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: 72
12
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

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


JFK, are you in agreement with P4T member 'Obwon' and the ridiculous claims that the FDR found at the Pentagon was NOT from AAL 77?

That particualr member (who, BTW, admits he's NOT a pilot, and doesn't like to fly all that much as a passenger...hmm, perfect fodder for the P4T site, if indicative of their membership base) seems to think that Rob Balsamo is of the same opinion re: the FDR.

IF anyone truly believes that, and isn't just saying so in order to keep the $$$ rolling in for DVDs anf T-shirts...well, then I'd have to wonder about their mental stability and reasoning skills.

Point is, despite all of the foregoing about surge tank parameters, and FDR values for same...it is ludicrous to go off on that tangent in the vain hope of "proving" falsification!!!

42 hours of data!!! How?




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
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.


Definitely par for the CIT/PfT/LC course...

The whole shebang was faked because the faked data in the faked FDR shows the aircraft never hit the building.

And I love the constant "I don't know where I am but we're making good time!" approach of the LC admin JFK. Am I wrong for thinking a bunch of noobs, picking up a Boeing aircraft manual and trying to play aircraft engineer is somehow funny?

Am I wrong for questioning why PFT, with ALL their "expertise" and "constantly increasing membership", can't simply end this question in one post from one American aircraft maintenance man or engineer, rather than have a bunch of Internet conspiracy theory discussion forum people look at an aircraft manual the way a monkey looks at a cell phone?


[edit on 8-12-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


JFK, are you in agreement with P4T member 'Obwon' and the ridiculous claims that the FDR found at the Pentagon was NOT from AAL 77?

That particualr member (who, BTW, admits he's NOT a pilot, and doesn't like to fly all that much as a passenger...hmm, perfect fodder for the P4T site, if indicative of their membership base) seems to think that Rob Balsamo is of the same opinion re: the FDR.

IF anyone truly believes that, and isn't just saying so in order to keep the $$$ rolling in for DVDs anf T-shirts...well, then I'd have to wonder about their mental stability and reasoning skills.

Point is, despite all of the foregoing about surge tank parameters, and FDR values for same...it is ludicrous to go off on that tangent in the vain hope of "proving" falsification!!!

42 hours of data!!! How?





I can't say that I am... There are too many unknowns to draw a conclusion, one of which is the actual serial number of the FDR found.

Like I have said before, I am not PFT.
Yes I do have the privilege of having the rank of Admin there also, but other than very minor tasks there I do not take advantage of it and consider myself just another forum member, not much different than you are a member here.

As far as raking in money, have you had a look at Farmer's site recently ?
I wonder how his book sales are doing.
( I guess the donate button was not enough )

Why is my asking how a parameter which was released in an FOIA originated ludicrious ?

Especially if the schematics do not support that parameters existance in the first place ?

As far as the "how", Farmer released that FOIA to the public in 2007 ( I think ) which was nearly 6 years after the fact... Files are easily manipulated, yes even time/date stamps.

Are you truly that afraid of your world view being shattered if my suspicions are even remotely correct ?

Unlike you I am in search of truth, wherever it may lead.

Unfortunately that search on occasion means stepping on others toes, I am sorry for stepping on yours.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Yep, I leave the thread for the morning, only to return to find that the solution to all of P4T/CIT's problems is me faking the data. Nice to be thought so important. At least I am earning my NWO paycheck this week.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
double post deleted

[edit on 8-12-2009 by 911files]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
And I love the constant "I don't know where I am but we're making good time!" approach of the LC admin JFK.


Please provide a reference to where I have ever said those words.

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by JFrickenK

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.


It's a possibility that occurred to me also very early in the piece (that eventually the integrity of the file would come into question) so I looked into it IE any possibility that the raw FDR file used by Warren was different to the earlier released file.

Warren obtained his via an individual FOIA request dated April 6, 2009 and it's in the ISO he made available for download of the entire CD he received. I also happened to have a copy of the original released raw FDR file used in the PFT readout2 that was obtained via a separate earlier FOIA request.

I've done a full binary comparison of the 2 raw files and they are absolutely identical in every respect. They also both work with Warren's decoder producing identical results.

Just wanted to clear that up for any doubters out there.

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Pilgrum]


Thank you for that Pilgrum...
I guess that lets Farmer off the hook so I now retract any and all statements I have made regarding Farmer faking that portion of the data.



I guess he failed to read this post.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by trebor451
And I love the constant "I don't know where I am but we're making good time!" approach of the LC admin JFK.


Please provide a reference to where I have ever said those words.

Thank you.

Oh my god.

/facepalm



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
As far as raking in money, have you had a look at Farmer's site recently ?
I wonder how his book sales are doing.
( I guess the donate button was not enough )


Do you have any idea how much all of that stuff I have on that site cost me? Do you have any idea how much is cost to take the FBI, FAA, and NTSB to court? One person out there was kind enough to buy a second-hand cassette to mp3 unit so I could convert the cassettes sent by the CMH to mp3 for the site so you could access them for free. Do you know how much it costs to do field trips to interview witnesses and examine facilities?

Of course you don't, you just troll the net and criticize the efforts of others. I've raised less than a thousand dollars via the donate button in the two years it has been up. The filing fee, costs of service, etc ate up that money. The volumes of CMH interviews, I had to pay for those. FAA records beyond what was requested by the Court case ate up everything raised on the site and more.

And by the way, that is the 'not-so-good-looking' John Farmer's book, not mine. Mine does not come out until the end of next year. And I hope it does very well so that I can recoup some of the thousands I have already spent on the project.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by trebor451
And I love the constant "I don't know where I am but we're making good time!" approach of the LC admin JFK.


Please provide a reference to where I have ever said those words.

Thank you.


Please read up on "literary devices" and how they are used to convey ironical remarks such as sarcasm and satire.

Specifically, it could be an aphorism, which is a concise statement containing a subjective truth or observation cleverly and pithily written.

Or perhaps it was parody or epiphany. All of those could describe the phrase I used above.

In case you don't know this (and it is patently apparent you don't), you don't actually have to have *said* anything specific or precise when you are referenced via a literary device. Its a general reference. You are flailing around, confirming to all observers that the Boeing aircraft maintenance book in your hands is about as foreign to you as a cell phone is to a monkey, yet you still post comment after comment, thinking that you are contributing to the conversation but in reality are merely displaying only the illusion of intellectual progress.

But press on, in any event, JFK! Your rearward-orifice persona matches your monkey-cell phone discussion abilities.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by JFrickenK
As far as raking in money, have you had a look at Farmer's site recently ?
I wonder how his book sales are doing.
( I guess the donate button was not enough )


Do you have any idea how much all of that stuff I have on that site cost me? Do you have any idea how much is cost to take the FBI, FAA, and NTSB to court? One person out there was kind enough to buy a second-hand cassette to mp3 unit so I could convert the cassettes sent by the CMH to mp3 for the site so you could access them for free. Do you know how much it costs to do field trips to interview witnesses and examine facilities?

Of course you don't, you just troll the net and criticize the efforts of others. I've raised less than a thousand dollars via the donate button in the two years it has been up. The filing fee, costs of service, etc ate up that money. The volumes of CMH interviews, I had to pay for those. FAA records beyond what was requested by the Court case ate up everything raised on the site and more.

And by the way, that is the 'not-so-good-looking' John Farmer's book, not mine. Mine does not come out until the end of next year. And I hope it does very well so that I can recoup some of the thousands I have already spent on the project.


Excellent... Now take what you have learned from your personal experience and apply it to the costs involved in making for example the loose change series.

Or don't you remember the lawsuits involved in that also ?

Then there was the costs of footage which was bought and used in the final cut, and that was not cheap at all.

The ironic thing is that after the break even point the loose change series has been and will be encouraged to be distributed for free, not so with your books.

I was referring to all the books which you have littered your site with after you reopened it in your name.

In any event this conversation is WAY off topic and perhaps an Admin here can split it into another thread ( which I will not be participating in ) or delete it.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

I guess he failed to read this post.


No, I read that post. But that does not get you off the hook for making the suggestion in the fiirst place without any evidence to back it up. It is a common theme from the CIT/P4T crowd and it gets old after awhile.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by trebor451
And I love the constant "I don't know where I am but we're making good time!" approach of the LC admin JFK.


Please provide a reference to where I have ever said those words.

Thank you.


Please read up on "literary devices" and how they are used to convey ironical remarks such as sarcasm and satire.

Specifically, it could be an aphorism, which is a concise statement containing a subjective truth or observation cleverly and pithily written.

Or perhaps it was parody or epiphany. All of those could describe the phrase I used above.

In case you don't know this (and it is patently apparent you don't), you don't actually have to have *said* anything specific or precise when you are referenced via a literary device. Its a general reference. You are flailing around, confirming to all observers that the Boeing aircraft maintenance book in your hands is about as foreign to you as a cell phone is to a monkey, yet you still post comment after comment, thinking that you are contributing to the conversation but in reality are merely displaying only the illusion of intellectual progress.

But press on, in any event, JFK! Your rearward-orifice persona matches your monkey-cell phone discussion abilities.


Yep, and that has exactly what to do with the topic of this thread ?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by JFrickenK

I guess he failed to read this post.


No, I read that post. But that does not get you off the hook for making the suggestion in the fiirst place without any evidence to back it up. It is a common theme from the CIT/P4T crowd and it gets old after awhile.


I have stated my evidence, I suggest you scroll back and read it again.

In a nutshell I trust the NTSB more than you.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
I was referring to all the books which you have littered your site with after you reopened it in your name.

In any event this conversation is WAY off topic and perhaps an Admin here can split it into another thread ( which I will not be participating in ) or delete it.


Yep, in the two years I've been using the Amazon associate program I have not had the first payout. Last I checked I have less than ten bucks earned in two years.

No sir, it is not off topic. You are questioning the data source(s) related to the topic and I am responding to those questions and accusations. People have a right to know. I certainly hope the moderator leaves these posts so that your accusations stand for all to see.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by JFrickenK
I was referring to all the books which you have littered your site with after you reopened it in your name.

In any event this conversation is WAY off topic and perhaps an Admin here can split it into another thread ( which I will not be participating in ) or delete it.


Yep, in the two years I've been using the Amazon associate program I have not had the first payout. Last I checked I have less than ten bucks earned in two years.

No sir, it is not off topic. You are questioning the data source(s) related to the topic and I am responding to those questions and accusations. People have a right to know. I certainly hope the moderator leaves these posts so that your accusations stand for all to see.


Conclusion, not accusation. There is a difference.

You have not provided a data path from the surge tank sensors to the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR.

Neither has anyone else including the self proclaimed "experts" here.

From where I sit Tino is the ONLY one even attempting it... and he is working it from the other end.

Frankly I hope he does find an answer, because Warren was working from an independently aquired copy of the data,( thanks again Pilgrum ) which matchs yours, that lets you off the hook, but it also puts the NTSB on the hook.

If the NTSB put out fraudulent data here, then by extension all their released data must be scrutinized... I really don't want to do that.



[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


I'm not certain 'how' the TANK DENSITY word is figured, it seems to take
information from the Fuel tank level sensors and possibly signals from the
densitometers in each wing to produce to value.

The output to the FDAU appears to come from bit lines shown in the upper right hand corner of the Fuel Quantity Processor. If you'd like I can spend
more time finding out 'how' the value is stored?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


I'm not certain 'how' the TANK DENSITY word is figured, it seems to take
information from the Fuel tank level sensors and possibly signals from the
densitometers in each wing to produce to value.

The output to the FDAU appears to come from bit lines shown in the upper right hand corner of the Fuel Quantity Processor. If you'd like I can spend
more time finding out 'how' the value is stored?


There are only 3 densiometers, one in each main tank and one in the center tank, none in the surge tanks... Thanks for the interesting read though. ( AMM 28-41-03 )
Glow in the dark fingers ? lol.

I am more interested in how the value is derived rather than stored.

Thanks Tino.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 767doctor
Can anyone summarize what this latest claim is all about? I see JFK reference column 106 - that's not a parameter, so I guess my question is: what is the parameter in question. And why is PFT talking about it? Are they saying that since there's no connection from (whatever column 106 is) to EICAS, that the parameter is recorded magically?

Honestly, I don't understand what they are getting at, other than further highlighting their own incompetence.


S TANK DENSITY?


[edit on 8-12-2009 by 767doctor]




Correct, S Tank density in column 106 of AAL77_tabular.csv
It is recorded and that value does fluctuate.

How is that value generated when there appears to be no datapath from the sensors within the surge tanks to the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR ?

I was looking at 28-21-02 of the SSM and trying to find a path back toward the FDR... and have thus far failed.




OK, a few things need clearing up.

First of all, why are you looking for a signal path to EICAS? Reference 757-3B DFL, the port for "S TANK DENSITY" is FQMS(Fuel Quantity Measurement System) port 29, not EICAS L/R A-1. Don't know why you were looking for an EICAS connection.

Now that you are armed with that important piece of information, take a look at SSM 28-41-01 and find the densitometers(your surge tank may or may not have them) - you'll see that they(the L,C,R and S densities) are inputs for the Fuel Quantity Processing Unit(FQPU). Now, switch chapters to 31-31-01 and you'll see page after page of DFDAU inputs. Locate the DFDAU on each page of those schematics and look for port 29(see above), and you'll find the inputs from the FQPU. Mystery solved.

Now the second part of all this...I'm not so sure we are looking at the surge tank density.

Now I'll draw your attention to the 757-3B_1.txt. Do a search for "S TANK DENSITY". It's not in there! In its place, I believe is "CORRECTED AOA". However, "CORRECTED AOA" isn't on the 757-3B DFL so its anyones guess which one is correct. I imagine if someone were to look at the actual data, they could figure out pretty easily whether its fuel density related or AoA related.

Now, JFK, are you any closer to finding a signal path from the door sensor to EICAS?

Have you looked at 911files' find regarding the 13 second "flight" which was obviously maintenance activity? Why was the door closed for the 3-4 samplings on that occasion? Any ideas?





[edit on 8-12-2009 by 767doctor]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Now, JFK, are you any closer to finding a signal path from the door sensor to EICAS?

Of course he isn't.

He doesn't even know how to read the manual.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join