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  « < 10 11 12 13 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds

talayo
post Feb 1 2011, 01:51 AM
Post #221





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



rod balsamo

I my recollections are correct I thought that you were the writer that provided some guidelines to "detect" disinformation agents.

wstutt seems to fit almost to perfection into several "smoking guns" about that type of agent.

Particularly the "thick skin" part of the guidelines. Nothing that you say seems to disturb him to the point that is starting to infuriate you.

Is this poster worth all the effort you are putting into it?

You have fought this battle many times so your judgment is much better than mine.

Thanks for your dedication.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 1 2011, 02:38 AM
Post #222



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (talayo @ Feb 1 2011, 12:51 AM) *
rod balsamo

I my recollections are correct I thought that you were the writer that provided some guidelines to "detect" disinformation agents.



i didnt write it... i just copy/pasted it.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21015

And the reason i am here spending time with all this, is mainly for the laymen readers who wish to have an explanation, and for the historical record.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 1 2011, 09:25 AM
Post #223



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Thanks for taking the time Rob, as I know you're working hard on your new project (can't wait for that).
The post you referred to regarding the "runway" PA reading was a real eye-opener for me and shows that he's willing to accept what's being fed to him by those with limited to no aviation experience at all over your patient, step by step guidance given to him for years. In cesspit fashion, it was completely ignored.

IMO the guy was determined to "fit" the plane into that building no matter what. The timing of his "Eureka moment" was particularly notable as well.

Quote of the day from the cesspit:

QUOTE
Paging Apathoid, Where are you? Get out your books and answer some of these questions.

Reheat


lolabove.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 1 2011, 11:42 AM
Post #224



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 1 2011, 08:25 AM) *
Thanks for taking the time Rob, as I know you're working hard on your new project (can't wait for that).


Thanks, we're getting there... smile.gif

QUOTE
The post you referred to regarding the "runway" PA reading was a real eye-opener for me and shows that he's willing to accept what's being fed to him by those with limited to no aviation experience at all over your patient, step by step guidance given to him for years. In cesspit fashion, it was completely ignored.


Those type of posts are mainly for people like you. The laymen with a brain who can figure it out if given a bit of insight. I expected it to be ignored from the cesspit types as it was the ultimate smack-down to Warren and Legge's whole argument.

QUOTE
IMO the guy was determined to "fit" the plane into that building no matter what. The timing of his "Eureka moment" was particularly notable as well.


He still is i'm sure. But no matter how hard one tries, a square peg cannot fit into a round hole. Most normal humans learn this at an early age.



QUOTE
Quote of the day from the cesspit:
lolabove.gif


lol.. that guy is the epitome of stupid. If i recall, he claimed flying at speeds near Mach 2 down low while following terrain, trying to equate it with an LRRA made for civilian aircraft. Fortunately for him, those who designed TFR equipment used for Terrain following, know much more about it than he ever will.

If Warren were correct that "0-330 fps" were a vertical limitation regarding RA tracking, poor ol' ReTreat would have slammed into terrain with a slope of anything greater than roughly 8 degrees. He would have never made it over a molehill, let alone a mountain.

I always get a good deep belly laugh when people at Blogger quote their experts as "Reheat" and "Beachnut". The blind leading the blind being sourced by the blind.
(Actually, that would be an insult to the blind, as i'm sure even the vision impaired see better than some of the characters mentioned)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Feb 3 2011, 10:26 AM
Post #225





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 29 2011, 05:33 PM) *
As it appears now, your data virtually matches Rob's data regarding the true altitude of the plane. If that is the case, does your True Altitude data as posted above with only 1 foot difference (174&173) from Rob's True Altitude support an impact with the Pentagon or does the data show that the plane was too high to strike the Pentagon?

If the answer is yes, could you please explain why?

If the answer is no, could you please explain why? Thanks again for your time and explanations.


Warren? Any chance you can answer this for me please? Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 3 2011, 11:46 AM
Post #226



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Feb 3 2011, 09:26 AM) *
Warren? Any chance you can answer this for me please? Thanks!


Warren has been sent on vacation for trolling.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794128

Hopefully when and if he returns, he will have been able to gather his thoughts enough to address the information which destroys his argument.

You can probably reach him through his website though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 3 2011, 09:08 PM
Post #227





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob!

I like your picture of the Square Pegs In Round Holes, and not just because it's an apt intellectual analogy to what the Legge Paper tries to do.

All those ill fit Pegs still sticking up above the flat background reminds me of what the Radar Altitude instruments would have to deal with, not just the over and over variations in height but also keeping up for timely feeding back the variations in data for accurate and meaningful recording. EDIT TO ADD: Especially t this particular location, with tall of the variations in height above ground caused by the high density vertical development over an unconventional approach path as well as the descending variations in natural terrain. SECOND EDIT TO ADD: Examples of vertical human development are the various (3RD EDIT and numerous) high rise buildings in the area and highway embankments.

FOURTH EDIT TO ADD: On the other hand, the input variables for the Baro are constant- just the surrounding air pressure, which means there is no need for constant adaptations to changing natural and man made conditions on the ground..

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 3 2011, 09:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 4 2011, 05:49 PM
Post #228



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
FOURTH EDIT TO ADD: On the other hand, the input variables for the Baro are constant- just the surrounding air pressure, which means there is no need for constant adaptations to changing natural and man made conditions on the ground..


Nicely put Mark!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 5 2011, 10:20 PM
Post #229





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Dear Mr. Stutt,

For purpose of my own 9/11 research, which focused until now mainly on 84Rades, I've visited your webpage and downloaded some of your files to find out about your FDR further decoding I've heard a lot about - I came there also, to be absolutely honest, because I would like to at least a bit understand your an Mr. Legge protracted controversy with PFT.

I'm almost absolute newbie to FDR, so please excuse if I misunderstand something.

I've downloaded the original ISO and then also http://warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/Out...ghtComplete.zip with the two files.

First thing I was checking out was the timing and almost immediately I've found in your files the parameters "GMT HOURS" "GMT MINUTES" "GMT SECONDS" (in your file named FinalFlightCompleteG-Z.csv) - I was always wondering about where the timestamps are, because the AAL77_tabular.csv (which was only "AA77" FDR file I've seen until now) doesn't contain original UTC timestamp and instead it has an EDT timing, apparently generated and added by NTSB.
Then I've merged your two files together and using the pattern of "VERTICAL ACCELERATION (G's)" parameter which is recorded in each frame I was trying to synchronize the AAL77_tabular.csv timing with the "GMT HOURS" "GMT MINUTES" "GMT SECONDS".
What was my immediate surprise when I discovered the two are 4 second off each other. At that moment I must confess, being sometimes hasty I've told myself: Oh, here we are with the Mr. Stutt's 4 seconds"...
But then, when I've alligned the NTSB EDT timing with the "GMT HOURS" "GMT MINUTES" "GMT SECONDS" using as I said the unmistakable numeric pattern of "VERTICAL ACCELERATION (G's)"


But I've then also checked the end of the file and my amazement was even much bigger as I've found out the last "GMT HOURS" "GMT MINUTES" "GMT SECONDS" timestamp is there ohmy.gif 13:37:49 (UTC) ~3 seconds after the official crash time. Moreover from the logic of further subframes looks it very likely the last record in the FDR - according to your decoding - there is indeed ~13:37:52.850 (UTC), almost whole 7 seconds after the plane allegedly struck the Pentagon according to the official story.

(the red numbers added by me for illustration)

Then I told myself: maybe he has a point.

Are you aware with Mr. Legge about this discrepancy among 1. the NTSB timing, 2. the "GMT" timestamps decoded by you and 3. the oficial time of "AA77 crash"?

I must say I'm quite confused with this. blink.gif and because I never heard about something like that nor I still didn't find any mention of this**, I would like to ask you: Can you please explain to an absolute layman in the "advanced decoding of FDR's" how the FDR with i.a. the "GMT" timestamps supports the offical government story about the "AA77" plane - which purportedly the FDR belonged to - crashing into Pentagon at 13:37:46UTC on 9/11 2001 (page 10, 27, 33) ?
**(there are two mentions at the govt loyalist site about impact at 13:37:51-13:37:52 but apparently according to DCA radar, but I never heard about "AA77" - according to your decoded FDR - still alive at 13:37:52.850, although not very well -judging from whole a bunch of parameters recorded or not-recorded in the last subframe - has the last subframe complete integrity, or it is just a partial record? - I'm just trying to figure out the degree of credibility of the numbers before I make any conclusions)

Just two another questions:

1. are the coordinates you've in your output files exactly what is in the FDR file or somehow changed? (what is in your files shows somethig quite different than AAL77_tabular.csv and it looks to me mutually irreconciliable, not speaking that if I shift all your coordinates to fit the IAD runway - hopefully everybody agrees that a B757 can't take off esewhere than on runway and must first take off and then it could eventually crash some 20+ miles away, not vice versa - then the last point comes out - don't be angry at me - "far north of Citgo".)

2. the pressure altimeter setting changes multiple times from 30.21 (and barometer shows 1012.0 mbar) to 29.92 then to 30.01, then to 30.07, then to 30.29 then to 29.97 then to 29.99 then to 30.06 then to 30.22 and finally to 30.24 at 13:24:50UTC, the same we see in AAL77_tabular.csv but clearly not in the NTSB animation - are you aware about this discrepancy, do you bear this in mind when making conclusions about the altitude?

Sincerely Tume

(not intended to offend anybody, I'm just trying to figure out what's the truth)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 5 2011, 10:39 PM
Post #230





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Tumes!

I sent you an PM within the last hour that I hope you will find interesting.,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 2 2012, 04:39 PM
Post #231



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 1 2011, 05:20 AM) *
Warren thinks the PA readings are in error based on his analysis of RA. They attempted to derive a True Altitude using RA on the approaches of previous flights and compare it to the PA during the approach.

They found an "altitude divergence". They feel this "altitude divergence" is because the PA less reliable as you get closer to the ground. They make the conclusion that RA is much more accurate during an approach and that no pilot would check his primary altimeter in such a situation near the ground.

Of course any real pilot reading such absurd claims will laugh, but I went ahead and spent the time to debunk their ridiculous claims with a simple approach plate example from Dulles.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

I also explained the reason they are observing an "altitude divergence" during the approach phase on previous flights, is because the RA is not measuring from the ground. It was measuring from the tops of objects along the approach. Buildings, tree-lines.. etc.

They didnt understand, nor did their leading "Avionics Tech" and they continued to spout off that RA is much more accurate below 2500 AGL and no pilot would check his Primary altimeter. I also caught Legge editing his words trying to weasel out of his mistakes.

I attempted to explain ad nauseum regarding RA, but it appears it still falls on deaf ears.

Once again, RA cannot be used to determine your True Altitude. To any pilot or aviation professional reading this, yes it seems like a silly statement, but people like Legge, Stutt and their "Expert Avionics Tech" still dont get it.

I went further and correlated Stutts "Previous Flights" decode as close as possible with the "4 RA" as seen at the Pentagon to see if there really was an "altitude divergence" they claimed. As expected, PA was pretty damn accurate when correlating RA over a known position, the runway. Less than a 2 - 8 foot discrepancy.

The above analysis renders their whole paper/argument regarding "altitude divergence" moot and our conclusion correct that the "altitude divergence" they were seeing on the approach is because the RA was measuring from an object higher than the ground.

And as expected, Warren ignored it. Warren went on to talk about RA tracking capability.

He now speculates that the performance specs of 0-330 fps tracking could be in the vertical (not the forward speed of the aircraft). Meaning, any rise in terrain, object, whatever, more than 330 fps, and the RA will "fall behind". He equates this to another pdf he found (probably provided by Beachnut who cannot determine the difference between a 757 and an A320), which shows a "Track Rate" (not "Tracking Capability") of +/- 2000 fps. I explained to Warren the Performance specs from Rockwell do not include a negative value and asked him if he thought the Tracking Capability would only be good in one direction. Warren speculated further claiming that the negative was "implied" for a performance spec of "0-330 fps".

Well, i thought a bit more about this. The speed at which terrain will rise in relation to the aircraft, is a function of the forward speed of the aircraft.

For example, if you were flying at 330 fps (just under 200 knots) and level, any rise in terrain of more than 45 degrees will render your RA useless (if Warrens speculation were accurate), and most importantly, your GPWS.

Tan Theta = 330/330

Theta = 45 degrees

Double your speed to say 400 knots (above 10,000 feet perhaps? Where all the steep high mountains are peaking?)... and the terrain will outrun the RA on a 27 degree slope.

Tan Theta = 330/660

Theta = 26.565

If Warren's speculation were correct, Pilots would be slamming into mountains like these all day every cloudy day and never getting a GPWS warning. (or any hill with a greater than 27 degree slope, which isnt that steep for a mountain)



Add more speed and a tail wind at altitude in the high peaks, and slopes shallower than 27 degrees will outrun the RA. Again, if Warren were correct.

To figure out any slope, just use this.

Theta = atan(330/Speed of aircraft in feet per second)

That will give you the max slope of terrain at your given speed, any increase in slope angle for the given speed, and the rise in terrain will outrun the performance of the RA... again, if Warren were correct. Thank god he isnt.

Down low and slow, aircraft would be slamming into hills at less than 200 knots if the hill had more than a 45 degree incline, and never get a GPWS warning. That is, if Warren were correct. As is well known, CFIT doesnt happen that often with GPWS equipped aircraft, unless it was ignored.

Now, if the tracking capability was based on forward speed (which it is), even if you are at twice the speed, you'll get a hit at the base of the mountain, and a hit perhaps in the middle (instead of mapping all the nooks and crannys of the mountain in real time if you were within the tracking capability range), the GPWS would see a huge jump in elevation rising up to aircraft altitude, and start screaming at you to pull up!

What does this all mean? The data does not support an impact, from either the NTSB, nor Warren.


Rob,

Snowcrash, Reheat and Weedwhacker (aka Proudbird) are slapping their collective backs over at ATS regarding the above post.

Now, I found the image shown in your post to be self-explanatory along with the math supplied as to how Stutt et al's claims that the 330fps limitation of the RADALT is a "vertical limit" rolleyes.gif is a nonsense. Then I found these quotes over there and had to reread them 4 or 5 times...what the hell are they babbling about??

QUOTE (Snowcrash)
Doppler effect relates to the point source of the radar signal, not the reflecting surface, do you understand this?

2 * 4 feet = 2.4384(m)

t(0) = 2h / c(0) = 2.4384(m) / 299,792,458 (m/s) = 8.1336269 10^-9 (s) time delay between pulse send and receive, in which time AA 77 has traveled approximately 248.412 (m/s) * 8.1336269 10^-9 (s) =~ 0.002 millimeter.


Followed by...

QUOTE (Snowcrash)
Have you tried figuring out how they came up with 27 ? I'm trying to figure out the mental contortions they went through and I think they just took a speed, below cruise speed, since height increase for a discrete time for a given slope depends on that, then calculated the slope required for a 100.5 (m) jump.

They could have picked cruise speed and "proven" the RA wouldn't work with a slope of 23 instead.
Not to mention the RA under their interpretation would fail if the plane went faster than 195 kts, while the 757 has a cruise speed of 458 kts.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.


Followed by...

QUOTE (Reheat)
I don't know how they came up with that figure. Probably from nether regions... It really doesn't matter anyway... The GPWS will not protect an aircraft from a slope that steep anyway assuming it is more than a few feet from the top.. There is no transport category in existence that can climb that fast.and steep. An F-22 Raptor could if the pilot reacted quickly and aggressively enough, but that's about the only aircraft that could...


Can you decipher the above??

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 2 2012, 04:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 2 2012, 08:29 PM
Post #232



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 2 2012, 03:39 PM) *
Rob,

Snowcrash, Reheat and Weedwhacker (aka Proudbird) are slapping their collective backs over at ATS regarding the above post.


The blind leading the blind now has a sidekick? Isn't snowcrash that kid who said he would debate CIT and then backed down at the last minute? Claims to be IT but couldnt get his skype working or something? lol

QUOTE
Now, I found the image shown in your post to be self-explanatory along with the math supplied as to how Stutt et al's claims that the 330fps limitation of the RADALT is a "vertical limit" rolleyes.gif is a nonsense. Then I found these quotes over there and had to reread them 4 or 5 times...what the hell are they babbling about??


They like to babble... that about sums it up. They are obsessed with people they claim to think are nuts. What a sad life they must have... . but it's good to see my fan club still spending their time productively. Thank them for the added publicity... will ya? smile.gif

Snowcrash is clueless as going by his logic a Commodore 64 would be as fast as -- and could process as much information as -- a Core i7 since electrons travel at the speed of light... the kid is an idiot and I dont blame him for backing out of debate with CIT, he would get crushed.

Reheat is even more clueless as he still trying to compare Terrain Following Radar (TFR) to a Low-Range-Radio Altimeter (LRRA)... TFR is forward looking and used for Nap-of-the-Earth flight, while an LRRA is set up along the aircraft vertical axis (looking straight down) and is only required and used for accurate measurement while below 100' AGL on a Cat III ILS low and slow over a clearway zone from which you know the LRRA is measuring from nothing but the ground (and not the tops of buildings or other obstacles).... this was all explained to ReTreat before, but he was probably in one of his drunken stupors once again...

Proudbird/Weedwhacker is just lost in la-la land as usual. This is why he will never place his real name to his claims and why he had to change his username at ATS, he fully discredited his other sock and is well on his way to discredit his new one. By the way, isnt it against ATS rules to have multiple socks on ATS?

As for the tracking capability as it pertains to the LRRA, it's all right here in the Technical Standard Order (TSO).


Measurement Conditions:
(1) Lateral velocities from 0 to 50 feet per second.
(2) Longitudinal velocities from 0 to 300 feet per second.
(3) Pitch angel range of 0 to 15 degrees.
(4) Roll angel range of 0 to 20 degrees.
(5) Vertical velocity from 0 to 15 feet per second up to 100 feet and 0-20 feet per second above 100 feet.

Source - Page 6, http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...36;FILE/C87.pdf


I have bolded the pertinent part above. The Technical Standard for Tracking capability based on groundspeed (Longitudinal velocity) is 0-300 feet per second. Rockwell Collins LRRA performance exceeds the standard and can accurately track up to 330 fps, as outlined in their specifications for the 757....



More can be found here with respect to an actual approach....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793876

Beyond 330 fps and all bets are off. The RA can no longer be relied upon for accurate measurement although it will still function for the GPWS as I explained in my post you quoted. This is probably the reason the NTSB listed the LRRA as "Not working or unconfirmed" as the LRRA was attempting measurements at more than twice the speed of it's tracking capability, while the Pressure Altitude is listed as confirmed and working since the static system is rated to Mach .86. Also keep in mind, GPWS is not required for IFR flight either. There are charts which give you precise altitudes to avoid the ground and rising terrain while in cruise.

The 'duhbunker' claim that the above Tracking Capability is based on vertical speed is pure speculative nonsense, as there isn't an aircraft on this planet which will accurately track absolute altitude at up to a 330 fps descent rate. It's laughable based on the type of pitch angles alone which would be produced at such high rates of descent. Readers can compare 'duhbunker' nonsensical claims to the requirement set forth in the TSO quoted above regarding vertical speed requirements...0-20 fps....

As usual, the 'duhbunkers' are reaching for anything, including but not limited to making shit up... to suit their confirmation bias.

Hope this helps.... try not to waste too much time with them. Unlike them, we dont get obsessed over people who we think are nuts, especially those who do not have the backbone nor enough self-respect for their claims to confront us directly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 2 2012, 09:23 PM
Post #233



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Dennis Ciminio asked me to post this here for him....

QUOTE (dennis)
"...it is pretty clear that many would question issues surrounding the wholly fake and concocted FDR data, and with good reason. To many of you who have never plugged a computer into an FDR to do data extraction, you have no clue what the data is supposed to look like or the insanity of very important and essential data in the preamble or header of the CPM memory file, to be zero'ed out and MISSING, when on an operational FDR in an actual aircraft, that is a BIT FAIL and the unit won't be flight ready, which is a 'no push' issue with the crew. No flight crew has the authority to authorize a pushback and flight with a defective or BIT FAILED FDR in the plane.

the allegations made by Warren Stutts about the A/C ID and the FLEET ID being in the parameter stream in memory is ludicrous and fraudulent. The data is always in the header of the file where it can be bit checked by the FDR on power up. It makes zero sense for two STATIC parameters which do not change be repetitively encoded in the data stream going into the CPM memory after huffman compression. Why? First, every data frame at some point has a potential use for flight parameters. Second, due to the nature of file corruption of Huffman encoded compressed data, it would not be out of the question for the header of the file to be readable and the compressed HUFFMAN data not be readable at all. At the very least, the A/C ID and FLEET ID then would validate the recorder contents.

Let's make something perfectly clear about this 'lie' being perpetrated by Warren Stutts about the missing data in the header. First, he has never worked on a real FDR in any capacity in his entire life. Second, he knows nothing about what these files are supposed to look like in the file header, and the fact that BIT checks these two parameters for validity and if the whole all up checksum fails, this is a BIT FAIL and the plane cannot fly with that.

A bench unit does not have A/C ID and FLEET ID data and still can pass BIT. Why? There is a special section of the firmware that controls BIT FAILURE MASKING for BENCH UNITS and in essence, makes the checksum computation 'ignore' the missing data that is not there because it has not been loaded yet. A unit to be shipped to an airplane maker HAS THIS DATA LOADED INTO IT AT THE FACTORY, by the manufacturer of the unit!!! This data is passed to the manufacturer by the aircraft manufacturer, who gets it from the F.A.A. This data is absolutely CRUCIAL to the positive linkage of the FDR to the actual airframe it is mounted in.

A lot of conjecture about the FDR has been openly speculated upon, and my stance about it wrongly represented in the forum at Pilots For Truth, not by Rob Balsamo, but by people who question my ability to discern and tell the truth about these facts. In one instance it was inferred that I have a hidden agenda and hence cannot be impartial, and that is why I have made my statements published at Pilots For Truth.

To some extent, any of us could be suspected of that if we strongly believe something is a 'lie' and that 'lie' is being the Official Government Bullshit Story about 9/11. To disqualify me under those grounds, the person making that statement with their altruistic; "I'm above all that" bullshit statement, is both a fraud and a liar himself. And I don't care who reads this. Any and all of us are biased in this arena and to so state otherwise is in fact bullshit.

Did I attack Warren Stutt's work because of my bias? Absolutely not. I sincerely wanted to believe his work was both honest and comprehensive and real more than any of you did. I actually wanted to know if anything that Stutts had decoded could shed light on the final moments at IMPACT of the plane, on the heading, speed, and decelleration forces the DFDAU shipped to the FDR and hence into the CPM. I don't believe that Warren Stutts is on the same page with that. To make assertions about American Airlines having it's OWN data format for it's FDR's, without F.A.A. approval of that, is both absurd and ludicrous. Why give American the pass and not allow all the other carriers the same free reign over data formatting inside the CPM's of their FDR's?

It makes no sense that American Airlines management would have a need of such specialized FDR parameter sets in their planes. For what purpose? Does anyone in their right mind believe that the management at American Airlines gives a rat's dick about the data order in the way that data is sequenced, relative to other air carriers? Without hard proof in documents, I cannot buy that assertion, and neither should you.

Additionally, people question the engine start sequencing that I see in that data record. Now, for a person who has never done power testing to certify any FDR, none of you are qualified to understand why this statement by this detractor of mine in the forum has questionable validity as a criticism of my work. Airplanes on power up on ground power, and then to Engine ONE and ENGINE TWO startup, cause ESSENTIAL BUS spikes which re-boot the FDR because the internal power circuitry in these boxes cannot tolerate interruptions or spikes beyond 500 milliseconds in time. The buss pull downs that take place when engines start, are substantial and hard enough to force these FDR's into reboots. These reboots are NOT decoded in the rack when the data is dumped, and only a trained specialist who has done power testing and is familiar with these units can truly understand the significance of what the bootstrap sequences in the coarse file, the unencoded file, look like under these engine starts. To blatantly make false and misleading statements about these as criticism of my work is like a proctologist such as the detractor, attacking a brain surgeon about neurology concepts. Till you work on FDR's, do power testing, and also understand that every fucking TWIN ENGINE jet aircraft with an FDR on board has distinctive engine start bootstrapping going on that is related to the BUSS POWER SPIKES during start, you are truly whining about shit you have no concept of. But I do have a concept about this, and know the significance of it. To my knowledge, Warren Stutts has not for one second mentioned that information in his decoding, and in fact, no decoding is necessary to see these bootstrappings going on due to the power buss spikes from engine starts. So what is his excuse?

I'll tell you what that excuse is. Warren Stutts doesn't know aircraft. He doesn't know FDR's. He's never flown anything, never worked on anything in an airplane, and his associates never worked on FDR units or did power certifications of them either. None of these guys knows what the header data on that file has to look like to pass the BIT TEST ON POWER UP on a READY FOR FLIGHT UNIT. None of them knows about the BIT ERROR MAP in the unit firmware that says to 'ignore A/C ID and FLEET ID on a non ready for flight unit', but I know that. I have worked on FDR's, and I have done Mil. Std. Power testing and DO-160 power testing on these units.

So let's make it crystal clear that yes, I am biased, but that does not disqualify me from making sound engineering and aeronautical judgements about the validity of Warren Stutt's work. Or for that matter, any of the existing evidence about the government perpetrated mass murders on 9/11/2001.

I call it like I see it. For any of you to infer my 'bias' is tainting my work, is both disingenuous and fraudulent. I do not work that way. We all have biases, but I do not let them interfere with the way I look at this information during analysis.

Warren Stutt's cocky; "Prove me wrong" comment in the blog is pollyannish and childish, and immature. He has proven himself wrong by making absurd and wholly unsubstantiated statements about proprietary data stream or parameter stream sequences used ONLY ON AMERICAN AIRLINES planes, and then claims he and only he could decode the last portion of the FDR record when the manufacturer could not.

I think Warren needs to get a reality check and look at his lightweight resume."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 3 2012, 02:26 AM
Post #234





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 3 2012, 10:53 AM) *
Dennis Ciminio asked me to post this here for him....


Dear Mr Ciminio.

Thankyou again, for the extra effort you have made, to clarify matters.

Does the FDR information you have analysed, suggest to you, that the aircraft the FDR was mounted in had two engines?

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 3 2012, 11:58 AM
Post #235



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I saw Snowcrash's non-response at ATS....wow. The mods removed his little fact void rant within minutes of him posting it lol.

He's probably reading this thread anonymously like the coward that he is.

Everybody wave to Snowcrash!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 3 2012, 12:17 PM
Post #236



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 3 2012, 10:58 AM) *
I saw Snowcrash's non-response at ATS....wow. The mods removed his little fact void rant within minutes of him posting it lol.

He's probably reading this thread anonymously like the coward that he is.

Everybody wave to Snowcrash!



Now if he can only get a verified pilot to support his "technobabble". What a whacko that kid is.... wow.

He calls us whackjobs, but his day is filled obsessing over our work and personally attacking and libeling us, void of any factual rebuttal. And then he wonders why people like him get banned around here.... rolleyes.gif

Apparently he also thinks I'm homeless....LMAO! He certainly isn't the brightest of 'duhbunkers' but he surely lives up to the name.

I bet that kid goes out and picks on the homeless and mentally ill at local shelters just so he can make himself feel superior. I actually feel sorry for him. I hope his life will get better, for his sake.

If he can remain civil, we'll let him post. If he doesn't evade the hard questions and instead trolls as does Warren Stutt, he won't be placed on mod preview for trolling. It's just that simple.

But if his posts are any indication from the small amount of time i wasted reading his rants, it's clear he is unable to have a civil conversation and can only attack his opponent when cornered with the facts. Typical of internet tough guys these days who make excuse to not confront the people they attempt to personally attack and libel.

As I said OSS, try not to waste too much time on him. He doesn't have the support of anyone and can only get attention through negative behavior. Very sad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 3 2012, 12:26 PM
Post #237



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
As I said OSS, try not to waste too much time on him. He doesn't have the support of anyone and can only get attention through negative behavior. Very sad.


Fair enough. I'm starting to feel like one of those worn out psychiatrists whose been hanging out too long at the asylum (at least those poor buggers have an excuse!)

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 3 2012, 05:02 PM
Post #238


Citizen Investigator


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



Well even though I've seen IP's from the netherlands browsing our forum before, this individual never signed up for our forum. My guess is the fact that they will not sign up on either forum is a clear indication they don't want us to know their true country of origin or general location as it is likely not the Netherlands. I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. But I am confident we are dealing with an operative on some level. Hell, for all we know we could be dealing with the person behind the anonymous Arabesque identity. Whats clear is they are intelligent enough not to be traceable or verifiable in any way.

Rob, I don't think we are dealing with a kid. One of the reasons this person gave for not being able to immediately commit to the live debate they said they would do with us was health issues related to acid reflux. Not sure how true that is or not. They claim to be a IT computer expert, yet claim to not have skype, headphones or speakers in order to conduct the debate that they reneged on. They deliberately lie and evade. This type of saturation of endless online disinfo, distractions, character assassinations, pseudo disagreement and pseudo controversy has an effect and if you've been paying attention like myself and others you'd be able to peg these guys easily. Don't let their minimal participation in other topics fool you into believing their intentions are genuine related to 9/11 truth. The ones we have identified had the same pattern: come out swinging hard at CIT and PFT before we confront them and they feign a willingness to have a dialog and pretend to be partially convinced by the evidence while waffling back and forth as to act indecisive, to then offer no concessions and escalate their public attacks and cut off all ties, refusing to debate the issue live, face to face or voice to voice.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jan 3 2012, 05:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 3 2012, 05:18 PM
Post #239



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 3 2012, 04:02 PM) *
Whats clear is they are intelligent enough not to be traceable or verifiable in any way.


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.

QUOTE
One of the reasons this person gave for not being able to immediately commit to the live debate they said they would do with us was health issues related to acid reflux.


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
rob balsamo
post Jan 4 2012, 08:23 AM
Post #240



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 3 2012, 01:26 AM) *
Dear Mr Ciminio.

Thankyou again, for the extra effort you have made, to clarify matters.

Does the FDR information you have analysed, suggest to you, that the aircraft the FDR was mounted in had two engines?

Robert S


From Dennis -

To Robert S:

QUOTE
“ from what I see in the data stream that was released by the N.T.S.B., the evidence supports that this data was heavily modified using a bench unit, using ground power in a lab, and does not reflect normal twin engine start sequencing and generator’s going on line, before every FLIGHT data segment loaded into it. In addition, I want to point out that the header data erasure signifies that this record was written to by a BENCH UNIT ON GROUND POWER, and that in layperson’s terms, means that it disqualifies the data entirely because during extraction post crash, the WRITE ENABLE JUMPER on the BENCH UNIT used for the post mortem data extraction for this unit, was in place, and
in-fact, nobody would ever jumper those two pins on the FDR for extraction, and furthermore, the software in the extraction rack WARNS YOU that you are about to perform a WRITE to the CPM. Now, I don’t know what L-3 people were thinking, but
if they were trusted to do the extraction without at least ONE trusted witness from the
N.T.S.B. who would not look the other way and allow a WRITE to take place on that data record in the CPM module, and that a checklist that made damned sure that WRITE operation was NOT POSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES before beginning,
Then something was terribly wrong with the lack of adherence to proper protocols and
Procedures for data extraction from a CRASH UNIT memory module or tape unit.


Having said this, it is CLEAR beyond any reasonable doubt that the CPM module was
Written to by a bench unit, which ‘erased’ the header data that may have existed for the
Actual aircraft the unit was removed from. As you are well aware, the unit that this CPM came out of was most likely destroyed to the point where it might have been board level
Tested, but here again, the A/C ID and FLEET ID reside in NV RAM in that unit, and if the board itself with the chip intact had not been destroyed on impact, which I have reason to believe it was not, that data in NV RAM that is what initializes the CPM and puts the header data on the record in the very beginning of the file in a place that will not be written again but is on every power up, rechecked for CHECKSUM validity, was not
Part of the record we got from the N.T.S.B. because the data analysis does not stop with the CPM record, but includes, and I do mean, INCLUDES, the ERROR MAP FROM THE NV MEMORY in the FDR as well as this A/C ID and FLEET ID data. There is no
Record from the N.T.S.B. in their paperwork for this FDR that cites this, and that is a major red flag. Every component (as well as it’s SERIAL NUMBER) would have been also compared with the build list on file at L-3 for that particular unit. Yet, we don’t even have any report on the condition of the internal circuit boards which would be part of a comprehensive POST CRASH analysis for ANY FDR being examined for crash data. This is not only ridiculous, it’s indicative of a probable ‘cover up’ because of the lack of completeness in the forensic ‘autopsy’ if you will, of the subassemblies of that FDR after it was allegedly recovered ‘twice’ on two different occasions, at the Pentagon, once near the entry hole and also deep in the building under an INTACT PILOTS CREW SEAT. J

I went a bit long in the explanation but I wanted you to know that from what I can see, the data record in this FDR record is ALTERED due to this missing A/C ID, and the very peculiar and very suspicious bootstrapping sequences in this record that do not reflect TWIN ENGINE startups and generators going on line, are evident in this data record.

The engine start sequences are NOT decoded by the FDR decoding process post crash, but they tell as important of a story as the actual decoded HUFFMAN data in the file itself. For those who speculated in prior shitty commentary about my assertions, with the; “well then, why didn’t it show up in the NTSB recreation??” and the simple answer to that is that the N.T.S.B. recreations never show any analysis about the PRIOR FLIGHTS and the ENGINE STARTS seen in the bootstrapping going on in the data writes to the file as the recorder begins to record and reboot because of those. Secondarily, the N.T.S.B.’s recreation doesn’t match the .CSV data released that was a derivative of the same memory file. How can this be? We know this is a fact because of the way the FL-180 descent reset is shown but not present in the .CSV file, and honest to dog here, there is no excuse for that disparity to exist. IF the N.T.S.B. truly did a faithful and honest recreation of the flight based solely on the DATA extracted, which the .CSV file would have revealed, then there would be absolutely NO DIFFERENCES between the two products. So which one is it? The N.T.S.B. got sloppy when doing the recreation and did NOT use the data derived from the decoded unit’s data, or was one of these two
Records altered for some unknown reason. We know that the altimeter reset is the bone of contention in Pandora’s Black Box: FLT 77, and that’s not because we misread the .CSV file.


In any case, two things here: One, the WRITE ENABLE is not needed to dump the CPM memory file from ANY CRASH PROTECTED MEMORY MODULE, and clearly it had to have been in place to ERASE the A/C ID and FLEET ID data in the header.


These two fields are checked in the all up CHECKSUM during power up and would show on both E.I.C.A.S. CDU’s in the cockpit, a FDR FAIL if they were missing on any of the last flights of N644AA.

The government can make all the sorry excuses they want, and John Farmer can whine all he wants about ‘no header’ and shit like that, bug jesus fucking Christ, he has no fucking clue what he’s talking about with regard to FDR data, and he should stay the fuck out of the argument if he has no idea clearly what he is stating. EVERY data file has a header,
Which in essence tells the system how to deal with the file. In the case of FDR’s, it is BIT CHECKED ON EVERY SINGLE POWER UP of the unit, and if the unit on N644AA had a malfunction in NV RAM that wiped that data, the box would have reported itself as INVALID and that means a ‘no pushback’ for damned sure.

the one thing most idiots in the J-REF forum don't realize is that WRITE ENABLE is never ever ever done on a CRASH memory extraction, ever.

and second, I wanted to clarify something here:

the main control circuit board with the processor and the NV RAM and hence the FIRMWARE the box had loaded into it, would have been analyzed and the
A/C and FLEET ID data would have been extracted from that and presented to us in the final report.

it was not.

I saw no documentary evidence that reflected that the box was so destroyed that it pre-empted the removal of the MAIN PROCESSOR CARD and
the NV RAM DATA and BIT ERROR MAP then checked to determine what the box state was on the LAST FLIGHT, as NV RAM would not be
written to and erased regardless of the WRITE ENABLE to the CPM module data.

that box if it is still intact, and the parts not destroyed by the government, STILL HAS within it, in that one circuit the A/C ID and the FLEET ID, and the BIT ERROR MAP.


those are crucial pieces of evidence. and why they are not cited in the final report on that FDR is beyond me. the post mortem on the box would include matchups of serial numbers, and if board were destroyed, it's unlikely the chips on them would be so wrecked they couldn't be piggy backed and then read
by a technician to get that data out.



So, I hope I answered your questions, Robert. Thanks for asking.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

13 Pages V  « < 10 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: 24th October 2014 - 09:30 AM