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: 94
12
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
It did not take 8 years to decode the FDR. It was decoded in January 2002.

Then Warren was interested in the FDR. He wrote his own decoding program and decoded FIVE more second of data than the Pilots for truth who were sitting on the raw data for years.


Huh?

If Warren decoded five more seconds of data, recently, then it was not properly decoded in 2002 by the NTSB.

You need to think about telling your story so that it does not contradict itself.




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It did not take 8 years to decode the FDR. It was decoded in January 2002.


I sure am stupid. I get confused so easily. I come here so smart folks, and informed folks, such as yourself will have pity on me. I know I miss details often and have even had to admit that I was wrong like twice - which is twice more than I have ever seen anyone else do it here so I must be the slow kid in class. So please just look upon me with kindness and explain something to me.
I was scolded for being off topic in this very thread earlier. It was fair because it was true. Since then, I made it a point to keep the topic relatively close in my mind. Please correct me if I am wrong here but the thread title is "New FDR Decode" is it not?
The reason I ask is because of one word in that title that really seems to contradict what it is I thought you so clearly schooled me on. Just to be clear on this, you said -

It did not take 8 years to decode the FDR. It was decoded in January 2002.
I mean this is a direct quote so please let me know if I copy and pasted incorrectly, given my obvious mental shortcomings.
So, now is this thread from 2002 and just now slowly showing up on my computer, post by post in some magical manner that allows me to interact with it in what would be realtime 2002?
This is what I am having so much trouble with. I thought the topic being discusses was NEW FDR data being decoded. You say it was completed 7 years ago. I just feel my big stupid head ready to explode right now. Was it completely decoded 7 years ago or is this thread about the new data that was recently decoded thus making it impossible to have been completed 7 years ago?




[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Lily et al, what exactly would you do with the part numbers and serial numbers from the wreckage? How are you, from your computer desk, going to determine whether or not such parts positively ID the aircraft as AA77? I cannot wait for your answer.

And while you are at it, can you point me to a report containing a list of part numbers and serial numbers for all the airliner crashes in history? Too much to ask? OK, how about a single report? All the NTSB accident reports are online here, but I can't seem to find such reports. They do exist, right?

You see, aviation people(with the exception of Pilots For Truth and their groupies) realize that the NTSB does no such parts ID matching to "positively identify" the aircraft in question after a crash. The only reason they would research part numbers/serial numbers would be to find the maintenance history of parts which may have had a role in the crash. This talk of "positive ID" is a red herring, a distraction, created by PFT to attempt to deflect their lack of evidence for their claims.

Here's a little homework assignment for Lily, or anyone who trusts PFT as aviation authorities:

Find me one report stating that a crashed aircraft was ID'ed using part numbers and serial numbers. I don't need to see the parts or know the serial numbers, and I don't need a chain of custody report(all the things that you truthers constantly demand).



[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

I mean this is a direct quote so please let me know if I copy and pasted incorrectly, given my obvious mental shortcomings.
So, now is this thread from 2002 and just now slowly showing up on my computer, post by post in some magical manner that allows me to interact with it in what would be realtime 2002?
This is what I am having so much trouble with. I thought the topic being discusses was NEW FDR data being decoded. You say it was completed 7 years ago. I just feel my big stupid head ready to explode right now. Was it completely decoded 7 years ago or is this thread about the new data that was recently decoded thus making it impossible to have been completed 7 years ago?


Warren Stutt obtained the raw FDR data from the NTSB this year from his FOIA request and created a program to read that raw data and convert it to engineering units that we can understand for all the different parameters that were recorded. Its not unlike some of the professional software that airlines and the NTSB uses to decode raw FDR memory.

The NTSB did the initial readout of the FDR in 2002, as has been mentioned. The results are all over the internet. Warren explained that he was able to squeeze out the 4 extra seconds because his program is able to read data from incomplete frames. Such incomplete frames(you can think of these as similar to corrupted computer files) are discarded by the NTSB's program.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Off topic.

Last time

[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Warren Stutt obtained the raw FDR data from the NTSB this year from his FOIA request and created a program to read that raw data and convert it to engineering units that we can understand for all the different parameters that were recorded. Its not unlike some of the professional software that airlines and the NTSB uses to decode raw FDR memory.

The NTSB did the initial readout of the FDR in 2002, as has been mentioned. The results are all over the internet. Warren explained that he was able to squeeze out the 4 extra seconds because his program is able to read data from incomplete frames. Such incomplete frames(you can think of these as similar to corrupted computer files) are discarded by the NTSB's program.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]


Right. It was not completed in 2002 then. I am not sure if you are agreeing or trying to argue about it.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Huh?

If Warren decoded five more seconds of data, recently, then it was not properly decoded in 2002 by the NTSB.

You need to think about telling your story so that it does not contradict itself.

Why is the NTSB decode not proper, it matches Warrens work except for 4 seconds? They were not even investigating the FDR or Flight 77, only providing products for the FBI. There is no value to the FBI for having a complete study of the FDR. The FBI knows what happened on 911 without the FDR. So the NTSB did properly decode all frames not missing words.

Warren has a program that is robust and decoded the last frame that was missing words.

Pilots for truth failed to decode the full frame that the NTSB decoded, they are missing a sub frame of the final full frame.

The NTSB program only decoded full frames. The final frame was missing some words. A frame is 4 seconds, and four sub frames make up a frame. Warren's program is robust and decoded the final four seconds except the missing words. Warren’s decode is verified by matching the pilots for truth decode and the NTSB decode, and Warren’s work includes all the data recorded on the FDR.

Pilots for truth knew years ago the FDR was really Flight 77’s due to the fact some 40 hours are in the data and it shows the exactly airports in previous flights of this aircraft. Is it a conspiracy the pilots for truth failed to decode the final 5 seconds?


The NTSB was not investigating Flight 77 as an accident, and only provided the FBI with products. There is no value to the FDR for 911 except to show how poor a pilot Hani was, which is confirmed by instructors, and verified by the FDR. Hani was bad, but anyone can crash into the Pentagon it is one of the world’s largest buildings and Hani can hit a 900 foot plus wide target and he proved on 911. The FDR proves his flying skills were terrible. Look at the turn, his bank angle was all over the place.

Please explain what is contradicted? The RAW data has been available for anyone to decode for many years, the pilots for truth failed to completely decode it. The NTSB did not do an investigation at all because they only do accidents, the FBI do crime.

Warren decode five more seconds than the pilots for truth, and only 4 seconds more than the NTSB. The final frame is missing some words. A frame is 4 seconds of data. Please explain what you mean contradicted? I only told the truth.

We don’t need the FDR to verify flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But it sure does dovetail with RADAR, DNA, witnesses, lampposts, and the physical evidence.

What about the final reading from the RADALT? 4 feet, accurate to 1 foot. Now that is low, too low to miss hitting the Pentagon as witnessed on 911.

The true track heading is very telling; using it and GE you can line up the damage to the impact point. 61.5 degrees

Proper? There is 40 hours of flight time and ground time on the FDR, if you want some data decoded Warren can do it. He can show you all the airports the airframe was at and they match where 77’s airframe was. What is not proper about the NTSB decode? They decoded the data to the last full frame, but also shipped the raw data. Like giving you some butter, but letting you churn the rest at your leisure. The NTSB was not out to prove anything and they gave the work they did as is. The NTSB did not have to produce a report on why 77 crashed.

The Pilots for truth have more data before 911, and are missing a second the NTSB has; is that more proper? They have data from the day before in their decode helping to prove it is flight 77! 9 more minutes on 911 and a minute or two from 12 hours prior. So the NTSB decode is fine, since they are not hiding data, they gave out all the raw data.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Off topic.

Last time

[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]


Even though I feel this is very much on topic, the FDR is indeed an aircraft part, I'll respond in the other thread.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


Right. It was not completed in 2002 then. I am not sure if you are agreeing or trying to argue about it.


In a way, I suppose I'm agreeing with you, but clarifying the point. The NTSB did their decode 7 years ago and Warren did his this year. I don't know why we are in the middle of a semantics argument. Warrens decode offers more data, end of story.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by Lillydale


Right. It was not completed in 2002 then. I am not sure if you are agreeing or trying to argue about it.


In a way, I suppose I'm agreeing with you, but clarifying the point.


There is no clarifying complete. It is one of those absolute kinds of things. Either it took until now to complete or it was completed in 2002. It is one or the other.

The NTSB did their decode 7 years ago and Warren did his this year. I don't know why we are in the middle of a semantics argument. Warrens decode offers more data, end of story.

I guess we are talking semantics because this is a tired old tactic of OSers who get caught with their stories down. I said it took until now to COMPLETE. I was told that I was wrong, as it was COMPLETED in 2002. Even you admit that there was more decoding done recently. Now are you honestly trying to tell me you think you can talk your way out of the logic that is something that is completed has no more to offer and something that has more to offer is not completed?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



The NTSB decoded the FDR years ago, see above.

Warren wrote a program and decoded 4 more seconds. Pilots for truth decoded the data years ago with more parameters and more time in front including the part of the previous flight after landing and they could see that there were other flights in the FDR providing more evidence it was Flight 77.

The raw data has been around for years. It is not needed to understand 911. It does confirm 77 impacted the Pentagon.


OSers? Using evidence is being an OSer? lol
The FDR was completed on 911, it stores flight data continuously over writing the oldest data with new data. The data was stored on 911. It is over 8 years old. The program Warren did decodes the raw data; of interest he decoded the final seconds recorded in the FDR 8 years ago. Pilots for truth have sat on the raw data for years. The final seconds show Flight 77 was on a flight path for the Pentagon and dovetails with the RADAR data if you take the time to study it.


[edit on 21-12-2009 by iSunTzu]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by Lillydale
 



The NTSB decoded the FDR years ago, see above.

Warren wrote a program and decoded 4 more seconds. Pilots for truth decoded the data years ago with more parameters and more time in front including the part of the previous flight after landing and they could see that there were other flights in the FDR providing more evidence it was Flight 77.

The raw data has been around for years. It is not needed to understand 911. It does confirm 77 impacted the Pentagon.

OSers? cute
The FDR was completed on 911, it stores flight data continuously over writing the oldest data with new data. The data was stored on 911. It is over 8 years old. The program Warren did gave the final 4 seconds stored in the FDR from 8 years ago.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by iSunTzu]


You really hate to be wrong don't you. You said all kind of things and yet not one of them made the argument any different.

Let me try this r e a l s l o w f o r y o u.

Was it C O M P L E T E D in 2002 or just recently when it was um...completed? You know I am talking about the decoding, not the recording. I am not even sure why you tried that trick. You are not pretending to throw a ball for a dog here. The internet does not work that way. Was it completely decoded on 9/11/01? No so that was just stupid to bring into it.

I am not sure what your dictionary is telling you about the word COMPLETED but it has a pretty set meaning. You keep repeating my point but adding more nonsense around it and then pretending it means the opposite.

It was just recently COMPLETELY DECODED.

If you really want to babble on to show me just how smart you are and all, please start off by just answering a simple question.

Was it completely decoded before more of it was decoded? Simple question.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
Why is the NTSB decode not proper, it matches Warrens work except for 4 seconds?

You answered your own question. Think about it.

You've admitted that Warren was able to extract four more seconds of data than the NTSB was able to.

You claim that the FDR was decoded in 2002, when clearly it wasn't completely done in 2002. Warren's decode was 2009, not 2002.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
We are talking about two separate decodes. I don't know how well it can be explained in any other way.

You see, Warren Stutt does not work for the NTSB. The NTSB has closed the book on their decode in 2002. Warren, an Australian programmer, who has no ties to the USG, filed an FOIA request for all materials relating to the NTSBs 2002 decode. Using that material, he decoded the raw FDR data himself and was able to divine 4 more seconds of data.

Now what does it matter what our individual definitions of "completed" and "complete" are? Those are the facts.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Let me try this r e a l s l o w f o r y o u.

Was it completely decoded before more of it was decoded? Simple question.

That is one great question. What answer do you want?
Was the FDR ever completely decoded? No.

The NTSB decode is complete for the parameters and time they listed.

The pilots for truth decode is complete for the time and parameters they listed.

Warren’s decode is complete for the time and parameter he included. And he has done several decodes each including more data.

The neat thing about Warren’s work he decoded the 9:37:45, 46, 47, and 48 seconds for some parameters. The NTSB decode was from 8:19 EDT to 9:37:44 EDT of selected data. Warrens decode is a subset of parameters of the NTSB decode and also includes a subset of parameters not decoded by the NTSB. The NTSB as over 300 parameters, Warren has 180 or so out of over 1100. Complete? funny question

But the raw data has it all. The raw data is kind of complete but unreadable.

I can’t tell a lie, I know of no complete decode from the FDR recovered from Flight 77 in the Pentagon. However I know selected times and parameters completely decoded to reveal and support the impact of Flight 77 or verification of other flights made by the airframe to include destinations and time.

What was your question?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by iSunTzu]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
The sticking point here seems to be "Why didn't the NTSB provide the last 4 seconds of data?"

The answer is "because, if the entire frame is not complete (and it isn't), then they consider that last frame's data to be 'suspect'."

So, by their Standard Operating Procedures, their decode WAS complete.

Now, why don't you apply the same paranoia to Robby & P4T, and ask why they did not report the last FIVE seconds. What are they trying to cover up? And what are YOU trying to cover up by not asing this blatantly obvious question earlier?

Who do you really work for?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
The cool thing about this 'decode' is that Warren freely shares his methodology and code. I don't have to take his or someone else's word for what is in the file. A person can take his code and walk right though the data from raw file to ouput. He has even written a version that will extract the data stream in binary, segmented into individual WORDs so that others can use other frame layouts.

The NTSB just ran their software. The did not dig into the actual raw data stream the way we are doing. So we can work directly with the last 'incomplete' frame and establish in time when the FDR stopped recording and what the conditions were within a fraction of a second of the event for some parameters.

Of course Rob called me crazy and said I was going to make a fool of myself asking the NTSB for the serial bit data stream recovery in Court. Well, here is why I asked for it. Warren just beat the legal system in getting it for me


Gloating: I have not done it before, but I will now for historical purposes. Like turbofan, I started my work with the FDR in 2007 in consultation with P4T. We parted ways because I soon learned they did not know what they were talking about in this area. By October, 2007 I did a radio show with Ian on Coast-to-coast to present my 2 major findings.

1) The FDR data corresponded to the 84 RADES data that I had just secured from the USAF.
2) Based on a correlation of the two data sets, the NTSB CSV and P4T RO2 were missing 6 +/- 2 seconds of data.

P4T launched an email campaign to C2C claiming I did not know what I was talking about. 2 years later, let me take this opportunity to just say...TOLD YOU SO


[edit on 21-12-2009 by 911files]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu

Originally posted by Lillydale

Let me try this r e a l s l o w f o r y o u.

Was it completely decoded before more of it was decoded? Simple question.

That is one great question. What answer do you want?
Was the FDR ever completely decoded? No.


But you just cannot stop at 'no.' Why is that? It is yes or no. That is it. There is no gray area here. It was completed in 2002 or not. It was not. The answer is no. That is all there is to that.


What was your question?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by iSunTzu]


Was the decode completed in 2002. The answer was again, no.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
The sticking point here seems to be "Why didn't the NTSB provide the last 4 seconds of data?"

The answer is "because, if the entire frame is not complete (and it isn't), then they consider that last frame's data to be 'suspect'."

So, by their Standard Operating Procedures, their decode WAS complete.


Just not actually 'complete.' Why do words have such malleable definitions on ATS?


Now, why don't you apply the same paranoia to Robby & P4T, and ask why they did not report the last FIVE seconds. What are they trying to cover up? And what are YOU trying to cover up by not asing this blatantly obvious question earlier?

Who do you really work for?


It is pretty simple. Some crazy little ol' OSer is the one that said it was completed in 2002. I wanted them to clear up how there can be any new data if it was complete in 2002. See how simple that is?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor


And while you are at it, can you point me to a report containing a list of part numbers and serial numbers for all the airliner crashes in history? Too much to ask? OK, how about a single report? All the NTSB accident reports are online here, but I can't seem to find such reports. They do exist, right?

You see, aviation people(with the exception of Pilots For Truth and their groupies) realize that the NTSB does no such parts ID matching to "positively identify" the aircraft in question after a crash. The only reason they would research part numbers/serial numbers would be to find the maintenance history of parts which may have had a role in the crash. This talk of "positive ID" is a red herring, a distraction, created by PFT to attempt to deflect their lack of evidence for their claims



[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]


Ok, here is one report with a part number ohh ohh and a FDR serial number!!!!

Do I win your debuhking prize?



Subsequent to this records review, the history of the siaadby rudder
actuator was reviewed in detail because of discrepancies found during the actuator's
disassembly (see section 1.16.4.1 of this report.) The actuator was manufactured on October 3, 1981, by Hydraulic Units, Inc-now Dowty Aerospace, it had been installed on N999UA by Boeing during manufacture of the airplane. It had not been removed from the airplane by either Frontier Airlines or by UAL. It was identified by &e manufacturer's part number 1U1150-Î and Boeing part number BAC10-60797-4, serial number 0953.

----------



The FDR was a Fairchild Model FSCK), serial number 4016. The recorder has the capability to record many parameters; however, it was installed in N999UA to record only 5 parameters: heading; altitude; airspeed; normal acceleration (G loads) : and microphone keying. All parameters were sampled and recorded once per second except vertical accélération, which was sampled 8 times





The airplane, a Boeing 737-291 Advanced, serial number 22742, was manufactured in May 1982. (See appendix C). ft was powered by two Pratt & Whitney JT8D-17 engines. The airplane was owned and operated by UAL. it had been acquired by UAL from Frontier Airlines on June 6,1986


Source: National Transportation Safety Board Accident Report

Oh and to answer your question, YES they do exist within individual reports.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join