New FDR Decode

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 




Pretty funny, SP.

But, I suppose I'd better reiterate that the serial numbers in question here are the ones missing from the FBI-provided FDR data. From what I have been able to gather, those numbers are almost always encoded in the digital data in addition to a stamp on the box itself. But mysteriously in all cases, the FBI failed to provide any of them.

I could almost understand if it was just on one plane. But it was on ALL the FDRs provided, making that an extremely unlikely possibility that all serial numbers everywhere were destroyed because of the impacts. Now if that doesn't spell coverup, I don't know what does. There is more on that in the thread I posted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I could almost understand if it was just on one plane. But it was on ALL the FDRs provided, making that an extremely unlikely possibility that all serial numbers everywhere were destroyed because of the impacts. Now if that doesn't spell coverup, I don't know what does. There is more on that in the thread I posted.


Why would the serial numbers be destroyed because of the impacts?

You people just can't get over the fact that you are not important enough to be given those serial numbers by the FBI. To risk a tad bit of moral equivalency here, who are YOU (and/or PfT and/or Cit and/or etc) to demand such information? You are nothing more than fodder for online entertainment in forums such as this, so why SHOULD the FBI or anyone, for that matter, give you anything?.

To simply say "To prove the aircraft were real" would really be one of the most absurd reasons for wanting those serial numbers, so I can see why your huffy indignation and making up stories and lies about why you can't get that information is your best tactic.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



Pretty funny, SP.


No, actually it wasn't "funny" at all!

You see, the implication there, unstated but inferred, is that the recorder was found 'AS IS' in that exact spot...obviously, to anyone with a semblance of intellectual honesty, it had been moved for that photo opportunity.

Yet, those 'others' chortle childishly at the photo...as if it's some sort of "smoking gun" evidence or something.

Tragic.
___________________________________________________________

OH! And, by-the-by, that was the remains of the CVR....NOT the SSFDR.

As I recall, the CVR from AAL 77 was unusable........




[edit on 28 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Here is an alleged photo from the official US Department of Defense Pentagon 911 book of the alleged FDR planted on some guy's footprints. Perhaps you can see a serial number?



Hello Mr. Preston ~

I'm curious, who have you contacted to confirm the validity of this photograph? So often, members of this forum are very quick to dismiss evidence without doing the proper research. From what I understand from your post, is that this FRD was perhaps planted by the perpetrators of 911? You are accusing the government of planting this. When do you think this FDR was planted? How was it planted? Was it prior to the secret bombs going off? Was it afterwards?

Have you contacted Tom & Jean O'Conner? They were in charge of setting up evidence recovery.

Jason Lyon? He was in charge of the composite crew in the C-Ring. Perhaps he saw something? There is also Chris Cox of the composite crew. There is TRT squad leader Dan Fitch. Paul Marshal? Maybe you can contact Brian Roache of Truck 105 the first vehicle to arrive post impact. He would be able to assist you I am sure. Ask him if he saw someone with a big box of plane parts running around and planting them!

Have you contacted the photographer of this photograph you posted? Jennifer Farmer and Jennifer Hill were both in charge of documenting evidence and photographing it.

Finally, there is Mark Whitworth, he organized the search for the black boxes and other evidence.

Please let me know how you make out in seeking the truth!

Sincerely,

Dr.P



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
You people just can't get over the fact that you are not important enough to be given those serial numbers by the FBI.


Apparently the NTSB wasn't important enough either. Because they are the ones that were procured by the FBI to handle the data extraction of all the FDRs. And I don't believe the NTSB would have any reason to withhold those serial numbers. They didn't publish them because they didn't get them.

Open mouth, insert foot. Except in this case, I think you inserted your whole leg up your own rear instead of your mouth.

Your attempts to make all the people investigating this feel like they don't matter at all are infuriating, yes- I'll give you that. But your own stupidity in the process provides the necessary comic relief to deal with it rather easily.

And apparently FOIA laws aren't important either to the FBI, because the FOIA request for those serial numbers was summarily denied, without legal precedent, and for no rational reason whatsoever. Unless you consider "the people filing the FOIA request are not important enough" a rational reason. Why would I not be surprised if you did?


*Latest tactic noted*



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



...because the FOIA request for those serial numbers was summarily denied, without legal precedent...


Tell us, what would you do with the S/Ns?

Would you contact the manufacturer of the recorders? Boeing? The FAA?


How would you be certain that what THEY gave you was correct information?

Do you see, yet? This sort of paranoia can go very, very deep.....



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Apparently the NTSB wasn't important enough either. Because they are the ones that were procured by the FBI to handle the data extraction of all the FDRs. And I don't believe the NTSB would have any reason to withhold those serial numbers. They didn't publish them because they didn't get them.


Ummm....yeah.....the disclaimer from the NTSB Accident Database on the 9/11 aircraft states:


The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


What was that you said? "I don't believe the NTSB would have any reason to withhold those serial numbers."? Still stand by that statement?


And apparently FOIA laws aren't important either to the FBI, because the FOIA request for those serial numbers was summarily denied, without legal precedent, and for no rational reason whatsoever. Unless you consider "the people filing the FOIA request are not important enough" a rational reason. Why would I not be surprised if you did?


Its not that you are just not important enough, its mostly because the reasons you want them are absurd and a waste of government time, effort and money. I know the FOIA requests don't ask for a rationale on why you want such-and-such information (I think they should) but whatever reason they deem is important enough you keep you people in your apoplectic state is fine by me.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
So yes, I repeat, PA is highly inaccurate for these purposes. Or at least I call a difference of 80 feet a significant difference.


80' difference between a corrected barometric altimeter indication and field elevation (known reference point) is OUT OF TOLERANCE for flight. The limit is 75'. The bench test limit for a radar altimeter is 1'.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files
So yes, I repeat, PA is highly inaccurate for these purposes. Or at least I call a difference of 80 feet a significant difference.


80' difference between a corrected barometric altimeter indication and field elevation (known reference point) is OUT OF TOLERANCE for flight. The limit is 75'. The bench test limit for a radar altimeter is 1'.


What is interesting (or funny, depending on how you look at it) is how the PfT Crowd are in the middle of their World Trade Center aircraft campaign, saying the aircraft would have fallen apart with wings ripping off at 450 knots, doomsaying all sorts of bad things.

Now we have Turbofan telling us that the pressure/barometric altimeter will be working perfect - like a champ! - in this low altitude/high speed/dense atmospheric environment.

What is it!! Will the wings rip off? Or will the aircraft be working perfectly? Make up your mind!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

posted by SPreston

Here is an alleged photo from the official US Department of Defense Pentagon 911 book of the alleged FDR planted on some guy's footprints. Perhaps you can see a serial number?


posted by ImAPepper

Hello Mr. Preston ~

I'm curious, who have you contacted to confirm the validity of this photograph? So often, members of this forum are very quick to dismiss evidence without doing the proper research.



Why don't you amble on down to your local US Department of Defense outlet and purchase you own personal copy of the official Pentagon 911 book and check for yourself if that alleged photo labeled by the Defense Department as the flight data recorder is contained within it?



Your very own John Farmer (911files) allegedly copied those photos out of the Pentagon 911 book and filed them online for our use.

Pentagon 911 book photos

Perhaps you have reason to believe he is a fraud and a liar?




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Why don't you amble on down to your local US Department of Defense outlet and purchase you own personal copy of the official Pentagon 911 book and check for yourself if that alleged photo labeled by the Defense Department as the flight data recorder is contained within it?


Hello again Mr. Preston,

I know for a fact where the photo came from. I don't need to "amble" anywhere.

As I suspected, you care not of facts. You failed to address my questions and handwaved the names of the people who took the picture. If this picture is not authentic, it is up to you to show the world why. You have the names of your "suspects." What are you going to do with them? Will you contact them?

Thank you,

Dr. P



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Your very own John Farmer (911files) allegedly copied those photos out of the Pentagon 911 book and filed them online for our use.

Pentagon 911 book photos

Perhaps you have reason to believe he is a fraud and a liar?



I think what was being asked for was the source of the photograph in regards to who took the photo and when, not what book it was published in.

I will again ask what the significance of a serial number is? Do any of you have the serial number it should be? The NTSB and/or FBI could give out any serial number and I imagine the issue then would be that it was the wrong serial number. Did American Airlines release the serial number and I just missed that somewhere?

This is a discussion of the data from the FDR photographed above by the NTSB which was recovered by FIREFIGHTERS and the FBI at the Pentagon. Arlington County I assume is in on this conspiracy somehow. I am sure there are photographs which the FBI took of the recovery site, but they are not releasing those (along with others in their possession) because of pending criminal investigations and cases. Perhaps some have forgotten that the alledged ring leaders have yet to face prosecution and are still sitting down at Club Gitmo.

Unless someone comes up with DATA or EVIDENCE which indicates this is NOT the fdr from the plane which hit the Pentagon (as attested by the data and EVERY eyewitness to have hit), then I'll just go with the data at hand.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by 911files]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Yes, I still stand by my statement. First of all, I am very aware of that statement in the NTSB reports, but again, if they did not receive the serial numbers, they cannot publish them. And futher, why would they publish all other data except the serial numbers? Huh? You got a "rational reason" for that?

Those serial numbers were clearly withheld by FBI directive. Neither the NTSB or the FBI have any rational reason to withhold the serial numbers, at all. On the contrary, by simply providing them, researchers could make those calls to conclusively identify the planes and put this issue to rest once and for all.

But the way it stands, and all other evidence taken into consideration, there is ample reason to suspect those planes weren't the planes they were alleged to be.

[edit on Wed Oct 28th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Hello and forgive me if this is off topic, but I think this needs to be repeated.

The 911 TM echoes the same "serial number" missing line over and over...it's quite annoying.

Fake hijackers (or still alive)
Voice morphing (or staged phone calls)
Planted plane parts (Pentagon)
Tons of planted nano-thermite (or whatever your bomb of the week is)
Bombs planted to simulate a plane crash (Pentagon)
Media foreknowledge / manipulation etc.
Planted aircraft debris in a field in Pennsylvania (flight 93)
Personal belongings secretly planted
DNA evidence...fabricated or planted
Billionaire involvement in the planning
CVR that was created then planted (flight 93)
Witness plants or manipulation
FDR's planted with information that match the flight paths of all 4 planes.

I could go on and on naming the millions of moving parts it would have taken to orchestrate this massive deception.

Really, how difficult would it have been to jot the serial numbers down for the TM? How difficult would it be just to tell these people what they want to hear?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Delayed response but blame it on some surgery I had this morning - much better now.

You asked about my source and I can tell you it's an independant one IE some observation, understanding of principles and a few 'back of the envelope' calculations. I'm not immune to error though


You mentioned an altitude 'SnapBack' in relation to the NTSB animation so I took a good look at it and what I noticed is the animation starts with an altitude corrected to local barometric pressure of 30.21"Hg (300' ASL) IE 'true' altitude when the pressure altitude indicates 40' for 29.92"Hg.

During the ascent and passing through 18000' the altimeter (animation) drops back about 300' which corresponds exactly to the adjustment of BARO COR 1 (barometric correction) to 29.92"Hg at 8:28:02-8:28:10 EDT.

During descent BARO COR 1 is adjusted back to 30.24"Hg but the alteration is not applied to the animation's altimeter which continues to read PA (29.92"Hg) until the end of the flight. I'm not seeing any attempt at deception in it and there are other anomalies in the animation like displaying EDT when the time is actually left as GMT and the magnetic heading applied to a 'map' which appears aligned to true north (11 degree variation). More likely a symptom of sloppiness in a hastily prepared video show for the higher-ups.

Something else I noted is the fumbling of the correction on BARO COR 1 in descent - it took whoever made that change some 30 seconds to get it right as if they'd never actually twiddled that knob before while all other changed were accomplished inside of 8 seconds. Like a 'non_pilot' was sitting in that seat at the controls.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by PilgrumDuring descent BARO COR 1 is adjusted back to 30.24"Hg but the alteration is not applied to the animation's altimeter which continues to read PA (29.92"Hg) until the end of the flight. I'm not seeing any attempt at deception in it ...


Not a bad response, however let's pick apart this critical point.

The animation altimeter upon descent does not reflect the changes in
the PA adjustment.

Why/how can this happen if the animation is derived from the raw file
just like the CSV file?

Research how the animation is created (look up Flight Software sites if
needed) and ask yourself how these two files have different values.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
So, I guess my question to you is; Do you still believe that the FDR supports the flyover theory?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

Dr. P


Hey "Dr. P",

I believe the FDR file supports the fact that "AA77" did not hit the light
poles (as there is no indication of a strike, nor do the altitude, DME values
allow for this) and therefore did not hit the Pentagon based on the official
story.

The flyover theory is supported by the CIT witness video accounts; the
FDR file is just additonal information to show the aircraft did not hit the
poles as once thought by the original reports.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Whops, you forgot to explain that brick wall suspended by a skyhook...


"Whoops", you forgot to explain how the accelerometers, RAD Alt. trend,
PA, AoA, etc. do not suggest AA77 hit the wall!

Where are the indications of light pole strikes in the flight data before
this BIG SMACK into a suspended wall Reheat? Are you going to continue
picking out one parameter while ignoring the rest?

Can you find me at least one instance out of 5 pole strikes in the FDR
data?

Come on, surely you can't be suggesting that a B-757 hitting 5 light
poles would not register some iota of proof moving at an impossible speed
of 462 knots?



More to the point, PA shows too high, and the data doesn't support a light
pole strike.

Please review the video presentations put forth by real pilots and aviation
professionals concerning this point.

Maybe when you're done you can give Ralph Kolstad a buzz and debate him?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
This really is a waste of time, since turbo likes to duck the data and its trends and assert specifications instead. Fact, PA is given as between 42-44 when the plane is on the ground at Dulles. Fact, the elevation of Dulles ranges from 270 to 290. Corrected (according to P4T) for local pressure, the PA is 342-344 feet under ideal circumstances (stationary). And this is for the take-off of AAL77.

Looking at PA on the ground at Dulles at the end of Flight #11 (as recorded in the FDR), the altitude is 120 - 121 feet! Now which is it turbo? Is the altitude at landing correct, or is it the PA at take-off?

So yes, I repeat, PA is highly inaccurate for these purposes. Or at least I call a difference of 80 feet a significant difference.


Wow, more stars from your "friends" and nobody picked up on your errors?

I love it how you think you've got something here, and wave it around
as some sort of proof that you know what you're talking about. I'm surprised
ReHeat and WeedWacker did not pick up no these mistakes? Perhaps
they didn't want to burst your bubble, or perhaps they are not pilots?

#1. YOu need to stop using Google Earth to figure your elevations. Try
using Airport Data, or some more accurate info about Airport landscapes
and runway info.

Here's a start:

www.airnav.com...

#2. I have not seen/studied the data from flight #11 in this file, so
please produce it or just forget about debating it. You haven't supplied
the supporting parameters to show what the PA setting was during landing,
nor have you supplied the weather/atmospheric conditions for that flight
upon landing!

#3. Here is a tear down of your perceived "red flag":

pilotsfor911truth.org...

John, you need to hang out real aviation pros and stop assuming that you
know anything about aviation/aircraft flight and/or interpretting FDR data.

FACT: Pressure Altitude is accurate to within 20 feet below 1000 feet.

FAA regulation and manufacturer data agree. Your assumptions mean nothing
and have been proven incorrect as shown above.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Come on, surely you can't be suggesting that a B-757 hitting 5 light
poles would not register some iota of proof moving at an impossible speed
of 462 knots?


Are you serious? An estimated 100-ton airliner traveling at 460 knots clipping 5 lamp poles that are designed to snap off with the impact of a 1,800 lb car....and you expect it to show up on a flight data recorder?

That has go along into the stream of "You Won't Believe what PFT Is Saying
Next!" file.

I thought a Boeing aircraft could never *get* to 450 knots because the wings would rip off. Remember Bob's little simulation? So now, instead of the wings ripping off, we have a perfectly instrumented, fully-wired stock 757 that is going to be able to sense the infinitesimal and nanosecond-long impact of a slender lampole and have it recorded in the data of the FDR?

You guys just get better and better every day!

Man, I *want* whatever you people are smokin' because reality has absolutely nothing on that!





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join