Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77, FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact Rating Options

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

wstutt
Last Seen: 18th January 2011 - 06:39 AM

[richard cranium]

Thank you Mr. Cimino for not only your excellent Post#2 in this thread, but also for all of your time and hard work that I am sure went into your research. You will be forever engraved in my list of the true American heros I have been forunate enough to meet and listen to at this great site. Please believe me when I say your work is very much appreciated. Thank you.

Your work is truly another nail in the coffin of the goverment's "official theory". I sometimes wonder how many damn nails will be necessary to finally bury this coffin?

I will pass this information on to everyone I know. Keep the Faith All!!


rc

[wstutt]

Hi Dennis Cimino,

I have now decoded the FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER parameters from the FDR data according to the generic Boeing data frame layout 757-3B. When they are interpreted as unsigned integers they have values of 1 and 35 respectively. Although they were not in the text preamble of the file where you were expecting to find them, do you think they could be used to identify the aircraft? They do not appear to me to be a tail number, however if I understand you correctly, you were not expecting them to be a tail number.

I see from Rob Balsamo's list of your credentials that you have experience with Doppler RADAR. It has been suggested that since at least one make and model of radio altimeter that is used to measure an aircraft's height above the ground and that has been used in 757s has a specified tracking capability of 330 feet per second that such a radio altimeter would not work correctly if the aircraft in which it is installed has a speed faster than 330 feet per second. I do not immediately see a reason why this would be so. However, I could see how the Doppler effect would impact the accuracy of the radio altimeter if the distance between the aircraft and the ground is rapidly changing.

Would the tracking capability of the radio altimeter be referring to the speed of the aircraft as has been suggested or to the rate of change of the height of the aircraft above the ground? If it is the former, could you explain why or cite a reference where I can read about it?

Warren Stutt.

[rob balsamo]

Warren,

I have emailed Dennis to come take a look. He usually isnt a forum person, so hopefully he will get the email.

I find it odd that the A/C Number and Fleet ID were able to be decoded by a Generic data frame layout (albeit with "unsigned integers"... which doesnt really mean anything at this point, nor have you shown where they are linked to N644AA), but not by the Custom Data Frame Layout made by American Airlines for their 757 Fleet, combined with the claim you make that it's in the wrong spot of the data (that is, if you're correct...). Dont you find this odd? Or do you still feel the Custom Data Frame layout is "flawed" for the American Airlines fleet and cannot be used by anyone, including American Airlines.

Also, regardless of tracking capability, RA does not guarantee your distance from the ground. This has been explained numerous times in this thread. This is why you are seeing an "altitude divergence". The Low-Range Radio Altimeter is not meant for high speed Terrain Following and does not have the speed of such a processor, nor is it forward looking. It is meant for low speed landings in zero visibility to assist with the flare. That is it. This is why it is not required for Standard Instrument flight and the Primary Altimeter is required. MDA, DA, Non-Precision, Precision Cat I, Cat II (Part 91), all reference the Primary Altimeter as it is the most accurate for determining your True Altitude, especially when calibrated through an Air Data Computer. Radio Altimeters do not and cannot determine your True Altitude, even when ground elevation is known. This is also why the Primary Altimeter is right in front of the Pilot's face on all aircraft and if equipped, the radio altimeter is not.

Finally, why do you continue to avoid our questions and requests? You expect everyone to answer your questions, but you avoid all questions asked of you. Why is that Warren?

When are you going to provide the other FDR files which you claim are also missing AC ID and Fleet ID so they can be cross-checked? Can you please tell us which flights they are alleged to have came from?

Have you figured out yet that you have used the wrong FAR as the whole premise for your "paper"? Combined with the fact that the wiki source you provided has the FAR quoted incorrectly?

Can you also walk us through this equation using the last Pressure Altitude data point?

Static pressure (in Hg) = 29.9213 * (1 – 0.0019812 * A / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
where A = raw altitude (ft).
True Altitude (ft) = ((273.15 + T) / 0.0019812) * (1 – (P / S) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
where T = temperature at sea level (deg C); P = static pressure (in Hg); S = altimeter setting (in Hg).


Why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

Once you correct the wrong FAR you have listed in your paper, we'll move onto... and then you will understand...more of your errors.

[Dennis Cimino]

<br />Hi Dennis Cimino,<br /><br />I have now decoded the FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER parameters from the FDR data according to the generic Boeing data frame layout 757-3B. When they are interpreted as unsigned integers they have values of 1 and 35 respectively. Although they were not in the text preamble of the file where you were expecting to find them, do you think they could be used to identify the aircraft? They do not appear to me to be a tail number, however if I understand you correctly, you were not expecting them to be a tail number.<br /><br />I see from Rob Balsamo's list of your credentials that you have experience with Doppler RADAR. It has been suggested that since at least one make and model of radio altimeter that is used to measure an aircraft's height above the ground and that has been used in 757s has a specified tracking capability of 330 feet per second that such a radio altimeter would not work correctly if the aircraft in which it is installed has a speed faster than 330 feet per second. I do not immediately see a reason why this would be so. However, I could see how the Doppler effect would impact the accuracy of the radio altimeter if the distance between the aircraft and the ground is rapidly changing.<br /><br />Would the tracking capability of the radio altimeter be referring to the speed of the aircraft as has been suggested or to the rate of change of the height of the aircraft above the ground? If it is the former, could you explain why or cite a reference where I can read about it?<br /><br />Warren Stutt.<br />

<br /><br /><br />


Mr. Stutts:

I now have to define your entire 'work product' as utter and total BULLSHIT. You had about 4 days to come up with a better bullshit story than this one, and to propose that AC ID and FLEET ID are buried in the flight parameter stream after the preamble, where it always always always is, is so beyond the pale and absurd, that it's now not conjecture that you're a COIN OP (counterintelligence) from either the U.S. government, or the mossad, but you're actually a very badly managed one, to float this shit.

You failed to address any of the incongruencies I published about the entire event, not even one of them. Now, as a non pilot, I don't expect you to try to understand how the entire thing is absurdity from the very start to assert that an 80 ton plane went thru the 'cat door' at the Pentagon, and didn't leave any wreckage till the F.B.I. began to seed it later that morning with the Buga, Colombia jungle weathered wreckage. I can understand that, as you would have no way to explain the lack of aircraft upset during a violent and ugly hijacking, and also, the Altimeter setting in the NTSB fabricated crap in one of their products, because they were so sloppy they failed to both see it and understand it's importance here, in that this, as well as the no aircraft upset, and the lack of rudder inputs, while not on A/P., and the impossible pullout from the dive, all were so impossible that only in a child's game could any of this hokey shit be believable.

So now I have to say for the record you guys are a COIN OP for the people who did this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to prove you were not a bullshit mill for Sunstein's cognitive infiltration network of zio prostitutes for Israel, and you totally blew that gig here.

I tell you what. Go sell this to the National Enquirer. They might print your dissertation. But no meaningful and relevant aviation based analysis validates any of your turd feed here, because virtuallly all of your stuff has borne itself out to be so absurd that even the Enquirer would probably balk at publishing your disinformation.

I'm sorry, Mr. Stutts, but you unmasked yourself with this total, utter bullshit today. And we didn't even have to do it for you, you did it yourself.

[rob balsamo]

Looks like you have another problem Warren. The 757-3b_1.txt sampling rate is no where near the rate of your alleged A/C and Fleet ID fields.

You wouldn't happen to be feeding us more garbage would you?

By the way, your Type field also further conflicts with Aircraft Identification as N644AA is not a 757-200 technically... It is a 757-223.


Legge, Jones, Ryan... did you guys get anyone to verify the data Warren has "decoded" prior to publish?

It's already clear you didnt consult an aviation expert, because if you did, they would have immediately caught the wrong FAR sourced and the foundation for your "paper"..... This is basic stuff for even a private pilot.

It stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Thanks for the laughs though.

[Pier69]

Hi Dennis, could you explain (please) the LRRA tracking capability?

The Warren question sounds legit to me...

ty

Pier.

This post has been edited by Pier69: Jan 24 2011, 04:35 PM

[rob balsamo]

Hi Dennis, could you explain (please) the LRRA tracking capability?

The Warren question sounds legit to me...

ty

Pier.

Hi Pier,

Long time no see. Where ya been?

Last time we spoke (what 3 years ago?), you had an excellent study of the manipulation of the DoD 5 frames video.

Do you still have that?

As for Dennis describing tracking capability... he is pretty PO'ed right now... so i dont think he will stop by anytime soon to answer questions of those who refuse to answer our questions. Provoking an emotional response is one of the tactics used for Truth Suppression. Believe me, I've learned the hard way..

However, from what I understand, Tino Desideri knows the tracking capability pretty well and has tried to explain it to John Bursill at 911Blogger... but they banned him.

You can find Tino at the 911oz forum under the screename "turbofan". He may get back to you quicker as he does frequent forums (unlike Dennis).

When i do get a more thorough reply from Dennis regarding tracking, i'll be sure to post it.

In the meantime, can you please post your excellent analysis of the manipulation of the DoD 5 frames video? Considering you're a cinematographer, you clearly have expertise above and beyond the layman in this area, and it is an excellent reference.

Thanks!

[rob balsamo]

Well... Dennis got back to me faster than I thought...

Q - Can you please expand on Low-Range Radio Altimeter with respect to tracking capability?

A - ... this RADALT is the civilian version of the APN-194 in every respect. I have a former bench tech avionics guy who knows this box well.

Q - The 757 LRRA has a 330 fps tracking capability. What exactly happens when the aircraft is flying faster than the tracking capability of the LRRA?

A - it gets behind and doesn't provide real time altimetry. it's that simple. and truly, any of the experienced pilots can tell you that as you are very well aware, no sane pilot would focus on the RADALT on any approach, merely having it in one's instrument scan (and you and I know what that is, don't we) is good enough. When I have flown RADALT equipped machinery, I never used that instrument as the sole arbiter of my actual height above ground. I always scanned the whole primary flight instrument cluster, not just one indicator.

And to confirm what Dennis is saying, I've never used a RADALT in all my years of Flight Instruction flying approaches to minimums, Precision and Non-Precision, well below 2500 AGL.

The RADALT was a "nice to have.. nice to know" type of instrument. But never relied upon for instrument flight.

When approaching Decision Height, your scan is so vigorous that you dont even have time to look at the RADALT.

That is why this statement by Legge is so hilarious to a real pilot.

"Nobody cares whether the [Primary] altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it. "

[Pier69]

Hi Pier,

Long time no see. Where ya been?

Hola Rob. I've spent last years working on eyewitness validation on Italian blog http://pentagonreports.blogspot.com/, keeping myself miles away from 911 forums. I think you know why....

Last time we spoke (what 3 years ago?), you had an excellent study of the manipulation of the DoD 5 frames video.

Do you still have that?

Yes, of course. But at this time (when I can...) I'm still working on a 2.0 version because new technical infos about real cameras, new vids, new DEM's and a more accurate 3D model of the pentagon site. The analysis "core" remains similar but I need to review every step using new and more validated data. There is a lot of work to be done.

I can't give you a release date, sorry.


Video OT closed.


About LRRA limits...It's my personal opinion that we needs to delve deeper into this specific issue. I know, you are aviation pro, but we aren't...

Take care and ty for fast reply...

Pier

This post has been edited by Pier69: Jan 24 2011, 05:38 PM

[rob balsamo]

Hola Rob. I've spent last years working on eyewitness validation on Italian blog http://pentagonreports.blogspot.com/, keeping myself miles away from 911 forums. I think you know why....

Ah Ha! So you are the one who found Steve as a NoC witness. Good work!

Yes, of course. But at this time (when I can...) I'm still working on a 2.0 version because new technical infos about real cameras, new vids, new DEM's and a more accurate 3D model of the pentagon site. The analysis "core" remains similar but I need to review every step using new and more validated data. There is a lot of work to be done.

I know the feeling.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AoP_Trailer

.04% tolerance in the above model. Can ya beat it?

Wait till you see some of the animations coming for our NORAD presentation.

Thanks for your help by they way... you've been excellent. I've come a long way thanks to you (and Gordon..).

About LRRA limits...It's my personal opinion that we needs to delve deeper into this specific issue. I know, you are aviation pro, but we aren't...

We have...

If you havent read this thread thoroughly... and the thread linked in the footnotes of the OP, you should. Lots of good info including references directly to Rockwell Collins.

Take care and ty for fast reply...

Pier

Pleasure is mine... good to see ya.

But again, if you could post your analysis of the DoD 5 frame manipulation, that would be an excellent resource till you get done with your new analysis.

Regards

[Pier69]

Ah Ha! So you are the one who found Steve as a NoC witness. Good work!

Yes I'm sir!

I know the feeling.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AoP_Trailer

.04% tolerance in the above model. Can ya beat it?

I can man...I can... working on HR STDS and DEMs triangulation...

http://img262.imageshack.us/i/route27.jpg/

http://img340.imageshack.us/i/vupath.jpg/

http://img821.imageshack.us/i/navyannex.jpg/

http://img291.imageshack.us/i/citgosides.jpg/

http://img593.imageshack.us/i/vupath3.jpg/

http://img819.imageshack.us/i/newpentagon.jpg/

OT 2 closed...

Dennis, thank you for your reply. Believe me, I'm not part of anything and I do not support F. Legge paper for faith and bias. But i cant reject this work for faith and bias. I'm just interested in FDR stuff because is one of the major noisy elements inside the pentagon scenario. Infos by expert are welcome, but I'd rather understand than believe...

BTW thank you for your time Dennis!

[rob balsamo]

Yes I'm sir!





I can man...I can... working on HR STDS and DEMs triangulation...

http://img262.imageshack.us/i/route27.jpg/

http://img340.imageshack.us/i/vupath.jpg/

http://img821.imageshack.us/i/navyannex.jpg/

http://img291.imageshack.us/i/citgosides.jpg/

http://img593.imageshack.us/i/vupath3.jpg/

http://img819.imageshack.us/i/newpentagon.jpg/

Wow... any chance you can pass some of those models this way?

Nice work.. but i suppose i would not expect anything less from you. Wow... really good work.

Dennis, thank you for your reply. Believe me, I'm not part of anything and I do not support F. Legge paper for faith and bias. But i cant reject this work for faith and bias. I'm just interested in FDR stuff because is one of the major noisy elements inside the pentagon scenario. Infos by expert are welcome, but I'd rather understand than believe...

BTW thank you for your time Dennis!

Dont mind Dennis... he is really super PO'ed right now for those trying to float what he considers garbage. I know the feeling.. been there many times....

Give him a bit of time to cool off... he's a good guy with lots of expertise.

In the meantime, i highly recommend you read this thread thoroughly as well as the thread linked in the footnotes of the Original post. You'll find a lot of good info which is well sourced exposing the Legge/Stutt garbage. Of course, i am here for any questions as well.

[Pier69]

In the meantime, i highly recommend you read this thread thoroughly as well as the thread linked in the footnotes of the Original post. You'll find a lot of good info which is well sourced exposing the Legge/Stutt garbage. Of course, i am here for any questions as well.

Ok Rob.

PS: I don't release my models for commercial use and, believe me, are too complex for CGI multiplatform sharing. And....I'm affected by italian jealousy

[rob balsamo]

Ok Rob.

PS: I don't release my models for commercial use and, believe me, are too complex for CGI multiplatform sharing. And....I'm affected by italian jealousy

Yes... i know.. but it was worth a shot.. dont forget.. i'm Italian too.. but NY Italian.. yo!

Looking forward to your new analysis on the DoD 5 frames manipulation. Be sure to email me when it's out..

.....and dont hesitate to ask questions regarding the Legge paper. We have shown through real time examples that the calculations made in his paper would cause aircraft to plow into the ground if they were correct. Not to mention fundamental errors such as sourcing the incorrect Federal Aviation Regulation as it pertains to Altimeter errors, an error that is unjustified when claiming the paper is "peer-reviewed", especially when it is virtually the foundation for their paper.

Read around, you'll see. Let me know if you need me to expand on the details.

Again.. good to see you back in the fight.

[Pier69]

Again. good to see ya.. .and dont hesitate to ask questions regarding the Legge paper. we have shown through real time examples that the calculations made in his paper would cause aircraft to plow into the ground if they were correct. Not to mention fundamental errors such as sourcing the incorrect Federal Aviation Regulation as it pertains to Altimeter errors, an error that is unjustified when claiming the paper is "peer-reviewed".

Read around, you'll see. Let me know if you need me to expand on the details.

Yeah. I would like to see a good review, step by step, of Legge paper. I'm working on some decoding and conversion process but, you know, I can be wrong in many aspect. The most "interesting" part for me is the True altitude, Radio Height, Radio Altitude (based on ground elevation) analysis made by Mr. Legge. But, if the RA argument is a bullshit, the entire house of cards collapse. This is why I'm questioning about LRRA limits.

I know IDs, FAR, IAD, A/C and Fleet ID etc, are big arguments - but F. Legge paper seems to be extremely basics and mainly based on altimeter calibration and radio altitude VS true altitude.

Believe me if I tell you that, for people like me (aviation INexpert), Legge paper might be reliable. If I get a look inside a simple FDR decoding with Radio Height and Pressure Altitude (without conversions) - during the last take off recorded by FDR, the Radio Height seems to be a valid and smooth parameter at low altitude (stop working above 2500/2700).

Simple arguments, as F. Legge paper suggest, have a great appeal, more than 1 million of hyper complex counterargument.

So, I know I'm redundant, but I really want to understand why Radio Height argument is a bullshit, or why Legge's calculation are bullshit...

...LRA900 specs don't help me to better understand nor the tracking capability argument nor IDs, Fleet ID, FAR etc...I'm searching for a solid counterargument to convince myself that Legge paper is built of mud brick.

BTW, even though it can appear to be the opposite, I'm not searching to validate the FDR, or the ID positive...or anything else. Just to know if those 4 seconds of extra-decoding can give us other informations...not about AA77, but about FDR itself.

Ty again and again...

Pier.

[rob balsamo]

Yeah. I would like to see a good review, step by step, of Legge paper.

Pier,

I explained where you can find the information, but here, let me give you direct links.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793038

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793061

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793452

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793501

When you get done with that, let me know if you need more.

[aerohead]

Lots of good stuff so far in this thread.

Not only does it appear that there is no evidence
linking the FDR data to American 77, but i havent seen any
evidence linking ANY part to American 77. Think about that.
ALL major parts on an aircraft have Serial numbers that are permanently
logged to that aircraft's tail number. Every Computer, Instrument, Wheel, Brake,
Landing Gear, Seat, Pump, Valve, Manifold, Engine, Gearbox, Starter, Accumulator, Oxygen Bottle,
Life Vest, Oven, Fridge, Antenna, Radio ....etc, all have Serial Numbers permanently logged in the
planes' history to match that part to that tail number. As far as i know, there hasnt been 1 part
that has been serial number matched to any of the 4 planes that day. NOT ONE.
Which is difficult to understand, because it would not be that hard to fabricate a few data
tags to support an operation like that. And it DAMN sure wouldnt be hard to find 1 serial
number tag to positively identify the plane at the Pentagon.

But hey, they found an unscathed passport laying on the street at the WTC.................case closed.

[wstutt]

Looks like you have another problem Warren. The 757-3b_1.txt sampling rate is no where near the rate of your alleged A/C and Fleet ID fields.

You wouldn't happen to be feeding us more garbage would you?

Good spotting Rob! I missed that 0.25 Hz sampling frequency. It's another example of a problem with this DFL.

What do you think the 15 listed under Frame(s) heading for those parameters means? Why doesn't it say ALL like some other parameters? Hint: Do you think those parameters could be recorded once every 64 seconds (0.015625Hz) rather than once every 4 seconds (0.25Hz)?

By the way, your Type field also further conflicts with Aircraft Identification as N644AA is not a 757-200 technically... It is a 757-223.

There is no code for 757-223. The codes are listed in section 3.1 of the Boeing data frame layout document. There are only 4 codes 757-200 RR, 757-200 PW, 757-300 RR and 757-300 PW.

Legge, Jones, Ryan... did you guys get anyone to verify the data Warren has "decoded" prior to publish?

Show me where in the code that my decoder program adds the extra data that I supposedly made up.

It's already clear you didnt consult an aviation expert, because if you did, they would have immediately caught the wrong FAR sourced and the foundation for your "paper"..... This is basic stuff for even a private pilot.

It stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Thanks for the laughs though.

The FAR reference is trivial. More soon.

Warren.

[wstutt]

Dennis Cimino,

<br /><br /><br />


Mr. Stutts:

I now have to define your entire 'work product' as utter and total BULLSHIT. You had about 4 days to come up with a better bullshit story than this one, and to propose that AC ID and FLEET ID are buried in the flight parameter stream after the preamble, where it always always always is, is so beyond the pale and absurd, that it's now not conjecture that you're a COIN OP (counterintelligence) from either the U.S. government, or the mossad, but you're actually a very badly managed one, to float this shit.

Let me get this straight. I find the AC ID and FLEET ID in a different part of the file from where you were looking, so they are BS?

You failed to address any of the incongruencies I published about the entire event, not even one of them. Now, as a non pilot, I don't expect you to try to understand how the entire thing is absurdity from the very start to assert that an 80 ton plane went thru the 'cat door' at the Pentagon, and didn't leave any wreckage till the F.B.I. began to seed it later that morning with the Buga, Colombia jungle weathered wreckage. I can understand that, as you would have no way to explain the lack of aircraft upset during a violent and ugly hijacking, and also, the Altimeter setting in the NTSB fabricated crap in one of their products, because they were so sloppy they failed to both see it and understand it's importance here, in that this, as well as the no aircraft upset, and the lack of rudder inputs, while not on A/P., and the impossible pullout from the dive, all were so impossible that only in a child's game could any of this hokey shit be believable.

Regarding the impossible pullout from the dive, are you referring to the 10.14G calculation? Have you checked it?

As regards the other incongruences, I am not a pilot as you said.

So now I have to say for the record you guys are a COIN OP for the people who did this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to prove you were not a bullshit mill for Sunstein's cognitive infiltration network of zio prostitutes for Israel, and you totally blew that gig here.

I tell you what. Go sell this to the National Enquirer. They might print your dissertation. But no meaningful and relevant aviation based analysis validates any of your turd feed here, because virtuallly all of your stuff has borne itself out to be so absurd that even the Enquirer would probably balk at publishing your disinformation.

<snip>

Are you saying that my decoder program does not actually decode the FDR file? If so, prove it.

Warren.