Newsgroups: *rec.music.classical.guitar* From: *Rob Balsamo On Jun 29, 8:41 am, William D Clinger > Rob Balsamo wrote: > > > Will, > > > I'll keep it really simple for you. > > > The time from when signal is generated (ie. when the altimeter needle > > > moved from the Air Data Computer, When the control yoke is moved, when > > > a button is pushed), till the time it is recorded in the CSMU ("The > > > Pig") cannot exceed 0.5 seconds. If you are still confused, call L3 > > > Communication as we have. > > > This means buffer, latency, write time, everything in between, cannot > > > exceed 0.5 seconds. > > Yes Rob, it really is simple. > > For signals whose recording interval is 1 second, > > the worst-case recording latency cannot be less than > > 1 second. > > That's a mathematical fact. > > Your argument against that mathematical fact rests > > entirely upon a single sentence of a single email > > conversation that answers your poorly worded question > > about "typical" lag time. > It's not "typical" lag time. It's industry standards they must meet. > There is no "typical" in the equation. It must perform to that > specific standard. MT, as i said before... dont bother. Its clear Will still cant grasp the fact of "cannot exceed 0.5 seconds". I will reply here one more time to expose Will's intellectual dishonesty. Will is trying to spin this into something it is not to confuse the reader (or Will just truly doesnt have a clue). It is also clear Will hasnt opened the csv file. For example, Will is using the term "interval" while we are describing buffer lag time in order to make a case for "mathmatecal impossibility". It is clear Will either doesnt understand the problem at hand, or is intentionally confusing the reader. Many parameters in the csv file record at different intevals. For instance, Vertical accelration records at 8 cycles per second, while a parameter like DME records at 1 cycle every 4 seconds.Altitude records at 1 cycle per second. The argument that has been discussed ad nauseum with "Duh-Dunkers" is that even though altitude records at 1 cycle per second, that the buffer must have been the cause of the last recorded altitude being between 2-6 seconds (depending on which duhbunker you speak with) from the "impact" time. Meaning the buffer was a 2-6 second lag time. This claim is false. When any parameter is generated, regardless of interval, it takes less than 0.5 seconds to record to the CSMU after it was generated. Each parameter you see in the csv file, regardless of interval, was generated less than 0.5 seconds to the corresponding time stamp the NTSB plotted in the csv file. Which means the last recorded altitude in the FDR data was no more than 1.5 seconds from the wall, which means the aircraft was too high for the pentagon and too high for the light poles. Period. Will, your intellectual dishonesty has gone over the top as not even duhbunkers try to spin this into your attempted argument. As for "peer-reviewed" papers. Again, would you submit a paper on 2+2=4 for peer review? The reason Farmer is writing up convoluted papers filled with error and mistakes (he still hasnt a clue of margin for error true vs radar alt, nor a clue of slant range) is because he is offering the theory that the FDR is missing 6 seconds. According to the NTSB, the FDR manufacturer, several Aircraft Accident Investigators (including the USAF Aircraft Accident Board President) the DME recorded on the data itself... etc etc.. it is not. We dont need to write up a simple math problem into a peer reviewed paper. But we did write up several press releases with our names, face and professional reputations signed which were distributed globally. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html Feel free to make up any excuse you wish, or come up with any theory you wish in order to preserve your denial, cognitive dissonance, or apathy. The facts speak for themselves.