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: 64
12
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
OK, Now show me 52-51-11 page 3 with the October 29th, 2000 date NOT struck out.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
JFK, what you posted was a diagram of the panel button for the door release.
Those are not "EICAS Warnings". The buttons illuminate as per diagram
(see bulbs on schematic).

For those doubting Mr. Cimino's experience, and knowledge please take a
step back. I've had several e-mail exchanges with this man over the past
two years and will stand behind his field knowledge. I've seen photos of him
behind controls of the Truxton. That's one thing we need to be fair about;
the credentials of the professionals listed on the core page.

I will however agree that Mr. Cimino needs to make a statement based
on all the facts. Whether he was brought up to speed over the last few
days is beyond me, so let's just relax and see what new information has
surfaced.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
OK, Now show me 52-51-11 page 3 with the October 29th, 2000 date NOT struck out.



Why the hell do I even bother with you idiots? Read my post again. The only way you'll see a 2000 date is with a manual that wasn't revised since then. Ignorance is not a weapon in a debate.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
JFK, what you posted was a diagram of the panel button for the door release.
Those are not "EICAS Warnings". The buttons illuminate as per diagram
(see bulbs on schematic).

For those doubting Mr. Cimino's experience, and knowledge please take a
step back. I've had several e-mail exchanges with this man over the past
two years and will stand behind his field knowledge. I've seen photos of him
behind controls of the Truxton. That's one thing we need to be fair about;
the credentials of the professionals listed on the core page.

I will however agree that Mr. Cimino needs to make a statement based
on all the facts. Whether he was brought up to speed over the last few
days is beyond me, so let's just relax and see what new information has
surfaced.


I don't doubt his experience at all and I echo your concerns.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
JFK, what you posted was a diagram of the panel button for the door release.
Those are not "EICAS Warnings". The buttons illuminate as per diagram
(see bulbs on schematic).


Yes Tino, I know the bulbs illuminate.

Now go back and read what I quoted.

Also it would be very helpful if we had the SSM for flight 77, as there is no way from looking at what I have to know exactly when M635 and/or M10057 was installed, if it/they was/were installed after 9/11 then where did #12 going into M10057 originally go ?

And yes, I do admit that the other day I misread a label and followed the wrong set of traces on another sheet.

Just because something does not display on the EICAS does not mean that it is not routed to the FDAU... 28-21-02 is a prime example of that as it IS recorded in the official FOIA release, and that value DOES fluctuate.

Edit to add - AAL77_tabular.csv column 106.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK
OK, Now show me 52-51-11 page 3 with the October 29th, 2000 date NOT struck out.



Why the hell do I even bother with you idiots? Read my post again. The only way you'll see a 2000 date is with a manual that wasn't revised since then. Ignorance is not a weapon in a debate.


So you do not possess that manual then.

Thank you for your answer.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Also it would be very helpful if we had the SMM for flight 77, as there is no way from looking at what I have to know exactly when M635 and/or M10057 was installed, if it/they was/were installed after 9/11 then where did #12 going into M10057 originally go ?


You were very close to admitting that there isn't enough evidence to make a decision. Have you told Rob that you feel this way?



Just because something does not display on the EICAS does not mean that it is not routed to the FDAU... 28-21-02 is a prime example of that as it IS recorded in the official FOIA release, and that value DOES fluctuate.



We've been over this. The DFL's states what port the FLT DECK DOOR comes in on and word it is. It's the EICAS L/R A-1 port. EICAS needs to see the sensor. My AA guys tells me their planes are the same as ours in this regard.
Can you spot EICAS on the prints I posted?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK
OK, Now show me 52-51-11 page 3 with the October 29th, 2000 date NOT struck out.



Why the hell do I even bother with you idiots? Read my post again. The only way you'll see a 2000 date is with a manual that wasn't revised since then. Ignorance is not a weapon in a debate.


So you do not possess that manual then.

Thank you for your answer.


You need a remedial reading class. Maybe all-caps will help: THE MANUAL WAS REVISED, SO THE REVISION DATE CHANGED!!!

Why was the manual revised? Because 19 Arab men hijacked 4 planes and slammed them into 3 buildings and a field.

Am I going to need to explain this a fourth way?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor


Just because something does not display on the EICAS does not mean that it is not routed to the FDAU... 28-21-02 is a prime example of that as it IS recorded in the official FOIA release, and that value DOES fluctuate.



We've been over this. The DFL's states what port the FLT DECK DOOR comes in on and word it is. It's the EICAS L/R A-1 port. EICAS needs to see the sensor. My AA guys tells me their planes are the same as ours in this regard.
Can you spot EICAS on the prints I posted?


Have you looked at 28-21-02 and AAL_tabular.csv column 106 ?

If so can you show me the EICAS display for it ?

Can you even begin to understand the implications of my point ?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK
OK, Now show me 52-51-11 page 3 with the October 29th, 2000 date NOT struck out.



Why the hell do I even bother with you idiots? Read my post again. The only way you'll see a 2000 date is with a manual that wasn't revised since then. Ignorance is not a weapon in a debate.


So you do not possess that manual then.

Thank you for your answer.


You need a remedial reading class. Maybe all-caps will help: THE MANUAL WAS REVISED, SO THE REVISION DATE CHANGED!!!

Why was the manual revised? Because 19 Arab men hijacked 4 planes and slammed them into 3 buildings and a field.

Am I going to need to explain this a fourth way?




Read this slowly...

So YOU DO NOT POSSESS AN UNREVISED VERSION THEN.

Thank you for your answer.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK
OK, Now show me 52-51-11 page 3 with the October 29th, 2000 date NOT struck out.



Why the hell do I even bother with you idiots? Read my post again. The only way you'll see a 2000 date is with a manual that wasn't revised since then. Ignorance is not a weapon in a debate.


So you do not possess that manual then.

Thank you for your answer.


You need a remedial reading class. Maybe all-caps will help: THE MANUAL WAS REVISED, SO THE REVISION DATE CHANGED!!!

Why was the manual revised? Because 19 Arab men hijacked 4 planes and slammed them into 3 buildings and a field.

Am I going to need to explain this a fourth way?




Read this slowly...

So YOU DO NOT POSSESS AN UNREVISED VERSION THEN.

Thank you for your answer.



Nobody does. The whole point of revising manuals is so they are current . Old configurations still show up in the manuals, I explained this already. Again, maybe try a reading class. I won't even try to explain what footnotes are...I'd sooner try to teach calculus to my cat.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
I'd sooner try to teach calculus to my cat.



You do that.

Someone somewhere has to have an unrevised version archived.

It is too bad that you do not have enough "pull" to get your hands on a copy.

Don't feel bad, My copy was revised in 2006.

Do you get the hint at all ?

I didn't think so.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor


Just because something does not display on the EICAS does not mean that it is not routed to the FDAU... 28-21-02 is a prime example of that as it IS recorded in the official FOIA release, and that value DOES fluctuate.



We've been over this. The DFL's states what port the FLT DECK DOOR comes in on and word it is. It's the EICAS L/R A-1 port. EICAS needs to see the sensor. My AA guys tells me their planes are the same as ours in this regard.
Can you spot EICAS on the prints I posted?


Have you looked at 28-21-02 and AAL_tabular.csv column 106 ?

If so can you show me the EICAS display for it ?

Can you even begin to understand the implications of my point ?


Almost missed this. Right now we are talking about the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. But if you have another claim to make, go ahead and make it.

Do you feel that there is sufficient evidence to make a positive claim regarding the FLT DECK DOOR parameter?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
And your qualifications are exactly ?


This isn't about me. I'm not the one(s) being pimped by PfT as Subject Matter Experts in FDRs or self-defense systems at the Pentagon or mishap investigations.

It boils down to credibility, something which is nowhere to be found in the least in PfT or Balsamo's minions.

But since you are asking, what are YOUR qualifications - aside from playing a rear-facing-orifice on a moonbat forum?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor
I'd sooner try to teach calculus to my cat.



You do that.

Someone somewhere has to have an unrevised version archived.

It is too bad that you do not have enough "pull" to get your hands on a copy.

Don't feel bad, My copy was revised in 2006.

Do you get the hint at all ?

I didn't think so.


So thats your rebuttal to the evidence I posted? "someone, somewhere has the version which proves inside jobby job".

Brilliant. Oh and Einstein, you have a differnet revision date because you have a different manual. Unlike DFL's, manuals are tailored to airline configuration.

Oh and yes I get the hint that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor


Just because something does not display on the EICAS does not mean that it is not routed to the FDAU... 28-21-02 is a prime example of that as it IS recorded in the official FOIA release, and that value DOES fluctuate.



We've been over this. The DFL's states what port the FLT DECK DOOR comes in on and word it is. It's the EICAS L/R A-1 port. EICAS needs to see the sensor. My AA guys tells me their planes are the same as ours in this regard.
Can you spot EICAS on the prints I posted?


Have you looked at 28-21-02 and AAL_tabular.csv column 106 ?

If so can you show me the EICAS display for it ?

Can you even begin to understand the implications of my point ?


Almost missed this. Right now we are talking about the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. But if you have another claim to make, go ahead and make it.

Do you feel that there is sufficient evidence to make a positive claim regarding the FLT DECK DOOR parameter?


I have enough reasonable doubt taking into consideration the copy of the manual which I have AND the FOIA release.

The evidence may, or may not be obtained from the SSM written specifically for flight 77. ( The FM section of the SSM lists the serial and tail numbers for which the manual was specifically written. )


[edit on 6-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor
I'd sooner try to teach calculus to my cat.



You do that.

Someone somewhere has to have an unrevised version archived.

It is too bad that you do not have enough "pull" to get your hands on a copy.

Don't feel bad, My copy was revised in 2006.

Do you get the hint at all ?

I didn't think so.


So thats your rebuttal to the evidence I posted? "someone, somewhere has the version which proves inside jobby job".

Brilliant. Oh and Einstein, you have a differnet revision date because you have a different manual. Unlike DFL's, manuals are tailored to airline configuration.

Oh and yes I get the hint that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by 767doctor]


So that is what it boils down to ?

Your dismissing me because you think that I think it was "an inside jobby job" ?

You really expect me to believe that boeing does not keep a copy of their old manuals somewhere ?

ESPECIALLY for those 4 doomed flights that day ?

Perhaps you are correct, Could have been just like the interview tapes from that day which ended up in various trash cans.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor


Just because something does not display on the EICAS does not mean that it is not routed to the FDAU... 28-21-02 is a prime example of that as it IS recorded in the official FOIA release, and that value DOES fluctuate.



We've been over this. The DFL's states what port the FLT DECK DOOR comes in on and word it is. It's the EICAS L/R A-1 port. EICAS needs to see the sensor. My AA guys tells me their planes are the same as ours in this regard.
Can you spot EICAS on the prints I posted?


Have you looked at 28-21-02 and AAL_tabular.csv column 106 ?

If so can you show me the EICAS display for it ?

Can you even begin to understand the implications of my point ?


Almost missed this. Right now we are talking about the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. But if you have another claim to make, go ahead and make it.

Do you feel that there is sufficient evidence to make a positive claim regarding the FLT DECK DOOR parameter?


I have enough reasonable doubt taking into consideration the copy of the manual which I have AND the FOIA release.

The evidence may, or may not be obtained from the SSM written specifically for flight 77. ( The FM section of the SSM lists the serial and tail numbers for which the manual was specifically written. )


[edit on 6-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



The fact that the parameter in question never changes over a 42 hour period of recording doesn't even give you a pause? Really? I hope and pray(and I'm an atheist!) that you never serve on a jury. Your standard of evidence is woefully lacking.

So you have a manual and yet you haven't posted evidence that it supports your notion about this parameter. That says a lot, really.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

The fact that the parameter in question never changes over a 42 hour period of recording doesn't even give you a pause? Really? I hope and pray(and I'm an atheist!) that you never serve on a jury. Your standard of evidence is woefully lacking.

So you have a manual and yet you haven't posted evidence that it supports your notion about this parameter. That says a lot, really.



So in your world I am not allowed to question it then ?

Yes I have a manual, but it was not specifically written for Serial number 24602, Tail number N644AA.

I thought you *might* be able to help with that, but I was severely mistaken.

Thanks anyway.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by JFrickenK
And your qualifications are exactly ?


This isn't about me. I'm not the one(s) being pimped by PfT as Subject Matter Experts in FDRs or self-defense systems at the Pentagon or mishap investigations.

It boils down to credibility
< snip >


It certainly does. In my eyes you have none, whereas Dennis has plenty.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join