New FDR Decode

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Sorry, will have to do better than "Prison Planet" as a source!! LOL!

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Better ?

And of course the article you have provided (which was actually quoted in the original Prison Planet article) mentions absolutely nothing about the dude being a paid CIA informant.

You consistency display an inability to properly digest the information that is presented to you.

Deliberate or otherwise, you are nothing but disinformation.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by 767doctor

 

This thread has really built up replies within the last couple of days.

I don't recall which page any longer, however the manual which I have
confirms your conclusion. A few pages back I made a post about
the density calculations to show how the parameter updates.

It's safe to say that finding an "error" with a parameter is going to be
virtually non-existent. Depending on which camp you're coming from,
the data is either real (recorded from the aircraft's FDR), or it has been
staged using another airplane / flight sim.

It's not as though someone typed in the 1/0's for the entire .fdr file, for
every parameter. That's just not an option. Having said that, I'd like to
continue debating some stronger points but not within this thread.

I think this is a case where the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. That would be that AA uses an optional fourth densitometer for the surge tank. That density is then routed to the FQMU/FQIS Processor for crunching, is then picked off, and transmitted as an ARINC429 word to the FDAU, just like my schematic shows. No magic. No fakery.

If anyone is interested in a friendly discussion, I'll start up a new thread.
If nothing else, to pass time. It's not as though I'm looking to change
the world with another topic on flight data!

Rules are:

- no name calling
- no sarcasm
- no put downs
- no, "not nice" stuff

(hey, one can dream...)

That doesn't sound like much fun! I love aviation, and I love my job, but this particular subject is just not very interesting for me. I fashion myself as kind of a doer; this study of the minutiae and providing mundane "data paths" and analysis of "data frame layouts" quickly bores me to tears.

I'll continue to chime in if I feel people are getting things wrong, but I think for the most part I'll be bowing out of the discussion now. PFt have been exposed...again. I'm glad you had the sense to see through the BS, Tino.

Bobby has practically admitted that he was mistaken about his premise "if its in the DFL, its a working parameter"/"unused parameters would be blank". JFK has admitted that they need the proper manuals to be sure about this "finding" - yet - the headline "9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE. FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT" is still proudly posted there. The fact that they realize it's pure bunk and still don't retract it says everything anyone ever needs to know about PFT. More of that "fake but accurate" reporting the truth movemnt has become infamous for.

Once again I am not PFT.

Without the proper schematics written specifically for flight 77 it is not possible to prove or disprove that the flight deck door parameter was being recorded.

You also appear to have some "pull" in the avaition industry...

Why is it that you do not attempt to aquire the proper schematics ?
( with flight 77's serial and registration number on the proper pages )

By not doing so in effect you yourself are playing a part in what you describe as disinformation.

Warren has added a 'decompressor' program for anyone wishing to study the WORD structure. Perhaps compare results using alternate frame layouts.

Decompressor Program

The program will generate 256 12-bit WORD's.

001001000111 011101111111 100100001111 110011010111

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Once again I am not PFT.

(...)

You also appear to have some "pull" in the avaition industry...

Why is it that you do not attempt to aquire the proper schematics ?
( with flight 77's serial and registration number on the proper pages )

By not doing so in effect you yourself are playing a part in what you describe as disinformation.

Ahem. I assume you already asked these two fine gentlemen?


Core Members List(Pilots For Truth)

Mike Aybar
Aircraft Maintenance Technician, Crew Chief
American Airlines

Bill Credle
Aviation Maintenance Technician
American Airlines
17 Years



It's not my job to provide evidence for your claims.

JFrickenK
Without the proper schematics written specifically for flight 77 it is not possible to prove or disprove that the flight deck door parameter was being recorded.

I *almost* agree. But theres the matter of the 42 hours of all 0's for that parameter, including preflight, ground ops, and maintenance ops. It's pretty cut and dried, JFK.

BTW Robby, did you see that? Now JFK has joined Turbofan in his skepticism of this claim. It seems that everyone else understands that your claim is bullsh!t except you. Continue looking like a moron, its what you do best.




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

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Once again I am not PFT.

(...)

You also appear to have some "pull" in the avaition industry...

Why is it that you do not attempt to aquire the proper schematics ?
( with flight 77's serial and registration number on the proper pages )

By not doing so in effect you yourself are playing a part in what you describe as disinformation.

Ahem. I assume you already asked these two fine gentlemen?


Core Members List(Pilots For Truth)

Mike Aybar
Aircraft Maintenance Technician, Crew Chief
American Airlines

Bill Credle
Aviation Maintenance Technician
American Airlines
17 Years



It's not my job to provide evidence for your claims.

They have been asked. Not by me.

No, but one would think that you would at least try to get them to support your claims.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Without the proper schematics written specifically for flight 77 it is not possible to prove or disprove that the flight deck door parameter was being recorded.

Do you think that PffffffT should have mentioned that in the press release?

Oh, that's right, you have nothing to do with PfffffffT. You're just one of their admins who turned up guns a blazing after turbofan showed some intellectual sack and questioned the accuracy of one of their press releases (like you appear to be doing now).

[edit on 12-12-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Why is it that you do not attempt to aquire the proper schematics ?
( with flight 77's serial and registration number on the proper pages )

Better yet, why is it that an organisation called PILOTS for 9/11 Truth, with an ever increasing membership of PILOTS, AVIATION ENGINEERS and MECHANICS (including some that allegedly work for AMERICAN AIRLINES) did not already possess a copy of the correct schematics?

Robby,

Another example of a pilot who speaks about non-pilot issues ...

... and gets the wrong answer.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yes, although I don't have the math equations to verify, nor calculate, the exact amounts,

It's simple trig weedwhacker. Sin 1 = o/h. Wingspan is 124, divided by 2 = 62. Sin 1 = o/62. Sin 1(62) = o. Double it and this is the amount of "swing" in the wing for a 1 degree crab.

Wrong. You gave weedwhacker the equation for the fore & aft (with respect to the plane) displacement of the wingtips as a function of crab angle. This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the wingtips will span far enough to hit the light poles.

The effective wingspan as a function of crab angle is what matters.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

it is true that a swept-wing will seem to 'lengthen' as the leading edge is presented more amd more perpindicular to the relative wind.

The effective wingspan/wing length along a course will never increase when the aircraft is askew as compared to a course with zero wind. The effective wing length with repect to the damage path will decrease with any crab angle.
[edit on 25-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Wrong.

The wingspan does not "decrease by 2.2 feet at a 1° crab angle", as you stated to weedwhacker.

It is also false that the effective wingspan always decreases as soon as the crab angle diverges from 0°. And the 757 is a prime example.

It turns out that, at a 1° crab angle, the wingspan actually INCREASES by about 0.17" compared to the wingspan when the crab angle is 0°.

Would you care to make a wager on this?

Pilots acting like know-it-alls again.

Let' see if Robby's learned his lessons from the conversations about aneroids and FSDO's.

My bet is "no way".

TomK

[edit on 12-12-2009 by thomk]

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Without the proper schematics written specifically for flight 77 it is not possible to prove or disprove that the flight deck door parameter was being recorded.

Cripes JFrickenK,

Let's look back about 35 pages ago (page 48),

www.abovetopsecret.com...

where I stated:

Originally posted by TomK52
4. You [Balsamo] believe that [an unconnected Logical 1 value would allow] "... a tech [who] reviews the data [to] readily admit ... its not valid."
I believe the that this is incompetent engineering. ... I believe that the ONLY COMPETENT way to determine the facts of the case are to examine the specific maintenance history file on that specific plane.

(Which, everyone should note, is precisely what you & Turbo & your rest of your gaggle of incompetents is NOT doing.)

[emphasis added]

Took ya long enough...

What does ole Cap'n Robby say now? It changes by the hour...

Tom


[edit on 12-12-2009 by thomk]

Just to clarify my "I am not PFT" statement for those who have pounced upon that at other forums...

PFT stands for "Pilots for 911 truth", as in an organization.
NO one person is PFT.

I am not a pilot and the closest I have come to being a pilot was landing a cessna in an emergency several decades ago...
Other than that it is from various flight simulator games and official CBT's.

I do have experience in the avionics field from roughly a decade before landing that cessna during my military service.

As far as my ADMIN status at PFT, I was asked to become one ( repeatedly ) because of my experience admining other forums, my knowledge of verifiable anomolies surrounding the events of 911, and my computer skills.

As a matter of fact, last night I was asked to fix a post which was too long characterwise and I could not access the Admin panel there because I had misplaced the new link for it during my reinstall of my OS due to a nasty set of virii.

Nevertheless I did fix it by manually editing a local copy of the corrupt page and gaining access to my mod panel in that manner. ( on other forums when that happens Admin usually just delete the thread because they do not fully understand exactly how their forum works )

Do I agree with everything which Rob ( and the others from other forums ) state ?

Nope. Never have and never will.... However there IS much that I do agree with.

Am I infallable ? Nope, Are you ? ( if you answered yes, you lie )

83 pages and still no proof the door was opened in flight for a hijack to occur, no proof N644AA was the aircraft responsible for the damage at the Pentagon, no proof the PA is in error, no proof of the object from which RA is measuring. No proof the past "11 flights" existed as passenger service, no pax or crew manifest, Just more and more proof that those who make excuse for the govt story have nothing better to do than bicker with people they think are nuts, from behind their screen, day and night. Sad.

And for those who seem to have forgotten... i'll bold the pertinent statements below since some keep missing it.

....we have verified Warrens data for the last flight only, the alleged hijacking on Sept 11, it shows the door closed.

Some have made the claim that the rest of the data also shows the door closed for the entire time. We at P4T do not have the resources at this time to verify that additional data. But again, we did verify the last flight through our own decode. In the future, we may be able to verify the rest.

As we know, those who make excuse for the govt story will believe anything they're told if it supports their beliefs. None of them have verified the ADDITIONAL 40 hours of data. They just take it at face value because it MAY support their agenda.

Keep in mind, if the data all showed 1's, meaning door open, we can definitively say the data is erroneous, as there is no way the cockpit door would be open for 40 hours of passenger service at American Airlines. And if logic has any value, this would be the bit value recorded if the FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter wasn't hooked up to the system so when a tech reviews the data, he can readily admit its not valid.

But the fact is the data shows all 0's for the last flight and verified by P4T. This means the door was closed for that flight and the hijacking impossible BASED ON THE DATA. The NTSB/FBI are the only ones who are able to, and need to, explain this alarming conflict.

All else is speculation and theory.

Again, this data not PROOF of anything as I mentioned on page one of this thread where i stated "...we can not confirm or deny the authenticity of the data as provided by the NTSB". All we know for a FACT, is that the data being provided by the NTSB to the American public through the FOIA does NOT support the govt story, once again. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Enjoy your Sunday folks. Look for the announcement of our largest update ever to our Core Member list. Should be sometime this week!

pilotsfor911truth.org...

@767Doc

Are both comparators required for flight at Delta?

6th time asked.

Why do you keep evading this question?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply to post by R_Mackey


From a person who has as much as admitted to be Rob Balsamo. Who still insults a real person, one Ryan Mackey, with a screen name that is an obvious ploy...and a "pilot" who either just refuses to "get it", or plays the 'stupid' game on purpose. For $$$$:

No proof the past "11 flights" existed as passenger service, no pax or crew manifest, Just more and more proof that those who make excuse for the govt story have nothing better to do than bicker with people they think are nuts, from behind their screen, day and night. Sad.

That little snippet speaks volumes.

It is a perfect example of falacious 'reasoning'. AND, is a very blatant example also of the duplicity evinced by the originator of the P4T web forum. BECAUSE (and I don't have it handy ATM, but it's been posted here, in this thread -- or the other one -- and was on the P4T forum as well), a full rundown of the leg segments operated by the airplane known as 'N644AA' in the days preceding 9/11. Compiled by some generous soul from the BTS site.

Rob Balsamo's statement, again:

No proof the past "11 flights" existed as passenger service...

Outright lie. The info is on his own forum (unless he's removed it...).

Of course, the only other possible explanation for the other 25+ hours of FDR data, hours when the engines were operating and the electrical system operating normally, would be for Maintenance taxiing around all that time, or for the airplane flying deadhead...and who in their right mind would think that an airline like American would operate an airplane non-revenue that much???

Then, we have this hilarious piece:

...no pax or crew manifest...

Well, the names of passengers ARE listed, and freely available after a short Internet search.

911research.wtc7.net...

If Rob Balsamo expects a company like American Airlines to maintain their reservations information from over eight years ago, and even IF they still have it, to offer propietary info like that to HIM, or to anyone, he is deluding himself.

AS TO the crew lists??? Well, dontcha think, just maybe, good ole' Captain/Commander 'Rotten" Ralph Kolstad, pilot extraordinaire (apparently) who actually once worked at AAL would be able to ferret out that data???

MY airline has all of the crew scheduling computerized. I can get a printout of my time, by aircraft type. Not sure how much detail they keep, but American Airlines has a far more sophisticated computer system in Sabre, I would think, than some others do. Why not see if you can pull up the crew's old schedules from the first week of September, 2001??

What's that? Too much trouble? Yeah...probably. Also, pointless to the extreme.

"Arguing" that the airplane at the Pentagon wasn't the same machine being operated as American Airlines flight 77 on 11 from IAD-LAX on 11 September, 2001 is foolish beyond measure. AND, it is insulting to the memories of those victims...ALL of them from that day.

Has Balsamo no shame? Is greed his only motivation?

reply to post by R_Mackey

@767Doc

Are both comparators required for flight at Delta?

6th time asked.

Why do you keep evading this question?

I'm not 767Doctor, but...who cares?!?!?

Rob, do you even understand the Comparator, how it functions, what it "looks" at? Do you know how it works? Do you know what an MEL is? Do you know that the MEL at one company might be different than at another? Even on similar fleets?

AND, can you explain what it has to do with this topic???

Your cute attempt at "6th time asked" with whatever insinuation was meant is another puzzlement. Just what are you going on about, anyway?
___________________________________________________________
Oh, forgot to add, for extra credit: What circumstances might result in ICU monitoring being unavailable, due to a pilot's actions in the cockpit?




[edit on 13 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by R_Mackey

 

@767Doc

Are both comparators required for flight at Delta?

6th time asked.

Why do you keep evading this question?

I'm not 767Doctor, but...who cares?!?!?

You can't answer the question either ?

Oh well, don't feel bad... Neither can I.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
83 pages and still no proof the door was opened in flight for a hijack to occur, no proof N644AA was the aircraft responsible for the damage at the Pentagon, no proof the PA is in error, no proof of the object from which RA is measuring. No proof the past "11 flights" existed as passenger service, no pax or crew manifest, Just more and more proof that those who make excuse for the govt story have nothing better to do than bicker with people they think are nuts, from behind their screen, day and night. Sad.

Translation: "I know my claim has been roundly and thoroughly destroyed by many people, including two of my closest allies. But I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend I don't know how big a fool I'm being made of. As long as the sheeple in black shirts keep swallowing my (cow manure) whole, I'll keep dishing it out. After all, none of my current DVDs are selling so I need new material."

And for those who seem to have forgotten... i'll bold the pertinent statements below since some keep missing it.

....we have verified Warrens data for the last flight only, the alleged hijacking on Sept 11, it shows the door closed.

Translation: "We won't support data that makes us look like fools, so we're just gonna pretend that the additional 40 hours doesn't exist, mmkay?"

Some have made the claim that the rest of the data also shows the door closed for the entire time. We at P4T do not have the resources at this time to verify that additional data. But again, we did verify the last flight through our own decode. In the future, we may be able to verify the rest.

Translation: "We were morons for not looking at the rest of the data before issuing the press release. But since we can't have ourselves looking like dunces, we'll just pretend the rest of the data doesn't exist. Sound good?"

As we know, those who make excuse for the govt story will believe anything they're told if it supports their beliefs. None of them have verified the ADDITIONAL 40 hours of data. They just take it at face value because it MAY support their agenda.

Translation: "We are out of arguments, and since releasing the data that shows us to be the con-artists we are isn't an option - we'll just call anyone who has studied the rest of the data a "government stooge".

Keep in mind, if the data all showed 1's, meaning door open, we can definitively say the data is erroneous, as there is no way the cockpit door would be open for 40 hours of passenger service at American Airlines. And if logic has any value, this would be the bit value recorded if the FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter wasn't hooked up to the system so when a tech reviews the data, he can readily admit its not valid.

Translation: "I have no idea what I just said there, but it sounds good to me."

But the fact is the data shows all 0's for the last flight and verified by P4T. This means the door was closed for that flight and the hijacking impossible BASED ON THE DATA. The NTSB/FBI are the only ones who are able to, and need to, explain this alarming conflict.

Translation: "I'm still gonna pretend that I have no idea about the other 40 hours of data, which nullifies everything I just said. And I'm still going to insist that, even though everything I presumed about the FDD parameter turned out to be false(binary data registering a "blank" and all parameters in the DFL being active), my claim still proves an inside jobby job. "

Enjoy your Sunday folks. Look for the announcement of our largest update ever to our Core Member list. Should be sometime this week!

Translation: "Well, I may be an idiot who gets everything wrong and I may be completely out of arguments, but theres always a new crop of koolaid drinkers out there to preach to and sell my DVDs to

[edit on 13-12-2009 by 767doctor]