CLASS A airspace for 46 minutes with his engines at 40 percent just taking his time!

And you were saying?


77 was not too close you ignore the DME! 77 was not too close even at a real 1.5 DME, but you do not understand DME.
Using the NTSB time as proof of impact is real stupid.
FBI crash of 77 is 39 past the hour.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm)
American Airlines #77
Boeing 757
8:10 a.m. Departed Dulles for Los Angeles
9:39 a.m. Crashed into Pentagon
Lead agency blows away p4t doltish NTSB fixation. How did the CIT miss this massive green flag?

[Mr.Herbert]

Turbofan... once more...




http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/2339e78de6e538a883de794ad171971d.gif

[Bananaman]

Chill:
Last warning. If you all continue to ignore the previous mod box, and are incapable of holding a civil, impersonal discussion here, the thread will be closed.

Sorry, Chill. But in my defence I was trying to be kind. Heaven forfend if I ever had a real go at the poor fool.

Bananaman (The Penitent).

[chillzero]

Thread closed as per warnings.