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: 70
12
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Take it for what you will.

The last desperate grasps from a bunch of kooks?

We all knew where this was heading... either Warren was going to go under the bus or there'd be a declaration that the data is fake.

And really, you've made so many off the wall assertions that have immediately been proven false (you being debunked by turbofan was a highlight) that noone really cares about your questions or whatever preconceived conclusion you've arrived at.


I have yet to see a data path from that sensor to the EICAS, FDAU or FDR.

I will retract once you show me one.


And I've yet to see you demonstrate the huevos to attempt to unravel my assertions about the "swapped pilots".

If I were feeling a bit immature this morning, I believe that my response might go something like "bwaak, bwaaaak, BWAAAAAK!"

Sure is a good thing that I'm not feeling immature this morning, ain't it?!

TomK


Cool, more ad homs.


I know when that happens it happens because the poster can not answer the question.




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


I'm still working on the question, sorry I haven't had much time to study
the manual.

From what I did look at, the tank sensor module outputs a single, TTL level
voltage using NAND logic. Unless this is a mult-plexed source, I don't
believe I've found the proper signal path.

A NAND gate will simply output a low/high state in the inverse of what
you would expect to see from an "AND" gate circuit.

The numbers in column 106 require more than a single bit to process...

Give me until this evening to locate the remainder of this circuit and any
further connections.


I concur Tino.

Take all the time you need, This is about truth and not the childsplay which the others here excel at engaging in.

Edit to add - That is exactly what I meant by "you have not had enough time to study that manual" when I first joined here.... Hell, I have possessed and studied that manual for quite some time and I admit that there are some chapters which I have not opened, because the portion I was tracing did not lead to those.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


Someone will have to explain the function of the tank sensors. From what
I gather; that circuit is comparing levels in the L & R tanks.

If there is a differential beyond the threshold of the comparator circuit,
the module will output a voltage value.

More later.

ETA: In all fairness, I never had the need to study the manual until
a few days ago...nor did I have access to that manual until a few days
ago. It doesn't take me long to figure it out once I'm on the topic.

Don't be surprised if I post an answer within the next hour! I'm all over
it now!


[edit on 8-12-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Since the official FOIA release DOES have that value recorded in the FDR output ( AAL77_tabular.csv, column 106 ) AND it is a value which DOES fluctuate I am forced to draw the conclusion that that FOIA release is fake.


If that's the case then you must also conclude that PFT's conclusions based on said data are null and void since you do not believe that the data is legitimate.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Since the official FOIA release DOES have that value recorded in the FDR output ( AAL77_tabular.csv, column 106 ) AND it is a value which DOES fluctuate I am forced to draw the conclusion that that FOIA release is fake.


If that's the case then you must also conclude that PFT's conclusions based on said data are null and void since you do not believe that the data is legitimate.


At this point and by extension, yes that would be a correct statement.

Should someone provide a datapath which I can verify from the sensor to the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR then that may change.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by thomk
You avoided the question.

"Work with" is a non-specific term that encompasses the CEO, the engineer, the tech & the janitor.

What is your formal training? What is your SPECIFIC job?

TomK



No, I didn't avoid the question.


Uhh, yeah, you did.


Originally posted by turbofan
The answer I gave should have been satisfactory for this discussion.


In other words, even tho you won't answer me, you'd like me to stop asking.


Originally posted by turbofan
My signature pretty much answers all you need to know.


Uh, no it does not.

Plus, I am trying to understand whether or not there is a basis for the expertise that you claim in your signature.


Originally posted by turbofan
I'm not the CEO, and I'm not the janitor.


Terrific.

The list of "things that you are not" is, like my johnson, long & distinguished.

I guess that we can add "forthright & clear" to the "things you are not" list, eh?


Originally posted by turbofan
I'm a technologist.


In the US, this term means "somebody who fell into a minimally technical job, who has no technical training".

Is it the same in Canada?


Originally posted by turbofan
I work in the aerospace industry. I work with satellite components. I work along side the test & design engineering departments. I work in a lab.


Ahhh, I get it. I said that "...work with..." is a useless, evasive expression.
Therefore you concluded that "...work in..." & "... work along side ..." would do the job, eh?

[Did you catch that? I tossed in an "eh" at the end of that sentence. i figured that would help if our real problem was a language barrier.]


Originally posted by turbofan
We test individual components and we test circuits in simulated space environments.


I've interviewed & hired lots of people over the years. Whenever I ask a candidate what they did, and they reply what the company did, or what their group did, especially after I've told them that I was interested in their personal contributions, it screams one thing to me: "resume padding".


Originally posted by turbofan
My formal training comes from College, prior work experience and on the job training.


What college?
What major?
Years?
Degree?

Prior work experience as: (Personal, not company)
Prior job training: (Personal. Accreditation?)


Originally posted by turbofan
Anything else?


There WOULD BE nothing else if you had answered my question one of the first 5 times I asked.


Originally posted by turbofan
How is your inquiry important to our topic?


My questions on your technical training & accreditation are irrelevant to the topic.

Those questions are absolutely crucial to the weight given to your contributions to the discussion.

The one and only "joker" that both you & Robby have pulled out, time after time after tedious time, has been the fact that you nicked a 757 (freight, apparently) manual someplace. A manual that you appear unable to competently read.

I am not disparaging your intelligence or abilities by suggesting that you are "just a tech". I've had some off-the-charts brilliant techs (who had everything except the financial resources to get an engineering degree) working for me & with me on a variety of projects.

Expertise is a combination of training, experience & personality (i.e., habits, observation, rigor, etc.).

I've already got a feeling on the personality issue. I was simply trying to get a measure of your status on the first two. If you'd be more comfortable putting it into a U2U, be my guest. I'll reciprocate.


TomK

[edit on 8-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Cool, more ad homs.


I know when that happens it happens because the poster can not answer the question.


"... when a poster cannot answer a question ..."

Ahhh, the BURNING irony...

Anytime you'd care to address the points that I made, don't let "fear & loathing" get in the way. LoL.

TomK

PS. I've already answered, completely and compellingly, your question about BOTH the FDD circuit and this new circuit. The answer is "I doesn't freaking matter. You guys are simply blowing smoke."

PPS. Are you sure you're not Cap'n Robby? You sure do have a bunch of his style about cha.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
And still none of you "experts" have attempted to answer MY question and have resorted to ad homs because I asked.

Therefore I am forced to conclude that there is NO data path from the surge tank sensors to either the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR.

Since the official FOIA release DOES have that value recorded in the FDR output ( AAL77_tabular.csv, column 106 ) AND it is a value which DOES fluctuate I am forced to draw the conclusion that that FOIA release is fake.

The more plausible explanation is that you weren't looking
very hard or were looking for the wrong label or port.

The "DENSITY S TANK" parameter you've been going on about is
not listed in the 757-3 FDR frame layout. A glance at Warren's
code shows it is coming from bits 3-12 of word 210 in subframe
4; the corresponding L/R/C parameters are in subframes 1/2/3.
The 757-3 frame layout in Appendix C of Boeing document
D226A101-3 says those bits encode "CORRECTED AOA" from port
name ADC L/R-A-4, port D5, label 241; with the proper schematics,
turbofan or any other interested party should find the densities
being time-multiplexed onto port D5.

The more important conclusion here is that, if the densities
were truly being recorded in those bits, then the CORRECTED AOA
parameter was not being recorded, even though it is listed in
the 757-3 frame layout. That provides still more evidence that
not all parameters listed in the 757-3 documentation were being
recorded.

In particular, there is no reason to think the FLT DECK DOOR
parameter was recorded.

Will



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Cool, more ad homs.


I know when that happens it happens because the poster can not answer the question.


"... when a poster cannot answer a question ..."

Ahhh, the BURNING irony...

Anytime you'd care to address the points that I made, don't let "fear & loathing" get in the way. LoL.

TomK

PS. I've already answered, completely and compellingly, your question about BOTH the FDD circuit and this new circuit. The answer is "I doesn't freaking matter. You guys are simply blowing smoke."

PPS. Are you sure you're not Cap'n Robby? You sure do have a bunch of his style about cha.


Please point me towards the post in which you have provided that datapath.

No, I am not Rob. Did it ever occur to you that he may have picked up some of my writing style since after all I did predate him as an admin at the original Loose Change forums ? ( I became an Admin there about 2 weeks after it was opened, simply because I was answering newbies questions put to Dylan correctly before Dylan even had a chance to read them. )



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


turbo, I can answer this one: (so can the doctor, but he's not here, I am)


Someone will have to explain the function of the tank sensors. From what I gather; that circuit is comparing levels in the L & R tanks.

If there is a differential beyond the threshold of the comparator circuit,
the module will output a voltage value.



Sounds like you're seeing the FUEL CONFIG warning aspect of the EICAS.

(Geee...would have loved to see Cap'n Bobby flail around with this one for a while...guess he could have run to Cap'n Kolstad...)

The fuel configuration alerts for various reasons:

If BOTH center pump switches are OFF with fuel in the Center tank (more than about 1200 lbs) or a fuel imbalance between left and right main tanks (greater than about 1800 lbs) or Fuel Quantity is low in either main tank (less than about 2000 lbs).

SO, congratulations! You have indeed proven an ability to adequately read the material, and understand the schematics.

I think you're doing a great job showing the P4T frauds for what they truly are.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan
 


turbo, I can answer this one: (so can the doctor, but he's not here, I am)


Someone will have to explain the function of the tank sensors. From what I gather; that circuit is comparing levels in the L & R tanks.

If there is a differential beyond the threshold of the comparator circuit,
the module will output a voltage value.



Sounds like you're seeing the FUEL CONFIG warning aspect of the EICAS.

(Geee...would have loved to see Cap'n Bobby flail around with this one for a while...guess he could have run to Cap'n Kolstad...)

The fuel configuration alerts for various reasons:

If BOTH center pump switches are OFF with fuel in the Center tank (more than about 1200 lbs) or a fuel imbalance between left and right main tanks (greater than about 1800 lbs) or Fuel Quantity is low in either main tank (less than about 2000 lbs).

SO, congratulations! You have indeed proven an ability to adequately read the material, and understand the schematics.

I think you're doing a great job showing the P4T frauds for what they truly are.




Sorry, you fail.

We are discussing the surge tank sensors.

Edit to add - 28-21-02 if you have an SSM nearby.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cesura

Originally posted by JFrickenK
And still none of you "experts" have attempted to answer MY question and have resorted to ad homs because I asked.

Therefore I am forced to conclude that there is NO data path from the surge tank sensors to either the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR.

Since the official FOIA release DOES have that value recorded in the FDR output ( AAL77_tabular.csv, column 106 ) AND it is a value which DOES fluctuate I am forced to draw the conclusion that that FOIA release is fake.

The more plausible explanation is that you weren't looking
very hard or were looking for the wrong label or port.

The "DENSITY S TANK" parameter you've been going on about is
not listed in the 757-3 FDR frame layout. A glance at Warren's
code shows it is coming from bits 3-12 of word 210 in subframe
4; the corresponding L/R/C parameters are in subframes 1/2/3.
The 757-3 frame layout in Appendix C of Boeing document
D226A101-3 says those bits encode "CORRECTED AOA" from port
name ADC L/R-A-4, port D5, label 241; with the proper schematics,
turbofan or any other interested party should find the densities
being time-multiplexed onto port D5.

The more important conclusion here is that, if the densities
were truly being recorded in those bits, then the CORRECTED AOA
parameter was not being recorded, even though it is listed in
the 757-3 frame layout. That provides still more evidence that
not all parameters listed in the 757-3 documentation were being
recorded.

In particular, there is no reason to think the FLT DECK DOOR
parameter was recorded.

Will


Thank you for your courteous response Will, it is appreciated.


However my question is in regards to the datapath between the sensors and the rest of the system. I can not find the datapath after the point where the two signals are merged within the "M586 FUEL LEVEL SENSOR CONTROL CARD(P50)" which is in 28-21-02 of the SMM.

This needs to be a word value, and the output from that card appears to be binary.

Edit to add - I suppose it could be a serial output, however that does not make sense either as it is output to relays which would be much too slow for the application.

Anyways from there I am finding no path towards the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


The surge tanks?

So what???

WHAT do they possibly have to do with the price of tea in China?

Oh...and I did not "fail"!!!

Why not show exactly what part of the EICAS "FUEL CONGIG" message parameters I offered are incorrect?

This nonsense about surge tanks is just more smokescreen hand-waving tactics.

PS...just read that you're affiliated with loose change. Now I understand completely.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


The surge tanks?

So what???

WHAT do they possibly have to do with the price of tea in China?

Oh...and I did not "fail"!!!

Why not show exactly what part of the EICAS "FUEL CONGIG" message parameters I offered are incorrect?

This nonsense about surge tanks is just more smokescreen hand-waving tactics.

PS...just read that you're affiliated with loose change. Now I understand completely.



What it has to do is there is no datapath from those sensors to the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR in the schematics I am looking at.

Read the following very slowly and multiple times until you get it.

If there is no datapath then how did that parameter get recorded in the official FOIA release ?

P.S. and Letsroll from even before Loose Change was a twinkle in Dylans eye.

BTW, it is nice to see that YOU, weedwhacker, are "affiliated" with ATS.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


This is the crux of your complaint??


If there is no datapath then how did that parameter get recorded in the official FOIA release ?


I say again --- this is emblematic of the "truther's" problem. Delving so deeply into something that they truly don't have the wherewithal to fully comprehend, then thinking they've magically had an "Aha!" moment, and caught some nefarious group in the "act" of "faking" something!

Sad. Very sad.

Did it ever occur toyou that there are fuel quantity sensors in the surge tanks???

THIS, because they will be polled and be included in the overall TOTAL FUEL QUANTITY measurement that is sent to the fuel guages, the FDAU, the FDR, the EICAS, the FMC...etc, etc, etc.

People like Avery, and other youngsters working out of their basements who have NO knowledge of aviation, or airplanes, or the compexities involved in a modern large jet today, simply are not equipped to make these sorts of judgements.

There are a multitude of inputs for a multitude of sources, not ALL devices onboard are going to record, or even LOOK at every information source.

So...mister snarky pants, read THAT very slowly, and over and over again, mmmmmkay?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


This is the crux of your complaint??


If there is no datapath then how did that parameter get recorded in the official FOIA release ?


I say again --- this is emblematic of the "truther's" problem. Delving so deeply into something that they truly don't have the wherewithal to fully comprehend, then thinking they've magically had an "Aha!" moment, and caught some nefarious group in the "act" of "faking" something!

Sad. Very sad.

Did it ever occur toyou that there are fuel quantity sensors in the surge tanks???

THIS, because they will be polled and be included in the overall TOTAL FUEL QUANTITY measurement that is sent to the fuel guages, the FDAU, the FDR, the EICAS, the FMC...etc, etc, etc.

< snip drivel >

There are a multitude of inputs for a multitude of sources, not ALL devices onboard are going to record, or even LOOK at every information source.

So...mister snarky pants, read THAT very slowly, and over and over again, mmmmmkay?


Great, If I am looking at the incorrect page for that datapath, could you please point me towards the correct page ?
( I am looking at 28-21-02 of the SSM )

The format of xx-xx-xx would be fine.

Thank you.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



More attempts to change the subject, or to actually make it seem more difficult than it is.

I see this as an act of desperation.


Anyways from there I am finding no path towards the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR.


The above quote appears to be in reference to a FUEL LEVEL SENSOR card that is a component of the fuel quantity indicating system.

But, you see how the statement is playing? It is intentionally (or otherwise) trying to cast dowubt on something that is a wild goose chase, at least in the context of what this thread is about.

IF the statement is attempting to say that there is no FUEL QUANTITY information path to the EICAS, FDAU or FDR then I think the duplicity of the "other" side is quite evident.

ALL of this nonsense about the SMM, and breaking down all of the wiring diagrams and schematics...baloney. Smoke. Rhetoric.

What I see has happened is --- the Stutt decode has shown the CIT and P4T interpretations of the American Airlines 77 FDR data to be in error, and intentionally skewed (by them) in order to promote their pet "theory". The "theory" they've been desperate to hang on to, for all these years, in order to save face.

NOW that their cover-up has been revealed, it falls to others to keep muddying the waters, and demanding to discuss ever more complicated minutiae in order to further cloud the issue.

The tactics of bunk are very plain for all to see.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



More attempts to change the subject, or to actually make it seem more difficult than it is.

I see this as an act of desperation.


Anyways from there I am finding no path towards the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR.


The above quote appears to be in reference to a FUEL LEVEL SENSOR card that is a component of the fuel quantity indicating system.

But, you see how the statement is playing? It is intentionally (or otherwise) trying to cast dowubt on something that is a wild goose chase, at least in the context of what this thread is about.

IF the statement is attempting to say that there is no FUEL QUANTITY information path to the EICAS, FDAU or FDR then I think the duplicity of the "other" side is quite evident.

ALL of this nonsense about the SMM, and breaking down all of the wiring diagrams and schematics...baloney. Smoke. Rhetoric.

What I see has happened is --- the Stutt decode has shown the CIT and P4T interpretations of the American Airlines 77 FDR data to be in error, and intentionally skewed (by them) in order to promote their pet "theory". The "theory" they've been desperate to hang on to, for all these years, in order to save face.

NOW that their cover-up has been revealed, it falls to others to keep muddying the waters, and demanding to discuss ever more complicated minutiae in order to further cloud the issue.

The tactics of bunk are very plain for all to see.






If it is a wild goose chase and you do have access to the SMM then it is up to you to put an end to it by pointing me in the correct direction.

It is also your choice to continue to obstifucate ( as you have been doing in every reply to me ) and drag this out as long as you can.

I have just searched the AMM in relation to any sensors within the surge tanks and there is only one in each. ( assuming that since this is a moving part and moving parts ( as well as electronic parts ) do wear out and need to be replaced on occasion so there must be a procedure for replacement )


files.abovetopsecret.com...

And I am still finding no datapath from it towards the EICAS... Exactly how did it get recorded in the official FOIA released to the general public by John Farmer ?

There weedwhacker, I have shown you mine, now show me yours.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW that their cover-up has been revealed, it falls to others to keep muddying the waters, and demanding to discuss ever more complicated minutiae in order to further cloud the issue.

The tactics of bunk are very plain for all to see.


Very plain to see...however JFK has stated that he believes the FDR data to be faked, which would still invalidate any of PFT's claims which rely on the data.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW that their cover-up has been revealed, it falls to others to keep muddying the waters, and demanding to discuss ever more complicated minutiae in order to further cloud the issue.

The tactics of bunk are very plain for all to see.


Very plain to see...however JFK has stated that he believes the FDR data to be faked, which would still invalidate any of PFT's claims which rely on the data.


It would invalidate ANY research done using John Farmers release ( as a basis ) to the general public of an FOIA which he claims to have recieved from the NTSB.

We are literally talking about 10's of thousands of hours of research from both sides of the fence over the past few years.

This is why this question must be answered.

Edit to add - And that does include ALL of Warren Stutt's work as it is also based upon the .FDR file which was included within John Farmers release.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join