IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V  « < 11 12 13  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds

onesliceshort
post Jan 4 2012, 12:07 PM
Post #241



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Wow.

Thanks for explaining in layman terms Dennis.

Does the "WRITE ENABLE JUMPER" enable the actual alleged flight data itself to be manipulated or partially destroyed and replaced? The "missing seconds" are starting to look like a rush job (2cents)

...and the "header data erasure"...??

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 4 2012, 12:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 5 2012, 05:54 AM
Post #242





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 4 2012, 09:53 PM) *
From Dennis -

To Robert S:


Dear Mr Ciminio.

Thankyou.

There is a lot, to take in, in your further explanation.

At least, a couple more reads, is in order, then some deep contemplation.

thanks again

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 7 2012, 09:08 PM
Post #243


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10




More rampant disinformation from the lihoperative...

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-12-29/impl...losses#comments

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 3 2012, 09:18 PM) *
Agreed (well... i can trace them if i wanted to.... they just arent worth the effort), and yet those same individuals call us "paranoid", while they can find my address through the FAA airman database and knock on my door. Irony at it's best... I welcome the opportunity.



lol... not only does the idiot not understand the fundamentals of aviation, but apparently he isnt familiar with all the products available to inhibit such issues. Acid reflux? Really? That's hilarious....I recommend Tums.

Although, it is not surprising he had a nervous stomach when he was about to debate CIT. He probably gets "Acid reflux" just thinking about debating real and verified pilots. This is why he can only offer ad homs and personal attacks from a distance. Typical coward.

Again, I recommend Tums. I use them when I get a bit too ambitious with garlic in my italian cooking... but i'm sure they will work well for cowards like "snowcrash".

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 7 2012, 10:30 PM
Post #244



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
We know Atta, Al-Shehhi, Hanjour and Jarrah went into flight training for it, and we know details from the operation from Yosri Fouda's interview with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was reportedly captured due to his interview with Fouda. Moreover, the Bin Laden "confession" tape isn't fake at all, despite a long history of claiming such by the some elements in the 9/11 Truth Movement who don't even know who the people sitting beside Bin Laden in the tape are.

The very reason 9/11 could have been stopped by US authorities was that there was a hijack plan and it was detected in advance, yet subsequently allowed to continue. This is what the evidence, not speculation, shows.

Snowcrash


Wow, he's come stumbling right out of that closet hasn't he??

And the tippytoe reaction to his coming out party...plus votes.

That site is 100% cointel.

Edit: Add on.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 8 2012, 09:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 9 2012, 10:34 AM
Post #245



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 7 2012, 09:30 PM) *
Wow, he's come stumbling right out of that closet hasn't he??

And the tippytoe reaction to his coming out party...plus votes.

That site is 100% cointel.

Edit: Add on.


I took a stroll around the asylum today... wow, what a mess. Snowcrash talking to himself, spinning in circles as usual. lol

You may want to inform that idiot to make up his mind.

First he claims the 330 fps tacking capability is based on vertical speed (without any source whatsoever), then he gives you calculations based on radio waves traveling at the speed of light as to make it appear he knows what he is talking about... and yet i get accused of "technobabble". Irony at it's best. rolleyes.gif

Although, since he is so obsessed with our work and clearly reads this forum religiously (but refuses to engage as the coward he is), I probably just did inform him.

Yes, 'snowcrash', I did address your poor attempt at technobabble via your irrelevant calculations. But since he is still lost, allow me to further explain.

We know radio waves travel at the speed of light, and that the airplane carrying a radio altimeter will travel a very short distance even at high speed during radio wave reflection, but the Radio Altimeter unit itself cannot process all of the information coming in and display it to the pilot as it is being measured at the speed of light... (nor record it to the FDR as it is coming in at the speed of light). This is why your failed technobabble is like saying a Commodore 64 can process information as fast as a Core i7 because electrons travel at the speed of light, and this is why the TSO (which is current today) requires minimum performance standards. In other words Einstein, if the RADALT could process information at the speed of light, there wouldn't be any need for LRRA performance standards. The LRRA designed and manufactured by Rockwell for the 757 exceeds the 300 fps longitudinal velocity Standard as specified.

As usual, 'duhbunkers' don't even understand their own arguments.

They first claim that the 330 fps limitation is in the vertical, then attempt to argue speed of light calculations. Hilarious...

Well, if they think a RADALT can process information in the longitudinal direction at the speed of light, why are they claiming the RADALT is limited to 330 fps in the vertical? Shouldnt the RADALT also be able to process the information at the same speed they claim can be achieved in the longitudinal direction? This is their logic, completely twisted, and contradicting.

Snowcrash's attempt to dazzle with brilliance is nothing more than him trying to baffle with bullshit using information he himself clearly does not understand. It won't work. This is why they cannot get one aviation professional nor verified pilot to support their claims, while our list grows.

Snowcrash should change his online ID to Snowcrashandburn.... lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 9 2012, 11:39 AM
Post #246



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Wow, he's still skulking about over there??

A poster calling himself "wetblanky" compared these guys to clowns falling out of a VW Beetle when they get hit with facts..hahaha.

I think this is a good place to post what Einstein Mk2, Proudbird/weedwhacker recently posted there regarding the 330fps limit (I've included the insults too because the rebuttal makes it even sweeter)

QUOTE
(BTW...."330 fps" = about 195 knots. THAT is the basis for the stated "accuracy".....and that ("195 knots") is well beyond any reasonable final approach groundspeed, where any CAT II, or CAT III approach would be conducted.

Sheesh, any real pilot understands this, and knows the differences. Sad that the "P4T" continue to pollute the "blogosphere" with their long-ago disputed, by MANY aviation professionals, nonsense.....

On the other hand, certain "champions" of "P4T" are relegated to, whether they realize it or not, continue to repeat the same tired old discredited claims. I do NOT attribute this cult-like devotion to any particular "ulterior motive"...only simply attributable to ignorance. And a "slavish" devotion to a "false prophet", in the guise of so-called "9/11 truth".

Of course, those of us with a lifetime of ACTUAL experience can see these deceptions for the 'junk' that they truly represent.


Ahem...

Here are the flap speeds for approach.

Flap 15 210 knots
Flap 20 195 knots
Flap 25 190 knots
Flap 30 162 knots

Source

and this (from the ACARS thread)..

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803054

QUOTE
Given that a Radio Altimeter isn't required to be accurate until inside the clearway zone for a Cat III ILS, (RA cannot determine True Altitude along the approach until over a clearway zone guaranteed to be measuring from nothing but grass) ...and given the fact that the aircraft are not allowed to land with more than a 10 knot tailwind (99.9% of approaches are into a headwind component), the aircraft will be well within the tracking capabilities of the Radio Altimeter when it is needed and required, down low, slow, below 100 agl on Cat III, with a groundspeed of less than 160 knots.

ProudBird/Weedwhacker should know this if he were a 757 Captain. Clearly he is talking out his ass. Looks like he is going to need another sock at ATS as he is rapidly discrediting "Proudbird" as well.... lol


But they'll continue to repeat these dumbass claims at a later date, or on a different forum (I actually watched Snowcrash morph his "parallel to the Navy Annex flightpath according to Morin" into a cryptic "parallel to the Navy Annex is still SOC" and finally "parallel to the Navy Annex doesn't necessarily contradict my hero Warren Stutt's left bank data" into...I left him at that point.

Like a dumb hound tied to a pole, running in circles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 9 2012, 11:57 AM
Post #247



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 9 2012, 10:39 AM) *
"parallel to the Navy Annex doesn't necessarily contradict my hero Warren Stutt's left bank data"


I wonder if he realizes that calculations provided by his own Hero Warren Stutt have completely destroyed their 'altitude divergence' theory stating, "even at normal speeds a significant error, increasing as the plane descends, is consistently found"....

Hey 'snowcrash', next time you see your hero Warren Stutt, ask him if he thinks a 50-120+ foot "altitude divergence" observed on the approach, then decreasing to a 10-20 foot "divergence" once over the clearway zone/runway (based on his own calculations) is considered an "increase in error as the plane descends".

If you are still confused, the answer is in the question (i bolded it for the 'duhbunker' impaired). Your hero avoids these type of questions at all costs. I don't blame him as it proves his 'paper' is only fit for the circular file.. (that's the garbage pail, for the duhbunker impaired).

lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 9 2012, 09:59 PM
Post #248


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Hey Rob,

Has this anonymous "Michiel de Boer", Frank Legge, David Chandler, or most importantly Warren Stutt contacted the NTSB and L3 communications about this alleged bug and "missing seconds" that they apparently missed?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 9 2012, 10:23 PM
Post #249



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 9 2012, 08:59 PM) *
Hey Rob,

Has this anonymous "Michiel de Boer", Frank Legge, David Chandler, or most importantly Warren Stutt contacted the NTSB and L3 communications about this alleged bug and "missing seconds" that they apparently missed?


Allegedly "Warren Stutt" did... as in fact did I.... more than 2 years ago (as of this post)

The NTSB didn't feel the need to revise their conclusions since.... (nor since their official release date of 2002)

Yet the NTSB revised their conclusions on a small 3 degree error, in a little over a year.. after the American Airlines Little Rock incident.

http://www.beta.ntsb.gov/events/2000/AA1420/anim_summary.htm


You decide...

QUOTE
Has this anonymous "Michiel de Boer", Frank Legge, David Chandler...... contacted the NTSB and L3 communications about this alleged bug and "missing seconds" that they apparently missed?


Not that I am aware. It appears to me they are just parrots.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 10 2012, 10:13 AM
Post #250



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



As for the alleged "bug" (well worth the read just to see the shimmying):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10790454

I see Snowcrashandburn and the other cronies always refer to the "bug" as fact even though Warren Stutt is on record as saying this:

QUOTE
The most recent files in the ROSE 3.6a setup are dated 22 April 2004, so it would appear to be more recent than the version that the NTSB used.

Warren.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2012, 10:54 AM
Post #251



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The NTSB did not use the ROSE software, they used RAPS from Flightscape Inc.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10791543
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 10 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #252



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2012, 03:54 PM) *
The NTSB did not use the ROSE software, they used RAPS from Flightscape Inc.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10791543


Sorry, should have been clearer. Even Stutt contradicts his own speculation (cum barndance - Jeez, what a shimmy!)

Dennis' post about the "FF" was very interesting given what he recently said about the "writer enable jumper" and "header data erasure".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803408

"4 missing seconds" in an area where the greatest (and proven) controversy is? Physically tampered with is my personal call.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 20 2012, 03:16 PM
Post #253





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, an outstanding explanation by Dennis Cimino. salute.gif

Like Kevin Ryan, he discovered deception and made it public. Bravo for both!

If the FDR was unassigned, there is no other possible conclusion but that it is fraud on the part of the government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

13 Pages V  « < 11 12 13
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2014 - 11:10 AM