PDA

View Full Version : [Split Thread] Turbofan's Engineering forum links (split from: AA77 FDR Data, Explained)


Pages : [1] 2

WildCat
20th September 2008, 04:50 PM
Turbofan, when will you start your thread on the electronics engineering forum which pwns us all?

Will you link to it when you do?

Disbelief
20th September 2008, 04:52 PM
Turbofan, when will you start your thread on the electronics engineering forum which pwns us all?

Will you link to it when you do?

Yes, all of us EETs are on the edge of our seats!!

Myriad
20th September 2008, 05:18 PM
If I don't see a link to Turbofan's electronics forum thread, the most likely conclusion is that he did post such a thread, and doesn't want to tell anyone the results. After all, he wouldn't lie about his intention to post it, not when it's so trivially easy to actually do.

Respectfully,
Myriad

TjW
20th September 2008, 06:30 PM
<snippage>
After all, he wouldn't lie about his intention to post it, not when it's so trivially easy to actually do.

Respectfully,
Myriad

There's a language award, a pith award, even a stundie award. If there was an optimist of the month award, you'd be nominated.

Myriad
20th September 2008, 06:52 PM
There's a language award, a pith award, even a stundie award. If there was an optimist of the month award, you'd be nominated.


How about a sarcasm award? :D

Respectfully,
Myriad

Bobert
20th September 2008, 07:03 PM
Turbofan, when will you start your thread on the electronics engineering forum which pwns us all?

Will you link to it when you do?
The funny thing is that he actually thinks that people will support him.
Is Turbo like 13 yrs old?
Yes I am looking forward to this proof from turbo which i am sure will never arrive.
:rolleyes:

WildCat
20th September 2008, 10:25 PM
So Turbofan, have you posted your pwnage of Mackey on that electronic engineering forum yet? Do you have a link?

chillzero
21st September 2008, 03:16 AM
I don't want to see any flaming, or personal attacks. This thread was split to prevent further derail. Keep it civil, and on topic please.

WildCat
21st September 2008, 05:18 AM
Thanks chillzero, I can't wait to see his thread in the EE forum! Don't forget to link to this one in the OP Turbofan, so everyone knows exactly the context of what you're talking about!

e^n
21st September 2008, 05:20 AM
Could someone fill me in on the background to this? I've been spending most of my time posting at ATS so I must have missed the comedy.

jhunter1163
21st September 2008, 05:26 AM
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047&page=60

From the last post on this page forward. Turbofan takes on R. Mackey and promises to post R. Mackey's "errors" on various electronics forums.

*chuckles*

T.A.M.
21st September 2008, 05:29 AM
Can someone quote or repost the links when he does (some of us have him [Turbofan] on ignore, but would still like to enjoy watching him have his ass handed to him).

TAM:)

jhunter1163
21st September 2008, 05:38 AM
Will do, TAM, if it ever happens (which I wouldn't bet on-I think he's just trying to brazen it out, and failing).

WildCat
21st September 2008, 10:20 AM
Will do, TAM, if it ever happens (which I wouldn't bet on-I think he's just trying to brazen it out, and failing).
Oh no, he promised!

WildCat
21st September 2008, 03:00 PM
Bump.

Bobert
21st September 2008, 04:32 PM
Looking forward to those links!

WildCat
21st September 2008, 06:18 PM
Bumpity bump badump.

How's it going Turbofan?

Mr.Herbert
21st September 2008, 06:37 PM
He just posted at the FDR thread..... YOOO HOOOOOOO T-FAN!!!! Where are youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?????????????????

DavidJames
21st September 2008, 07:09 PM
Yup, I stayed home on a Saturday night and registered to all of the EE forums
to please WC!

I didn't say anything, MACKEY said it and it's quoted. Now he's trying to
squirm out....
Just for the record

jaydeehess
21st September 2008, 08:45 PM
aahhh, I saw this thread and was hoping.........

I won't hold my breath waiting on TF to find support for his infallible EEPROM contention.

WildCat
21st September 2008, 09:35 PM
Remember when Turbofan's hero Balsamo posted at the PPrune forum to claim Hanjour couldn't hit the Pentagon and got reamed a new one? It's gonna be deja vu all over again!

T.A.M.
22nd September 2008, 08:13 AM
bump. I am interested to see all of this "slapdown" TF thinks Mackey will receive...lol

TAM:)

Bobert
22nd September 2008, 08:29 AM
Those links to those EE forums would be appreciated Turbofan, thanks!

NickUK
22nd September 2008, 09:20 AM
Remember when Turbofan's hero Balsamo posted at the PPrune forum to claim Hanjour couldn't hit the Pentagon and got reamed a new one? It's gonna be deja vu all over again!

I'm too lazy to Google it WC, but can you link it? Ta :)

WildCat
22nd September 2008, 10:00 AM
I'm too lazy to Google it WC, but can you link it? Ta :)
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/236698-attn-swept-wing-transport-pilots.html

The idiot huckster fraud Rob Balsamo is "AluminumDrvr".

Ah, memories!

uk_dave
22nd September 2008, 12:09 PM
I want some endorsement of turbofans product, or I aint buying any.

C'mon Turbo, let's see that independant verification of your claims.

T.A.M.
22nd September 2008, 12:11 PM
Seems the moderator there removed/relocated a lot of the "ass handing" comments, as the 2 page thread now seems pretty boring, and pretty benign, Wildcat.

TAM:)

WildCat
22nd September 2008, 12:18 PM
Seems the moderator there removed/relocated a lot of the "ass handing" comments, as the 2 page thread now seems pretty boring, and pretty benign, Wildcat.

TAM:)
Yeah, I remember it being much longer at the time.

Turbofan, got any links where you are pwning Mackey yet?

jaydeehess
22nd September 2008, 03:40 PM
That linked thread does include a hint on the second page that Robby had brought up flight 77.

Rob tried valiently to say that if the aircraft was changing it pitch angle that the spot-on-the-glass method would not work but many others pointed out that if the flight surfaces remained as they would be in cruise that there would be no need for a change in pitch and that flying the spot on the window into the target would work just fine to crash into said target.

HyJinX
22nd September 2008, 04:42 PM
Bump for Turbo.

WildCat
22nd September 2008, 09:10 PM
OMG! OMG! I can't stop laughing. I took a screen capture of your reply
and I'm going to post it to every electronics and networking board on the
planet.

I'll wait for all the replies, and then I'll link you to all the sites so I can prove
how friggin' STUPID that nonsense really is!

First off: If there is a data collision on a network , the packet is resent.

But wait, that's not all...this is a dedicated system and more of logic
controller operation than an open network...so too bad for you again.

Also, the FDR is accepting serial data from ONE source (FDAU). I'd believe
that garbage if you said it happened within the FDAU :D

Again, the data that was captured and retrieved from the FDR shows
it was received in good form. So those particular cells arlready show
altitude too high!

WOw, I can't wait to send this all over and expose you a third time!

You can't even lie to save your life.

Oh yeah, this is funny stuff.

Mackey thinks that the FDR had power six seconds after initial impact
to wipe out six seconds of data :rolleyes:

Sorry to say, but you get 256 wps...I might buy...na, I wouldn't
buy any of your guesses.

now you're just making stuff up to save face, and it's making
it worse for you.

P.S. it's not a threat, it's promise!

Your theory doesn't even account for the time stamps,
or recovered data that still shows the impact with AA77
was impossible.
Turbofan?

Caustic Logic
23rd September 2008, 02:21 AM
bump

and my .02

I call this: Turbofan goes AS Turbofan to a few forums, explains his argument with Truthy rhetoric, clues that he's a total clown, rips on Mackey personally, and links to the threads here. The first couple responses will dismiss him as a loon, and refuse to even address the question. Then someone will go to the hassle of explaining why he's wrong. He will say they attacked him for being a truther and lied and know nothing, support the gov't story, either out of fear or because they're loyalists or agents.

To avoid this coming true, TF, I advise go incognito, don't name Mackey as the defendant, just ask the questions simple and accept the answers and post them here. Otherwise, again, it'll be hard to take you serious, or to even remotely consider starting to do so, even on a trial basis.

Reheat
23rd September 2008, 03:30 AM
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/236698-attn-swept-wing-transport-pilots.html

The idiot huckster fraud Rob Balsamo is "AluminumDrvr".

Ah, memories!

Balsamo's primary problem appears to be his arrogance. He actually has very little experience in real aviation terms, but he pretends to be God's gift to the aviation world.

I've met a few like him, but for the most part they usually don't live very long. A old saying in the aviation world is that there are "old pilots" and there are "bold pilots", but there are no "old bold pilots". His arrogance has NO PLACE in the Commercial Transport World of flying.

Of course, the airline business is really quite safe compared to other types of flying, but if he exhibits the same attitude in the cockpit as we've seen everywhere he's posted, he's a hazard. I can't imagine flying with someone that cocky, unwilling to ask questions and learn, with his level of experience. The jerk doesn't have an ATP Certificate, but belittles it as being a $ 1000 piece of paper.

For those who don't know an ATP can be obtained with 1500 hours of flying time with some other caveats that most have with that many hours of experience. He claims to have around 4000 hours of total time and still doesn't have it. Most folks I know have gotten one just to make themselves more employable. While it's not a major issue until it's actually required for PIC duties in FAR Pt 121 or FAR Pt 135 the fact that he belittles it is very telling regarding his attitude.

Turbofan exhibits precisely the same type of attitude, so it's not surprising that they are cohorts.

jhunter1163
23rd September 2008, 07:48 AM
If I knew where these EE forums were, I'd take the liberty of posting the exchange in the FDR thread (from, say, page 61 on) there myself and throwing it open for comment.

WildCat
23rd September 2008, 03:01 PM
What? Another day without Turbofan pwning Mackey on an EE forum?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

jaydeehess
23rd September 2008, 03:07 PM
If I knew where these EE forums were, I'd take the liberty of posting the exchange in the FDR thread (from, say, page 61 on) there myself and throwing it open for comment.

I am sure that I am not the only one looking but I have found nothing yet.

Of course its hard to do a search when you don't know for sure the poster's name, the name of the forum or exactly how the questions will be posed.

T.A.M.
23rd September 2008, 03:33 PM
What do you expect. At least Rob had the courage to actually post his nonsense on professional sites. Apparently his minions don't even have that.

TAM:)

jhunter1163
23rd September 2008, 03:46 PM
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=258699

Sometimes you just gotta take the bull by the horns.

jaydeehess
23rd September 2008, 03:55 PM
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=258699

Sometimes you just gotta take the bull by the horns.

In post 2606 on page 66 of the FDR thread I give a suggestion for the wording of the question. Point the physicsforum group there perhaps.

Specifically, I suggested that Tf ask;

"I have a question about the EEPROM data storage used in flight data recorders. 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?"

jhunter1163
23rd September 2008, 04:11 PM
OK, will do.

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 07:51 PM
Kids, kids...don't sweat it! You see, I made you wait and you made
fools of yourselves. I did indeed start a thread, but it's not getting
much attention (notice the start date).

My question may have been confusing as the readers think I am designing
a system. I tried to word it in a fashion that wouldn't expose to topic
to prevent biased answers.

Now that everyone knows it's an FDR, I'll blow the cover and you can
watch the exchange unfold.

So here's a thread that you can all drool over. I'll have to reply again
to bump the discussion.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776

It was fun watching you all beg and plead and cry! Typical. :cool:

R.Mackey
23rd September 2008, 07:54 PM
It doesn't bother you that, even with your careful couching of the question, the first two answers basically confirm what we've all been saying all this time?

As a follow-up, since I gave you three peer-reviewed articles that prove the effect does happen (and even quantify it) -- something that trumps any message board -- and you reject that out of sheer ignoratio, what standard would you accept?

WildCat
23rd September 2008, 07:58 PM
Looks like they're not buying you crap Turbofan... are you still ROFLYAO??

WildCat
23rd September 2008, 08:00 PM
what standard would you accept?
Anything the hacks at PfffT say, apparently. And nothing else...

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 08:06 PM
No, it doesn't bother me because:

a. They are not talking about over-writing old data
b. The first response confirms my damage assessment:

This area becomes the lowest resistance and effectively shunts further damage from occurring elsewhere on the die.

c. The second response confirms you wipe out more than one bit:

Sure enough, every time we read a row, it would get erased

d. The military engineer states that the FDR is designed to withstand
anything I describe.

So, how do you feel they are supporting you?

Why don't you sign up there and tell them your theory?

Drudgewire
23rd September 2008, 08:06 PM
So here's a thread that you can all drool over. I'll have to reply again
to bump the discussion.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776


He's starting to lead discussion towards the CT already. Twooferism is about to be inflicted on normal people.

:popcorn1

R.Mackey
23rd September 2008, 08:10 PM
Nice try, pal. I can read it too, you know.

Here's the first quote, actual:

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.

Source (http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776) My bolding added.

Why leave those out? The only part you cherry-picked is the physical damage mechanism, which is another distinct possibility, but we do not expect to get that until after the lower-voltage mechanisms have already appeared.

And, how about answering my second question?

WildCat
23rd September 2008, 08:13 PM
I notice Turbofan didn't bother posting Mackey's quotes like he promised... not even a link.

And we all know why.

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 08:19 PM
I posted Jaydee's question as he asked.

I didn't see anything about Mackey's question. I'm not scared to post it,
or ask it.

Random bits may be written? Does that say over previous data? From
what I recall, that can't happen due to the design of the FDR. As mentioned
before, it will wipe out entire BLOCKS!

What is your second question, I don't see it?

I'm expecting you to sign up on that forum and plead your case.

R.Mackey
23rd September 2008, 08:23 PM
I posted Jaydee's question as he asked.

I didn't see anything about Mackey's question. I'm not scared to post it,
or ask it.

They're referring to the fact that you boasted you were going to "Expose" me by posting my "lies" on "every EE and networking forum you could find." I believe screenshotting was also mentioned in your ill-considered attempt at Argumentum ad baculum. Your change of posture is quite revealing, but I'm glad you are aware of your bluff, rather than utterly deluded.

Random bits may be written? Does that say over previous data? From
what I recall, that can't happen due to the design of the FDR. As mentioned
before, it will wipe out entire BLOCKS!

Since you've made it clear you will neither accept anything I write nor cite, why don't you ask them?


What is your second question, I don't see it?

Right here:

As a follow-up, since I gave you three peer-reviewed articles that prove the effect does happen (and even quantify it) -- something that trumps any message board -- and you reject that out of sheer ignoratio, what standard would you accept?

Answer, please.


I'm expecting you to sign up on that forum and plead your case.

Why? I have no disagreement with anything written there so far, apart from your comments, of course.

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 08:32 PM
So you agree that the FDR can withstand anything that might have
happened that day?

This coming from the military engineer.

I'll post your quotes, that's not a problem. I'm not going to turn that
forum into the joke that members make these threads. I'll wait my turn
and deliver the questions as more poeple reply.

Once again, your papers you linked here do not support your theory.

They are fine for the topics they discuss, but were are debating single
bit over-writes of previously stored data.

You might want to start by supplying a link to previous cases of flights
that lost data after an impact occurred. Those of course using SSFDR's

R.Mackey
23rd September 2008, 08:40 PM
So you agree that the FDR can withstand anything that might have
happened that day?

This coming from the military engineer.

The AA 77 FDR did withstand the crash, so of course I agree with him. His (very vague) opinion is supported by experiment.

I'll post your quotes, that's not a problem. I'm not going to turn that
forum into the joke that members make these threads. I'll wait my turn
and deliver the questions as more poeple reply.

I'd just as soon you didn't make a mockery of yourself, but you did promise to do so in the past.


Once again, your papers you linked here do not support your theory.

They are fine for the topics they discuss, but were are debating single
bit over-writes of previously stored data.

They do support my theory, and they apply to many phenomena, which includes corruption of previously stored data. I have hard copies of them in my hand.

And I note you still haven't answered my question.


You might want to start by supplying a link to previous cases of flights
that lost data after an impact occurred. Those of course using SSFDR's

I believe you'll find those already in the other thread. It's off-topic for this one. The majority I found use the Loral F1000 FDR rather than the F2100 found on AA 77, but there are close similarities between the two.

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 08:48 PM
Name the flight of these co called 'similar cases' I already bet I know which
flights you will link.

I will accept any definite answer, however as already answered in my last post,
your links do not prove anything with respect to stored data re-writes.

In fact, the papers support block erasure as the result.

R.Mackey
23rd September 2008, 08:50 PM
Name the flight of these co called 'similar cases' I already bet I know which
flights you will link.

Well, if you "know," then let's hear it.



I will accept any definite answer, however as already answered in my last post,
your links do not prove anything with respect to stored data re-writes.

In fact, the papers support block erasure as the result.

The answers are quite definitive, and your excuse is wrong. You haven't read the papers, and you haven't comprehended the excerpts I gave you. As a result, the above is a lie.

So, again, since you reject definite answers provided by refereed papers, what answer will you accept?

Jonnyclueless
23rd September 2008, 08:53 PM
The FDR can survive what happened that day, just as it can be damaged by what happened that day. The fact that the CVR was damaged pretty much drives that home.

If we were to assume for the sake of argument that no FDR has ever been damaged from a plane crash, it still would not matter. It would not mean that an FDR is incapable of being damaged.

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 09:06 PM
Well, if you "know," then let's hear it.

TWA 800?




You haven't read the papers, and you haven't comprehended the excerpts I gave you. As a result, the above is a lie.

As a result you're wrong, and you're trying desperately to discredit me.
Too bad for you , I read the entire link and even quoted parts of the
article. Maybe you are the one that needs to read a litte more carefully?

So, again, since you reject definite answers provided by refereed papers, what answer will you accept?

Answers that relate to the topic. Examples of studies that show data loss
after an impact.

Let's see if you can find a commerical jet that comes close to 3400 g's
of impact to destroy a certified SSFDR. :rolleyes:

R.Mackey
23rd September 2008, 09:14 PM
TWA 800?

No, not one on my list. That one had some kind of explosion on board, which is not the same as a collision. Off the top of my head the FDR ran for some time after, halting due to some other power interruption, i.e. fire, cut cables, or gross breakup, not by impact. As a result I don't think it's a good model.

Try again.


As a result you're wrong, and you're trying desperately to discredit me.
Too bad for you , I read the entire link and even quoted parts of the
article. Maybe you are the one that needs to read a litte more carefully?

Ummm... I didn't give you links. I went to the library and gave you cites. I'm not even 100% sure these papers exist in electronic format.

What was that you said about reading more carefully..?


Answers that relate to the topic. Examples of studies that show data loss
after an impact.

Let's see if you can find a commerical jet that comes close to 3400 g's
of impact to destroy a certified SSFDR. :rolleyes:

The papers I cited relate to the topic and answer it unambiguously.

I have no idea what relevance that last sentence has to this discussion.

For the third time, made a little simpler for you: I have shown you refereed papers that state you are wrong. You don't accept that. You make up excuses. Your excuses make no sense. So what will it take for you to accept that you're wrong?

beachnut
23rd September 2008, 09:20 PM
Name the flight of these co called 'similar cases' I already bet I know which
flights you will link.
FACT, many times during the years FDRs have missing data for a variety of reasons. You know this is true but like a politician quibble and say 77 can't.

Every time you say 77 can't loose data, or anything about FDR not loosing data you will be corrected until you explain why other units can loose data but 77 FDR, which is missing over 6 seconds of data, can't be missing data. And I will post the INS position and accuracy to prove over many seconds are missing. So do some research before you play the can't be missing data card. We have heard form your FDR salesman expert who does not support your ideas on 9/11, nor does he support FDR can't be missing data.

An exact model like 77 stopped recording for unknown reasons, missing over 6 seconds of data. Before impact, or was it after impact; no one knows; do you? Is the model SSFDR in 77 the reason they made up new rules to preclude lost data? You don't know? You have no ideas why the data is missing; was it due to impact, or unknown reasons? Do you know why the data is missing? If you say because the plane got broke, then 77 lost data for the same reason. If you say there was catastrophic failure, then 77 also had a catastrophic failure. So be specific to the reason as to why the FDAU stopped sending data, or why power was stopped.

Stop saying FDR can't be missing data; it is a false statement. You have to prove 77 SSFDR can't lose datal.

System problems, electrical problems, physical problems, impact problems, buffer problems, and more.
It stands, FDR systems have lost data in the past, and will loose data in the future. You will just wave your hands and say something happen, oops.

How many seconds of data can the buffer in the FDAU hold if there are problems or errors in the FDR?

What happens to data if there is a delay in 77's FDR, does it lose data? The bus rate is exactly the data collected each second, so there can be no delay, or is the data buffered?

How big is the buffer in the FDAU?

Why is the pipeline limited to 256 wps, when 256 words per second are collected?

What happens if there are delays or errors, is data dumped, or buffered to be stored in sequence? (bet this is proprietary so the user does not know data is buffered outside the SSFDR on early SSFDR units)

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 09:53 PM
Name your plane then, I don't have time for games.

This link:
http://www.smallformfactors.com/pdfs/SiliconSys.Win07.pdf

Is not talking about SSFDR's such as used in commerial aircraft.

Your cites (which I already commented on), talk about block erasure:
Originally Posted by C. Dunn et al.
During write and erase cycling

Does not talk about bits getting over-written. It talks about "over-erasure"
due to hole injection/density. Nothing about transients and impact here. sorry.

Originally Posted by R. Duffy et al
A program disturb can occur for cells on the same select-line ...
For cells on the same bit line, leakage current is a concern...
Again, for cells on the same bit-line...

This guy is talking about multiple cells on the SAME LINE.

Gee, I wonder where we've seen that before?

http://procision-auto.com/911/PFT_EEPROM.jpg

Originally Posted by J. Portal et al.

Talks about Bridging faults which is something that occurs during
fabrication!

A bridge fault is an unwanted path between two or more points
that were not designed into the circuit.

Ask me how I know about this...I tested circuits while still on
wafer substrates.

Are you sure you don't want to join the debate on the ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING
forum?

R.Mackey
23rd September 2008, 10:05 PM
Name your plane then, I don't have time for games.

Then don't play and say you can guess. One thing at a time.


This link:
http://www.smallformfactors.com/pdfs/SiliconSys.Win07.pdf

Is not talking about SSFDR's such as used in commerial aircraft.

Actually, it is. It discusses rotary wing, but nonetheless commercial rotary wing.


Your cites (which I already commented on), talk about block erasure:

Does not talk about bits getting over-written. It talks about "over-erasure"
due to hole injection/density. Nothing about transients and impact here. sorry.

This guy is talking about multiple cells on the SAME LINE.

Gee, I wonder where we've seen that before?

Talks about Bridging faults which is something that occurs during
fabrication!

A bridge fault is an unwanted path between two or more points
that were not designed into the circuit.

Again, you totally miss the point. The first one is talking about over-erasure leading to later write errors. And not block-by-block, but in adjacent cells.

The second one deals with many failure mechanisms, not just on the same line. Read the paper.

ETA: The paper does cite some bits on the same word or select line as being more likely to be affected, but it certainly does not talk of all of them being so affected, and thus, does not refer to blocks. You invented that yourself with your DC-is-everything simplistic mindset. Some of your excuses are so bizarre, it takes me a while to figure out how they even could make sense.

The third one demonstrates, through experiment, that bridging faults can also be caused by out-of-spec voltages in EEPROMs that pass nominal inspection.

That proves that out-of-spec voltages can corrupt data on adjacent cells. No ruddy exception for overwriting old data, no crap about must erase or change whole blocks, no limitation to manufacturing defects. Strike three and you have no clue what you're talking about.

Ask me how I know about this...I tested circuits while still on
wafer substrates.

Big deal. So does my brother. He trained as a psychologist. And he knows a darn sight more about VLSI than you do.

Are you sure you don't want to join the debate on the ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING
forum?

Quite sure. Again, the respondents answers are correct, and consistent with what I've said all along. Only with the most carefuly cherry-picking can those remarks even appear to support your position.

Game, set, match, and you still haven't answered my question. What does it take for you to admit you're totally wrong? Fourth time I'm asking. Fourth time's the charm, perhaps?

Turbofan
23rd September 2008, 10:17 PM
You post partial cites that talk about anything but the event you're
trying to support and you are asking me to read the paper?:confused:


Maybe I'll post a passage about bananas to explain tire ratings?

Find me some info in YOUR papers that talk about transients wiping out
single cells, then we'll talk.

Perhaps I can add your referenced papers to the EE forum and get some
backing on how unrelated those paragraphs are to your theory.

Actually, it is. It discusses rotary wing, but nonetheless commercial rotary wing.

That FDR is NOTHING like a commerical aircraft; certainly not anything
similar to L3's product used in AA77.

Yup, I seem to have been defeated by sources that discuss multiple cell
arrays and hole injection.
:D

Jonnyclueless
23rd September 2008, 10:22 PM
Yes, the FDR is different. It runs on Magic. Too bad the CVR wasn't made with Magic as most of the data was corrupted.

Caustic Logic
24th September 2008, 01:29 AM
Kudos, Turbo, for signing up and doing that. Good idea too not mentioning the context up-front. JHunter already biased his, oops... Not that it probably matters, but it's good measure.

Second response was interesting:
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.
ie - since he thinks this happened to you, it can obviously happen, in his opinion.

But the challenge was indeed to get those Mackey statements up there for review, and you can do this too without biasing the discussion - just post the quotes you think they'll slap him over, no name or context, and see what they think.

Thanks.

WildCat
24th September 2008, 05:21 AM
As a result you're wrong, and you're trying desperately to discredit me.
Too bad for you , I read the entire link and even quoted parts of the
article. Maybe you are the one that needs to read a litte more carefully?

Ummm... I didn't give you links. I went to the library and gave you cites. I'm not even 100% sure these papers exist in electronic format.

What was that you said about reading more carefully..?
Classic!

:dl:

Turbofan
24th September 2008, 05:21 AM
Will do CL.

As you will notice the last reply is showing transient suppression circuitry
at the input end of the FDR which also contradicts R. Mackey's theory.

I will post one of his theories on the EE forum for review later today.

Edit for WC:

Why are you laughing? The guy gives me a few quotes that are not even
associated with transients flipping single bits? The only link that he gives me
is attached to a helicopter arcticle talk about PC cards. You're laughing
at yourself.

Better check the EE forum because your friend isn't doing so well. FYI
it takes more than a few nanoseconds to write a bit.

R.Mackey
24th September 2008, 10:00 AM
I still don't see anything in that thread that even faintly conflicts with my position.

We can all read it, you know.

Your capacity for denial is extraordinary...

Matthew Best
24th September 2008, 10:34 AM
I'm confused. Turbofan initially said this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4056161&postcount=2403)

I took a screen capture of your reply and I'm going to post it to every electronics and networking board on the planet.

I'll wait for all the replies, and then I'll link you to all the sites so I can prove how friggin' STUPID that nonsense really is!

He went on to say: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4057865&postcount=2448)

Yup, I stayed home on a Saturday night and registered to all of the EE forums

and later, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4058136&postcount=2453)

BTW, the links will be available soon. First, I want to back up my harddrive before the next lightning storm.

However, so far I am only seeing the one forum. So what happened to all the other forums he registered with on Saturday night?

Metullus
24th September 2008, 10:49 AM
However, so far I am only seeing the one forum. So what happened to all the other forums he registered with on Saturday night?I'm guessing that they are NSFW...

Turbofan
24th September 2008, 10:56 AM
Are you really confused? Do you not see the sarcasm in my replies?

Let me explain for the slower people...

I'm confused. Turbofan initially said this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4056161&postcount=2403)

I took a screen capture of your reply and I'm going to post it to every electronics and networking board on the planet.


Do you really think I have that much time on my hands? Is one, or two
enough? Do you know of any EE forums that we can use?



Yup, I stayed home on a Saturday night and registered to all of the EE forums

Would you give up your Saturday night to make Wildcat happy? :cool:
Sorry, I have better things to do.

BTW, the links will be available soon. First, I want to back up my harddrive before the next lightning storm.

Inside joke. You had to be there.

TexasJack
24th September 2008, 11:12 AM
Are you really confused? Do you not see the sarcasm in my replies?

Let me explain for the slower people...



Do you really think I have that much time on my hands? Is one, or two
enough? Do you know of any EE forums that we can use?




Would you give up your Saturday night to make Wildcat happy? :cool:
Sorry, I have better things to do.


Inside joke. You had to be there.

LOL, you got owned and now your backpeddling like a demented weasel. Nobody is buying your sarcasm excuse.

Turbofan
24th September 2008, 11:19 AM
Right on! I'm owned!

I signed up to a board and posted the question just like I said I would,
but I'm owned!

I posted the question on the 21st before all the slow people started
crying...but I'm owned!

You can own me anytime Jack! :cool:

beachnut
24th September 2008, 11:25 AM
Are you really confused? Do you not see the sarcasm in my replies?

Let me explain for the slower people...

Do you really think I have that much time on my hands? Is one, or two
enough? Do you know of any EE forums that we can use?


Would you give up your Saturday night to make Wildcat happy? :cool:
Sorry, I have better things to do.

Inside joke. You had to be there.
So you lied. Not new, you say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, you are no stranger to lies. Your promises are all empty?

Why do you lie again saying you read stuff you never even looked at? Did you miss you were caught again, just talking.

So when are you going to post something to support your ideas?




So you have no time to read and comprehend, you say your read citations Mackey posted, but you didn't, so you lie because you have no time.?



This sums up your whole p4t experience, as you repeat what Balsamo makes up.

Turbofan
24th September 2008, 11:31 AM
I guess you don't see the last few replies then? Now that everyone knows
this is a flight data recorder, we should have some solid and definite asnwers.

The initial question was asked without reference to AA77 to prevent bias.
Now the cat's out of the bag. Let's see what happens.

Turbofan
24th September 2008, 11:34 AM
So you lied. Not new, you say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, you are no stranger to lies. Your promises are all empty?

Why do you lie again saying you read stuff you never even looked at? Did you miss you were caught again, just talking.

So when are you going to post something to support your ideas?




So you have no time to read and comprehend, you say your read citations Mackey posted, but you didn't, so you lie because you have no time.?



This sums up your whole p4t experience, as you repeat what Balsamo makes up.



I already addressed your lies in this post.

Mackey's poor examples of citations and link have been picked apart
and discredited.

The EE forum is also against his transient theory according to the last few
replies. I will continue to discuss the transient angle and post more of
R. Mackey's assumptions for discussion.

Keep watching, and you'll start crying.

HyJinX
24th September 2008, 11:40 AM
...from laughter.

beachnut
24th September 2008, 11:43 AM
LOL, you got owned and now your backpeddling like a demented weasel. Nobody is buying your sarcasm excuse.
If he was serious he would post his evidence and get on with it.
Alas, he replied to your post. Not serious.
Does he know we will fade to black when he actually gets something right or stops telling lies?

To spew 77 did not hit the Pentagon based on his amusing EEPROM posts, is the level of expertise and professionalism we are use to seeing from the expert math impaired terrorist apologist group, p4t.

beachnut
24th September 2008, 11:45 AM
...
Keep watching, and you'll start crying.

I can't wait, I am still in tears with Basamo's 10 and 34 G failure. Keep them coming the harder p4t try, the bigger the mistakes, lies and failures. Do you guys know you have failed?

TexasJack
24th September 2008, 11:46 AM
If he was serious he would post his evidence and get on with it.
Alas, he replied to your post. Not serious.
Does he know we will fade to black when he actually gets something right or stops telling lies?

To spew 77 did not hit the Pentagon based on his amusing EEPROM posts, is the level of expertise and professionalism we are use to seeing from the expert math impaired terrorist apologist group, p4t.

I find him quite entertaining to be honest, he just gets cornered again and again, then comes up with a lame excuse again and again. I say keep bringing it, I'm going to grab some popcorn.

T.A.M.
24th September 2008, 12:13 PM
As they come up (if they come up) could someone kindly repost these links to discussions that we are going to "cry" over. These links that are allegedly going to make Mackey look like a fool.

Some of us have TF on ignore, but still like to see the foolishness for comedic effect.

TAM;)

Jonnyclueless
24th September 2008, 12:43 PM
Did he mention to them that it's a magical FDR?

WildCat
24th September 2008, 05:54 PM
Not a lot of traffic on that EE forum, no posts since early this morning.

Nothing so far to support Turbofan though.

AJM8125
24th September 2008, 06:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1NK85Z_uiU

bje
24th September 2008, 06:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1NK85Z_uiU

I'm afraid that's a tad too sophisticated for Turbo.

jaydeehess
24th September 2008, 07:34 PM
Also because of the structural regularity of memory devices an over voltage event can disrupt some area of the die.

"area of the die" a physical portion of the IC, correct? In this case that is the area surrounding the elements involved in recording the last written data. He does state that the topology of an IC may not be exactly as expected however it is quite probable that the elemenst involved in storing the most recently stored data are within that same area.

The FDR did in fact survive the crash, only losing some of the last data on the chip, so the Canadian military engineer's comments do apply to Flt 77.

There were several examples listed as to the path by which data could be erased or corrupted.

WildCat
24th September 2008, 07:37 PM
What a horrible song!

beachnut
24th September 2008, 07:45 PM
So here's a thread that you can all drool over. I'll have to reply again
to bump the discussion.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776

It was fun watching you all beg and plead and cry! Typical.
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. Do you understand this stuff?
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.


We have one missing data guy. Next.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP
25th September 2008, 12:35 AM
So you agree that the FDR can withstand anything that might have
happened that day?

This coming from the military engineer.

I'll post your quotes, that's not a problem. I'm not going to turn that
forum into the joke that members make these threads. I'll wait my turn
and deliver the questions as more poeple reply.

Once again, your papers you linked here do not support your theory.

They are fine for the topics they discuss, but were are debating single
bit over-writes of previously stored data.

You might want to start by supplying a link to previous cases of flights
that lost data after an impact occurred. Those of course using SSFDR's

I see what he is doing......He is asking people for help! :D

The EE forum is also against his transient theory according to the last few
replies. I will continue to discuss the transient angle and post more of
R. Mackey's assumptions for discussion.

Maybe I'll post a passage about bananas to explain tire ratings?
You already have! :D

As a result you're wrong, and you're trying desperately to discredit me.
Too bad for you , I read the entire LINK and even quoted parts of the
article. Maybe you are the one that needs to read a litte more carefully?
Hey, have you READ what you have actually just written here????

Bananaman
25th September 2008, 12:57 AM
Turbo:
I don't have time for games.

I'm speechless.


Bananaman

uk_dave
25th September 2008, 12:59 AM
A 'truthers' lack of self awareness is staggering.

T.A.M.
25th September 2008, 04:08 AM
So I see TF has declared that he has no time to spend posting on the EE Forums.

Funny, i guess we are really that important to him, since he spends an amazing amount of time posting here, yet "doesn't have the time" to prove one of us a fool and a liar.

Nice try, but I doubt people will let you off the hook that easy TF.

TAM:)

Caustic Logic
25th September 2008, 04:20 AM
TF, is this true that you dropped your hilarious quest to show what a lying fraud someone told you you decided Mackey was? We haven't even gone into your dodging Anti-sophist's questions and insults there, and the rest, just one point you can't even follow up on? You were LYAO!

BTW I spoke to you as a human being on the phone, or tried to, but it's difficult.

Bananaman
25th September 2008, 04:26 AM
Caustic Logic:
I spoke to you as a human being on the phone, or tried to, but it's difficult.

I doubt many people will be surprised that talking to Turbo is difficult. I admit I chuckled when I read that.


Bananaman.

DavidJames
25th September 2008, 07:50 AM
BTW I spoke to you as a human being on the phone, or tried to, but it's difficult.I'd be interested in hearing more about that conversation, if you wouldn't mind.

Turbofan
25th September 2008, 08:07 AM
TF, is this true that you dropped your hilarious quest to show what a lying fraud someone told you you decided Mackey was? We haven't even gone into your dodging Anti-sophist's questions and insults there, and the rest, just one point you can't even follow up on? You were LYAO!

BTW I spoke to you as a human being on the phone, or tried to, but it's difficult.

What's with the change of tone since our discussion last night?

I haven't dropped any of my 'quests'. As explained yesterday, I will post
up the questions on the EE forum specifically directing the question(s) to
the military and FDR engineers.

Sorry if I was a little tired and quiet on the phone. I didn't realize that I
was difficult to understand? If you'd like we can do another call after
we have reviewed the points of interest?

funk de fino
25th September 2008, 09:10 AM
I haven't dropped any of my 'quests'. As explained yesterday, I will post up the questions on the EE forum specifically directing the question(s) to the military and FDR engineers.

Wait a minute. When I told you about my expertise on FDR you claimed that military and commercial FDR were different. Why now are you going to use a faceless military engineer on a website but you did not want to look at my expertise or experience?

Very hypocritical no? The answer the military guy gave you on that forum was junk. Data on FD can be corrupted and damaged and not recorded properly and parts on military aircraft fail. If they did not then I would not have had to change so many FDR would I?

Nothing in an FDR can be made infallible

Turbofan
25th September 2008, 09:21 AM
The difference is, you're not a military electronics engineer.

The difference is you are comparing militiary FDR to Commerical FDR specs.

I'm going to a cicuit developer to ask questions about a transient theory
erasing six seconds of data.

Collectively, between the FDR engineer, military engineer and other electronics/electrical
engineer we can get an answer to whether or not R. Mackey's theory
is possible.

jaydeehess
25th September 2008, 09:22 AM
Soooo, are we waiting for more replies to that one forum thread or will we be getting to "all" of the other forums that TF said he was posting to?

I am all for waiting. We could also use the few replies so far from which TF will quote mine and ignore/misunderstand the rest.

Jonnyclueless
25th September 2008, 09:28 AM
This is just getting absurd....

DavidJames
25th September 2008, 09:33 AM
The difference is, you're not a military electronics engineer.

The difference is you are comparing militiary FDR to Commerical FDR specs.

I'm going to a cicuit developer to ask questions about a transient theory
erasing six seconds of data.

Collectively, between the FDR engineer, military engineer and other electronics/electrical
engineer we can get an answer to whether or not R. Mackey's theory
is possible.By "military engineer" I'm guessing he's referring to this quote in response to his post at the other 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.The guy doesn't know "the exact technology" and says "they're expected". Damn, pretty definitive and conclusive evidence he's presented.

from here (http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776)

WildCat
25th September 2008, 09:58 AM
By "military engineer" I'm guessing he's referring to this quote in response to his post at the other forum:The guy doesn't know "the exact technology" and says "they're expected". Damn, pretty definitive and conclusive evidence he's presented.

from here (http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776)
It's amazing how much credibility Turbofan gives to faceless nameless internet forum posters when there's even a hint of agreement with him (which is pushing it in this case) yet detailed posts, backed by referenced sources, by people who clearly understand more about the subject than he ever possibly could get dismissed out of hand when they contradict the belief he clings to like a religion.

beachnut
25th September 2008, 11:17 AM
It's amazing how much credibility Turbofan gives to faceless nameless internet forum posters when there's even a hint of agreement with him (which is pushing it in this case) yet detailed posts, backed by referenced sources, by people who clearly understand more about the subject than he ever possibly could get dismissed out of hand when they contradict the belief he clings to like a religion.
... who is posting to him?
... can't see those who refute his ideas.

Mr.Herbert
25th September 2008, 12:17 PM
From Turbofan:

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?
Response from macgyvers2000 (http://www.eng-tips.com/userinfo.cfm?member=macgyvers2000) (Electrical)

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 - Ownerhttp://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776

Edit to Add:

"Dan" is the owner of this company:
http://www.hi-tecdesigns.com/

funk de fino
25th September 2008, 12:20 PM
The difference is, you're not a military electronics engineer.

What am i then? Tell you what I am, more than you have on your list if liars on the pft site

The difference is you are comparing militiary FDR to Commerical FDR specs.

No, I am not.

I'm going to a cicuit developer to ask questions about a transient theory erasing six seconds of data. Collectively, between the FDR engineer, military engineer and other electronics/electrical engineer we can get an answer to whether or not R. Mackey's theory is possible.

Data from FDR can be lost and FDR can be destroyed and unreadable. Same with CVR. Your argument is junk and they would agree.

Jonnyclueless
25th September 2008, 01:19 PM
Physical damage? in a plane crash? You mean like the physical damage that rendered most of the data form the CVR unreadable?

WildCat
25th September 2008, 01:24 PM
... who is posting to him?
... can't see those who refute his ideas.
Turbofan has deluded himself into thinking VE1BLL supports his nonsense.

Turbofan
25th September 2008, 03:14 PM
Oh, and don't forget this:

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.

Gotta love TVtech trying to push the issue. Join Date: TODAY! :D

Is that you JayDee? Funk?

I'm not even going to reply yet.

Filters and clamps....'we ain't talkin' coffee filters and hose clamps either' ;)

KTB
25th September 2008, 03:23 PM
May I ask as quite a noob on this topic what exactly is your assertion or point, Turbofan? If we forget the details you have been "discussing" here for a second.
What theory are you proposing (as opposed to the generally accepted version I suppose)?

Turbofan
25th September 2008, 05:06 PM
My point is that a voltage transient cannot erase six seconds of stored data upon
impact.

R.Mackey
25th September 2008, 05:16 PM
Actually, no. You continue to mystify the problem.

Your contention, thus far unsubstantiated, is that voltage transients cannot corrupt six seconds of stored data during impact, and thus provide a possible explanation for the last known good FDR values from AA 77 being approximately six seconds before impact. There's no requirement to erase all of that data, only screw it up.

I've showed you papers that prove the effect is possible and can be easily replicated. The postings on the message board that you found on your own support this as well. The matter is closed, signed and sealed.

jaydeehess
25th September 2008, 08:15 PM
I am TVtech.

Did I push the matter? Yes, I did, I wanted an answer as to why there would be several seconds of missing data. Is that not what this is all about? Is that not what I asked for.

Now mcgyver2000 responds; (bolds mine)
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.

Jonnyclueless
25th September 2008, 08:24 PM
My point is that a voltage transient cannot erase six seconds of stored data upon
impact.

No, your point is that nothing can damage the data stored in the FDR. The CVR however puts a big damper on your point.

Turbofan
25th September 2008, 08:33 PM
Actually, no. You continue to mystify the problem.

Your contention, thus far unsubstantiated, is that voltage transients cannot corrupt six seconds of stored data during impact, and thus provide a possible explanation for the last known good FDR values from AA 77 being approximately six seconds before impact. There's no requirement to erase all of that data, only screw it up.

I've showed you papers that prove the effect is possible and can be easily replicated. The postings on the message board that you found on your own support this as well. The matter is closed, signed and sealed.

You showed me nothing but a few paragraphs from a book that doesn't
even take FDR design into account. The engineers are hardly supporting
your theory.

Maybe your answering machine...maybe. :rolleyes:

R.Mackey
25th September 2008, 08:35 PM
jaydeehess/ TVtech, that is an interesting detail I'd forgotten about -- but before we jump to conclusions, we need to keep in mind that the data being written to the actual Flash is not arriving at a constant rate. This is due to the Huffmann encoding which spits out a variable length field depending on the inputs. There may be a different strategy in play for this application.

Still, this would be one clear explanation to what appears to be a simple question.

In the old days of tape FDR, the area of tape under the write head would almost always be lost during an impact. The new SSDR types don't have this problem, but there are other potential issues, as anyone who's ever worked on high reliability avionics should be well aware...

Turbofan
25th September 2008, 08:45 PM
I am TVtech.

Did I push the matter? Yes, I did, I wanted an answer as to why there would be several seconds of missing data. Is that not what this is all about? Is that not what I asked for.

Now mcgyver2000 responds; (bolds mine)

That's great, but that's not the correct data rate, or block size. Why don't
you give him the correct numbers? :cool:

If you don't I certainly will.

KTB
25th September 2008, 11:59 PM
My point is that a voltage transient cannot erase six seconds of stored data upon
impact.

I was thinking more of your point in debating over this.
What if we conclude that you are correct for the sake of argument?
What then? How would this explain the events then? Or is this just an academic exercise.

Note that I haven't yet studied the PFT websites to know what the point of those people are (are you one of them or share their opinion?), but I suspect that there isn't anything other than "just asking questions"...
Correct me if I'm wrong and they have some alternate theory.

Caustic Logic
26th September 2008, 12:43 AM
Turbo - I'll address your concerns about our discussion elsewhere. Don't worry, you did okay, buddy!

So do we have a slap yet over Mackey's alleged error/lie? Are we disagreeing now about what these other people are even saying? I get a feeling this could go on forever.

I was thinking more of your point in debating over this.
What if we conclude that you are correct for the sake of argument?
What then? How would this explain the events then? Or is this just an academic exercise.

It's an exercise all right. Shell game much? Good points. I don't know how to call the facts in dispute, but one arguer has relevant expertise and puts his full name on a coherent theory that's logical and fits the body of evidence. The other has at least enough knowledge to act/appear like he might be winning, does offer his first name anyway, and has waiting for this support, if he can get it through the gate, a ridiculous scenario that can't be true anyway.

Is it possible for TF will win a battle? Sure, though it doesn't seem so here. Can he possibly win the war?

Note that I haven't yet studied the PFT websites to know what the point of those people are (are you one of them or share their opinion?), but I suspect that there isn't anything other than "just asking questions"...
Correct me if I'm wrong and they have some alternate theory.

Briefly... PfffT make a big deal of being cautious and not putting forth a set theory, but embrace anything which can seem to contradict the impact story. Everything they do points at a real plane flying over. Balsamo has suggested a missile was fired into the Pentagon by this plane along the way. TF feels that there was probably a flyover.

There is not one shred of direct evidentiary support for this happening.

Bananaman
26th September 2008, 03:10 AM
Why doesn't anyone just state the truth? Turbo is an agenda driven twit who isn't interested in the truth or facts or expertise. He ignores everything that contradicts his agenda driven ******** and comes across on this forum as at best mentally ill and at worst a complete *********** ********.

That is why everybody here, even though they are too polite to say so apart from me, thinks he is 100% fully certified member of odd-bod central.

Bananaman.

Caustic Logic
26th September 2008, 03:46 AM
Haha... bananaman. We all have our own ways of saying stuff. :)

DC
26th September 2008, 03:58 AM
Why doesn't anyone just state the truth? Turbo is an agenda driven twit who isn't interested in the truth or facts or expertise. He ignores everything that contradicts his agenda driven ******** and comes across on this forum as at best mentally ill and at worst a complete *********** ********.

That is why everybody here, even though they are too polite to say so apart from me, thinks he is 100% fully certified member of odd-bod central.

Bananaman.

because of "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way"

Turbofan
26th September 2008, 06:42 AM
It's ok DC. THey're just getting upset because the EE forum is not liking
their assumptions. :cool:

DC
26th September 2008, 06:54 AM
It's ok DC. THey're just getting upset because the EE forum is not liking
their assumptions. :cool:

to be honest, i am not so sure if its the EE forums that make them upset or if it is your way of debating. and the technical details of this "debate" are far outside my knowledge.

a more civil and more technical debate would be interesting i think.

WildCat
26th September 2008, 11:58 AM
So Turbofan, anyone at that forum agree with you yet on your indestructible, uncorruptable FDR?

Anyone there sign up at the PfffT?

Caustic Logic
26th September 2008, 01:28 PM
I guess this is the best spot to post this:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/09/cl-turbofan-discussion.html

Bobert
26th September 2008, 03:14 PM
For those familiar with his on-screen persona, so remarkable arrogant and Balsamo-esque, his real-time discussion manner is so much more - Canadian. It's almost like two different people, and the Tino I talked with in fact knew little about FDRs, having only garnered his knowledge from talking with PfffT, and couldn't even cite the values that were so discrepant in the final frame of data. The audio turned out pretty decent, and as soon as I decide a good way to share it, and for good measure confirm his consent to do so, well, then I'll do so, and add some notes and stuff.


Think I will join TAM and put TF on ignore. This guy is a joke.
I suspected like Ranke that TF was just getting his info spoonfed to him.
This guy is a fraud.

T.A.M.
26th September 2008, 03:20 PM
For those familiar with his on-screen persona, so remarkable arrogant and Balsamo-esque, his real-time discussion manner is so much more - Canadian.

Grrrrrrrrr.:mad::mad::mad:;)

TAM:)

Hokulele
26th September 2008, 06:24 PM
I guess this is the best spot to post this:


Hmm, Pffft seeks to debate by proxy. To what depths have the CTists sunk?

Dog Town
26th September 2008, 06:46 PM
Hmm, Pffft seeks to debate by proxy. To what depths have the CTists sunk?

Their proxies are, on the verge, of being D'oh P-esque (P D'oh' for unfamiliar)!

Deserves:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

Bananaman
26th September 2008, 09:27 PM
Dictator Cheney:
a more civil and more technical debate would be interesting i think.You've bloody had one, Edited for civility

Bananaman.

chillzero
27th September 2008, 02:17 AM
Please remember to keep threads civil, and on topic.

Caustic Logic
27th September 2008, 02:50 AM
Grrrrrrrrr.:mad::mad::mad:;)

TAM:)

Ahhh... to be clear I meant laid back. I know such generalizations make you all mad, or you try to be, but you're too laid back to stay mad. :) Balsamo does not sound Canadian.

T.A.M.
27th September 2008, 05:07 AM
lol.

Yes laid back is a very good descriptor of the Canadian attitude.

TAM:)

bje
27th September 2008, 06:31 AM
lol.

Yes laid back is a very good descriptor of the Canadian attitude.

TAM:)

Except if you're from the province of.......well, never mind.

WildCat
27th September 2008, 09:21 PM
Not going so good over there (http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776), is it Turbofan (AKA ProcisionAuto)?

256 words per second comprised of 4 x 64 word sub frames.

3072 bits per second.

3072 bps... for what? And what does the bps rate matter? Flash is written in 8/16/32-bit words, not bits.
:dl:

Turbofan
27th September 2008, 09:55 PM
The FDAU outputs 256 , 12 bit words per second smart guy. :rolleyes:

You insert these laughing dogs as if you know what you're talking about.

Do you even know what you're laughing at?

Bananaman
27th September 2008, 10:08 PM
Turbo:
Do you even know what you're laughing at?

I'd hazard a guess at you.

Bananaman.

Bobert
28th September 2008, 12:46 AM
Turbofan,
Lets cut to the chase!
When are you going to pwn Mackey?

WildCat
28th September 2008, 07:26 AM
The FDAU outputs 256 , 12 bit words per second smart guy. :rolleyes:

You insert these laughing dogs as if you know what you're talking about.

Do you even know what you're laughing at?
It's almost like two different people, and the Tino I talked with in fact knew little about FDRs, having only garnered his knowledge from talking with PfffT, and couldn't even cite the values that were so discrepant in the final frame of data.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/09/cl-turbofan-discussion.html

Admit it, you only post here what someone at PfffT tells you to.

And answer the question asked of you at that forum: "3072 bps... for what? And what does the bps rate matter?"

jaydeehess
29th September 2008, 10:17 AM
The FDAU outputs 256 , 12 bit words per second smart guy. :rolleyes:

You insert these laughing dogs as if you know what you're talking about.

Do you even know what you're laughing at?

Do you understand that you have not given mcgyvers2000 enough information yet?

Mr.Herbert
29th September 2008, 04:37 PM
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/cricket.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/cricket.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/cricket.jpg

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 04:57 PM
Who is the moron that signed up as CTexposer and brought the BS into
that thread?

That s a professional engineering forum, not a place for a bunch of kids
to BS about their world issues.

Idiot who ever you are.

I knew I shuoldn't have linked that place.

TexasJack
29th September 2008, 05:19 PM
Who is the moron that signed up as CTexposer and brought the BS into
that thread?

That s a professional engineering forum, not a place for a bunch of kids
to BS about their world issues.

Idiot who ever you are.

I knew I shuoldn't have linked that place.

LOL, what was the purpose of your posts there?

WildCat
29th September 2008, 05:51 PM
According to my electronics background and study, I do not believe the data can be erased by a transient.
Well, we've presented you with facts that show that is exactly what can happen (and does, in practice). Whether or not it actually did in your particular case is not part of this discussion and beyond any of our (and your) capabilities to determine without access to the black box. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to the facts at hand.
I hope you read this reply soon as this entire thread is going to end up in the dumpster quite soon. This is going to happen not because you came in here under false pretenses (we could care less why you came in here), but because you are not a practicing engineer.
Dan - Owner
Is Dan a government disinfo agent also Turbofan?

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 05:55 PM
Don't worry, I saved the entire thread in case any of you losers tried to
twist their replies.

CTexposer is a moron for dragging this JREF BS into a professional engineering
forum. It looks really good on you.

I'll know better than to deal with anyone here again.

Cowards. Chickens.

WildCat
29th September 2008, 05:56 PM
I knew I shuoldn't have linked that place.
:dl:

You actually thought those guys would support you, didn't you?

BTW, it wasn't me.

Bobert
29th September 2008, 05:58 PM
LOL!
Let me see if I have this right!
Turbofan was bragging about essentially dragging Mackey's name through the mud and posting on all kinds of forums and now he is surpised someone would expose his BS to the members of that forum?

Bobert
29th September 2008, 05:59 PM
Don't worry, I saved the entire thread in case any of you losers tried to
twist their replies.

CTexposer is a moron for dragging this JREF BS into a professional engineering
forum. It looks really good on you.

I'll know better than to deal with anyone here again.

Cowards. Chickens.
Does this mean you are leaving like the rest of the PFT frauds?

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 06:00 PM
Whether they agree, or not it's not the point.

There's enough info in that thread to suggest the transient could not
erase the data (see the discussion around data stuck in RAM, clamp
circuits, etc.).

Lesson learned. I wont link any more forums other than 9/11 debate
stuff to the chickens here.

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 06:03 PM
LOL!
Let me see if I have this right!
Turbofan was bragging about essentially dragging Mackey's name through the mud and posting on all kinds of forums and now he is surpised someone would expose his BS to the members of that forum?

Nobody there is supporting the 6 second loss unless you want to try the
"stuck in RAM theory" :rolleyes:

Mackey's story doesn't work. If it did, you still have to account for a six
second clock sync error which isn't going to happen.

Bobert
29th September 2008, 06:05 PM
Only a coward would be as deceptive as you have been.
Your a grown man and you basically called out Mackey and said you were going to post on a bunch of baords regarding him.
You got what you deserved today.
But given that you hail from the CIT/PFT treefort is should be a big surprise.

TexasJack
29th September 2008, 06:07 PM
Don't worry, I saved the entire thread in case any of you losers tried to
twist their replies.

CTexposer is a moron for dragging this JREF BS into a professional engineering
forum. It looks really good on you.

I'll know better than to deal with anyone here again.

Cowards. Chickens.

LOL, if it's a professional engineering forum, what are you doing there? Entertainment gold.

AZCat
29th September 2008, 06:12 PM
Y'know, I don't know why I didn't realize this, but I've been a member of that forum for a long time. I guess I never checked the name of the forum where the thread in question was started.

R.Mackey
29th September 2008, 06:12 PM
Don't worry, I saved the entire thread in case any of you losers tried to
twist their replies.

CTexposer is a moron for dragging this JREF BS into a professional engineering
forum. It looks really good on you.

I'll know better than to deal with anyone here again.

Cowards. Chickens.

So let's see -- you went on there, originally claiming you were going to "Expose" my "Lies" by posting screenshots. This got watered down into a semi-useful technical question. You get answers, which you fail to understand, to a question that you also fail to understand. We know this is so because of non sequiturs you continue to write, such as the following:

There's enough info in that thread to suggest the transient could not
erase the data (see the discussion around data stuck in RAM, clamp
circuits, etc.).

Nobody there is supporting the 6 second loss unless you want to try the
"stuck in RAM theory" :rolleyes:

Mackey's story doesn't work. If it did, you still have to account for a six
second clock sync error which isn't going to happen.

For the last time, we are talking about DATA CORRUPTION. Not an orderly erase of six seconds.

There is not one comment on that page that I disagree with. Not. One. Excepting yours, of course.

All of us can see that page. Some if not all of us understand what it says. It does not say what you claim it says.

Then someone, I don't know who -- it wasn't me -- tells the truth about your background and your own opinions on that page, a week after the fact.

And for all this, you call us "chickens."

At this juncture, I strongly suggest you get an evaluation. I'm beginning to think you are a genuine pathological liar.

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 06:12 PM
Only a coward would be as deceptive as you have been.
Your a grown man and you basically called out Mackey and said you were going to post on a bunch of baords regarding him.
You got what you deserved today.
But given that you hail from the CIT/PFT treefort is should be a big surprise.

I'm not the one running from a live debate! :big:

I got what I deserved? Oh no, some jerk followed me to another forum
and posted a link.

Oh dear, whatever should I do?

I feel bad for the mods of that forum who have to work due to the stupidity
of someone here.

At least Jaydee was acting civil and staying on topic. I can respect that.

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 06:17 PM
For the last time, we are talking about DATA CORRUPTION. Not an orderly erase of six seconds.

You were talking about six seconds of data corruption in memory correct?
Tell me how that's going to happen with CRC/Parity, etc?

After impact? Tell me how 200 msec. is going to corrupt six seconds worth
of data which is currently in the buffer and being written?

Once you've done that, explain the six second clock sync error?

You're calling me a pathological liar, yet you can't come up with a theory
that holds water.

Jonnyclueless
29th September 2008, 06:17 PM
You're the one trying to run TO a live debate. Still not able to present a hypothesis of what happened Turbo? I would be afraid to i I were you as well seeing as it would have to pass the same criticism as you put on a real hypothesis. And even in a live debate (sorry, still laughing about that argument!) you couldn't do it.

Sure is easy for any fraud to take pot shots. But can you coem up with a more plausible hypothesis? of course not.

Jonnyclueless
29th September 2008, 06:18 PM
Turbo, can you explain how the events corrupted 24 hours of data on the CVR?

R.Mackey
29th September 2008, 06:25 PM
After impact? Tell me how 200 msec. is going to corrupt six seconds worth
of data which is currently in the buffer and being written?

Shifting the goalposts? If the data is in the buffer, it will be lost entirely. We were considering the harder case, which supposes it's already been written to Flash. Seriously, did you think I wouldn't spot this?

If it's already written, there is still potential for corruption of an arbitrary number of bits. The duration of the transient has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time corresponding to the bits which are affected. All of the damage can take place in nanoseconds, depending on the nature of the transient.

This isn't the first or even second time you've put forth this spectactularly idiotic view, and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Either start talking technical sense, ask meaningful questions (as you have everything to learn), or be ignored. This farce has gone on too long, and the dummy no longer has any stuffing left at this point.

bje
29th September 2008, 06:29 PM
Turbofan is just pining for a ban. He just may get his wish.

WildCat
29th September 2008, 06:34 PM
Whether they agree, or not it's not the point.

There's enough info in that thread to suggest the transient could not
erase the data (see the discussion around data stuck in RAM, clamp
circuits, etc.).

Lesson learned. I wont link any more forums other than 9/11 debate
stuff to the chickens here.

Nobody there is supporting the 6 second loss unless you want to try the
"stuck in RAM theory" :rolleyes:

Mackey's story doesn't work. If it did, you still have to account for a six
second clock sync error which isn't going to happen.

I'm not the one running from a live debate! :big:

I got what I deserved? Oh no, some jerk followed me to another forum
and posted a link.

Oh dear, whatever should I do?

I feel bad for the mods of that forum who have to work due to the stupidity
of someone here.

At least Jaydee was acting civil and staying on topic. I can respect that.

Where have we seen this attitude before? Oh, yeah!

2eMkth8FWno

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 06:34 PM
Shifting the goalposts? If the data is in the buffer, it will be lost entirely. We were considering the harder case, which supposes it's already been written to Flash. Seriously, did you think I wouldn't spot this?

That's what I'm contesting! The engineers are saying it's more likely that
the six seconds would be lost if caught up in RAM!

See discussion about blocks.

If it's already written, there is still potential for corruption of an arbitrary number of bits. The duration of the transient has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time corresponding to the bits which are affected. All of the damage can take place in nanoseconds, depending on the nature of the transient.

As already stated by the EE board, there are filter electronics protecting
the CSMU from such transients. You can't write a bit in a couple of nanoseconds.

You need to enable address lines as well.

This isn't the first or even second time you've put forth this spectactularly idiotic view, and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

The feeling is mutual. Your theories are a joke and make no sense.

Like I said, add the six seconds of clock sync error to your joke while
you're at it.

Remember, the JREF boys are the ones with all of the variations of the theory.
You are trying to explain the six second of difference by:

- lag t4-t5
- buffer loss
- NTSB impact time error
- transient spikes

You wonder why I don't respect your assumption/theory/lie.

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 06:42 PM
Turbofan is just pining for a ban. He just may get his wish.

Is that your answer to everything? I get a little on edge, and you want
to ban me?

I'm not looking to leave this wonderful place. I'd like to stay if that's OK
with you?

I need my daily laugh of BS theories to read.

R.Mackey
29th September 2008, 06:44 PM
That's what I'm contesting! The engineers are saying it's more likely that
the six seconds would be lost if caught up in RAM!

See discussion about blocks.

Well, yeah, obviously. RAM is volatile. If you lose power, everything in RAM will be lost 100% of the time. Power spikes only may affect non-volatile storage, and will do so unpredictably.

Again, I agree with every single thing your respondents said. For some reason, this isn't coming in clear to you. I frankly don't care why at this point.

As already stated by the EE board, there are filter electronics protecting
the CSMU from such transients. You can't write a bit in a couple of nanoseconds.

You need to enable address lines as well.

And we've been over this, what, ten times? The filter electronics will be destroyed during the crash. The mere existence of such electronics prove that the memory is sensitive to unfiltered signals if something goes wrong.

You can too write a bit in a couple of nanoseconds, if you're off spec. That's the whole point. During a plane crash, nothing will be in spec. This also has the potential to cause non-local effects without normal activation of address lines. I already showed you the papers, which you already rejected without the faintest whiff of comprehension.


The feeling is mutual. Your theories are a joke and make no sense.

... to you. Everyone else seems to understand. Fortunately, the teacher's salary is not decided by the evaluation from the straight-F student.


Like I said, add the six seconds of clock sync error to your joke while
you're at it.

There's no evidence there is any clock sync error. You're applying false precision. Been over this at least six times.


Remember, the JREF boys are the ones with all of the variations of the theory.
You are trying to explain the six second of difference by:

- lag t4-t5
- buffer loss
- NTSB impact time error
- transient spikes

You wonder why I don't respect your assumption/theory/lie.

No, we wonder why you don't understand it, but pretend that you do. We don't know which one or more of those actually happened, but all of them are plausible. Much, much more plausible than the only alternative you've been able to come up with, which has something to do with phantom aircraft/missiles, weird flight paths, CIA-plant witnesses, and a conspiracy the likes of which even James Bond never faced.

We do not require your respect. You are either here to share, to learn, or to cause trouble. We've seen what you have to share, and it's crap. We've seen you doggedly avoid learning. That doesn't leave much alternative.

Best of luck to you, Turbofan.

bje
29th September 2008, 06:48 PM
Is that your answer to everything? I get a little on edge, and you want to ban me?

Only the paranoid would read into what I wrote that I wanted you banned.

Like everyone here, I want you to hang around long enough to see if you can actually muster up the courage to answer a question.

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 06:53 PM
And we've been over this, what, ten times? The filter electronics will be destroyed during the crash. The mere existence of such electronics prove that the memory is sensitive to unfiltered signals if something goes wrong.

The FDAU is at the FRONT of the aircraft. The FDR is at the REAR.

What controls the system? Which is going to get damaged first?
How is the data going to get written?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/black-box/recorder-locations.jpg

You can too write a bit in a couple of nanoseconds, if you're off spec. That's the whole point. During a plane crash, nothing will be in spec. This also has the potential to cause non-local effects without normal activation of address lines. I already showed you the papers, which you already rejected without the faintest whiff of comprehension.

See above. The FDR has it's own filter circuits. Thanks.

I'll wait until you fabricate another excuse to get around the above which
I brought up about 20 TIMES. :cool:

bje
29th September 2008, 06:58 PM
I'll wait until you fabricate another excuse to get around the above..."

So, AA77 hit the Pentagon or flew over it?

"...which I brought up about 20 TIMES.

I'm way ahead of you asking you to answer my questions. What's your excuse this time, Turbofan?

TjW
29th September 2008, 07:06 PM
You were talking about six seconds of data corruption in memory correct?
Tell me how that's going to happen with CRC/Parity, etc?
<snippage>


You do realize that CRC/Parity are only error detection and not magic?
They'll tell you that you have at least one bit error, but they don't tell you how many bits, or which one(s).

Having CRC/Parity bits doesn't protect the memory or data channel from being corrupted, it only serves to tell you when it is.

There are error correcting codes, but they're more complex and use more bandwidth (or memory bits, in the case of storage) than the simpler parity or CRC schemes. And there are limits to the errors they can correct.

beachnut
29th September 2008, 07:11 PM
Whether they agree, or not it's not the point.

There's enough info in that thread to suggest the transient could not
erase the data (see the discussion around data stuck in RAM, clamp
circuits, etc.).

Lesson learned. I wont link any more forums other than 9/11 debate
stuff to the chickens here.

Your lie is childish, 77 not hitting the Pentagon is the most insane idea I have seen on 9/11 it beats the brain dead beam weapon and all others; and you have no clue why.

So far no one supports your ideas on the Professional forum, I only have a Masters degree in EE, not qualified to be a professional, but I knew you were full of junk the second you posted woo on 9/11.

R.Mackey
29th September 2008, 07:18 PM
If anyone has any trouble finding the problems with Turbofan's latest objection, feel free to ask me for help. But it's pretty freaking obvious.

beachnut
29th September 2008, 07:18 PM
You were talking about six seconds of data corruption in memory correct?
Tell me how that's going to happen with CRC/Parity, etc?

After impact? Tell me how 200 msec. is going to corrupt six seconds worth
of data which is currently in the buffer and being written?

Once you've done that, explain the six second clock sync error?

You're calling me a pathological liar, yet you can't come up with a theory
that holds water.
You are a liar, 77 did impact the Pentagon. You have no evidence to support your lie. You can't say something unless you have a coherent set of facts and evidence to support it.

You do not understand why data can be missing because you lack knowledge on FDRs, and understanding of electrical systems. You also have no idea what a 1100 pound of TNT KE impact can do.

Jonnyclueless
29th September 2008, 07:22 PM
So the FDR has filter circuits to protect it from problems that are not capable of happening to it? interesting.

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 07:28 PM
So the FDR has filter circuits to protect it from problems that are not capable of happening to it? interesting.


The FDR is a storage device, like your USB Flash memory stick. It doesn not
acquire the data from the sensors.

The FDR has filters to protect it from the upstream transients.

beachnut
29th September 2008, 07:35 PM
The FDAU is at the FRONT of the aircraft. The FDR is at the REAR.

What controls the system? Which is going to get damaged first?
How is the data going to get written? ...

You just solved you own problem, but you have no clue.
You lack knowledge to close the deal, which would stop your insane claims.
You should have taken some aircraft accident investigation, and read the reports of actual FDR lost data; and you should have talked to real engineers, some who actually used FDR and graduated from accident investigation school. Instead you have paranoid pilots who make up idiotic ideas like FDR never can have lost, missing, not recorded data. Are any of the p4t engineers, or are they all basket weaving flunked out of grad school guys?

Love the 34 Gs, how can the p4t post such stupid garbage?

beachnut
29th September 2008, 07:44 PM
...
The FDR has filters to protect it from the upstream transients.

Prove it. Show where they are located.

Turbofan
29th September 2008, 07:58 PM
Prove it. Show where they are located.

L3 lists the MIL spec right
on their site.

I guess you didn't know even your laptop has transient suppression
circuitry for instances when you remove a device from a bay.

I'm not surprised you don't know these things. You had to ask for proof
as if such technology never existed. :cool:

Right on Beachnut, you are my hero.

Norseman
29th September 2008, 08:01 PM
The FDAU is at the FRONT of the aircraft. The FDR is at the REAR.

What controls the system? Which is going to get damaged first?
How is the data going to get written?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/black-box/recorder-locations.jpg


Are you really sure of this? Because in relation to Flight 77 NTSB says:

In this aircraft, the DFDAU function is performed by the SSFDR.

Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

In other words, on Flight 77 both functions were performed by the same box.

beachnut
29th September 2008, 08:35 PM
L3 lists the MIL spec right
on their site.

I guess you didn't know even your laptop has transient suppression
circuitry for instances when you remove a device from a bay.

I'm not surprised you don't know these things. You had to ask for proof
as if such technology never existed. :cool:

Right on Beachnut, you are my hero. You have no idea where they are; don't even go the didn't know they exist junk.
Next time just tell me you can't show me. You always put off questions and say see L3.

Failure is yours, you can't show it, you can't prove where the circuits are. You have no clue.

Good for you. double talk, no show

from Missouri

I am not surprised you can't show us the details and just say go to L3. It shows how shallow your knowledge and research really are. Just like 11.2 G, 10 G, and 34 G. You may have the math finally right, but the logic and rational thought are still missing. I can't believe the one pilot flies for Jet Blue who thinks 34 Gs is rational! Does Jet Blue have a low IQ standard? Why is a pilot who can't figure out 9/11 flying for Jet Blue? I really mean why is a pilot who gave Balsamo the circular motion equation for G to pull out of a dive (physically impossible but okay for an estimate) think 34 Gs is proof the terrorist can't do something based on made up initial conditions. Bad enough they have no idea on the accuracy of DME or the issue of resolution. If you fly jet blue, beware, one of the pilots thinks hockey stick pull-ups are okay!

At least you are part of p4t, the only pilots in the world so bad they can't hit a 207 foot target, or a 1400 foot wide target. The terrorist can, but p4t pilots can't; they said so.

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 05:50 AM
Are you really sure of this? Because in relation to Flight 77 NTSB says:

Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

In other words, on Flight 77 both functions were performed by the same box.

No, the SSFDR (FA2100) is not equipped to interface with the discrete sensors, or LRU.

If anything, AA77 used an "IDARS" (Intergrated data acq. recorder system),
however the same principle applies as the location is at the rear.

The NTSB quote is taken out of context unless they are implying an IDARS.

You will also notice the last response from "IRstuff" is throwing out data
collisions for T4-T5 timing that "Anti-sophist" was making up. :cool:

Bobert
30th September 2008, 05:57 AM
EVERYONE but you, CIT, or the PFT is either lying or making stuff up eh Turbofan?

funk de fino
30th September 2008, 06:00 AM
Kids, kids...don't sweat it! You see, I made you wait and you made
fools of yourselves. I did indeed start a thread, but it's not getting
much attention (notice the start date).

My question may have been confusing as the readers think I am designing
a system. I tried to word it in a fashion that wouldn't expose to topic
to prevent biased answers.

Now that everyone knows it's an FDR, I'll blow the cover and you can
watch the exchange unfold.
So here's a thread that you can all drool over. I'll have to reply again
to bump the discussion.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226776

It was fun watching you all beg and plead and cry! Typical. :cool:

Who is the moron that signed up as CTexposer and brought the BS into
that thread?
That s a professional engineering forum, not a place for a bunch of kids
to BS about their world issues.

Idiot who ever you are.

I knew I shuoldn't have linked that place.

Don't worry, I saved the entire thread in case any of you losers tried to
twist their replies.

CTexposer is a moron for dragging this JREF BS into a professional engineering
forum. It looks really good on you.
I'll know better than to deal with anyone here again.

Cowards. Chickens.

what a total hypocrite you are TF.

Data is not infallible and SS memory is not infallible. Why is the CVR data not available TF?

You seem to be avoiding this question?

funk de fino
30th September 2008, 06:08 AM
TF

Have you read the Time Correlation report mentioned in the FDR report?

If not, why not?

Can you explain why some data is missing and not recorded properly as described in the above report? Is it U/S sensors, bad data recorded, bad blocks on the chip, interrupted streams or anything else?

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 06:28 AM
what a total hypocrite you are TF.

Data is not infallible and SS memory is not infallible. Why is the CVR data not available TF?

You seem to be avoiding this question?

Ever consider that they didn't want to release the CVR because it contained
incriminating proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon?

I guess they didn't have a script for that one like Mark Bingham! :cool:

RE: Data

It's called lazy NTSB. Undertow and his team were able to pull out extra
parameters. Send UT a message and have a word with him ;)

GlennB
30th September 2008, 06:33 AM
Ever consider that they didn't want to release the CVR because it contained incriminating proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon?


This is one of the most stunningly illogical statements I've heard in my entire time in the 9/11 CT world. Try to work out why, Turbofan.

JimBenArm
30th September 2008, 06:37 AM
Ever consider that they didn't want to release the CVR because it contained
incriminating proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon?

I guess they didn't have a script for that one like Mark Bingham! :cool:

RE: Data

It's called lazy NTSB. Undertow and his team were able to pull out extra
parameters. Send UT a message and have a word with him ;)
Yes, of course. Mark Bingham just read from a script.

Please, everyone, read this. Realize what kind of person you're trying to have discourse with. If none of the other nonsense doesn't clue you in, this garbage posing as an internet post should do it. I'm sure he'd say this to his widow's face. On second thought, yes, yes he would, because that's just the kind of stand-up guy he is.

My hero, Turbofan. Defender of the truth. No so much.

funk de fino
30th September 2008, 06:53 AM
Ever consider that they didn't want to release the CVR because it contained incriminating proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon?

Poor effort. You think they released a FDR that proved this was the case but not the CVR which would have proved the same thing? Good god man. have a word with yourself.

I guess they didn't have a script for that one like Mark Bingham! :cool:

A quite pathetic and cowardly and disgusting attack on someone who is not alive today to defend himself. You should be ashamed of yourself. this is the CIT and PFT goons in a nutshell. Liars, cowards and frauds.

In this case they could fake calls in realtime but they could not fake a CVR? Good logic TF. You just keep digging deeper eh?

RE: Data

It's called lazy NTSB. Undertow and his team were able to pull out extra
parameters. Send UT a message and have a word with him ;)

It does not matter if they pulled out some more parameters, the fact is there were missing parameters and non verified parameters. Why was this?


ETA - time correlation report? avoidance again?

Bobert
30th September 2008, 06:59 AM
Where are the passangers and crew of flight 77 then Turbofan?
So in your fantasy world I know that all of your fluffers dont bother ever asking you this BUT the MOMENT you present this to THE REAL WORLD they will want an answer to this very simple question.
So lets hear it TF!
Where are the passangers and crew of flight 77 then Turbofan?

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 07:41 AM
Where are the passangers and crew of flight 77 then Turbofan?

I don't know? Maybe they're playing in a sand box in someone's backyard?

Where are the terrorist names on the flight lists?

Can you answer that one? :cool:

"Hi mom, it's Mark Bingham! You believe me don't you?"

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 07:49 AM
Ok , we've established that the typical FDAU latency time is the 500ms that TF is fond of quoting, meaning that it takes halfa second for any sensor data to move from sensor , through the FDAU before it even impinges upon the CSMU buffer, the buffer will not write to permanent storage until a full frame has been collected, a full frame is four 64 word subframes IIRC.

So we are looking at a max of 4.5 seconds there are we not? ( or is it 1.5 seconds?) Beachnut?

Let's assume 1.5 seconds. That means that the aircraft was at the wall when the data collected over a 1 second period ending 0.5 seconds ago was about to be written (worst case) and that would have been lost upon loss of power.

Secondly, transients entering the system at this time have greatest access to the write block that is prepared to be written to.

Transients can destroy the storage transistors they reach as well as those that physically reside close to the ones immediatly affected by the transient.

The storage transistors that physically reside close to the ones most directly affected will be the ones that are storing the closest previous write blocks written to.

TF insists that the only way to corrupt data is to write erroneous data over the stored data, ignoring the issue of corruption due to the destruction of a transistor. Such destruction need not even be what one would typically think of as destroyed. The FET's used have a max number of re-writes due to the tendancy of the floating gate to accumulate charge over time. Once it accumulates enough unwanted charge it is useless and will always be a binary '1' (IIRC). A transient may actually simply push that charge to a permanent '1' thus corrupting that data. This will be a function of the number of times a specific gate has changed state and thus some will be more sussecptible to such corruption than others.

The engineering thread is gone now. However as mcgyvers said, TF has been supplied with the ways that data can indeed be corrupted, that is buffer loss, and transient destruction of an area of the die. They cannot be held responsible for his willfull ignorance.

However, TF did say that he posted to other forums. We have not seen any others though so there are three possibilities that arise;
1) TF did post elsewhere and has received an even less TM friendly response and thus is not sharing.
2) TF did post elsewhere and does not want anyone 'poisoning the well' so he will not share. Though he will attempt to squeeze in his own interpretation of what he is being told there thus excluding any and all information that contradicts his beliefs.
3) TF has not actually posted this question anywhere else.

For the record I too have asked around.
The aerospace engineer I am speaking with in a private forum that cannot be linked to states that he has seen several instances of 3 seconds missing from an FDR. He is however not specifically a DFDR specialist. He will attempt to find one in his circle of aquaintences.

The FDR has an interrupt that causes it to stop recording upon detection of a very high g situation, at least in smaller aircraft. Still looking to find out if such is the case for Boeing 7x7 aircraft.

Another interrupt stops the recording upon loss of the aircraft 28Vdc power to the FDR.

A large capacitor in line with the power supply is there to, in theory, supply power long enough for a flushing of data from the buffer and implementing a power down. However, I believe that assumes that the loss of power is accompanied by the supply being an electrical 'open'. A 'short' would discharge that capacitor resulting in currect flow in the opposite direction, just the type of transient one does not want.

In some cases then, when the interrupt is caused by loss of power and the capacitor retains voltage long enough, the FDR can retain all data up to and including data collected after initial impact but in other cases several seconds worth of data can be corrupted (not written over).

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 07:58 AM
I don't know? Maybe they're playing in a sand box in someone's backyard?


You see there is the crux of the problem with PfT.

If they are going to ignore the questions that arise out of their theories (yes, theories are put forth by PfT despite their insistence that there are not) then all they should be left with is that the flight path described by the FDR data is grossly different than that described by the physical damage on the ground caused by the passage of the aircraft. Thus it would behoove PfT to write up a detalied and comprehensive, technical paper outlining the steps they have taken that cause them to come to this conclusion, and to submit this paper, including the names and titles of its technical contributors, to the NTSB, the FAA, L3 Communication, ICAO and the Pilot's unions as well as to aerospace and technology publications.

Conspiracy based web sites and videos do not cut it.
Telephone badgering of organizations and individuals do not cut it.
Arguing inccessantly on internet forums does not cut it.
"Live" debates are useless and do not cut it in a technical world.

funk de fino
30th September 2008, 08:02 AM
I don't know? Maybe they're playing in a sand box in someone's backyard?

sick

Where are the terrorist names on the flight lists?

They are on the actual manifests, try again.

Can you answer that one? :cool:

see above, fail again

"Hi mom, it's Mark Bingham! You believe me don't you?"

sick, I bet you would not say that to his mother.

Are you a no calls guy then?

beachnut
30th September 2008, 08:24 AM
I don't know? Maybe they're playing in a sand box in someone's backyard?

Where are the terrorist names on the flight lists?

Can you answer that one? :cool:

"Hi mom, it's Mark Bingham! You believe me don't you?"
How disrespectful as you lie about 77 not hitting the Pentagon based on your failed FDR knowledge.

Your terrorist names stupid statement debunked on 9/11. Review it again before your stupid statement is posted again. You can edit this failure out.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124703 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124703)

Yes you repeat 9/11 truth failed ideas for a hobby; a failed hobby refuted years ago.

Hi mom, it is me. Like your failed ideas on the FDR, you now make up implications of lies and show how disrespectful a terrorist apologist can be as you display ignorance on 9/11.

This what happens as you fail to make a valid point, you shotgun stupid refuted ideas on 9/11 as you continue to be the spokesperson for p4t failed ideas and repeat the lies they can't say.

Your ideas on 9/11 are all false. How can you be so wrong all the time on 9/11 issues? Any good posts to support you on all those EE forums?

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 08:40 AM
Ohyes, the FAX reports. Do you have anything original to show?

I guess the FBI still hasn't removed the names of the hi-jackers from
their web site who have turned up alive. That's funny too. When are
you going to show me proof that Bin Laden was behind the attack?

You know, all that 'proof' that the US Government asserted several times?

How about those fantasy WOMD? Very cool game they play huh?

"Yes, we have it! We have proof and we'll show you some day. Let's
go to war!"

"Oops, we still don't have proof, but that's ok...we've killed thousands
of innocent civilians and soldiers. We'll get that proof to ya'll soon.
Hang in there. Thanks, G. Bush."

beachnut
30th September 2008, 08:51 AM
Ever consider that they didn't want to release the CVR because it contained incriminating proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon?

I guess they didn't have a script for that one like Mark Bingham! :cool:

RE: Data

It's called lazy NTSB. Undertow and his team were able to pull out extra
parameters. Send UT a message and have a word with him ;)

Pure LIES

NTSB tells you they decoded certain parameters and not others. So your failed attempt at looking like p4t did something to uncover something has failed.

The only thing p4t has done is add complete stupid to NTSB products. The dumbest pilot statements in the world are on Balsamo terrorist apologist video 1. How stupid can you get?


The FDR is missing more than 6 seconds with RADAR correlation. If you use the DME literally, you are missing 4 seconds of data for p4t decode, and 3 seconds for NTSB.

If p4t could figure out the DME accuracy issue and the resolution of 0.25, they would be discussing instead of making up lies.

Funny part about missing data! The p4t decode is missing one more second than NTSB. Seems the NTSB decoded only data that was verified.

Why is the p4t decode missing 1 second. Transients? Impact? Lost bits?

Gee whiz, a simple decode and p4t can't get the last second. In fact the p4t decode is missing sections of decode all over the place!

They even put data where there should be no data. Who knew we were in the presence of FDR experts who can't decode the time in the FDR, and find the last second.

What accuracy and resolution is altitude stored at in the FDR? You can't figure out DME so maybe you know the ALT one.

When will you show me the circuits, you are looking to show me?

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 08:56 AM
The even funnier thing is the clock sync error is a Maximum of 0.01 seconds.

You guys want six seconds? pffffffffffffffffffffJREFffffffff

Jonnyclueless
30th September 2008, 09:10 AM
So then the several hours of lost data on the CVR must REALLY be a conspiracy eh?

WildCat
30th September 2008, 09:40 AM
This is one of the most stunningly illogical statements I've heard in my entire time in the 9/11 CT world. Try to work out why, Turbofan.
Ooooh! Oooooohhhh! I know why!

The NTSB faked the data on the FDR, but didn't release the data they faked because they knew the faked data proved Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and, err, ummm...

:dl:

WildCat
30th September 2008, 09:42 AM
Where are the terrorist names on the flight lists?
You really don't know a damn thing about this, do you Turbofan? :eek:

beachnut
30th September 2008, 09:46 AM
Ohyes, the FAX reports. Do you have anything original to show?

I guess the FBI still hasn't removed the names of the hi-jackers from
their web site who have turned up alive. That's funny too. When are
you going to show me proof that Bin Laden was behind the attack?

You know, all that 'proof' that the US Government asserted several times?

How about those fantasy WOMD? Very cool game they play huh?

"Yes, we have it! We have proof and we'll show you some day. Let's
go to war!"

"Oops, we still don't have proof, but that's ok...we've killed thousands
of innocent civilians and soldiers. We'll get that proof to ya'll soon.
Hang in there. Thanks, G. Bush."

Turbofan never had evidence, he tried bs, but now his motive is pure anti-war. Why piggy back lies of 9/11 truth on anti-war crap. So bush lied and you must make up bigger lies. How bush like you are.

Turbofan, void of evidence, hates bush, logic and evidence not used, so the expert 34 G p4t terrorist apologists think the terrorist are still alive? Or is this your own individual idea after reading a retracted story?

FDR failure to understand and make a point, so you spew pure stupid truth ideas. ? can't find the circuit to show me?

Rrealize flying was not cut and dry? Have you found DME accuracy is 0.23 NM for 77, and the resolution is 0.25 NM for storage?

So you tie bush and WMDs backwards in time to 9/11? You can't figure out the terrorist were on the planes, or they are dead, while you finally realized data can be missing from the FDR!

Your alive terrorists, exactly like your FDR fiasco.

WildCat
30th September 2008, 09:49 AM
Ohyes, the FAX reports. Do you have anything original to show?

I guess the FBI still hasn't removed the names of the hi-jackers from
their web site who have turned up alive. That's funny too. When are
you going to show me proof that Bin Laden was behind the attack?

You know, all that 'proof' that the US Government asserted several times?

How about those fantasy WOMD? Very cool game they play huh?

"Yes, we have it! We have proof and we'll show you some day. Let's
go to war!"

"Oops, we still don't have proof, but that's ok...we've killed thousands
of innocent civilians and soldiers. We'll get that proof to ya'll soon.
Hang in there. Thanks, G. Bush."
Wow! :jaw-dropp

WildCat
30th September 2008, 09:52 AM
Oh, it looks like the engineering forum has deleted the thread to keep PffffT idiocy off of it.

Does that mean Mackey was pwned Turbofan?

:dl:

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 09:59 AM
The thread is gone because a certain moron had to dump BS into the
discussion.

I have a copy of the posts so don't worry too much.

JimBenArm
30th September 2008, 10:10 AM
The thread is gone because a certain moron had to dump BS into the
discussion.

I have a copy of the posts so don't worry too much.
Yes, and we all know who that moron was, don't worry.

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 10:10 AM
Ever consider that they didn't want to release the CVR because it contained
incriminating proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon?

I guess they didn't have a script for that one like Mark Bingham! :cool:



So to summarize then;
they had the time, foresight and ability to fake the DFDR data, albeit a task they supposedly carried out badly,
and
they had the time, foresight, and ability to fake phone calls to the loved ones on the flight which the loved ones never doubted were the persons they claimed to be,
but
they did not have the time, and/or foresight, and/or ability to fake the cockpit conversation.

This you posit as an explanation as to why the CVR data was unusable rather than consider any validity to the idea that the CVR suffered such damage as to make its data unreadable.
This being a proposition which has them paying close attention to minute detail in the faking of phone calls (which could easily have been omitted and had no one question it) while on the other hand being extremely unconcerned with detail wrt to the DFDR data and completely unconcerned with detail wrt the CVR.

Do I have your proposition correct TF?

bje
30th September 2008, 10:16 AM
I don't know? Maybe they're playing in a sand box in someone's backyard?

That's as laughable as when you claimed on ATS that the FBI confiscated all the 911 calls and found every single witness to the "flyover" on the freeways, bridges, in homes and business all around DC and made them shut up.

You really have to stretch to make that ridiculous claim,Turbofan.

:dl:

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 10:19 AM
I have a copy of the posts so don't worry too much.

How about you post all of mcgyvers2000 posts that occured after my last post then.

(would that contravene any JREF rules given that the thread no longer exists?)

beachnut
30th September 2008, 10:23 AM
The thread is gone because a certain moron had to dump BS into the
discussion.

I have a copy of the posts so don't worry too much.
Did someone tell them you said 77 did not hit the Pentagon and were a terrorist apologist?

Do they like fantasy liars on 9/11 issues? Like no terrorist on the manifest lie, or the alive terrorist lies?

Please in between your massive non-evidence to support the FDR presentation explain with proof the terrorists are alive, any of them with sources. Please try to do something.


What is the FDR DME accuracy overall due to storage and system accuracy; with sources please??

Compare and contrast by cause the data missing in other accidents (by cause).

MacGyverS2000
30th September 2008, 10:29 AM
The thread is gone because a certain moron had to dump BS into the discussion.

Actually, I had the thread dumped for a very specific reason; a reason you specifically acknowledged, and one that had zero to do with what you just now claimed. For those who were not able to view the thread before it was thrown in the virtual round-file, I said it would be trashed strictly because you were not a practicing engineer, the eng-tips fora raison d'ętre.

Hi guys... I'm the MacGyverS2000 who posts at eng-tips, and the one quoted several times in this thread (both full context and out of context). I will be happy to answer clearly written, non-leading questions about possible causes of data corruption in flash EEPROM, but I have zero interest in seeing my comments taken out of context to further propagandistic BS. I'm not going to argue my belief that a plane did or did not hit a building, I'm simply going to answer questions from a scientific perspective. I will also not hang around this site for too long or read other threads as I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist... yes, I'm sure conspiracies do exist, but I would have so little personal information to prove/disprove their existence as to make the exercise futile and a waste of my (mostly) valuable time. Should I need to inject an opinion, rather than obvious fact and/or statistically-proven detail, I will try to list it as such.

Since credentials count for at least a small portion of someone's ability to believe in others, here are mine in a nutshell: I hold a Master's in Electrical Engineering from a top ten university (not a Big Ten, top ten... sports bore me), I have worked in the industry (in one form or another) for over 20 years (and getting paid for that work for almost as many years) as an embedded systems firmware programmer, and prior projects have included such topic-specific code like flash bootloaders. I make mistakes like everyone else, but you better come with the big guns to prove me wrong.

Since I am coming from this topic fresh, I would highly appreciate it if people would define acronyms when they are first used so I don't have to dig through mountains of info on the net. I finally figured out FDR after multiple postings by TurboFan on the eng-tips site, so we can skip that one.



So, since I don't really want to read the last 5 loooong pages of posts just to find out what the real questions are, does someone care to compact them into one or two posts in a concise manner, please?

Thanks!

JimBenArm
30th September 2008, 10:36 AM
Actually, I had the thread dumped for a very specific reason; a reason you specifically acknowledged, and one that had zero to do with what you just now claimed. For those who were not able to view the thread before it was thrown in the virtual round-file, I said it would be trashed strictly because you were not a practicing engineer, the eng-tips fora raison d'ętre.

Hi guys... I'm the MacGyverS2000 who posts at eng-tips, and the one quoted several times in this thread (both full context and out of context). I will be happy to answer clearly written, non-leading questions about possible causes of data corruption in flash EEPROM, but I have zero interest in seeing my comments taken out of context to further propagandistic BS. I'm not going to argue my belief that a plane did or did not hit a building, I'm simply going to answer questions from a scientific perspective. I will also not hang around this site for too long or read other threads as I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist... yes, I'm sure conspiracies do exist, but I would have so little personal information to prove/disprove their existence as to make the exercise futile and a waste of my (mostly) valuable time. Should I need to inject an opinion, rather than obvious fact and/or statistically-proven detail, I will try to list it as such.

Since credentials count for at least a small portion of someone's ability to believe in others, here are mine in a nutshell: I hold a Master's in Electrical Engineering from a top ten university (not a Big Ten, top ten... sports bore me), I have worked in the industry (in one form or another) for over 20 years (and getting paid for that work for almost as many years) as an embedded systems firmware programmer, and prior projects have included such topic-specific code like flash bootloaders. I make mistakes like everyone else, but you better come with the big guns to prove me wrong.

Since I am coming from this topic fresh, I would highly appreciate it if people would define acronyms when they are first used so I don't have to dig through mountains of info on the net. I finally figured out FDR after multiple postings by TurboFan on the eng-tips site, so we can skip that one.



So, since I don't really want to read the last 5 loooong pages of posts just to find out what the real questions are, does someone care to compact them into one or two posts in a concise manner, please?

Thanks!
:welcome2 Welcome, and glad to have you!

Please don't think JREF is about conspiracies only. It's a very small subsection of the forum. It's about teaching people to think rationally, more than anything. There is also an active community section, and other subforums that might interest you. I would hate to have you miss all that just because some nutjob infested your forum.

TexasJack
30th September 2008, 10:49 AM
"Hi mom, it's Mark Bingham! You believe me don't you?"

If you would have bothered researching the mom's explanation of why he said this, and always said this when on the phone, even to his mom, maybe you wouldn't have posted it. BTW, do you have the guts to tell this to his mom, or are you a coward?

WildCat
30th September 2008, 10:59 AM
The thread is gone because a certain moron had to dump BS into the
discussion.

I have a copy of the posts so don't worry too much.
Too bad none of them support you.

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 11:00 AM
Macgyver2000,

the basic premise from those of the conspiratorial bent is that the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) recovered from the wreckage in the Pentagon contains data that puts the aircraft on a grossly different flight path than is defined by the damage pattern on the ground caused by the passage of the aircraft, largely the downed lamp poles along its path.

One part of this contension is that the fact of the recovered data ending several seconds prior to impact must indicative of a cover up of the rest of the data because the corrupted (often misidentified as "missing" or "overwritten") data should in fact have remained uncorrupted in the flash memory of the FDR.

In a previous post of mine here, I wrote;
Ok , we've established that the typical FDAU latency time is the 500ms that TF is fond of quoting, meaning that it takes halfa second for any sensor data to move from sensor , through the FDAU before it even impinges upon the CSMU buffer, the buffer will not write to permanent storage until a full frame has been collected, a full frame is four 64 word subframes IIRC.

So we are looking at a max of 4.5 seconds there are we not? ( or is it 1.5 seconds?) Beachnut?

Let's assume 1.5 seconds. That means that the aircraft was at the wall when the data collected over a 1 second period ending 0.5 seconds ago was about to be written (worst case) and that would have been lost upon loss of power.

Secondly, transients entering the system at this time have greatest access to the write block that is prepared to be written to.

Transients can destroy the storage transistors they reach as well as those that physically reside close to the ones immediatly affected by the transient.

The storage transistors that physically reside close to the ones most directly affected will be the ones that are storing the closest previous write blocks written to.

TF insists that the only way to corrupt data is to write erroneous data over the stored data, ignoring the issue of corruption due to the destruction of a transistor. Such destruction need not even be what one would typically think of as destroyed. The FET's used have a max number of re-writes due to the tendancy of the floating gate to accumulate charge over time. Once it accumulates enough unwanted charge it is useless and will always be a binary '1' (IIRC). A transient may actually simply push that charge to a permanent '1' thus corrupting that data. This will be a function of the number of times a specific gate has changed state and thus some will be more sussecptible to such corruption than others.

The engineering thread is gone now. However as mcgyvers said, TF has been supplied with the ways that data can indeed be corrupted, that is buffer loss, and transient destruction of an area of the die. They cannot be held responsible for his willfull ignorance.

For the record I too have asked around.
The aerospace engineer I am speaking with in a private forum that cannot be linked to states that he has seen several instances of 3 seconds missing from an FDR. He is however not specifically a DFDR specialist. He will attempt to find one in his circle of aquaintences.

The FDR has an interrupt that causes it to stop recording upon detection of a very high g situation, at least in smaller aircraft. Still looking to find out if such is the case for Boeing 7x7 aircraft.

Another interrupt stops the recording upon loss of the aircraft 28Vdc power to the FDR.

A large capacitor in line with the power supply is there to, in theory, supply power long enough for a flushing of data from the buffer and implementing a power down. However, I believe that assumes that the loss of power is accompanied by the supply being an electrical 'open'. A 'short' would discharge that capacitor resulting in currect flow in the opposite direction, just the type of transient one does not want.

In some cases then, when the interrupt is caused by loss of power and the capacitor retains voltage long enough, the FDR can retain all data up to and including data collected after initial impact but in other cases several seconds worth of data can be corrupted (not written over).

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 11:02 AM
JREF members, could we please reduce the noise in this thread and give Macgyver2000 a chance to contribute while not having to go through the conspiracy B$ and instead concentrate on the technical issue at hand.

R.Mackey
30th September 2008, 11:05 AM
Hi guys... I'm the MacGyverS2000 who posts at eng-tips, and the one quoted several times in this thread (both full context and out of context). I will be happy to answer clearly written, non-leading questions about possible causes of data corruption in flash EEPROM, but I have zero interest in seeing my comments taken out of context to further propagandistic BS.


Welcome to the JREF Forum. I had a look at the Eng-Tips forum as well, and it is a nice place; I was sad to see it tarnished with conspiracy drivel.

Basically we are trying to find reasonable explanations for approximately four to six seconds of data missing at the end of AA 77's FDR record. Most of us believe this data is actually missing because the final air data values show AA 77 well on the way to impact, but among other things far too high for actual contact. If we assume that the FDR merely stopped a few seconds before impact, the data matches our story perfectly, and also matches other data such as radar traces, DME (if we take into account its margin of error), and of course witness statements.

One hurdle is that we do not know if the final several seconds are truly missing, or merely corrupted. All we have is an NTSB report, and its verbiage suggests (but does not prove) the NTSB is reporting only on complete and verified frames, i.e. later partial or corrupted frames would not appear in their report at all. Turbofan and some of his friends, who style themselves "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," have apparently acquired a binary data file from NTSB and have at least a partial understanding of how to decode it, although their decode has errors in it that bring its integrity into question.

I've been one of the protagonists. In my opinion, the loss of a few seconds at the end of the record is unremarkable. This is particularly so because the data we do have, notably the wreckage and remains of aircraft and passengers themselves, is quite unambiguous and doesn't depend on the FDR at all. However, restricting to the FDR itself, I speculate the following mechanisms may explain the missing few seconds of data:
Sensor latencies
Packetizing and buffering time
Compression time
Partial frames caused by interruption of power supplies
Data errors caused by spikes on the power bus induced by impact, or damage to DFDR itself due to extreme acceleration
Possible but unlikely interruption of power bus caused by impact with lighter objects prior to impact, such as trees and light standards
Self-protection mechanisms of the DFDR itself
Suggested on the Eng-Tips thread before its demise, operation of Flash requiring a nontrivial block size to be fully populated before the write operation


Since this is one of the few remaining issues the conspiracy theorists have found any traction with at all, it is worth examining. I too am genuinely curious.

As for my background, I am a research scientist at NASA-JPL, and I have worked with aircraft data systems on birds including F/A-18 and 777, but I have no experience with FDR's. I certainly have a lot to learn. Thank you for your participation.

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 11:52 AM
Thank you for taking the time to join us here.

beachnut
30th September 2008, 12:02 PM
Actually, I had the thread dumped for a very specific reason; a reason you specifically acknowledged, and one that had zero to do with what you just now claimed. For those who were not able to view the thread before it was thrown in the virtual round-file, I said it would be trashed strictly because you were not a practicing engineer, the eng-tips fora raison d'ętre.

Hi guys... I'm the MacGyverS2000 who posts at eng-tips, and the one quoted several times in this thread (both full context and out of context). I will be happy to answer clearly written, non-leading questions about possible causes of data corruption in flash EEPROM, but I have zero interest in seeing my comments taken out of context to further propagandistic BS. I'm not going to argue my belief that a plane did or did not hit a building, I'm simply going to answer questions from a scientific perspective. I will also not hang around this site for too long or read other threads as I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist... yes, I'm sure conspiracies do exist, but I would have so little personal information to prove/disprove their existence as to make the exercise futile and a waste of my (mostly) valuable time. Should I need to inject an opinion, rather than obvious fact and/or statistically-proven detail, I will try to list it as such.

Since credentials count for at least a small portion of someone's ability to believe in others, here are mine in a nutshell: I hold a Master's in Electrical Engineering from a top ten university (not a Big Ten, top ten... sports bore me), I have worked in the industry (in one form or another) for over 20 years (and getting paid for that work for almost as many years) as an embedded systems firmware programmer, and prior projects have included such topic-specific code like flash bootloaders. I make mistakes like everyone else, but you better come with the big guns to prove me wrong.

Since I am coming from this topic fresh, I would highly appreciate it if people would define acronyms when they are first used so I don't have to dig through mountains of info on the net. I finally figured out FDR after multiple postings by TurboFan on the eng-tips site, so we can skip that one.



So, since I don't really want to read the last 5 loooong pages of posts just to find out what the real questions are, does someone care to compact them into one or two posts in a concise manner, please?

Thanks!

The plot; no data can be missing from the SSFDR in flight 77.

A favorite statement is a 500 ms requirement for the data to be written to the SSFDR. Required by ED121 (i have to look it up), but the FDR in 77 may be grand fathered under older rules. In fact, it may be systems like 77's FDR that the spec was introduced; (my bs opinion 1).

From the NTSB data base, there are many instances of data missing, not written, etc to the FDR. I can think of reasons, but I am only a EE and a pilots who flew big jets.

Flight 77 may have over 6 seconds missing. But it has at least 3 seconds not listed based on the altitude from the FDR. http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf) this is the report from the NTSB. Flight 77 airframe first flew in 1991.

The speed of the data transfer is the same rate data is collected.

The impact at the Pentagon was 783 feet per second into the walls. The engines were at max temperature full throttle, the plane was past the top speed of 350 KCAS, going 463 KIAS, 534 mph. I wonder if the electrical system was having problems. The electrical panel is just above the center consol, and the terrorist last STICK input before the FDR stopped, would have put anyone's head near the console into the electrical panel.

Is blood conductive? There are dead pilots somewhere bleeding out.

I am not sure how to put the 9/11 truth question. They are trying to say no data can be missing for any reason. As an engineer, I need some of that stuff to give to my next customer. Pure faith.

I have to dig up the specifics on the spec that leads to the no data lost thesis.

welcome, take your time, someone who writes much better may be able to get in a concise summary

X
30th September 2008, 12:26 PM
edit: Nevermind.

I missed a page. Let's give McGuyver a chance to reply before further muddying the waters.

MacGyverS2000
30th September 2008, 12:28 PM
Okay, let's start with a few simplistic calculations, roll in some basic facts about the hardware (as known), and see what that leaves us to work with. These #s will, by necessity, change as everyone gives me more facts or clarifies individual points. Please check my math as I've been known on more than one occasion to accidentally prove 2+2=4.1 (repeating 1, for those math nuts out there).

Assumptions:
1) 12-bit Word
2) 256-Word Frame (includes a sync word of unknown size, let's assume 12 bits, as well)
3) Frames are time-stamped (again, no idea of the format or bit length)
4) 12-bit Words are packed to form 16- or 32-bit Words (I'll assume 32-bit her since the Intel flash mentioned earlier writes more quickly with 32-bit words)
5) A frame is 4 seconds of data

Ignoring the space taken up by the time stamp or sync word, an incoming frame of 256 12-bit words packs nicely into an actual 96 32-bit Words on the flash chip. In a nutshell, every 96 32-bit Words of flash data holds 4 seconds of flight data. If we leave the 12-bit data unpacked (i.e., each 12-bit element occupies a 16-bit location on the flash), we use 128 32-bit Words on the flash chip.



Now, let's take a look at the specific chip mentioned, a common 32/128M chip from Intel. I do not have the datasheet in front of me and I don't remember the part # from the eng-tips thread, but we can work off one of their StrataFlash datasheets until someone digs up the part # again. Should the numbers change with the different part, I will edit this post.

The particular StrataFlash device I'm looking at has a 32-Word write buffer (each a 32-bit Word), which allows for burst of writes to take place (it's more efficient than writing one Word at a time)... there's no guarantee they use that mode in the FDR, but it's available, and a potential area for losing up to 32 Words (roughly 1 second) of data.

Neglecting the smaller boot bocks, the die consists of multiple 32kWord blocks. To write new data to a specific memory location that was previously populated, the entire block must be erased. Using our frame size numbers from above of 128 Words, this says it is guaranteed that (hopefully old) data is erased in 1024 second bursts (32kW / 128W * 4sec = 1024sec). To put it in perspective, that's a potential loss of over 17 minutes of data should the incorrect block of data be erased.

Erasing a block consist of issuing two specific command codes to a memory location within the block to be erased before the actual erase operation will occur. This is obviously to prevent accidental erasures from rogue/buggy programs and the like, but it's not infallible. The memory location, however, is not specific (e.g., it doesn't have to be just the first element in the block), and any valid location within a block will start the erase sequence. For example, suppose the proper sequence for block erasure is entered, but one of the address lines is damaged due to a voltage transient... the command sequence is correct, but you're pointing at an incorrect location in memory. The result? You just toasted 17 minutes of flight data from the wrong block, and there's nothing that says it couldn't be the block you just started filling up 4 seconds ago.

This is only one example of many I could come up with that are likely to cause a loss of previously valid data in flash.

That example was due to voltage transients, but what about physical issues? Suppose the FDR's PCB (printed circuit board) wasn't cleaned properly before assembly, and a ball of solder remained on the board. A good jarring of the system (due to say, hitting a telephone pole) would knock that conductive ball loose, possibly causing it to short two pins on the flash. One pin's voltage level is going to win (laws of physics), forcing them both to the same level (low or high). Result? Incorrect address and/or data, and you're back to the possibility of erasing the wrong block of memory.



Now, I can certainly come up with more scenarios where the flash would lose data (both physcial and electrical causes), but I hope these few are wide enough to show that it can happen. I did not get into how smaller portions of data may get toasted as I figure these scenarios alone would prove that it is at least possible to lose data.

(BTW, both of these scenarios DID happen to me in one fashion or another. A microscopic solder whisker on one board was killing off my data , but only when certain datum were used, for obvious reasons. On a second board, a boogered line driver (due to poor supply transient filtering) was sometimes passing along the correct address, sometimes not... it was random. Yes, random events do happen.)

Bobert
30th September 2008, 12:34 PM
I wonder if for MG's sake maybe we can start a 1 new thread where he can go to address these issues?
It might make it easier on him.
Maybe the thread could be moderated?
Just my 2 and a half cents.
Welcome Mac!
:)

R.Mackey
30th September 2008, 12:40 PM
Yup, that matches my expectations...

One additional point, we know the actual FDR data is Huffmann encoded (per NTSB), so there will be a packing ratio. Since we assume the parameters were well out of normal bounds during the terminal dive the ratio was probably relatively low, since the more common values get packed tighter, so perhaps as little as 2:1 compression ratio. For worst case calculations, we should assume no packing at all (1:1) since that fills the blocks faster and gives us the optimally low amount of vulnerable data.

Also, the sync words are 12-bit, from the reports, one of them per subframe, one subframe per second. Really a surprisingly low amount of sync if you ask me.

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 01:41 PM
Thanks Macgyver. The block erase description is what I have researched
for the flash memory.

So, it's safe to say from your expert analysis that single bits adjacent to
the bits written cannot be altered; but rather blocks of data would be
lost?

With respect to the six seconds of data loss arguement:

Would we have to 'assume' the data would start at the beginning of a block
to lose only six seconds worth?

I can provide the part numbers and data sheets if you like, along with
documentation of the ARINC system if needed.

We also have a fellow who was able to decode the raw FDR data file and can
provide addressing and specifics to the frame counters and data. This might
help you to determine whether a solder ball may have shorted address lines,
or if another scenario is available.

beachnut
30th September 2008, 02:00 PM
With respect to the six seconds of data loss arguement:
a simple power failure could cause

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 02:26 PM
I don't buy the power failure excuse because there was no reason for the
power to be lost until an *impact*.

Also noteworthy are the time stamps (NTSB official impact time vs. FDR data
time stamp) and maximum error for the clock sync is 0.01 seconds as per
ARINC system documentation.

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 02:35 PM
Thanks Macgyver. The block erase description is what I have researched
for the flash memory.

So, it's safe to say from your expert analysis that single bits adjacent to
the bits written cannot be altered; but rather blocks of data would be
lost?

Apparently you missed this
"Now, I can certainly come up with more scenarios where the flash would lose data (both physcial and electrical causes), but I hope these few are wide enough to show that it can happen. I did not get into how smaller portions of data may get toasted as I figure these scenarios alone would prove that it is at least possible to lose data"

With respect to the six seconds of data loss arguement:

Would we have to 'assume' the data would start at the beginning of a block
to lose only six seconds worth?

In the specific senario he posted, not as a hard and fast rule.


I can provide the part numbers and data sheets if you like, along with
documentation of the ARINC system if needed.


The alldatasheets website you posted before (http://www.alldatasheet.com/) But we will require the part # again please. Attempting a link directly to the specific datasheet does not appear to work.

The ARINC data would be nice too. Can we have a direct source rather than a PfT ("Pilot's for 911 Truth") page?

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 02:44 PM
Apparently you missed this

No, I didn't miss it thanks. I'm asking for a clarification and expand
into smaller data loss scenarios. As you can see, 17 minutes doesn't
work with your theory.

The ARINC data would be nice too. Can we have a direct source rather than a PfT ("Pilot's for 911 Truth") page?

Feel free to pay for it like we did. YOu can purchase the full documentation
on the ARINC web site.

https://www.arinc.com/cf/store/index.cfm

MacGyverS2000
30th September 2008, 03:08 PM
So, it's safe to say from your expert analysis that single bits adjacent to
the bits written cannot be altered; but rather blocks of data would be lost?
It would not be safe to say that, as doing so would be akin to saying all vehicles have four wheels because they're the color green... one statement has no bearing on the other.

My previous examples merely showed several different logical ways in which a block of data could be lost. The loss of individual bits was never mentioned in those examples, and therefore it should not be inferred the possibility of that happening is zero. Individual bits / bytes / words can be invalidated under the proper conditions.

With respect to the six seconds of data loss arguement:

Would we have to 'assume' the data would start at the beginning of a block to lose only six seconds worth?
In the case of an incorrect block being erased, yes, that is a valid statement. The beginning of the lost data would have to start at the beginning of the block.

I can provide the part numbers and data sheets if you like, along with documentation of the ARINC system if needed.
It might change the numbers I calculated to some degree, but the underlying theory is still sound. A different chip might show that 9 minutes would be lost rather than 17+, but that wasn't really the point of the exercise. Still, for completeness sake, go ahead and list the part # again.

We also have a fellow who was able to decode the raw FDR data file and can provide addressing and specifics to the frame counters and data. This might help you to determine whether a solder ball may have shorted address lines, or if another scenario is available.
There are plenty of scenarios available, but the original question asked was "Is it possible for flash to lose data due to electrical transients?" I believe I have shown that it is possible in not just one, but many different (and realistic) ways.

I do not see how your friend can provide addressing specifics unless it was included in the original read of the flash... it's possible they included that info, but I doubt it as it would typically only be useful for debunking conspiracy theories. If he has the addresses, however, it should be quite obvious if the start of the data loss appears on a block boundary, so there should be no need for me to view it.

Even if i were to view the data, it would not prove one way or the other if an errant solder ball was the cause. If the lost data did start on a block boundary that was empty, then it's likely an address line error is the cause of data loss.



Now, what about possible bit errors... how could those happen? A program can (erroneously) write to a block of memory that has previously been filled without raising a red flag. Again, we go back to the FUBAR'ed address lines. Barring the erase operation (which sets a block to all ones), bits can only be written to zero, so a write clears the appropriate bits of a Word to zero. Suppose a byte contains the binary value 01101010b, the value as read from the sensor. Due to a bad address line, the same location is written to with the byte 11100111b (maybe data from a different sensor). The memory location now holds the binary value 01100010b. The block still holds data (most of which could still be valid), but that location now contains a bit error... the sensor-read value and flash-read value may (or may not) be close, but it's still an error.

Edit (added this "diagram" for clarity)
01101010b <-- Original value
11100111b <-- Newly written value
--------------
01100010b <-- Resulting value now stored in flash

If a bit was zero in either the original or newly-written value, it becomes a zero in the final value.

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 03:14 PM
No, I didn't miss it thanks. I'm asking for a clarification and expand
into smaller data loss scenarios. As you can see, 17 minutes doesn't
work with your theory.

Somewhat disingenuous of you ol'sport. The 17 minutes represents the data in an erase block IF the erase block happens to be full when it is erased. If a transient caused an erase command to be executed on a block that was being filled then it would erase whatever time period was represented by what had already been saved to the block, any amount of time up to 17 minutes. However he goes to fair lengths to state that this is but one method by which data can be corrupted/erased.

If you are looking for THE specific cause that DID take effect then you are going to be out of luck. IF you are truly looking for an answer about the general case of lost/corrupted/erased data then maybe you will get something out of the discussion.



Feel free to pay for it like we did. YOu can purchase the full documentation
on the ARINC web site.

https://www.arinc.com/cf/store/index.cfm

I'll take that as a 'no direct link'. Ok then, you did state that you would post the specs nonetheless,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 03:26 PM
Due to a bad address line, the same location is written to with the byte 11100111b (maybe data from a different sensor).

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

Analysis of the last seconds of recorded FDR data indicate that power to the FDAU was interrupted. The FDR lost synchronization after word 54 of subframe 3, which corresponds to a time of approximately 0125:39.8. Two words containing 1s and 0s were then recorded, followed by 27 words, most of which contained only 0s. The FDR then regained synchronization, repeating subframe 3, although with updated values. The frame counter was incremented by one, and the recording continued for another partial subframe of 22 valid words (duration of 22/64 of a second), after which the recorder stopped. It was determined that a brief power interruption to the FDAU had occurred between word 54 and the pattern of 0s. When the FDR loses signal input from the FDAU, it continues to record for up to two words (duration of 2/64 of a second), based on tests carried out by the FDR manufacturer.

The FDR will coast through a power outage of up to 400 milliseconds, during which time no recording will take place, even though the recorder is still up and running. When power was restored, a FDAU re-boot was initiated, as indicated by the 27 words of 0s (a duration of 27/64 of a second). The re-boot was considered to be a warm start, in that 0s were recorded without a resetting of the frame counter. A warm start re-boot implies a power interruption of anywhere between 10 and 400 milliseconds. The actual duration of the power interruption was not determined. However, it was most likely at least 2/64 of a second long, in order to have recorded the two non-zero words, representing a loss of FDAU signal. Therefore, following the loss of the FDAU signal, there was no recording of data for a maximum period of up to 0.37 seconds (0.4 minus 2/64).

Based on the pattern of the re-boot and the possible duration of the power interruption, the FDR stopped recording between 1.8 and 2.2 seconds after the FDAU power interruption (see above). The time of FDR stoppage would therefore be somewhere between 0125:41.6 and 0125:42.0.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for your time.

Bobert
30th September 2008, 03:27 PM
I don't buy the power failure excuse because there was no reason for the
power to be lost until an *impact*.
.

And you know this how?

beachnut
30th September 2008, 03:35 PM
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.

Thanks for your time.No, the p4t decode have :43 as the last time, no time stamps at all. Darn, strike 1.

I have a RADAR return at 13:37:47, two second after, and 6 second to fly. There goes your impact time! Strike 2

The p4t decode is missing the second the NTSB decoded and you have no clue why. Why, you ask your experts why they can't do what the NTSB did? You can't, you have no experts. Strike 3

baseball refutes p4t again


So you know all about flying, yet a simple power failure can cause the FDR to stop. What was the EGT of the Engine?

Jonnyclueless
30th September 2008, 03:44 PM
"we have an impact time of
9:37:45"

WRONG. You have the last data being 9:37:45. You have no idea what the impact time is. How many times are you going to keep lying about this despite it being pointed out?

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 03:50 PM
"we have an impact time of
9:37:45"

WRONG. You have the last data being 9:37:45. You have no idea what the impact time is. How many times are you going to keep lying about this despite it being pointed out?

It would be nice if everyone would keep their non technical 2 cents out of
this discussion to prevent a mess of posts to sort through.

The NTSB states the impact time of :45, therefore it's not a lie. It is evidence.


Clarification for Beachnut (mr. semantics). "Up to" does not me "at" :45

The CSV file clearly shows the last full frame recorded at :44

We can get into position and altitude of the aircraft once MacGyver has a
chance to reply.

Caustic Logic
30th September 2008, 04:19 PM
“The time of impact was 9:37:45”
Jim Ritter, NTSB chief of vehicle performance division, Flight Path study, AA77, Feb 19 2002.

Happy? Someone indeed typed those numbers and he signed it. Did you ever ask mr. Ritter how HE knew that was the very moment of the hypothetical impact? Did you miss how he said "moment of impact"? How could it impact from a mile away and 400 feet too high?

The NTSB...

made a mistake!

A few actually!

Yet they're infallible on certain points to you guys - liars in large, truthful on pinpoint issues, eh?

Turbofan
30th September 2008, 04:40 PM
Mr. Logic himself who can't explain other events on that day, but still
believes.

Nonetheless, I will point out that DME (distance measuring equipment)
recorded a value of 1.5 nautical miles, so be careful of how far you place
the aircraft from the Pentagon at that time.

The error on DME is 0.1 nm (maximum)

Jonnyclueless
30th September 2008, 04:42 PM
It would be nice if everyone would keep their non technical 2 cents out of
this discussion to prevent a mess of posts to sort through.

The NTSB states the impact time of :45, therefore it's not a lie. It is evidence.


Clarification for Beachnut (mr. semantics). "Up to" does not me "at" :45

The CSV file clearly shows the last full frame recorded at :44

We can get into position and altitude of the aircraft once MacGyver has a
chance to reply.

it would be nice if you would stop repeating the same false claims. The data stopped at :45. No matter who says the time o impact was at :45, it does not mean that's the actual time of impact. The NTSB, like the rest of the world is not concerned about being accurate down to the second because there is no question about the plane impacting the Pentagon. he's simply making that claim based on the end of data. It does not mean that the plane impacted at :45. And the RADAR data proves beyond any doubt that the plane could not have possibly impacted at :45.

So stop with your idiotic wanna-be ego who thinks you are technically inclined as an auto-mechanic who can't prove his conspiracy theories and expects intelligent people to buy into this whole plane flying over or under the building in front of 1000s of people stupidity.

Grow up mr mechanic. He who claims the NTSB is wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon, while calling them (who are REAL experts and not crackpots like you) incompitent and lazy, but then uses their claim of the impact time as the word of God.

MacGyverS2000
30th September 2008, 05:46 PM
True, but one could verify these numbers as being 'stray' by studying the
previous frames for trends.
Maybe, maybe not... it depends upon the nature of the address line failure, as well as the length of an actual frame. If the frame is a power of 2 in size and the address failure is on the matching line, the data would (might?) show a jump in sensor level once, then all further data points are erroneous. Granted, now we're starting to approach the realm of Ed McMahon showing up at your front door with a check to have all of those items line up so neatly, but it is within the realm of possibility, and it could certainly go unnoticed (particularly if the data stream is noisy).

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.
I cannot speak intelligently on such matters as I have not spent any time poring over the data in question... nor do I have much interest in doing so. I imagine any on-board clock would be quart crystal in nature, and therefore accurate to at least 100ppm over the normal range of temps seen by it. That said, the time stamp would only be accurate from a relative time frame standpoint (i.e., sensor data frame to sensor data frame time would be accurate, not necessarily sensor data frame to some clock on the ground).

My quick review of the report (and I admit it was not in-depth by any sense of the word) says the time mentioned (xx:45) is not necessarily a true impact time, but simple termed "impact" for lack of valid and/or readable/recoverable data after that time stamp. As has been mentioned already by others, a bit of reason has to be applied to reports, so if a plane is sitting in pieces on the lawn of the Pentagon, one has to assume the plane made impact, even if the time stamps are off by a few seconds... if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



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. You haven't lied, as far as I've cared to read posts from the past, but cherry-picking specific lines or taking my discussion to areas they were not intended to go certainly isn't helping your argument. I've attempted to be very specific where necessary but also warn when I'm generalizing... tread lightly in those waters, as I will not allow anyone to "add to" or "modify" my statements and change their true meaning.

ElMondoHummus
30th September 2008, 05:54 PM
Welcome to the forum, MacGyverS2000!


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. You haven't lied, as far as I've cared to read posts from the past, but cherry-picking specific lines or taking my discussion to areas they were not intended to go certainly isn't helping your argument.

... and welcome to dealing with conspiracy peddlers. :D

MacGyverS2000
30th September 2008, 06:05 PM
... and welcome to dealing with conspiracy peddlers. :D
Dealt with plenty of 'em in my life, but as I stated here in my first post... I'll answer questions asked in a clear, concise manner. I'm not here to debate the conspiracy, just act as a so-called "expert" on material I'm intimately familiar with. I have no interest in entering a debate with Turbofan (or anyone else) as to the veracity of any theories, but when the questions start leaving the technical domain and start entering the "conspiracy" domain, I'll be moving along to something more interesting. Frankly, I think I've about answered any statistically-viable possibilities, so I imagine my walking papers aren't that far behind at this point.

Hokulele
30th September 2008, 06:09 PM
Dealt with plenty of 'em in my life, but as I stated here in my first post... I'll answer questions asked in a clear, concise manner. I'm not here to debate the conspiracy, just act as a so-called "expert" on material I'm intimately familiar with. I have no interest in entering a debate with Turbofan (or anyone else) as to the veracity of any theories, but when the questions start leaving the technical domain and start entering the "conspiracy" domain, I'll be moving along to something more interesting. Frankly, I think I've about answered any statistically-viable possibilities, so I imagine my walking papers aren't that far behind at this point.


Thanks for the information, regardless. I certainly appreciated it.

R.Mackey
30th September 2008, 06:22 PM
I have no interest in entering a debate with Turbofan (or anyone else) as to the veracity of any theories, but when the questions start leaving the technical domain and start entering the "conspiracy" domain, I'll be moving along to something more interesting. Frankly, I think I've about answered any statistically-viable possibilities, so I imagine my walking papers aren't that far behind at this point.

Certainly the wise choice. These things go on forever... One of the prominent Truth Movement authors still argues that the United States attacked itself at Pearl Harbor, for crying out loud.

In any case, if it turns out to be a short visit, thanks for your input. You might want to check out the other (read: less contentious) parts of the Forum before you go.

beachnut
30th September 2008, 06:29 PM
It
The NTSB states the impact time of :45, therefore it's not a lie. It is evidence.

Clarification for Beachnut (mr. semantics). "Up to" does not me "at" :45

The CSV file clearly shows the last full frame recorded at :44

We can get into position and altitude of the aircraft once MacGyver has a
chance to reply.
:45 is wrong, :46 is in the NTSB data, how does :46 get in the data when the FDAU is gone? NTSB did zero report of the crash, they only supported the FBI. You can't use a number you can't confirm, you can't confirm the number as impact time. From the 34 G p4t group, I think we get the picture as you cherry pick without think.

So your data from p4t has a last point of :43, with your 500 ms nonsense this makes ipact time :43. Or is your expert decode really missing some data they could not expertly decode and why?

Explain why your decode is missing :44. ?

The NTSB has a :44, so impact time had to be :44.5 or less, or you must take away the 500 ms junk. ? If impact was at :45, there would be data cause you can't have missing data.

So much for bs, here are RADAR positions proving :45 is not impact time; do you need some help with the math?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77farmerRADAR.jpg
Farmer presents some data from multiple RADARs to prove you are using the wrong number. See the :43 RADAR, this is over 6 seconds away. So much for your cherry picking, you actually have to study and work to get the real time of impact.

Be wrong if you must, it is just like your 11.2 G, 10 G and 34 G fiasco.

rwguinn
30th September 2008, 06:34 PM
Dealt with plenty of 'em in my life, but as I stated here in my first post... I'll answer questions asked in a clear, concise manner. I'm not here to debate the conspiracy, just act as a so-called "expert" on material I'm intimately familiar with. I have no interest in entering a debate with Turbofan (or anyone else) as to the veracity of any theories, but when the questions start leaving the technical domain and start entering the "conspiracy" domain, I'll be moving along to something more interesting. Frankly, I think I've about answered any statistically-viable possibilities, so I imagine my walking papers aren't that far behind at this point.
Thank you, MacGyverS2000
You will now, in all likelyhood see yourself referred to as "NWO Shill" and/or "Sheeple" for a while...and misquoted, too.
Check out the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5) subforum. Lots of really interesting things there--much of which I have not a clue on, but fun to listen in (lurk) on

ElMondoHummus
30th September 2008, 07:45 PM
Dealt with plenty of 'em in my life, but as I stated here in my first post... I'll answer questions asked in a clear, concise manner. I'm not here to debate the conspiracy, just act as a so-called "expert" on material I'm intimately familiar with. I have no interest in entering a debate with Turbofan (or anyone else) as to the veracity of any theories, but when the questions start leaving the technical domain and start entering the "conspiracy" domain, I'll be moving along to something more interesting. Frankly, I think I've about answered any statistically-viable possibilities, so I imagine my walking papers aren't that far behind at this point.

That's fair. No one should have to participate any more than they want to, and you've already said your piece quite well. So thank you very much for giving us the benefit of your expertise. It's much appreciated. :)

beachnut
30th September 2008, 08:11 PM
Mr. Logic himself who can't explain other events on that day, but still believes.

Nonetheless, I will point out that DME (distance measuring equipment)
recorded a value of 1.5 nautical miles, so be careful of how far you place
the aircraft from the Pentagon at that time.

The error on DME is 0.1 nm (maximum)

You can't cherry pick numbers out of thin air; accuracy of the DME is 0.23 to 0.35 NM; as in better than ˝ mile. You have no source to refute my numbers. Just talk.

The resolution DME values are stored in the FDR, 0.25 NM. Explain what this means to the value stored? Got math?

In reality the actual distance from DCA is over 1.72 NM and that value was stored in the FDR as 1.5 DME.

The real distance to DCA from 77 was 1.72 NM. The value seen by the DME set in 77 was 1.62, using your made up accuracy, and stored as 1.5 DME.

6 seconds to go for impact.

You don't understand this stuff. Do you? As my grandfather always demonstrated in thought and action, use what they give you son, and we beat them anyway.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77AIMDMEacc.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77fromDCA.jpg
And that blue dot is about 6 seconds to go.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77farmerRADAR.jpg
What altitude do you want to give me?

Bobert
30th September 2008, 08:30 PM
Macgyver illustrates well why the likes of the CIT and PFT rarely venture out of their safe forums and talk to the experts that they have not already labeled as liars and frauds.
I will put all my money on the fact that if MacGyver hadnt posted here that Turbofan would have twisted his words. l

jaydeehess
30th September 2008, 09:01 PM
Macgyver illustrates well why the likes of the CIT and PFT rarely venture out of their safe forums and talk to the experts that they have not already labeled as liars and frauds.
I will put all my money on the fact that if MacGyver hadnt posted here that Turbofan would have twisted his words. l

You'd lose, TF did so even though MG2K did post here.:D

DC
30th September 2008, 09:31 PM
thanks for the input MacGyverS2000, very convincing.

Bobert
30th September 2008, 10:14 PM
You'd lose, TF did so even though MG2K did post here.:D

Yes that is a good point!
:)

WildCat
1st October 2008, 05:02 AM
I don't think there's any room left for more nails in this coffin...

DC
1st October 2008, 05:05 AM
I don't think there's any room left for more nails in this coffin...

It is already after the cremation for TF :D

funk de fino
1st October 2008, 05:28 AM
I think it quite amusing that TF dismissed all the posters in this and other threads as non experts and faceless cowards yet was willing to rely on someone fron another internet forum who is faceless and is not an FDR expert. The data being infallible on solid state is now resigned to the dustbin. How long before the expert who has come here to prove this is cast aside much like others in the past by the PFT/CIT numbskulls.

I only hope Macgyver is treated with a modicum of respect by TF and PFT after this and is not subjected to what some of us have to put up with. I applaud Macgyver for coming here but I advise him to watch himself as we know the MO of Balsamo and his cronies. IP stealing, phone harrassment/recordings and death threats.

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.

Turbofan
1st October 2008, 08:07 AM
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.

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.