Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds Options

[wstutt]

I have created a new program to decode AAL77's raw FDR file.

I am making it available for download along with it's source code and some output files from the program.

You can read more about it here

It decodes almost 4 more seconds of data than what appears at the end of the NTSB CSV file.

I welcome suggestions for any more parameters you would like decoded or any other features you would like added.

I will also be discussing this on the J.R.E.F. "AA77 FDR Data, Explained" thread as well as here.

Warren.

mod edit: Although Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not have any reason to believe the above program is offered for any nefarious purpose, we felt the responsibility to add this disclaimer. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Oct 22 2009, 05:38 PM

[Guest_Turbofan_*]

I've finally had a chance to catch up on the latest GL rant and FDR decode after being away on vacation.
I'm not surprised to see all the drama and hype from the GL camp! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

The four additional seconds seem to have stirred a few feathers with our GL friends and they now claim
the final RAD Alt. proves "AA77" hit the Pentagon! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Well, if all their excuses in the past about "missing seconds, delays, DME error, bird strikes" wasn't enough
to make comedy of film of the year, this one just might!

From the analysis done on page one and my quick glance at the data, it seems that RAD Alt. does not share
any sort of relation to Pressure Altitude, Angle of Attack, or changes in accelerometer data.

Futhermore, if the GL's claim the final change in accelerometer data implies a smack into the Pentagon wall?

Where are the indications of hitting five light poles in the data prior to this "impact"? Surely and aircraft
hitting five light poles at 462 knots would show some tid-bit of info "eh"? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I mean all that smoke in the DOD video, but nothing registered in the FDR?! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

We can thank RearTreat for this funny one!

[rob balsamo]

Futhermore, if the GL's claim the final change in accelerometer data implies a smack into the Pentagon wall?

Whaaaa?

I just looked up the long accelerations... Are they claiming -1 G in long accel is the "impact"? Really?

... too funny... Remember when they thought the "impact" was so severe that it caused corrupt data? Now the impact is only 1 G?

Reducing thrust to flight idle quickly and deploying speed brakes would produce more of a deceleration. This would also be consistent with the initial data for a High G high performance turn reducing speed to Corner Velocity rapidly to vacate the area if in fact there was a flyover. Heck, a high performance stop on a short field would produce more. Full reverse, standing on the brakes. .etc.

I know CIT doesn't like to use the FDR or any govt provided data, but Warrens new decode, if accurate, is looking more and more consistent with a flyover than before.

Although technically this new data is not "govt provided" as only Warren has done the decode, has anyone verified the code yet?

No offense Warren, but the years it took you to design your claimed program, one could have just input numbers into a csv file based on trends, for 4 more seconds... I'm not surprised the "skeptics" are taking your information at face value. I'm sure if your data showed 100 feet RadAlt at last data point, the self-proclaimed skeptics would be much more skeptical, and perhaps even attacking you personally consistent with their observed behavior.

Wouldnt it be funny if Warren put this all together to once again prove how the "skeptics" aren't really skeptical at all when it comes to anything which may support the govt story? They are holding onto that RadAlt for dear life. Again, no offense Warren, but I don't know you, and i certainly do not have the computer expertise to verify your code, although i can work my way around computers pretty well.. i learned how to fly airplanes. All the analysis being done here is with the assumption your decode/data is valid. If its not, this is all moot.

Welcome back Tino! I'm sure the GL's missed you considering most of their life is spent behind their screens arguing with people who they think are nuts... they probably thought you were evading them, they have no concept of a real life...lol

[wstutt]

Whaaaa?

I just looked up the long accelerations... Are they claiming -1 G in long accel is the "impact"? Really?

... too funny... Remember when they thought the "impact" was so severe that it caused corrupt data? Now the impact is only 1 G?

The FDR is not capable of recording a higher deceleration. The range of accelerations the FDR can record is -1.0833G to 1.000G. Perhaps the deceleration the aircraft experienced was greater than what the FDR can record. It has also been suggested that the FDR recording the maximum deceleration is a sign that the accelerometer failed.

<snip>
Although technically this new data is not "govt provided" as only Warren has done the decode, has anyone verified the code yet?

No offense Warren, but the years it took you to design your claimed program, one could have just input numbers into a csv file based on trends, for 4 more seconds... I'm not surprised the "skeptics" are taking your information at face value. I'm sure if your data showed 100 feet RadAlt at last data point, the self-proclaimed skeptics would be much more skeptical, and perhaps even attacking you personally consistent with their observed behavior.

Wouldnt it be funny if Warren put this all together to once again prove how the "skeptics" aren't really skeptical at all when it comes to anything which may support the govt story? They are holding onto that RadAlt for dear life. Again, no offense Warren, but I don't know you, and i certainly do not have the computer expertise to verify your code, although i can work my way around computers pretty well.. i learned how to fly airplanes. All the analysis being done here is with the assumption your decode/data is valid. If its not, this is all moot.
<snip>

Again, no offense taken. It's exactly because I could have just created a csv file showing whatever I liked, that I provided the source code. I welcome verification and would like to help anyone who wants to verify my code.

Warren.