Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > General > Latest News
Pages: 1, 2
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
Dennis Cimino
first, I have a lot of stuff, as it's been a long time since I posted in the forum, about FLT-77 and the incongruencies between the N.T.S.B. *ahem* re-creation, allegedly based on the
FDR data from the aircraft registered in the F.A.A. registry as N644AA, which was an earlier model B-757 with '2' Rolls Royce RB-211 engines, and no in flight seat back phones. (per David Ray Griffin's excellent and extensive research that goes to the fact that the F.B.I. now won't substantiate any phone calls allegedly from this airplane, not even the infamous Babs Olson one., due to hard work and research done by Dr. Griffin.)

In any case, I've watched the N.T.S.B. recreation in Pandora's Black Box perhaps thousands of times in the years since Pilots For Truth put that out. Like most of the pilots in here, we don't just sit at the computer and watch Pandora's Black Box, but we do on occasion probably watch it again just for posterity sake.

And I came away with a couple things, from a 'pilot's viewpoint, that don't work for me...and I want you to hear me out and listen to me before you jump in with the typical ad-hominem attacks on me versus my information I am putting here.

First, during the approximate time of the alleged highjacking, there is no aircraft upset of even the slightest kind, not in altitude, not in pitch, not in yaw, not in roll, airspeed, or any other control parameter. Now I want you to ask yourself this question: You've just had a couple of middle eastern Saudi hijackers get into the cockpit (the FDR record shows no toggle for the door switch thru the DFDAU) and then commence to murder or wrestle with the captain and first officer. Now we know that Capt. Chuck Burlingame was far from a 98 pound boy with a nasal cannula and a walker parked behind his seat in the cockpit. I don't know what he could bench press, or what his first officer could bench press, but I have a real hard time with either of these men cooly sitting in their seats, while they are having their heads sawed off by a box cutter wielding, screaming maniac...without either hitting the yoke or kicking their rudder pedals. Because, as you might imagine, those two men are in a de-facto, bona-fide struggle for not just their lives, but their passengers lives, as well. I don't think they would have had narcolepsy in their final moments alive, in other words. The A/P would have, by design, disengaged, and at the very least, there would have been for a short period of time, an 'upset' of the aircraft, due to the disengagement of the autopilot. Anyone familiar with 'coffin corner' and what that infers, knows that any upset of this nature of any aircraft of this type, at high altitude, could lead to the incipient and sudden loss of control of the plane, if not corrected very rapidly and fast. It's not fathomable that one of the hijackers would be hovering over the A/P button on the panel to re-engage it repeatedly while they killed the crew. Un uh.

Then we get to the FL-180 'reset' that happens on the climb, for vertical separation and safety reasons. The flight crew does that, just like any flight crew who operates airplanes in the Positive Control Airspace above FL-180 is mandated to do. This happens, as you would expect it would, in the FDR record. On the descent, there is a disparity between the N.T.S.B. recreation, and the reality in the .CSV file, as the crew would have now been 'hijackers' and not experienced line pilots...and certainly would have no cognition, nor safety reasons, to do a Dulles local altimeter set as they barrelled on down to hit the Pentagon that morning. So why is it present in one N.T.S.B. product, and 'absent' in the other product, one might ask? Allegedly these things were derivatives of the other, and the data should have been in total agreement. But it's not.

Then we get to the rudder movements on this plane. And I have had discussions about this with other pilots, and they either are amputee's or they fly flat footed all day long and never use rudders ever. I think Boeing and Airbus might go the 'aercoupe' route and get rid of the rudder pedals altogether, it's about forty pounds of weight they could be garnering revenue from, and not paying fuel to haul around...because in this flight, that set of rudder pedals on AA-77, or N644AA, are mighty dead. They don't even really twitch, let alone show any pilot imputs on them. Now, granted, inexperienced pilots with zero flight experience might ignore rudders for a bit, but to do coordinated flight with the black ball in the bars indicating no skid or slip is going on, they had to use them when the A/P and rudder trim weren't taking care of it. Not the case on this plane. Matter of fact, on the final dive to the building, at 460 plus knots, nary a twitch of rudder. Hmmmm??

Between these things I cite, the control issues in pulling out of a 4,400 foot per minute dive, in an 80 ton inertial mass with wings, going downhill at great speed...and then rounding out in that dive for a lawn height, pole clipping venture and skittle across the pristine Pentagon lawn (post crash), without a pitch oscillation and loss of control in the pitch axis, known as PHUGOIDING or PORPOISING, this flight is an impossibility. It's an impossibility from any number of flight limitations standpoints, but more importantly, the hijacker would have actually had to use rudder to execute the nice 270 degree turn and stay in coordinated flight, and he would have had to do some rudder dance on the final end of the dive to stay lined up. And he did not. It's evident in the FDR recreation that this was not the case.

So in lieu of screaming at Mr. Stutts and Mr. Legge for decoding 'bullshit' as I called it, which is in fact their prerogative, I do have to admonish them for believing an 80 ton airliner flown by neophytes could round out in the bottom of a very steep dive, with a lot of downward inertia, and then slide into the CATCHERS MIT like that.

and now I want to call your attention to photos taken of the Pentagon wall within the first five or so minutes of impact.

Yep, a frenchman published a piece about this utter absurdity, and had those unretouched pics in his presentation. In them, you can clearly see vertical steel studs or parts of the wall, behind the entry hole that an 80 ton, 460 knot airliner just entered.

Was this plane made out of silly putty?

No engine entry points, no wing slots, meaning wings would have been outside the building, as there was such a paucity of wreckage, for them to be converted to pure energy release at impact, the resultant force would have obliterated that quarter of the buuilding. No empennage wreckage, no engine penetration holes, no vertical stabilzer. No luggage, no bodies, no seats. No nothing.

Now, later on, there are pics of what are presumably F.B.I. guys strewing wreckage around, and in one photo, the rivet holes have obvious corrosion marks from them. Am I to believe that piece corroded in an hour or two? From what? Why is it that the moderately pristine and amost immaculate lawn, suddenly starts to sprout parts?

I can't tell you how parts sprout up except that NO F.B.I. would put their badges in their pockets while strewing wreckage you are not supposed to move, under any circumstances. They had no license to touch that stuff. It's an aircraft CRASH SITE, for christs sake. Why the badges in pockets? Why?

April Gallop mentioned she crawled thru this 'inferno hole' just after it was created, with her son on her back. She sustained no major burns. Her hair wasn't on fire. She didn't suffer significant smoke inhalation. How can this be.

How can an 80 ton aircraft vaporize it's wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and one engine that never was recovered? How could the one engine get into the building without an entry hole?

Mr. Legge, Mr Stutts, I'm not going to scream at you for decoding and then writing this paper you wrote, but clearly, neither of you has taken the time to study this event like some of us have. There are so many 'from an experienced pilot' standpoint holes, that it doesn't compute even a little bit.

and the icing on this entire 'merde' cake, is the no ACFT ID and no FLEET ID in the FDR data preamble.

and I'll go one step further. The N.T.S.B., the F.B.I., and the F.A.A., had no constructive reason to hide from all of us, particularly Aidan Monaghan, who submitted the F.O.I.A., that just wanted these parts of this plane to be identified by serial number.

Because, Mr. Legge, and Mr. Stutts, these planes create a huge paper trail when they are built. Those documents would have reinforced the government's assertion that N644AA hit the building and was destroyed that day. The on the spot, almost premeditatedly confiscated video tapes the F.B.I. grabbed that would show the plane, are not available fo rus to look at.

and for god's sake, why did it take the F.A.A. more than THREE YEARS to strike these involved aircraft from the F.A.A. registries?

I'll tell you why. Because these planes weren't involved. We know '2' were at the WTC, but we have no constructive proof that the plane the F.A.A. lost track of over the W. Virginia 'radar hole' where the FPS-117 long range, 3-d airsearch radar is located, by the way, is now said to have hit the Pentagon. Because without meeting certain criteria, per Robin Hordon's excellent outcry over this fact, that flight could never be positively known to be FLT-77.

Because, per Gerard Holmgren's excellent work, we know that FLT-77 wasn't even a scheduled carrier flight on Sept. 11th. 2001.

So I clearly have many many many problems with this from any number of standpoints, the most significant one is the bogus FDR data that is non-reality, which you so faithfully, painstakingly decoded the 4 seconds that the N.T.S.B. swears on a stack of bibles more or less, that it was unable to decode. Something is seriously wrong with this entire picture, and I am not accusing either of you of being putzes, but I think that you miss a whole lot of valid, very real reasons your assertions cannot stand in a reality based world of real aeronautics, real physics, and real airplane flight limits, when 'incompetent' pilots were allegedly performing these feats of magic you show in your paper. It's just not real, guys!
Aldo Marquis CIT
Where's "Warren Stutt"?
tumetuestumefaisdubien
QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jan 20 2011, 12:54 PM) *
because in this flight, that set of rudder pedals on AA-77, or N644AA, are mighty dead

This is interesting. I must say I never studied "77's" FDR, I can't do everything. rolleyes.gif Does this mean there are no rudder inputs?
GroundPounder
QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jan 18 2011, 10:54 PM) *
first, I have a lot of stuff, as it's been a long time since I posted in the forum, about FLT-77 and the incongruencies between the N.T.S.B. *ahem* re-creation, allegedly based on the
FDR data from the aircraft registered in the F.A.A. registry as N644AA, which was an earlier model B-757 with '2' Rolls Royce RB-211 engines, and no in flight seat back phones. (per David Ray Griffin's excellent and extensive research that goes to the fact that the F.B.I. now won't substantiate any phone calls allegedly from this airplane, not even the infamous Babs Olson one., due to hard work and research done by Dr. Griffin.)

<snipped long quote>!


eloquent, germane and to the point. +1

now if only the 'gentleman' referred to would have the cajones to respond.

great thread rob!
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 21 2011, 01:31 AM) *
Where's "Warren Stutt"?


On the barbie, mate!
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 5 2011, 03:21 AM) *
Good. When and where can your FDR guy and I discuss this?

Warren.


How about now and here, Warren?!

welcome.gif
maturin42
Excellent, Rob. Nice work, Dennis.
woodbourne
Who exactly is Dennis Cimino? Where does he work with flight recorder data?
tinynate
that's just a great post, Dennis, thanks for your time and expertise
Dennis Cimino
QUOTE (tinynate @ Jan 21 2011, 09:20 AM) *
<br /><font color="#0000FF">that's just a great post, Dennis, thanks for your time and expertise</font><br />
<br /><br /><br />

you're welcome! Thank you for dropping in here today.
Dennis Cimino
QUOTE (maturin42 @ Jan 21 2011, 04:53 AM) *
<br />Excellent, Rob. Nice work, Dennis.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

Thanks! notice already the standard sphincter muscle gang are in here attacking the messenger, as always. I notice I attracted the standard crud from Wood Chipper or whatever, so typical of these horse pitot tubes.
Dennis Cimino
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 21 2011, 02:26 AM) *
<br />This is interesting. I must say I never studied &quot;77's&quot; FDR, I can't do everything. <img src="style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" /> Does this mean there are no rudder inputs?<br />
<br /><br /><br />

after the rotation and climbout, the rudders get mighty dead. way too dead to be with meathead hijackers who'd actually have been far more likely to yaw the aircraft and foul up in that direction than fly in perfect coordinated flight without A/P help on the dive...as the A/P would have been mighty way behind the job without a ballistics computer guiding it to the spot on the building.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (woodbourne @ Jan 21 2011, 12:07 AM) *
Who exactly is Dennis Cimino? Where does he work with flight recorder data?



Read the OP and you'll find out.

By the way, please use your 'rossgs' account when posting. Your 'woodbourne' account has been disabled.
tcrofton
Thanks for such a clear and thoughtful presentation.
Phony data, no forensic investigation, crime scene ruble recycled immediately, thermite powder all over NYC, a plume of small debris over miles of Penn. from a "hit the ground" crash, a thousand plus pages of the Patriot Act written in days, NORAD unplugged and we support a series of wars to get the bad guys. This was a coup and you are the true patriots putting it on the line.
JamesAt17
Thank you for your extensive work to provide us with this information. I will tell others. Some will listen, while others will not. Disturbing their cognitive dissonance with proof puts many into an uneasiness or tension that they choose not to deal with. Tell them anyway. "There is nothing more dangerous than personal initiative; if it has the genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have sown discord." A quote from something that I believe they wrote, so telling others upsets their plans and they have to go to plan B. Now, lets get the public to force the governments to stop poisoning our skies with Chemtrails.
23investigator
QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jan 21 2011, 07:41 PM) *
<br /><br /><br />

after the rotation and climbout, the rudders get mighty dead. way too dead to be with meathead hijackers who'd actually have been far more likely to yaw the aircraft and foul up in that direction than fly in perfect coordinated flight without A/P help on the dive...as the A/P would have been mighty way behind the job without a ballistics computer guiding it to the spot on the building.



Dear Mr Cimino

I feel I can detect, the rightful frustration, in your recent presentation.
Unfortunately, in circumstances such as you have engaged, along with many others of us, the rules of fair engagement are never there, whether it be in the USA, or anywhere.
Of course all the systems and their procedures are there. But when actions such as was taken on the 11-9-2001 occur, that is the first instance of their 'visible abuse'.
It is like the old saying, 'the first lie is invariably the seed of many', such circumstances are inextricably linked.

For the last day or so I have been wondering how I may be able to contribute into dealing with these sought of things, realising the wonderful dedicated work that has been relentlessly put into trying to address the --unlawful-- embargo that has been placed around the true 'hard evidence' particularly in respect to the Pentagon.

In the process of that, I followed through the work carried out by the 'Young Frenchman' whose handle is just to complicated to repeat, but he has made a post in this thread.
His first engagement was in respect to the 'radar' information that was first released, I believe.
From the narrative of the posts it seems that the 'radar' information was collected and provided the FBI, and other authorities, in the immediate days following 11-9-2001.

This would seem to be where the first inconsistences emerged.
This had nothing to do with 'flight recorder data', if we are to believe the further information that has been given about the recovery of the device and its ultimate, 'computer' decoding.

The various variances of later information away from the original 'radar plot' has been well 'ventilated', but to my efforts so far, I have not been able to locate any official explanation as to why part of the plot was not complete, and that there was a value at the very end, which was at considerable variance to the otherwise general pattern.

Within sensible bounds all information should be able to correlate, no matter from what source, about the same object of interest, the said flight of AA77.

It would seem very useful, to make application for an 'official explanation' regarding the "first radar" information that was released.
With full details to be provided of how this was recorded, where from, and by who, and who officially decoded the information.
People need to be made accountable for their actions, there is nothing like this to bring about "care" and responsibility.
Might seem a tedious requirement, perhaps some, or even all of it may already exist, but some formality needs to be brought to the 'table'.

Please do not see this as a criticism of any body, more a way that we all might be able to counteract the 'frustration' that clearly the 'official' parties in this matter are trying their utmost to cause.

Robert
rob balsamo
Alex picked it up this morning...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/flight-data-ex...merican-77.html

They're running it front page... Nice...
Paul
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 21 2011, 07:25 AM) *
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

<snipped long quote>


We'll it looks like the word is getting around this is just fantastic Rob this should
put a sock in the mouth of the all the idiot duh bunkers.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/flight-data-ex...merican-77.html

Great job fan flamin tastic.

Cheers Paul

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Omega892R09
QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jan 18 2011, 10:54 PM) *
Because, Mr. Legge, and Mr. Stutts, these planes create a huge paper trail when they are built. Those documents would have reinforced the government's assertion that N644AA hit the building and was destroyed that day.

Abso(bloody)lutely!

And probably an even bigger paper trail during maintenance over their lives where every part changed is logged. Every part has a life based on calendar, flying hours, running hours (for engines sometimes split into various modes of operation) or landings.

Don't novice pilots often bang the rudder pedals about being unsure of which way they should be operated?

Now, those 'FBI' agents spreading parts across a crime scene should be readily identifiable short of meeting an untimely end or having reconstructive surgery - always a big possibility with such schemes.

Nice work Dennis which shows also the value of historic pictures with provenance.
onesliceshort
QUOTE
[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.


Guys, what are "tickee" and "laundry"?

I think it would be helpful to show how this data would appear on a normal FDR dataset from a previous crash, ya know? For visual effect and comparison.

Dennis. Excellent observations on the lack of visible abrupt change in flight pattern at the "moment of hijack".

Thanks guys! thumbsup.gif
SwingDangler
Nail. Check.

Hammer. Check.

Coffin. Check.

So all this nonsense over the FDR is simply nonsense because the FDR can not be conclusively tied to the flight when 100% of all other FDR's do. After all this, why do you think Legge et. at. didn't know this? They could have spent all that time working harder on the WTC complex. ROFL

Thanks Dennis. It is finally refreshing to see an FDR expert smash those who are trying to support this event through government supplied evidence. I slipped your brief analysis in at 9/11 Blogger. Start the stopwatch on my banning. ;-)
rob balsamo
Hi SD,

We have to be careful..... "nonsense", "fake", "irrelevant" are not words I would use to describe this data.

You pretty much already know this, but for the lurking public.

Reason being is that it has been provided by a govt agency and the agency claims it comes from an aircraft alleged to be used in an attack on our Country. It must be analyzed and those results made public.

When we use the above words, people tend to look the other way. This data, regardless of its authenticity and/or usage is very pertinent in determining truth as it can and will be used in a court of law, and does not support the govt story.

Now we just have to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

As i have stated many times in the past....

If the FDR data being provided through the FOIA is fake, it is as alarming as it being accurate.

If the FDR data is fake, it is a felony. Tampering with evidence.

If the FDR data is real, it is a felony, as it does not support the 9/11 Commission Report claims in many significant ways including that a standard 757, N644AA, impacted the Pentagon, for either the NTSB decode, or the "additional".

This evidence, combined with witness statements who "bet their life" on a path opposite the physical damage, combined with numerous Expert Witness, combined with the evidence from the WTC, any Prosecutor worth their salt and an ounce of integrity would love to have for a case. It's a slam dunk.

This is why it puzzles me so much that those who have found evidence in the collapse of the WTC, are attacking our work, without even consulting us or any real aviation expert for that matter. Worse, they are making excuses for bonafide witnesses interviewed on location which conflict with the govt story. I dont get it.

Hope this helps for some of those reading.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 21 2011, 10:35 AM) *
Guys, what are "tickee" and "laundry"?


It's an expression with reference to dry cleaning...it was kinda used in Seinfeld.... A bit of satire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyCMWgYxCOg

Basically Dennis is saying that the govt has not provided any proof their data is from the aircraft they claim it is from, further, the data does not support the story. "What kind of scam you trying to pull here?"


QUOTE
I think it would be helpful to show how this data would appear on a normal FDR dataset from a previous crash, ya know? For visual effect and comparison.


Not sure if Dennis has other data sets laying around, but i suppose if he does, he'll chime in.

Warren claims to have other data sets which he claims have an empty AC ID Field and Fleet Field, but apparently he doesnt want to share them.

Pssst, Warren, those data sets could have come from anywhere as well, if in fact you do possess such data.

One of the reasons for having an AC ID Field and Fleet Field is that say if two aircraft collide, you will immediately know which data goes with which after sifting through mangled aircraft wreckage. Its a sort of "fingerprint" which also prevents tampering from what i understand..
rob balsamo
I have received a few questions regarding this statement in our article.

"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)."

Legge's paper assumes Radio Altimeter was always measuring from the ground. It wasn't. It was measuring from tops of the tree line and buildings along the approach. Legge claims the approaches on previous flights show an "altitude divergence" of 50-80+ feet. Thats about the height of a tree line and/or buildings that would be along an approach. This is why he is seeing an "altitude divergence" as the aircraft descends closer to the ground.

Every one from a Student pilot to the most experienced know that data is derived for approaches (and departures) to "Clear a 50' Obstacle". It's a standard used for calculations and performance.

The Tracking capability comes from footnote number (3) which is noted. Rockwell Collins. The LRA-900 is the Radio Altimeter used in the Boeing 757 and several other Air Transport aircraft.




Here is the direct link.

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the page under "Performance Characteristics" and you will find this.... (minus the red underline of course)



Hope this helps.
onesliceshort
QUOTE


thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
One of the reasons for having an AC ID Field and Fleet Field is that say if two aircraft collide, you will immediately know which data goes with which after sifting through mangled aircraft wreckage. Its a sort of "fingerprint" which also prevents tampering from what i understand..


Much appreciated Rob.
Johnny Angel
Recovering Evidence.. Identifying evidence.

Remember the first truck bombing attack of the WTC.. A truck bomb powerful enough to blow-out 5 floors of parking garage floor and basement walls. (but didnt damage the main core beams or topple the tower)
( laughing1.gif Lucky WTC, that the Muslims didnt use jet fuel in that truck instead of explosives laughing1.gif )

The FBI picked up every peice of debris and dust. It was placed on a conveyor and sifted. The FBI located the
VIN number plate from the rented truck. Within a few days, the terrorists were in Jail..

ABC nightline did one story that the suspected WTC truck bombers were former FBI or CIA operatives working for the
Muhajeen fighting the Russians in Afganastan. (ALQCIA).
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 21 2011, 02:21 AM) *
How about now and here, Warren?!

welcome.gif


Has anyone checked on Warren? Is he ok? He was so active here on the topic and so eager to talk to your FDR expert, who turned out to be Dennis Cimino. Where's Warren? WAAARRREN! You out there?!?!!
spacecadet
QUOTE (tcrofton @ Jan 21 2011, 07:12 AM) *
Thanks for such a clear and thoughtful presentation.
Phony data, no forensic investigation, crime scene ruble recycled immediately, thermite powder all over NYC, a plume of small debris over miles of Penn. from a "hit the ground" crash, a thousand plus pages of the Patriot Act written in days, NORAD unplugged and we support a series of wars to get the bad guys. This was a coup and you are the true patriots putting it on the line.

A COUPE IS the only possibility;you just don't know whose who in Hooterville anymore;you have to watch your back while yer sleeping..........oh!What a backache!ALL ROADS LEAD TO PAKISTAN. cleanup.gif
Dennis Cimino
'JamesAt17' date='Jan 21 2011, 01:22 PM' post='Thank you for your extensive work to provide us with this information. I will tell others. Some will listen, while others will not. Disturbing their cognitive dissonance with proof puts many into an uneasiness or tension that they choose not to deal with.

Thanks, James! and the others who took a good hard look here. I'm sorry the photos can't be pasted in, I don't like the photo bucket links gig, that gives virtually zero control of who can access those pics..but as things about 9/11 are now disappearing and being expunged from the web, those very clear and incredibly stark pics the Frenchman had in his almost immediate and quite cogent rebuttal just days after the false flag attack took place, are in Rob's possession, and I took the liberty to ship the lion's share of my Pentagon photo archive to massive numbers of places so they don't solely reside on my
machine. So they're all over the world now...presumably safe from going down the Ministry of Truth 'rabbit hole' as I call it. In any case, the 'cognitive dissonance' you mention is more like 'cognitive stupidity' and 'cognitive ostrich-ism', because as you might also have noticed, the U.S. Federal Government
is trying, via the Tucson shooting, to pin virtually any and all violent crime on 9/11 TRUTH persons. Yep, we're evil, we are diabolical, and we drink slushee's from 7/11 stores too, making us exceptionally diabolical and evil. *groan* In any case, I was going to write a long cautionary warning, along with an
extension of an 'olive branch' out to Mr. Stutts and Mr. Legge, because I did my best not to point fingers at them. My piece above is not intended to attack anyone except the perpetrators who, now ten years later, are still walking here amongst us as free men. Those perpetrators are at the highest levels of this government, not sitting at computers in Australia or wherever trying to make sense of this crap they sold to most of the nation as reality.

and in extending the 'olive branch' to those guys who I hope will accept it, may be a form of being incredibly naieve on my part, but I don't think Stutts and Legge did their stuff with mal intent for what that's worth. Though they do kind of fit in the Cass Sunstein 'cognitive infiltration' gig that is my 'warning' piece in here tonight as I sit here. I have a warning for this 9/11 Truth movement, and I hope you all heed it.

First, the very highest levels of this government were involved in the treason of that day in September of 2001. Multiple elements of it who aren't just loyal to Richard B. Cheney and his gang of murderers from the Bush administration, but a whole cadre of people not just in NORAD, but in the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard Myers comes to mind). Elliott Abrams, Lewis Libby, and Stephen Cambone, and so many others, like Douglas Feith all played pivotal roles in pushing this P.N.A.C. agenda to transform this nation into a no holds barred, military industrial complex dictatorship, ostensibly controlled by
Israel. Oh, I can just see Abe Foxman now on the Fox Noise Channel, with some other nimrod from the S.P.L.C. both chiming in about how we're all here conspiring to overthrow this wonderful and blameless government with our 9/11 Truths. Uh huh, yeah, right..... *groan*

The warning is that Cass Sunstein's 'cognitive infiltration' gig is in motion in this movement. A lot of it has been co-opted, and derailed by these guys who put the zionist agenda ahead of this nation's freedom and liberty, and are willing to murder us to keep that line toed by all of us.

The past week or so, there was a mass shooting in Tucson blamed on all of us. Yep, even those of you who are still fence sitting on this but smelled some form of rat when you saw the Pentagon lawn pictures and no wreckage from any plane. They're in the blogs, and they sometimes come at you as your friend. A case in point was one I had been affiliated with more than three years ago, named Mr. John Farmer, also known as Blue Collar Republican. His modus operandi, if you will, was to win the trust of some of us, and then feed us disinformation and bullshit. For the most part, we bought that bullshit, lock stock and banana peel. Some fellow truthers warned me he was a cointelpro operative, and it turns out that that must be absolutely correct, because I suffered a drive by shooting by him in a snide comment in another blog from him the other day, brought to my attention by another member of this forum.

And the irony was that even though I suspected him as a cointelpro stooge for the government, which he obviously was all along, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt, and never published bad words about his character, his credibility, nor his professionalism. But he breached that trust with me the other day in another blog. And as amazed as I was, I was also sad that I trusted him just a little bit and did give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, my olive branch to Stutts and Legge comes with the warning to you all that this movement has been hijacked in many ways, and the zionists who control the disinfo machine, specifically as Israel did play a pivotal role in what took place on 9/11, and that has been proven, by the way, not conjecture any longer, are active in this allegedly 'new' but not so very new administration, under Cass Sunstein and members of the Dept. of Defense.

So as loathe as I am to not paint Stutts and Legge with that brush, I warn you all that though I have extended the olive branch, as I had once done with Mr. Farmer down in Nashville, TN., that olive branch often will catch fire and burn your hand. The 9/11 Truth movement is a threat to these monsters who did this killing on Sept. 11th. 2001, and is a quintessential threat to the zionists who not only carried the murders out that day, but to the U.S. Federal Government officials, like F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller, who have to this day, shielded and covered for them.

We are under attack not only by these monsters, but those who portend to be bearing good valuable information for us. All of you must never assume
that any apparently innocent feeding of disinformation was strictly a misunderstanding. More often, it's COINTELPRO, the new Cass Sunstein gang, the zionists who did this murder on U.S. soil that day. And they will not stop villifying us, because we are a threat to their continued control of this nation.

Regards,
Dennis C.
albertchampion
sir,

i don't know enough to agree with all that you say here, but, in the main, i agree. there was a coup effected on that day in september. just as we created one in 1973 in chile.

i shall never forget how it was that anyone who tried to reveal the usg's hand in orchestrating that coup in chile was some kind of paranoid schizophrenic. decades later, i think that some paranoia was validated.

some would dispute your characterization of zionists as pivotal in this coup. i don't. the israeli government has been running the usg for decades. as robert sam anson once wrote, government by gunplay rules. mossad, shin beth, et alia have no inhibitions. and they have established a pernicious, traitorous 5th column in the usa. which cannot be countered easily, because too many of the pols have pictures of their peckerdilloes in israel.

that we discuss this coup, here, is an academic exercise, i think. out in the real world, it is the glenn beck's, the rush limbo's that stymie the revelations of our truths. the fascist bastids, whether totalitarians on the right, or on the left, do not want anything to upset the furtherance of any totalitarianism that prolongs their profitability.

and that is how i interpreted beck when he once said on radio that the jersey girls should either be executed for treason or deported.

i am certain that this is what chilled the jersey girls. hell, it would chill me.

i would love to learn what kind of hate mail drg receives.

a republic, if you can keep it.
aerohead
Why was Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon an impossibility ? Simple, The Laws of Inertia and Gravity.If Flight 77 actually tried the "dive to a straight and level impact"it would have ended something like this................on the lawn. ................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ ........................An object in motion tends to stay in that motion. Gravity can be a real bitch. ................................................................Edit- Before any critics snipe, yes i am aware that these are airshow loops and whatnot, but they definitively show the glide path and recovery area needed to pull out of a dive and regain straight and level flight. It requires mega amounts of thrustand hell of alot more space than the Pentagon's front lawn.
aerohead
Im not sure what the argument is about the RA's.
But the 757's i work on everyday (200's) must have the RA's working
and accurate down to a 2' tolerance in order to remain CAT3 certified
for landing.

The RA's measure from the planes belly to whatever its flying
over (ground, buildings,water ect) by bouncing radio waves.
Thats why its called a radio altimeter or some call it a radar altimeter.

It rapidly measures the distance to whatever is below, normally used
when your altitude is about 2500' or below.
Hope this helped.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (aerohead @ Jan 22 2011, 04:32 AM) *
Im not sure what the argument is about the RA's.
But the 757's i work on everyday (200's) must have the RA's working
and accurate down to a 2' tolerance in order to remain CAT3 certified
for landing.

The RA's measure from the planes belly to whatever its flying
over (ground, buildings,water ect) by bouncing radio waves.
Thats why its called a radio altimeter or some call it a radar altimeter.

It rapidly measures the distance to whatever is below, normally used
when your altitude is about 2500' or below.
Hope this helped.


Yes, the LRA-900 is Cat III certified. But that doesnt mean anything if you have dozens of large buildings of varying heights along your approach, as are in Arlington along Columbia pike. One must cross-check RA with the Primary altimeter to determine what the RA is actually measuring from, the ground, or perhaps the roof of a building. The Primary altimeter shows too high to hit the Pentagon. See here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10778240

Not to mention the tracking capability of the RA is only 330 fps, less than 200 knots according to Rockwell Collins.

The only time that a pilot can depend on RA for absolute altitude (and the only time one is required), is on a Cat III Autoland ILS with a runway certified for Cat III approach and has a clearway zone and/or displaced threshold. The pilot knows for a fact when he gets below 100 AGL (when on Localizer and Glide slope), that the RA is measuring from grass or pavement at this point.

Legge and Stutt are trying to use RA for a True Altitude reading while the aircraft is flying over many obstacles outside the RA tracking capability. It's absurd.

See more here to understand the argument they are trying to make combined with an example of an approach to IAD Rwy 01R using their argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

If Legge and Stutt were correct, aircraft would be plowing into the ground on approaches all across the world, daily. This is why not one aviation expert has signed their name to their paper.
SanderO
Is the RA similar to a radar which rapidly returns distance to target as the transponder in the plane passes over them? If this is the case and it reminds me of how my laser measuring device works on continuous mode... as you move it around a stream of distance returns rapidly appear on the display and in reality it is almost impossible to know what the distance you are measuring.

As a plane is moving very fast perhaps these returns can be averaged but what is the use of this in trying to approach an airport over terrain over varying heights with buildings of varying heights in the approach path?

In addition the transponder needs to always vertical or perpendicular / plumb to the ground. If it is gimballed in all x, y and z axis it would have to be damped and and this would tend to smooth out and make the readings unreliable and inaccurate.

Can someone explain how a RA works?
rob balsamo
QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 22 2011, 07:10 AM) *
As a plane is moving very fast perhaps these returns can be averaged but what is the use of this in trying to approach an airport over terrain over varying heights with buildings of varying heights in the approach path?


Exactly.

It is not useful at all unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, what it was measuring from, and the height of that object.

This is why RA's are not required for flight at any time (Part 91, can be deferred as per MEL part 135/121), except on a Cat III Autoland ILS on a Cat III certified runway.... below 100 AGL, on Glide Slope and on the Localizer. You know for a fact it will be measuring from pavement or grass at that point in space. (and for Randi's kids... no, not outer space... i once said something similar and Randi's kids jump all over it thinking i meant outer space.. was pretty hilarious... i digress...)

RA is not even required for a Cat II ILS (although many use it). The Primary Altimeter takes you down to the DA (Decision Altitude) which is 100' AGL.

I couldn't stop laughing when Legge made this claim....

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

Legge, look up the term DA for an ILS.

The best part is that their whole paper is based on an FAR they sourced from wiki, which was written for planes like a Cessna 172 (not for Transport Category Aircraft, and certainly not those with Air Data Computers)... and worse.... it's not even quoted correctly at wiki! laughing1.gif

Again, this is just one of the many reasons there isnt an aviation expert name next to Legge and Stutt on their paper.
aerohead
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 22 2011, 07:26 AM) *
Exactly.

It is not useful at all unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, what it was measuring from, and the height of that object.

This is why RA's are not required for flight at any time (Part 91, can be deferred as per MEL part 135/121), except on a Cat III Autoland ILS on a Cat III certified runway.... below 100 AGL, on Glide Slope and on the Localizer. You know for a fact it will be measuring from pavement or grass at that point in space. (and for Randi's kids... no, not outer space... i once said something similar and Randi's kids jump all over it thinking i meant outer space.. was pretty hilarious... i digress...)

RA is not even required for a Cat II ILS (although many use it). The Primary Altimeter takes you down to the DA (Decision Altitude) which is 100' AGL.

I couldn't stop laughing when Legge made this claim....

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

Legge, look up the term DA for an ILS. Too funny...

The best part is that their whole paper is based on an FAR they sourced from wiki, which was written for planes like a Cessna 172 (not for Transport Category Aircraft, and certainly not those with Air Data Computers)... and worse.... it's not even quoted correctly at wiki! laughing1.gif

Again, this is just one of the many reasons there isnt an aviation expert name next to Legge and Stutt on their paper.



LMAO ! I see what you mean Rob. HAHA !

Nobody cares ? laughing1.gif

Well im sure the passengers would care if they knew that if a pilot doesnt use
it (the RA info) on a CAT3b landing, they will more than likely end up as
a smoldering pile of mush near a runway somewhere. Not that there
were passengers on Flt 77 or any of the other 3 planes that day but just sayin'.
The RA audibly calls out lower altitudes and counts down the altitude below
60' in 10' increments so the pilot can properly flare and prepare a nice smooth landing.
It is deadly accurate, much more than the primary Altimeter at low altitudes (below 2500')
While sitting on the ramp, our RA's read 6', the exact distance from the antenna's to
the ground. If the plane was flying over a lawn lets say at 100 feet, and then encountered
a 50' building and flew over it, the RA would instantly correct from 100' to 50'.

But lets talk about decision height for a bit. The decision height or DH is the height
where the pilot must make the decision to commit to landing or abort, as trying to abort past
this point would not be possible due to the planes inertia in the glide path toward the runway,
even with flaps down, and DH is normally about 200' or so.
But we are supposed to believe that FLT 77 dove down from over the height of the Navy Annex,
at near 3X the normal landing speed, without flaps, and recovered into
a straight and level impact into the building as shown by their 5 frame video ?

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif


It would have been a smoking hole on the lawn. Period.



Listen to the RA call out the Altitudes on this 757.
Starts at 5:00 min in this video.
"1000........500.......50.........40.......30......20......10" -----------------------------------------------------------------









Comments by the poster-

Boeing 757 Cockpit Approach & Landing
Enjoy....
.
0:08 Radar vectors begin, 180 degrees
0:25 Flap 1, 185 knots
0:58 Localiser intercept heading, 230 degrees, LOC armed
1:48 Localiser capture, Glideslope armed
2:15 Runway in sight
3:00 Glideslope capture
3:08 Flap 5, 165 knots
3:18 2500 feet above ground level, 'Radio Altimeter'
3:45 Gear down
3:52 Flap 20, 145 knots
4:01 Flap 25, 133 knots
4:20 Flap 30, 133 knots
4:56 AutoPilot disconnect
5:04 1000' Radio Altimeter call
5:45 500' Radio Altimeter call
6:43 AutoBrakes disconnected



rob balsamo
QUOTE (aerohead @ Jan 22 2011, 02:43 PM) *
Well im sure the passengers would care if they knew that if a pilot doesnt use
it (the RA info) on a CAT3b landing, they will more than likely end up as
a smoldering pile of mush near a runway somewhere.


They would also care if the Primary Altimeter wasnt used on a Cat I (or Cat II) as there is no possible way to tell your True Altitude from a Radio Altimeter while on the approach, until you're over the clearway or displaced threshold, which is guaranteed at a point where the ILS intersects 100 above TDZE.



QUOTE
It is deadly accurate, much more than the primary Altimeter at low altitudes (below 2500')


Well, you have to be careful how you word such a statement as our detractors are trying to say the same thing. The RA is not accurate at all in determining your TRUE Altitude because you dont know exactly what it is measuring from, until you're over the clearway zone.

Sure, the RA will tell you that you wont hit anything (actually, only Terrain Following Radar will help with this as it is forward looking), but it cannot give you an accurate True Altitude at these locations, this is the reason the RA is not required for Instrument flight, and a Sensitive Altimeter adjusted for pressure ... is. Add an Air Data Computer and calibration during flight testing for certification, and the Primary Altimeter is highly accurate. That is why it is "Primary" for instrument flight. smile.gif

QUOTE
While sitting on the ramp, our RA's read 6', the exact distance from the antenna's to
the ground. If the plane was flying over a lawn lets say at 100 feet, and then encountered
a 50' building and flew over it, the RA would instantly correct from 100' to 50'.


This depends on the tracking capability and processor of the RA box. If you are flying at a speed outside it's capabilities (in the case of a 757, less than roughly 200 knots), you may get either/or... or an average as i understand it. The faster you are beyond the capabilities, the less accurate.

QUOTE
But lets talk about decision height for a bit. The decision height or DH is the height
where the pilot must make the decision to commit to landing or abort, as trying to abort past
this point would not be possible due to the planes inertia in the glide path toward the runway,
even with flaps down, and DH is normally about 200' or so.


Kinda sorta... DH is the Missed Approach Point on a Precision Approach. It is the point where the pilot must have a visual reference in order to continue for landing. The height of DH/A differs based on qualification and certification of aircrew, aircraft, and runway.

Any approach, Cat I, II or III would not be possible based on the calculations made by Legge in his paper.

You should review this thread thoroughly and the other thread linked in our Pentagon section in the footnotes of the article to get some good laughs of the argument being made by Legge and Stutt.

QUOTE
[b]Comments by the poster-


3:18 2500 feet above ground level, 'Radio Altimeter'
3:45 Gear down
3:52 Flap 20, 145 knots
4:01 Flap 25, 133 knots
4:20 Flap 30, 133 knots
4:56 AutoPilot disconnect
5:04 1000' Radio Altimeter call
5:45 500' Radio Altimeter call


This all depends on the approach and Airline procedure.

All callouts on a visual, Non-Precision, Precision Cat I (and Cat II Part 91) reference the Primary Altimeter down to DH, MDA, (or TDZE if visual). Otherwise you would be getting inaccurate 1000' and 500' callouts from the RA on approaches with rolling terrain. You may even get them twice on the same approach (Check BTV , ROA or CRW for example). Can really screw things up.

Cat III references the Radio Altimeter below 100' AGL.
aerohead
Thanks for correcting me Rob. When i said its deadly accurate, i should have
clarified- at landing speeds, near decision height (100-200 ft ) and it only gives you
a measurement to the ground, not sea level. Its a landing
tool for harsh conditions (CAT3). True, it doesnt give you true altitude, only
altitude over whatever your flying over, not baro-altitude. It will tell you
if your 1500ft over the ground, but wont tell you how far above sea level
you are. The primary tells you that. I guess what i meant to say was,
Its a great "close to the ground" tool for landing. Not a true Altimeter.
On the ramp here the RA reads 6', but the airport is about 1100' which is what
the Primary reads, and is the true altitude above sea level.


I will check out that argument. Should be fun.

Fight the power. cheers.gif
rob balsamo
QUOTE (aerohead @ Jan 22 2011, 04:50 PM) *
Thanks for correcting me Rob. When i said its deadly accurate, i should have
clarified- at landing speeds and near decision height (100-200 ft ) and that its a landing
tool for harsh conditions (CAT3). And true it doesnt give you true altitude, only
altitude over whatever your flying over, not baro-altitude. It will tell you
if your 1500ft over the ground, but wont tell you how far above sea level
you are. The primary tells you that. I guess what i meant to say was,
Its a great "close to the ground" tool for landing. Not a true Altimeter.
On the ramp here the RA reads 6', but the airport is about 1100' which is what
the Primary reads and is the true altitude above sea level.


I will check out that argument. Should be fun.

Fight the power. cheers.gif


Anytime my friend. Yeah... that is why there are different descriptions for different types of altitude. Another mistake Legge made in his "paper".

Legge, these are the terms you need to learn.

Pressure Altitude
True Altitude
Absolute Altitude
IAS
CAS
TAS
VSI
IVSI

... and the reasons for each...

Legge claims to be a PhD. Wonder if he has ever heard of the four levels of learning.. RUAC. Rote, understanding, application, correlation. Legge is still stuck in the Rote phase.

It is impossible to determine a True Altitude from an Absolute Altitude unless you know the exact height from the object you are measuring.
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
QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 24 2011, 04:40 PM) *
<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.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Pier69 @ Jan 24 2011, 03:32 PM) *
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.. smile.gif

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
QUOTE
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....smile.gif



QUOTE
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. rolleyes.gif

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


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...smile.gif

Take care and ty for fast reply...

Pier
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.