AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[wstutt]

Hi John,

Darn, Dennis used to be one of the more respectful and semi-rational of the group. Guess he has been hanging out with CPT Bob too much.

I have seen some good insights myself that Dennis has had in the past on the FDR file.

In an interview with Rob back in September 2007, he says that he found power interruptions. I am aware of very few people that have understood the FDR file well enough to see them.

In this post back in November 2007, he points out the potential problems of compressed data:

... One of the reasons that I suspect the data shouldn't be highly compressed, is that without some form of data redundancy, or CRC checking within the algorithm for compression toward the end of data reconstruction surety at decoding time, post crash event, means that even the slightest garbling of the now compressed serial data word going into the memory module itself, without a form of RAID recording or data striping taking place within the CPM itself, means that whole blocks of compressed and now un-decodable partially 'bad' data might be the only record available, ...

This is essentially what happened with the NTSB decode and why they did not decode the last 4 seconds of data and incorrectly decoded some of the parameters in the last second of data that they did decode. It was caused by a single bit of the compressed data being changed incorrectly by the error correction routine.

This is why I was measured in my criticism of him (IMHO) in my last post before I was suspended:

... So do we believe Boeing that these parameters are stored within the flight data or do we believe someone who decided that the information wasn't in the FDR file because he couldn't see it in the only part of the FDR file he put in enough effort to interpret, namely the easily interpreted plain text preamble outside of the flight data?

Dennis and I do disagree on things regarding the AAL77 FDR especially lately, but I can see that he does have knowledge of FDRs in general.

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

Hi Dave,

So verbal abuse laced with profanity is completely acceptable at PFT, but choosing which bits of it to reply to is a suspendable offence? And the moderator's response is to boast about the suspension and claim that the same behaviour would result in a ban at JREF, despite the continued evasions and cherry pickings of some of our more longevitous truthers? Well, that certainly demonstrates their level of commitment to the principle of open debate.

Dave

Back in May 2009, I posted evidence on JREF that the FDR data had not been corrupted after it was written to memory. This was at a time when some JREF posters thought that the reason why the data that had been decoded ended with a pressure and radio altitude which would have been too high for AAL77 to hit the Pentagon was because the last few seconds of data had been corrupted due to the crash.

Rob made this prediction that I would be banned:

I see no evidence that any of the data was corrupted after being recorded.

Thanks Warren... and neither did the NTSB. As im sure you know, the GL's like to make excuse and speculate so as not to disrupt their already established beliefs. This is yet another reason they never venture out from their cave for actual debate with an actual opponent.

Dont expect to last long at JRE.F if you disturb their speculation and theories with facts. They have banned every "troofer" who has brought an argument to their AA77 FDR thread, while the mods look the other way when the GL's offer nothing but ad hom and personal attacks.

As it turned out, I never even received a warning.

ETA:I find it ironic that I was suspended for amongst other things, "Failure to address questions/information provided", but my suspension assures my failure will continue!

ETA2:I notice that according to the notes that appear when I hover my mouse over words in my last ETA that suspension at JREF only usually lasts a few days. My suspension at Pilots For 9/11 Truth is for a month.

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

Hi sheeplesnshills,

<snip>

... And has he tested the parts to find Buga, Coliumbia weathering, whatever that is.....

I think what Dennis was claiming is that aircraft wreckage from this crash of AA965 near Buga, Columbia was planted at the Pentagon.

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

Hi DGM,

Warren:
I'm sure I know the answer but, I have to ask. You're not surprised by this, are you?

I have heard of other people being banned from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum supposedly for disagreeing with Rob (I haven't checked these claims out to see whether I agree).

I was a bit disappointed that we could not have had a more civil discussion, but it now looks like that I can get on with the rest of my life.

Warren.

 

[TjW]

Hi Dave,


Back in May 2009, I posted evidence on JREF that the FDR data had not been corrupted after it was written to memory. This was at a time when some JREF posters thought that the reason why the data that had been decoded ended with a pressure and radio altitude which would have been too high for AAL77 to hit the Pentagon was because the last few seconds of data had been corrupted due to the crash.

Rob made this prediction that I would be banned:
As it turned out, I never even received a warning.

ETA:I find it ironic that I was suspended for amongst other things, "Failure to address questions/information provided", but my suspension assures my failure will continue!

ETA2:I notice that according to the notes that appear when I hover my mouse over words in my last ETA that suspension at JREF only usually lasts a few days. My suspension at Pilots For 9/11 Truth is for a month.

Warren.

I suspect Rob "projects" a little bit.

 

[beachnut]

...
Warren.

Balsamo saying you would be banned at JREF is like Balsamo saying 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon, as 77 flies over the road at 16 to 20 feet in a dive, verified by eyes, knocked down lampposts, FDR, DNA, tons of aircraft parts from 77, and a RADALT reading 4 feet. He has no clue.

If you post facts at p4t, you are first labeled a GL (government loyalist, to a government for the people by the people, like Jefferson, and Washington, a GL), your posts are sent to the Ghetto/Debate area, and you are suspended if you post another fact. Facts kill Balsamo's delusions, the peanut gallery could start to think and then no one would post or buy DVDs of moronic lies, laced with moronic math.

 

[nicepants]

I have heard of other people being banned from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum supposedly for disagreeing with Rob (I haven't checked these claims out to see whether I agree).

They are true.

I was one of those banned from his forum despite never breaking any of their rules.

One of their mods demanded that I manually transcribe 10 copies of some document they wrote which was an attack on debunkers, and post copies here at JREF as well as film the transcription and post it to youtube. I didn't do it so I was suspended.

I was banned a week or two later but I don't recall any specific reason other than making Rob look like an idiot. I recall one post that asked him some tough questions and his response was "The rest of your post i didn't bother to read as it appears to be the same old BS from people like you.".

It should tell you something that they configured their forum software to replace "JREF" with "The Governmant Loyalist Site". Yes, disagreeing with Rob...or even MENTIONING his opposition is just asking for a ban over there.

 

[alienentity]

As it turned out, I never even received a warning.

ETA:I find it ironic that I was suspended for amongst other things, "Failure to address questions/information provided", but my suspension assures my failure will continue!

ETA2:I notice that according to the notes that appear when I hover my mouse over words in my last ETA that suspension at JREF only usually lasts a few days. My suspension at Pilots For 9/11 Truth is for a month.

Warren.

So was Balsamo correct? Were you banned?

 

[wstutt]

Hi nicepants,

They are true.

I was one of those banned from his forum despite never breaking any of their rules.

One of their mods demanded that I manually transcribe 10 copies of some document they wrote which was an attack on debunkers, and post copies here at JREF as well as film the transcription and post it to youtube. I didn't do it so I was suspended.

I notice part of the thread you were demanded to type up says:

The road to understanding is fraught with potholes, contradictions and dissinformation. Don't hesitate to ask questions - no matter what aspect of the 9/11 attacks or related issues anyone is confused about, there is probably someone here that has researched it in depth. We do welcome anyone who is honestly searching for answers ... however, we have all dealt with our share of posters who have their minds made up already, who refuse to do their own research and come here to simply challenge us. Many who fit this description are part of an organized effort to disrupt groups like Pilots for Truth, and we have little patience with them.

Let us know in your posts that you are here honestly looking for answers and not here to disrupt and you will recieve a warm welcome.

So yes, it looks like answering questions is allowed but challenging Pilots for 9/11 Truth is not.

I was banned a week or two later but I don't recall any specific reason other than making Rob look like an idiot. I recall one post that asked him some tough questions and his response was "The rest of your post i didn't bother to read as it appears to be the same old BS from people like you.".

Yet I was suspended for amongst other things "Failure to address questions/information provided."

It should tell you something that they configured their forum software to replace "JREF" with "The Governmant Loyalist Site". Yes, disagreeing with Rob...or even MENTIONING his opposition is just asking for a ban over there.

I have always felt that the automatic replacements were quite immature. Rob said that I could place links to JREF in CODE tags, but why should I have needed to?

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

Hi alienentity,

So was Balsamo correct? Were you banned?

As far as I know I have been suspended from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum for a month, not banned.

If my suspension is lifted, I doubt whether I will return there. I've had enough of it.

Warren.

 

[Senenmut]

wstutt-
i wonder if you have any more information regarding these two "data fields" that dennis cimino speaks of. i asked farmer but he just defered it to the ntsb. would someone have to go into the "raw file" to zero these out?

from the pft website:

FDR Expert Dennis Cimino further goes on to state:


"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 bull___t" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULL___T.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

 

[wstutt]

Hi Senenmut,

wstutt-
i wonder if you have any more information regarding these two "data fields" that dennis cimino speaks of. i asked farmer but he just defered it to the ntsb. would someone have to go into the "raw file" to zero these out?

<snip>

I did find that information within the flight data, not in the preamble. Here is what I wrote about it at PFT in response to Dennis Cimino:

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.

<snip>

The two fields are not zeroed out in the plain text preamble. They do not appear at all.

It would be possible for someone to remove them from the preamble by modifying the FDR file, but I have no evidence that anyone did this.

I have four FDR files from another source and they also have no AC ID or FLEET ID fields. Rob Balsamo asked me to share the other files, but my source has has denied permission since they were from a client and that client had not given permission for my source to share the files with me. My source shared the files with me so that I could help him decode them.

I think that the AC ID and FLEET ID fields never appear in the text preamble contrary to Dennis Cimino's claim that they always do.

Warren.

 

[BCR]

I agree with Warren. The info Dennis aaserts is missing would be found in the preamble which is normal ascii text. No special skills required to read that. I did not see a preamble in UAL 93 fdr at all.

As to why, only the NTSB or FAA can answer. Anything Warren and I could say would be speculation. If I had to wager a guess, it would be that Dennis is simply wrong and the inclusion is not a requirement.But then again, only the NTSB could address that.

 

[beachnut]

wstutt-
i wonder if you have any more information regarding these two "data fields" that dennis cimino speaks of. i asked farmer but he just defered it to the ntsb. would someone have to go into the "raw file" to zero these out?

from the pft website:

FDR Expert Dennis Cimino further goes on to state:


"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 bull___t" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULL___T.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

A smoke screen by Dennis to fool people.

Dennis is calling the FBI and the NTSB liars. Good for Dennis and Balsamo, they are selling lies to fools.

The pilots for truth had the raw data, and failed to decode the last seconds. The FDR is not needed for squat, to understand 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Wow, you posted a link to pilots for truth, you can't post links to JREF at pilots for truth, they will not let the truth in. If you post at p4t, ask Balsamo when he will take down his 11.2g moron math.

Dennis failed, and feeds Balsamo's delusion factory. Did they fool you? Looks like they did.

 

[wstutt]

I now have version 1.10 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added some new parameters.

You can read further notes on the new parameters here.

Warren.

 

[chris lz]

Balsamo is quick to point out the lack of aviation background of Stutt & Legge. I may have missed this, but did he ever provide the name or background of his FDR expert?

Thanks

 

[BCR]

Balsamo is quick to point out the lack of aviation background of Stutt & Legge. I may have missed this, but did he ever provide the name or background of his FDR expert?

Thanks

Dennis Cimino

 

[chris lz]

Thank you, I am not as well versed as most of you on this issue.

Is Cimino the one frequently referred to as "your FDR guy" at the 911ft forum by Warren? Finally, is Cimino the only "FDR expert" working for 911pft?
Thanks again if you happen to know the answers to these ?s.

Chris

 

[beachnut]

Thank you, I am not as well versed as most of you on this issue.

Is Cimino the one frequently referred to as "your FDR guy" at the 911ft forum by Warren? Finally, is Cimino the only "FDR expert" working for 911pft?
Thanks again if you happen to know the answers to these ?s.

Chris

Cimino, a failed pilot on 911 issues, can't correct Balsamo's moron math, supports delusional claims on 911, it adds up to not an "expert" on 911 issues.

Nothing has changed at Balsamo's house of false claims on 911.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time.

How can they offer theory, they are idiots who make up lies, Balsamo is too busy trying to sell dumbed down videos to paranoid conspiracy theorists.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html
A possible nomination if delusional BS was a Pulitzer Prize winning category.

 

[BCR]

Thank you, I am not as well versed as most of you on this issue.

Is Cimino the one frequently referred to as "your FDR guy" at the 911ft forum by Warren? Finally, is Cimino the only "FDR expert" working for 911pft?
Thanks again if you happen to know the answers to these ?s.

Chris

Yep, they at one time had a great 'fdr expert', Warren Stutt. But they did not like what he learned so they ran him off and deemed him a 'disinfo agent'. Go figure.