It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 48
12
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Also, let it be known we have links to the FAA to show N644AA
was updated prior to 9.11.01 to monitor the FLT DECK DOOR.

registry.faa.gov...

www.boeing.com...

No you don't. You have one link detailing an FAA requirement that FDR's for transport aircraft manufactured on or before Oct 11, 1991 (which would be AA77) must record a minimum of 22 (or 18 if no FDAU) parameter groups, none of which appear to have anything to do with the FLIGHT DECK DOOR.

Furthermore, the very article you cite states -

Most of these airplanes record almost all the 22 parameter groups, some of which operators may ask Boeing to remove to save weight or to avoid maintenance costs if a parameter group is not required by a particular country's regulatory agency. The additional parameter groups required to be recorded include the addition of flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, lateral acceleration, and autopilot engagement status.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by discombobulator]




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



registry.faa.gov...

The changes refered to within this document are reflected in the charts
I posted earlier. Unfortunately, I don't have the document number handy;
it's posted a few pages earlier in this thread if you care to search for it.

www.boeing.com...






[edit on 1-12-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Here are the parameter groups that AA77's FDR was required by FAA regulation to record.

(1) Time;
(2) Pressure altitude;
(3) Indicated airspeed;
(4) Heading--primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record discrete, true or magnetic);
(5) Normal acceleration (Vertical);
(6) Pitch attitude;
(7) Roll attitude;
(8) Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchronization reference;
(9) Thrust/power of each engine--primary flight crew reference;
(10) Autopilot engagement status;
(11) Longitudinal acceleration;
(12) Pitch control input;
(13) Lateral control input;
(14) Rudder pedal input;
(15) Primary pitch control surface position;
(16) Primary lateral control surface position;
(17) Primary yaw control surface position;
(18) Lateral acceleration;
(19) Pitch trim surface position or parameters of paragraph (a)(82) of this section if currently recorded;
(20) Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(85) of this section apply);
(21) Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(86) of this section apply);
(22) Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller airplane);

rgl.faa.gov...



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The second doc you just posted to me doesn't mention N644AA and in fact is headed 757-3, a different model.


The NTSB lists 757-3b as the proper Data Frame Layout to use for N644AA

From P4T


NTSB American Airlines Flight 77 FDR Report
www.ntsb.gov...
[bottom of page 2]

NTSB 757-3b Data Frame Layout as specified in above pdf, and noted in D226A101-3 rev G, [can be downloaded here at Warren's site.]

www.warrenstutt.com...

Both show FLT DECK DOOR parameter.


As explained repeatedly in this thread. FLT DECK DOOR is not a required parameter. 22 Parameters are required by the FAA. American Airlines record and the NTSB show 360 Validated in the NTSB pdf with even more under "not working or unconfirmed". FLT DECK DOOR is one of them, Radar Altitude another.

Pressure Altitude is listed under Validated parameters by the NTSB, is a required parameter by the FAA, and shows too high to hit the Pentagon.

End of story.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Alfie1
 



registry.faa.gov...

The changes refered to within this document are reflected in the charts
I posted earlier. Unfortunately, I don't have the document number handy;
it's posted a few pages earlier in this thread if you care to search for it.

www.boeing.com...

Thank you for that and I think I have read the whole thread. However, I still haven't seen anything to substantiate your assertion that N644AA was upgraded to include monitoring the Flt Deck Door.

I appreciate that there was an FAA directive in 1997 to increase parameters but in the Boeing doc. you posted it said, referring to the 757 amongst others, "Most of these airplanes record almost all the 22 parameters groups."

If N644AA required any upgrade surely it would have been to meet the compulsory requirements as detailed in the same doc :- "Flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, lateral acceleration and auto-pilot engagement status."

The position seems to me to be therefore that there is nothing to show that N644A was ever upgraded to include Flt Deck Door monitoring . The supposed data in the FDR indicating the door is always closed is in fact non-data because the plane was never wired up to record it.

I would just add that, contrary to suggestions I have seen, it is clear that the Flt Deck Door parameter was not required by the FAA pre911 and I think that is hardly surprising. The possible status of the door has now assumed an importance out of all proportion. However, pre-911, I would have expected most people to consider the opening and shutting of the cockpit door to be about as important as how often the lavatory seat went up and down.

However, I will still be interested in seeing any evidence which suggests this parameter was included.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Thank you for that and I think I have read the whole thread. However, I still haven't seen anything to substantiate your assertion that N644AA was upgraded to include monitoring the Flt Deck Door.

I appreciate that there was an FAA directive in 1997 to increase parameters but in the Boeing doc. you posted it said, referring to the 757 amongst others, "Most of these airplanes record almost all the 22 parameters groups."

If N644AA required any upgrade surely it would have been to meet the compulsory requirements as detailed in the same doc :- "Flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, lateral acceleration and auto-pilot engagement status."

The position seems to me to be therefore that there is nothing to show that N644A was ever upgraded to include Flt Deck Door monitoring . The supposed data in the FDR indicating the door is always closed is in fact non-data because the plane was never wired up to record it.

I would just add that, contrary to suggestions I have seen, it is clear that the Flt Deck Door parameter was not required by the FAA pre911 and I think that is hardly surprising. The possible status of the door has now assumed an importance out of all proportion. However, pre-911, I would have expected most people to consider the opening and shutting of the cockpit door to be about as important as how often the lavatory seat went up and down.

However, I will still be interested in seeing any evidence which suggests this parameter was included.


Alfie,

My hat's off to you.

You express an extraordinary, unreasonable amount of civility & calm rationality in the face of a mountain of wild, unsupported speculation and intentional misinterpretation of your clear requests.

Just about the exact same level of civility & calm rationality that I used to express. Oh... about 3 years ago.

Just a bit of a head's up that it's a bit of a rocky road ahead.

Unless you already know that & are just faking it. In which case, my hat's off and I bow with great respect to your Truther-fu.



TomK

PS. In the (now estimated to be unlikely) case that you are just starting down that path, I'd give you three more chances to ask your unreasonably reasonable questions ... before you're labeled a shill & a disinfo agent.

PPS. It is utterly astonishing how intolerent people who are "just asking questions" are of other people "just asking awkward & annoying questions".

PPPS. And would someone please tell me what a "GL" stands for.
LoL. Excuse me, that was poorly phrased.

Would someone please inform me for what term of civil respect Truthers employ the acronym "GL".

[Sorry, ended that first sentence in a preposition. My old English teacher would have been aghast.

"This is the sort of semantic pedantry up with which we shall NOT put!"]


[edit on 1-12-2009 by tomk52]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by tomk52
"Little boy" was NOT a personal attack.

Yes it was. You fail to see this is your problem, not mine. I assure you.



Originally posted by tomk52
Tell me, tezza. What's the basis for YOUR judgments?

I haven't made any judgements about the alleged FDR records showing the door being CLOSED.

Why would you state that I had?


tezzajw

Unlike Lloyde and the pole in his cab, which you kept going on for ever was not proved in your view, this is a proposal from your side i.e. Pf9/11t.

The proposal is that the FDR of AA77 shows that the flight deck door was closed throughout the flight. As that has been proposed, and you appear to support it, it is incumbent on you to prove it.

Your problem is, it seems to me, is that unlike Lloyde where there was evidence, you don't have any evidence at all.

I have seen you over at Pf9/11t exhorting the troops as to how to handle this and I was disappointed to see that it didn't include anything about finding out the truth.

So far as I am aware the facts are these :-

Boeing 757 ( N644AA ) was manufactured in 1991. At that time it did not have a capability to record status of the flight deck door.

In 1997 there was an FAA directive requiring further FDR parameters to be recorded. Specifically regarding flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, lateral acceleration and autopilot engagement status. Flight Deck Door was not a required parameter.

Zero evidence has been produced that N644AA was ever upgraded to include the Flight Deck Door parameter. The fact that no signal was recorded in 42 hours of recording is powerful support that it never was included.

You are obviously intelligent enough to understand the implications of all this so how about trying to confirm the truth for a change. I am quite ready to look at any evidence that N644AA was upgraded to include the flight deck door monitoring but I haven't seen anything yet.















Originally posted by tomk52
I don't have any "responsibility" to provide you with shyte, son.

Personal attack noted with the circumvention of the swear-word censor also noted. Keep it up and your time on ATS will be short. The Moderators do watch for that kind of stuff. You should know, you've had one warning already.

If you don't know for certain, with a 100% confident reason, then just admit to it, rather than deflect from it.

98% sure still leaves room for you to be wrong. Would a self alleged 35 year project engineer be satisfied having a subjective 2% chance for being totally wrong?




Originally posted by tomk52
Tell ya what, kid. You answer MY questions about how the pilots swapped without opening the door.

If that's what you claimed they did, then that's for you to demonstrate. I really don't see how this tangent helps you explain the alleged FDR door reading.

At this point in time, tomk52, the situation is that the alleged FDR data shows the door CLOSED. You have yet to explain the reason for this with 100% certainty. I have not seen anyone explain it with 100% certainty.

Perhaps it won't take long for someone to figure it out. I'm sure there are lots of official government story believers out there, right now, checking their data to make sure the government got it right.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Now, for the 85% probable reason that the door registered "closed"...

(I said 98% before, that was too high. 80 - 90% is about right. And, yes, kid. I can comfortably live with 1%, 2% or 15% uncertainty in a provably inconsequential, irrelevant factoid like this.)

By the way, your "if you find any tiny detail of the OCT wrong, you have to throw out the whole thing" was comedy gold. Good work.)

The reason that it registers "Closed" is ... ta da ... "good engineering practice" & "force of habit".

The good engineering practice is "don't let data input lines float". Tie them either high or low, so the inputs aren't bouncing all over the place, generating hash throughout your circuit.

And the "force of habit" is that EE's reflexively tie unused inputs low.

I'd bet a six-pack with anyone here that the schematic will show that all unused inputs were tied LOW with pull down resistor INSIDE the box.

Of course, this leaves exactly the problem that we have here. You can't tell the difference in a bi-state input between "unused" and "closed". And the door stays closed most of the time.

If I were redoing the specs, then I'd suggest that they implement a policy that they tie all inputs to the LEAST likely state. That way, there would be more evidence (not proof. Evidence) in the data as to whether or not the circuits were wired.

As it is, none of Turbo's data proves anything about N644AA. As the genteel & civil Alfie has stated (so civilly & genteely), "without a work order with "N644AA" A/C number attached, there is zero evidence that this airplane was modified".

And a substantial amount of evidence that the door position indicator was NOT wired to the FDR.

TomK


[edit on 1-12-2009 by tomk52]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Ahh, this is hilarious...

In an attempt to save the chillun' over at PffT a bunch of embarrassment & muck-around, I attempted to post the following message there.



This is just a demonstration to show exactly how "tolerant of diverse opinions" this site's admin is.

If you guys are really looking for the answer to this question, here is (IMHO) the most probable explanation BY FAR.

The reason that it registers "Closed" is ... ta da ... "good engineering practice" & "force of habit".

[Added in is substantially the same info in my post above. -tk]

As it is, none of Turbo's documentation proves anything about N644AA without a work order with "N644AA" A/C number attached.

And there is a substantial amount of evidence that the door position indicator was NOT wired to the FDR.

[With the following points that just occurred to me. -tk]

A couple more points:

1. Standard practice on DAQ systems is to tie unused input channels low with a pull down resistor. When you later install the equipment to use that channel, you'd disconnect & discard that resistor while hooking up the new input leads. Again, standard engineering practice.

2. The above would explain why no "data faults" would have been registered anywhere.

3. It has been suggested by some that "the very fact that the data input channel was on the plane & labeled requires that the channel be hooked up". This is silly.

If this situation were true (i.e., every single channel on the FDR had to be wired), then each time a new piece of information was added to the list of required data (by the FAA) or merely desired data (by the airline), then a whole new hardware qualification & fleet-wide hardware replacement program would be required. With one (or a couple) of channels added each time.

Data input channels are cheap. Any engineer who was performing a fleet-wide upgrade of FDR systems would automatically put in many, many extra, cheap input channels to allow future enhancements to the data acquired without having to go thru another fleet-wide hardware replacement each & every time new info was needed.

4. Boeing standardized to this new FDR system (from L3, IIRC) across their fleet. Some later model planes were pre-wired for lots of sensors (such as the cockpit door). Those planes got this FDR with this channel labeled for the cockpit door. Earlier model planes, like N644AA, were not wired for that door, but were retrofitted with EXACTLY THE SAME FDR. (Which had the same coding on the data inputs.) As mentioned above, there was no FAA mandate to wire the plane for the cockpit sensor (or about 100 other sensors), so Boeing didn't. They left the unused data inputs tied low. And the current tempest-in-a-techno-teapot is the result.

All of this is my conjecture based upon my experience with other DAQ (Data Acquisition) systems and some engineering judgment. Check it out, boys. I bet, at the end of the day, I'm right on all counts.

You can thank me later for saving you an enormous amount of embarrassment & muck-around time.



TomK



Only to find that Cap'n Robby has disabled my ability to post, and then my account entirely, WHILE WATCHING me prepare the post...!! (He's admitted before tracking me as I moved around the board, reading threads. Paranoid much, Robby?)

THIS is the SOP of a guy who is "seeking the truth"????

Nope. This is the SOP of an insecure little mind that cannot abide differing opinions. Who has precisely ZERO interest in the truth.

By the way, Robby... You're not astute enough to pick up on this on your own, so I'll help you. You just gave yourself away. AGAIN. This is the ONLY place that you & I have crossed swords since you branded me a "Liar" and suspended my account for POLITELY disagreeing with you on your PffT site. Your Insta-Ban proves, again, that your the "R_Mackey" poser.

Nice goin', sport.



TomK



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
If I were redoing the specs, then I'd suggest that they implement a policy that they tie all inputs to the LEAST likely state. That way, there would be more evidence (not proof. Evidence) in the data as to whether or not the circuits were wired.



Wow Tom, what a coincidence, almost the same was said at P4T.


we have verified Warrens data for the last flight only, the alleged hijacking on Sept 11, it shows the door closed.

Some have made the claim that the rest of the data also shows the door closed for the entire time. We at P4T do not have the resources at this time to verify that additional data. But again, we did verify the last flight through our own decode. In the future, we may be able to verify the rest.

As we know, those who make excuse for the govt story will believe anything they're told if it supports their beliefs. None of them have verified the ADDITIONAL 40 hours of data. They just take it at face value because it MAY support their agenda.

Keep in mind, if the data all showed 1's, meaning door open, we can definitively say the data is erroneous, as there is no way the cockpit door would be open for 40 hours of passenger service at American Airlines. And if logic has any value, this would be the bit value recorded if the FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter wasn't hooked up to the system so when a tech reviews the data, he can readily admit its not valid.

But the fact is the data shows all 0's for the last flight and verified by P4T. This means the door was closed for that flight and the hijacking impossible BASED ON THE DATA. The NTSB/FBI are the only ones who are able to, and need to, explain this alarming conflict.

All else is speculation and theory.

Again, this data not PROOF of anything as I mentioned on page one of this thread where i stated "...we can not confirm or deny the authenticity of the data as provided by the NTSB". All we know for a FACT, is that the data being provided by the NTSB to the American public through the FOIA does NOT support the govt story, once again. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.


Looks like you and P4T agree on something, imagine that.



[edit on 1-12-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
Only to find that Cap'n Robby has disabled my ability to post,


Well, reading through your attacks on this very thread on Balsamo and P4T in general, or anyone who questions the govt story for that matter, can anyone blame him?

Are we supposed to think you were polite at P4T forum, but only limited your venom to other forums?

Perhaps try the Debate forum. I believe they limit trolls to only post there.

And yes, we know, I'm Rob, Turbofan was Rob too for quite some time. I think tezzajw was Rob at one point as well We're ALL Rob! We surround you!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Breath taking in its stupidity, its sloppiness & its sheer density of "WTF??".

Sorry. This is gonna take a couple of segments to address completely.


Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
If I were redoing the specs, then I'd suggest that they implement a policy that they tie all inputs to the LEAST likely state. That way, there would be more evidence (not proof. Evidence) in the data as to whether or not the circuits were wired.


Wow Tom, what a coincidence, almost the same was said at P4T.



Keep in mind, if the data all showed 1's, meaning door open, we can definitively say the data is erroneous, as there is no way the cockpit door would be open for 40 hours of passenger service at American Airlines. And if logic has any value, this would be the bit value recorded if the FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter wasn't hooked up to the system so when a tech reviews the data, he can readily admit its not valid.


Looks like you and P4T agree on something, imagine that.


My reply:

Are you a complete idiot?
Are you illiterate?

First off, there is NO "PfffT believes ...". There is "Rob Balsamo believes ...". Or there is banishment from PffT. The typical behavior of craven intellectuals cowards throughout history.

Just like you cancelled my membership this morning, Rob. Because you're terrified of dissent.
LMAO.

So, I'll leave out the "PffT believes ...".
Instead I'll be precisely accurate: "You believe..."

Let's start with the basics:

PffT believes and states crap.
I believe & state valid engineering principles. Which is the exact opposite of crap.
___

Now that the basics have been addressed, let's get to the particulars.

I will use copy & pastes, and ellipses, and carefully not change the meaning of any of the phrases in your post.

The first 4 issues are the ones that you specifically highlighted.

1. You believe that "(if) the data all showed 1's, (that would mean that the) door (was) open".
I believe the opposite: the data showing all 1's would mean that the input was tied high, not low.

2. You believe that "if the data all showed 1's, meaning door open, we can definitively say the data is erroneous".
I believe the opposite. The data is not erroneous no matter which UNCHANGING data it showed. It would have to be changing to have the possibility of being erroneous.

3. You believe that "if logic has any value, (a logical 1) would be the bit value recorded if the FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter wasn't hooked up to the system".
I believe the opposite. I believe that a logical 0 means that the sensor is not hooked up. I believe that "if logic has any value..." is your baseless, ignorant speculation. I believe that a "logic 0" is the default condition chosen by 99.99% of all EEs for unused logical inputs.

4. You believe that [an unconnected Logical 1 value would allow] "... a tech [who] reviews the data [to] readily admit [admit? Do you mean "recognize"? "determine"?] its not valid.".
I believe the that this is incompetent engineering. I believe that hooking it up this way & reading all "1s" would give the tech a strong SUGGESTION that the sensor was not hooked up. I believe that the ONLY COMPETENT way to determine the facts of the case are to examine the specific maintenance history file on that specific plane.

(Which, everyone should note, is precisely what you & Turbo & your rest of your gaggle of incompetents is NOT doing.)

So, with regard to the specific points that your "unique" interpretation of the world decided that I "agreed with PffT", you are a whopping:

ZERO for 4

[End Part 1]

[edit on 1-12-2009 by tomk52]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
[Part 2]

Let's move on to the rest of the post, and see if you do any better, shall we?


5. You believe that rational people "take (the gov't story) at face value because it MAY support their agenda".
I believe the opposite. Rational people challenge everything. Hard. And the "govt's story" has stood up because every time it has been examined by experts in their own fields, those experts have found the story substantiated by the hard evidence. And falsified by no evidence. This applies to all fields, not just the aviation field. It especially applies in my field - mechanical engineering.

6. You believe that "Warrens data for the last flight only ... shows the door closed".
I believe the opposite. The data does NOT show the door closed. It doesn't register the door at all.

7. You believe that "the data (was) verified by P4T".
I believe the opposite. I believe that the data was verified by Warren Stutt. You guys came along after the party was over.

8. You believe that "the data shows all 0's for the last flight and ... This means the door was closed".
I believe the opposite. That the data does not reflect the position of the door.

9. You believe that "The NTSB/FBI are the only ones who are able to ... explain this alarming conflict".
I believe the opposite. The NTSB & FBI are incapable of explaining this phenomenon. The engineers at Boeing are.

10. You believe that "The NTSB/FBI are the only ones who ... need to ... explain this alarming conflict".
I believe the opposite. That there is nothing here to explain. And if Boeing decides to ignore you idiots completely, I have precisely ZERO problem with that. Because answering bozos stupid questions only encourages MORE bozos to ask MORE stupid questions.

11. Oh yeah...
You believe that there exists an "alarming conflict".
I believe the opposite.

12. You believe that "the data shows all 0's for the last flight ... means ... the hijacking impossible".
I believe the opposite. Self explanatory.

13. You believe that a hijacking is impossible "BASED ON THE DATA".
I believe the opposite. That all the data PROVES a hijacking.

14. You believe that "All we know for a FACT, is that the data being provided by the NTSB to the American public through the FOIA does NOT support the govt story".
I believe the opposite. Self explanatory.

15. You believe that "All else is speculation and theory".
You are implying in this statement that what you have offered is something OTHER THAN "speculation & theory".
I believe the opposite. It is ONLY speculation.
It is 100% fact-free & 100% validation-free, and therefore does not rise to the abject minimum standards required to be considered a theory.

16. You believe that "this data (is) not PROOF of anything".
I believe you are playing games. ONE paragraph ago, you stated "This means the door was closed for that flight and the hijacking impossible BASED ON THE DATA." Now you're say, "the data is not proof of anything".
Cake. Eat it. 2.

17. You believe that "The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment".
I believe the opposite. I believe that their statement "no comment" was, in engineering terms, clear and admirably concise. I speak engineering. Allow me to translate: "Get lost, ya bunch of paranoid amateurs."
Happy to assist you with that one. No charge.

So, if we tally it all up, Robby, it looks like PffT is a whopping:
ZERO for 17 ...!

Oops. Forgot one.

18. You believe that "Looks like you and P4T agree on something".
I believe the opposite.

Make that: ZERO for 18 ...!

Only a person with an epistemology as utterly dysfunctional as yours could have concluded that I agreed with you bozos on any of this.

But is IS typical of the tortured (il)logic that you produce daily.

TomK

PS Banned anyone ELSE this morning, Robby?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The R_Mackey poseur attributed this to some unknown person at PfT:


Some have made the claim that the rest of the data also shows the door closed for the entire time. We at P4T do not have the resources at this time to verify that additional data. But again, we did verify the last flight through our own decode. In the future, we may be able to verify the rest.

As we know, those who make excuse for the govt story will believe anything they're told if it supports their beliefs. None of them have verified the ADDITIONAL 40 hours of data. They just take it at face value because it MAY support their agenda.

I'm not entirely sure whether to believe that. After all,
the poseur could have invented the above just to make PfT
look bad.

If the fake R_Mackey's attribution is accurate, however,
then someone at PfT doesn't understand that it's easier
to decode the entire file than to extract only its final
flight.

By making his programs public, Warren Stutt has ended any
monopoly PfT may have thought it enjoyed with respect to
decoding the binary FDR data. PfT is welcome to believe
that CSV files produced by its own decoder software are
more credible than CSV files produced by the software
Warren has made available for public scrutiny. OTOH...

Anyone can use Warren's programs to extract CSV files from
the binary FDR file, which is also public. 911files has
already posted a link to a simple CSV file that contains
every value of the FLT DECK DOOR parameter for every flight.
Here's another such link, with a few more fields thrown in:
www.ccs.neu.edu...

You don't have to trust me. Run Warren's program. Examine
Warren's source code. Verify that Warren's program responds
appropriately when the binary input file is altered.

Will



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The proposal is that the FDR of AA77 shows that the flight deck door was closed throughout the flight. As that has been proposed, and you appear to support it, it is incumbent on you to prove it.

Alfie1, you really need to read my posts and stop your assumptions about what I believe/support.

Look what you did, when you presumed something false about me... it invalidates the rest of your reply and makes you appear to be grasping for something that is not there.

How about sticking with the facts and following from there, shall we?

Do you agree or disagree that at this point in time, the alleged FDR data shows the flight deck door always being CLOSED?

If you disagree, then please explain your reasons.

If you agree, then the next question, that I have been asking people in here is: Why does the alleged FDR data show the flight deck door being closed? I've had self alleged project engineers not give me a definitive answer, so it is a valid question.

I do hope that you learn to read posts, Alfie1 and not inject your personal bias against what you think a person has typed. It doesn't reflect too well on you when you do that.



Originally posted by Alfie1
I have seen you over at Pf9/11t exhorting the troops as to how to handle this and I was disappointed to see that it didn't include anything about finding out the truth.

Oh, Alfie1, your extreme bias is noted and should be framed. You clearly can not read a post properly. I made a specific point that everything needs to be validated, checked and proven 100% before any claims can be made. Of course, you ignore this. You discard the rational questions that I ask to validate the truth of the alleged FDR's reading.

Alfie1 you have exposed your poor comprehension and lack of critical thinking skills with your ill-conceived attack against me.

Please, continue it if you wish. You will only trip up more often as you try.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
Now, for the 85% probable reason that the door registered "closed"...

Let me know when you're at that 100% stage, ok?

Until then, I'll keep reading about your best guesses.

Maybe one of them will be correct. Who knows?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
Only to find that Cap'n Robby has disabled my ability to post,


Well, reading through your attacks on this very thread on Balsamo and P4T in general, or anyone who questions the govt story for that matter, can anyone blame him?


"... attacks on Balsamo ..."

Rob, puh-leeze.

If you had been civil to me, you would have found a very cordial, polite guy responding. (Although politely and firmly disagreeing. And insisting on rigorous examination of the facts from everyone. Including, of course, from myself.) I'm "old-school", remember. That's how I was taught - and prefer - to treat everyone.

The moment you (especially) and your little pack of sycophants started insulting me, solely for my "crime" of disagreeing with you, it turned ugly fast & went downhill.

Well, substantially more downhill for you. Because, unlike you, I know what I'm talking about, I've witnessed in my career far more technical spanking than you'll ever imagine & I'm better at the internet insults than you are.

The last is a totally lame talent, I'll admit. But useful at times...

TomK



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
I've taken you kids by your little hands, walked you thru the woods of confusion and pointed you in the PRECISE direction to clear up your "closed door" nonsense.

Ignoring your insults and rants, which are the bulk of your posts, it's great to see that you have offered your 85% opinion on why the alleged FDR data read the door being CLOSED.

You may be right. How will you be able to confirm that you are correct? What procedure would a self alleged project engineer use to determine the validity of your claims?



Originally posted by tomk52
My job, like my patience, is done.

Since when has posting on ATS been a 'job'? If your patience is done, take a break from the screen. You don't want to type something that you'll regret.



Originally posted by tomk52
Yet, you won't take the initiative. Thereby demonstrating that you don't care one iota for "The Truth". And instead cling desperately to "The Twoof" ™.

How can I take the initiative when I don't know how to read the FDR data? That's why I post here, asking people like you, for a definitive answer to the puzzle. If all I get is 85%, then that's all I'm getting.

Your abuse of the term truth has also been noted. It looks like you should have taken a break from the screen before you posted...

[edit on 1-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
The purpose of this post is to ask some questions to further clarify my own understanding of this information in the hopes of being able to explain it to other people. I am sorry if these questions have been sufficiently addressed already, but I have read many forums the last few days and have not been able to confirm some of this information.

I understand that the FDR was upgraded on Flight 77 to be able to record the FLT_D_DOOR (FLT_DECK_DOOR) value according to the new FDR law in 1997.

1997 FDR Law

I have also been able to find the new required data parameters for the FDR as a result of this law on the government’s Code of Federal Regulations website (an increase from roughly 17 to 91 parameters.)

Cod e of Federal Regulations

However, I am not able to link one of these 91 required data parameters to the actual FLT_DECK_DOOR field. I am assuming that this FLT_DECK_DOOR data field is part of one of these 91 data parameters that are required to be recorded? If so, does anyone know which one?

What this boils down to is this; can we confirm 100% that there was an actual sensor installed on that door? I know that the FDR was required in some way to be able to record values for the door sensor, and that the specific port it used to record the data was used to record other data that the NTSB validated as correct (so we know the FDR and the port were working,) but can we prove through actual documentation that there was an actual sensor on that door (either through the documented mechanical history of this particular plane or through federal regulations mentioned above)?

Also, can we confirm 100% that the sensor wire was not grounded and was therefore reporting 0 the whole time (or malfunctioning in some other way?) From some of the posts I’ve read on the technical side about the sensor, this seems like a plausible explanation (that the FDR was capable of recording FLT_DECK_DOOR but they didn’t want to go through the trouble of actually installing the sensor on the door so they just grounded the wire.) I know some posts have casually addressed this issue, but I am looking for more technical proof or evidence that can stand up to intense skepticism.

Thank you for reading this, and for those of you investigating and pouring all of your time and energy into this effort, you have my utmost respect and admiration regardless of what truly happened that day.




top topics



 
12
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join