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: 79
12
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gamolon
If you prove the decode is true, what then?

What happens to the "North of the Citgo" eyewitness testimonies? Since the decode puts the jet south of the Citgo, doesn't that invalidate what they and PFT have been spouting all these years?

Also, what criteria are you using to prove the FDR data is true or not? It doesn't match the official flight path exactly and it doesn't match the "North of the Citgo" eyewitness testimony either.

How are you expecting validate the authenticity of the data?


Those are actually very good points...

For argueing against your side of the story.

If the data in column 106 did not have a datapath then the data is fake.
( column 106 contains data which does fluctuate )

Is that really that hard for you to understand ?




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
If the data in column 106 did not have a datapath then the data is fake.
( column 106 contains data which does fluctuate )

Is that really that hard for you to understand ?


This is pure comedy gold! The PfT/LC/CIT crowd arguing that the fake FDR data is actually real because it proves a fake crash and a flyover that nobody saw based on a bunch of witnesses who saw the aircraft slam into the building and a bunch of other witnesses from Arlington Cemetery who couldn't have seen WHAT side of the service station the aircraft flew on.

Brilliant.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by Gamolon
If you prove the decode is true, what then?

What happens to the "North of the Citgo" eyewitness testimonies? Since the decode puts the jet south of the Citgo, doesn't that invalidate what they and PFT have been spouting all these years?

Also, what criteria are you using to prove the FDR data is true or not? It doesn't match the official flight path exactly and it doesn't match the "North of the Citgo" eyewitness testimony either.

How are you expecting validate the authenticity of the data?


Those are actually very good points...


You didn't answer one of my questions. If you prove the FDR data true, what does that do to PFT and it's pet theory? What does that say about the "North of the Citgo" eyewitnesses and their testimony? Does that finally put an end to them?


Originally posted by JFrickenKIf the data in column 106 did not have a datapath then the data is fake.
( column 106 contains data which does fluctuate )

Is that really that hard for you to understand ?


Is that the only thing you guys have at the point that can concretely prove that the FDR data is fake or true or are there other points that you are looking into that can do this?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
My analysis says that the 911 implosion was an "act of god".

The two camps think there are two alternatives to 911. 1. The airplanes did it. 2. Controlled Demolition.

Neither is correct.

It was an ACT OF GOD. "A miracle".

[snip]

It was simply impossible for the Airplanes to down the towers and it was impossible for the implosions to be the result of Controlled Demolition..

 


Removed link to personal blog

[edit on 16/1/10 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
So what happened in Shanksville ?


So you're a hypocrite now?

You don't want to "speculate", but you ask others to?

You want people to "stay on topic", yet you ask questions that are completely off topic?

Interesting.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by etcorngods
My analysis says that the 911 implosion was an "act of god".

The two camps think there are two alternatives to 911. 1. The airplanes did it. 2. Controlled Demolition.

Neither is correct.

It was an ACT OF GOD. "A miracle".

See: www.etcorngods.com...

It was simply impossible for the Airplanes to down the towers and it was impossible for the implosions to be the result of Controlled Demolition..


In case you have not noticed this thread is about the flight data at the Pentagon... Unless of course YOU think that was a controlled demolition.

If so I think you should join the "no planes at the towers" camp.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gamolon

Originally posted by JFrickenK
So what happened in Shanksville ?


So you're a hypocrite now?

You don't want to "speculate", but you ask others to?

You want people to "stay on topic", yet you ask questions that are completely off topic?

Interesting.


An out of context quote and you call me a hypocrite.


Enjoy Farmers company in my ignore list.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gamolon
So you're a hypocrite now?
You don't want to "speculate", but you ask others to?
You want people to "stay on topic", yet you ask questions that are completely off topic?Interesting.


They all are. Every single one of them. Loose Brains, PfT, CIT...they all claim they never speculate, yet they speculate on things - imagine things, make up things, invent things - as the day is long.

Its one of the biggest reasons why they will never go anywhere with this crap. If they did, this "speculation" and "inventing" and "imagining" will have to face the light of day and they know that would never do. Their DVD and hat and clock and spaghetti-string nightie and tee shirt sales would go right down the tubes.

Its the same with the FDR data. I ask again.....when will this "professional pilot organization" known as PfT get a qualified maintenance person to carry their standard in these matters instead of rank amateurs like Cap't Bob Balsamo and this JFK rear-facing orifice flailing his way through these manuals like a monkey with a cell phone?

I suppose we are destined for nothing but more "I looked and did a search but couldn't find it but I know its there because it has to be" type investigative-science.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Gamolon, the answer to your question requires speculation on my part.


So does claiming that Hani Hanjour was not at the controls of flight 77.


Originally posted by JFrickenK
What I do know is that there is no way Hanni Hanjour could have brought that plane not only around the 270 degree spiral, but over either the antenna mast or over the Navy annex and had it fly so low and near level as was depected by the security cameras.


Making statements like that makes it look like your selective refusal to speculate is just an excuse.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Gamolon, the answer to your question requires speculation on my part.


So does claiming that Hani Hanjour was not at the controls of flight 77.


Originally posted by JFrickenK
What I do know is that there is no way Hanni Hanjour could have brought that plane not only around the 270 degree spiral, but over either the antenna mast or over the Navy annex and had it fly so low and near level as was depected by the security cameras.


Making statements like that makes it look like your selective refusal to speculate is just an excuse.



I notice you left out the rest of my statement...


Burlingame maybe, Hanjour no.


Why is that ?

Edit to add - Have you studied the "spiral" which flight 77 allegedly made prior to impact ?

I have.... Long ago based on the 84 RADES data.

Hmmmm, I should do the same with the FDR data.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by JFrickenK
And holy crap, guess what ! It also has a "list of airplanes"... 21 of them.


Originally posted by 767doctor
Right, not applicable to the whole 757 fleet.


Obviously you missed that I was speaking of my 747 manual.
Is your selective reading by design or natural ?


Originally posted by 767doctor
If you want to see schematics for aircraft 644, you'll have to get them yourself and you won't find them unless you have access to the American Airlines 757 manual system.


The same ones which you on multiple occasions within this thread claimed didn't exist ?


Originally posted by 767doctor
At United, you'll find manuals only for United aircraft, same goes for Continental, Delta, Us Airways, etc. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT.

Duh... Really ?

And who in this thread made that point first ?

Perhaps you should scroll back to when I joined here and begin reading from there.



Who is the idiot that said: "I dont see port 29 in my manual, therefore there is no datapath, ergo - inside jobby job. pwned".

?

It sure wasn't me. Only an idiot who doesnt realize that manuals are different would say that.

Oh and when did I say they(644 schematics) don't exist? Ohh yeah, I never said that. What I said was that airlines revise their manuals. I also said that you'll find pre eo configurations in them, even though they got updated. If you were qualified to be reading in that manual in the first place, you'd know that.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


And I await your promised proof that port 29 exists on the 757 class of aircraft.

BTW, "pwned" is very childish, and that is the very first time I have ever typed it....

Oh wait I almost forgot who it is that I am conversing with...

Carry on child.




[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Edit to add - Have you studied the "spiral" which flight 77 allegedly made prior to impact ?

I have.... Long ago based on the 84 RADES data.


What "spiral"????

I posted the video from YouTube that Rob Bals...er, I mean, "JohndoeXLC" has up.


Watch it again. Look at the airspeed indicator, and ADI. Altimeter. Thrust lever positions.

It was a fairly run-of-the-mill descending turn. It's not much different than what pilots do in a landing pattern...except the traditional pattern is "squared off". A 90-degree turn, a short straight leg, then another turn, etc. This was simply one continuous turn of just under 360 degrees.

It is NOT difficult to do. Roll in some bank. If you want to hold altitude, add some back pressure, and some power to hold speed. IF you want to descend, then the nose will drop as you reduce power. In the B-757, once the Stab is trimmed for level flight, reducing power to Flight Idle wil let the nose drop...little re-trimming is needed, the airspeed will stay about the same. Rolling into a bank will increase your rate of descent, slightly.

Heck, even Rob knows this...or should. If he will even admit it.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Also my 757 manuals show port 29 NOWHERE...

At this point I believe a more accurate statement would be that you've been unable to locate port 29 in the manual you are referencing.

Taken in the context of your hilarious efforts over the past dozen or whatever pages, it's quite fair to say there still remains the possibility that port 29 is displayed in your manual with bright flashing neon lights underscored by a bowel rattling subwoofer.

Please leave the manual research to turbofan, will you mate? Unlike you, he seems to be fairly competent at it.


When my manual search on the pages 767 doctor pointed me at I used the PDF search function on the chapter.
When that failed I used the PDF search function on the entire AMM and SSM.
When that failed I used the PDF search function on the 747 AMM and SSM, Guess what ! there were 3 hits in those manuals... Relating to EFIS.

I am sure Farmer and the other idiots will enjoy your company in my ignore list you useless little troll.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



Why would you look in a 747 manual? You say you understand that two different sets of 757 manuals can be completely different...but with every posy you make on the subject, that doesn't appear to be the case. When I say different, I mean the schematics can be, and in many cases are, completely different between airlines.


[edit on 10-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by 767doctor
 


And I await your promised proof that port 29 exists on the 757 class of aircraft.




[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]


Of course it exists, its in the DFLs, after all. You're 757 fleet is obviously configured differently, its probably old.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Why would you look in a 747 manual?


Because I was not returning ANY results for port 29 via the PDF search engine within ANY chapter of the 757 SSM OR AMM.

I actually thought the search engine was buggered, but obviously not since it did find 3 matches within the 747 manual.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by 767doctor
 


And I await your promised proof that port 29 exists on the 757 class of aircraft.




[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]


Of course it exists, its in the DFLs, after all. You're 757 fleet is obviously configured differently, its probably old.


The page I happen to currently have open ( CVR ) is dated April 28, 2006.

I would prefer it was dated 2001.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
 

< snip >


Until you plot it and calculate what exactly happened.

Recreate the following using the data then start plugging in the numbers to a "Turn Performance Calculator".

img501.imageshack.us...

Once you do that you *may* begin to understand what it is that I am saying... Provided you are serious, which I sincerely doubt.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Oh, this is so good....more Balsamoisms, from just a few days ago. Discussion about Warren Stutt's better FDR decode information:


Keep in mind folks, the descent rate from the top of the VDOT Antenna to pole 1 is roughly 6 times less than the new data provided by Warren, if you hypothetically tried to descend from the last altitude point in Warrens data to the top of pole 1, based on the last altitude point being 1.5 seconds west of the wall, base on speed data.

The VDOT "pull up" was 10.14 G's as demonstrated in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

Warrens data would require more..

a = 2 s / t^2

a = 2(100)/0.3^2

a = 200/.09

2222 G's

Add 1 G for earth

2223 G's

Nothing this planet could perform or survive such a maneuver.


LOL!!!!!


Kid cracks me up...reminds of me of a joke, but it is in so poor taste, I shall refuse to repeat it...

Anyway, Warren's post later:


I believe the correct formula is a = 2 (s - u t) / t^2, where u is initial velocity. Feel free to check whether I am correct.



That was last night, 2302 PST.

It seems evident that, to a true "believer", there is a sort of sub-conscious need at work, when faced with the complete destruction of their particular world view paradigm, as it relates to this topic, to make these sorts of mistakes and hand-wave away real facts in favor of the fantasy.

Could be an interesting psychological thesis paper out of this, if one is so inclined.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
I can't believe that you guys have successfully allowed the P4T troll to derail the thread and spin it into utter nonsense. Darn, the guy did not even know that Hani made a 330 turn, not a 270 one and you really expect him to understand any of this stuff he has been bantering about?

I expect him to ignore everyone who posts information that
could improve his understanding of the new FDR decode.

In a previous post, I said it looked like the accelerations
recorded by the FDR are with respect to the aircraft's axes
(as opposed to the horizon). I now think the accelerations
are with respect to the direction of motion, and had already
been corrected for pitch. At any rate, that interpretation
yields a remarkably good fit between the acceleration and
altitude data:

www.ccs.neu.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join