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

[rob balsamo]

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews).

One file in particular, the compressed binary raw file alleged to be a direct data dump from the Flight Data Recorder, was recently analyzed by an alleged computer expert. He has claimed to decode 4 more seconds worth of data, above and beyond the NTSB decode, although the "additional" data has not been verified by anyone. The claim was made that the reason the NTSB did not decode this "additional" data is because the software used by the NTSB, along with the software used by the manufacturer of the FDR (L3 Communications), has an alleged "bug". If correct, this has grave consequences for Flight Safety as Flight Data is used in the promotion of safe flight through changes in regulation and procedure. The NTSB and L3 have been contacted, along with an Aviation Safety Report being filed with NASA. There hasn't been any reply confirming such a "bug".

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.

It is interesting that the authors, editors and Journal in which the above mentioned paper is published is highly critical and skeptical of the National Institute Of Standards And Technology (NIST) data and reports with respect to the collapse of the World Trade Center, yet is now attempting to use unverified data from another government agency to support the government story regarding a Pentagon impact. Motives are even more puzzling especially when the NTSB data in fact does not support an impact while exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, by a wide margin. This is also corroborated by precedent. It is also clear the paper was not reviewed by any aviation expert prior to publish, as it is littered with speculation and gross errors. For more information regarding this paper and the numerous errors it contains, please see the discussion at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum(4).

FDR Expert Dennis Cimino further goes on to state:

[I]t just all comes down to two data fields being zeroed out. no tickee, no laundry. without those, there can... never be any linkage of the FDR to an 'N' number in the F.A.A. registry. not because the 'N' number is in the AC ID field, but the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to.

[T]hose missing, that [data] could come from anywhere...


[N]obody flies boxes with that data zero'ed out or missing. without this data in the CPM [Crash Protected Memory], in the preamble, there can be no linkage to an aircraft N-Number.

I saw that on the first look.... the test person who extracted that data should have seen the NO ACFT ID and NO FLEET ID and said; "oh, this is such bullshit" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULLSHIT.

Dennis Cimino experience and qualifications:

Electrical Engineer
Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981
Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications
Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial
Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973
Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ):
long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network,
and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR

Further confirmation that there isn't any evidence linking the FDR data to "American 77", tail number N644AA is discussed here:

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Interview With Flight Data Recorder Expert

So, if the data is not from N644AA, does not support an impact at the Pentagon, and in fact exceeds the capabilities and performance of a standard 757, what caused the damage at the Pentagon? That is exactly what Pilots For 9/11 Truth are trying figure out and the reason there needs to be a new and truly independent investigation. Some wish to ignore this data, some without expertise attempt to analyze it while attempting to say, "nothing to see here folks, move along..". Please write your Congressional Representatives and Senators. Call into talk shows, tell them there is a growing list of aviation professionals who question the government version of events on 9/11. Tell them the data being provided through the FOIA does not support the government story.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

(1) http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778240
(3) http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20960

[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.

[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.

[rob balsamo]

Do you think those parameters could be recorded once every 64 seconds (0.015625Hz) rather than once every 4 seconds (0.25Hz)?

Not according to American Airlines.

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

So, in other words, Legge, Ryan nor Jones have verified your data, but published it in their "peer-reviewed" Journal. Not surprised. Not to mention the fact that the parameter you are using is listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" by the NTSB. Perhaps they listed it as such because it was flying so far outside it's tracking capability that any data retrieved from it is garbage? Ya think?

The FAR reference is trivial. More soon.

Warren.

Then why is it in your "Scientific" paper?

So, in other words, you havent found your errors regarding the FAR.

Your whole paper is based on an FAR you referenced for Altimeter errors. You quoted the FAR for a Cessna 172, combined with the FAR at Wiki is quoted wrong. It is not for the "operational speed range" of the aircraft.

Once you learn the correct FAR, combined with an Air Data Computer, you'll realize your whole paper is garbage.


Warren, still waiting for you to answer our questions. Why do you keep avoiding therm?

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? (this one you partially answered... but still got wrong)

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?

[wstutt]

Rob,

<snip>

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?

The decoder output file from which we performed the calculations and plotted the graphs that appear in our paper is now available here.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

The decoder output file from which we performed the calculations and plotted the graphs that appear in our paper is now available here.

Warren.

No it isn't Warren. I have disabled your zip file entitled "AA77 Radar and True Altitude Comparisons", as that is not what I asked for, nor do I wish to hotlink any zip file you might provide which could contain a malicious code. Furthermore, your "AA77 Radar and True Altitude Comparisons" has already been debunked.

Please provide CSV output files for LAX, ORD and MCO flights in full and post them at your website. Clearly you dont have them ready now... nor did you have them ready for your "paper".

Warren, you have avoided my questions and/or tap danced around most.

You are now officially considered a troll. But i will continue to leave you in the forum member group you are currently, as you have been an excellent example of those who blindly follow whatever you are told by govt agencies (at the very least), while you admit having zero expertise or aeronautical knowledge, nor any evidence whatsoever linking the data you have claim to decoded to N644AA.

Here are the questions... again... which you continuously avoid. Please answer them.

If [the FAR] was so "trivial", why did you put it in your "Scientific" paper to support your argument? If the paper was "peer-reviewed", why was such a "trivial" (it's actually pivotal in your case) and elementary error made?

Warren, i asked you to "walk us through" the above calculation. Not show us the equations and their output.

Surely you know the difference?

For the fifth time Warren, 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?

Here's more....

Why didnt you have these files ready when i asked the first time? Why did you continually tap dance? Did you not have them ready for your "paper"?

Stop trolling, stop stalling... your credibility is diminishing by the post.