JDX Open Invitation for Public Debate!

This is my open invitation for public debate regarding the Flight Data Recorder of American Flight 77 provided by
The National Transportation Safety Board (www.ntsb.gov).

I challenge the following:

- Anti-Sophist (anonymous persona on JREF),
- Mark Roberts (a person who feels we do not need to question our govt regarding 9/11 and does anything in his power to 'neutralize' 9/11 arguments including harrassment at Ground Zero)
- William Seger (internet persona of Democratic Underground who loves to cherry pick)
- The NTSB
- The FBI
- Anyone who thinks analyzing the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon is a "Honey Pot" or a "Trap"
- Any mainstream media outlet who wishes to tackle the subject of American 77 Flight Data Recorder as provided by the NTSB.

All of the above i have challenged to a debate in the past, using real names, in a real forum (not the internet),
to email me with their number to set up the debate and/or recorded call.
None have stepped up to the plate.

I look forward to anyone up for the challenge as I am currently resting from research and will be starting UA93 research in the near future and have time to debate government loyalist/apologists at this time

If you would like to debate, please email us at pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org. Replies to this blog don't mean a thing unless you are willing to offer
a public debate, with me (and the professionals I choose to attend with me), recorded. You can choose anyone you would like to attend. The more 'official', the better. Thanks for your understanding.

Rob Balsamo


You do your country proud! The truth hides from nothing!

the cowards wont debate you.

the cowards wont debate you.

Appreciating you folks BIGTIME...

That the FDR has the plane (one second prior to the "supposed" Pentagon impact) at around 500ft, yet the NTSB animation conveniently has the plane at 180ft, should be ringing everyones alarm - way too high to hit any lamp posts !!!

Not to mention that the FDR flight path does not even match the "official" claims...

Well done PilotsFor911Truth.org, I hope everyone gives you guys the support you all deserve.

Respect !!!

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter 2: Flight of American 77

Unite !

The one thing us truthers have to agree on is this.
It's not up to us to prove it,or to figure out the
whole story.Although researching,and trying to put the pieces together does help.
We need to focus on getting all the questions answered that we already have.Getting the Congress to do it's job,as well as the major media.
It puzzles me to see those like Mark Roberts push the offical fairy tale,when this story has already been sold.WHY?
You would think he would be chomping at the bit to put this baby to bed once and for all.What i mean here is why is'nt he fighting to get the media to cover ALL the topic's?Who's team is better Mark?
So instead of going to ground zero.Instead of crashing 9/11 truth sites.
Let's work together to end this shit.
In the end we will see who can say.
So Mark.........You set it up.Bring NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX,and any other media outlet you would like.Let's get it advertised a week in advance.
Lets do it PRIME TIME! Bring your experts,well bring ours.Get all the video's,and classified documents.
After all this is the story of the century.Who would'nt want to watch it?

Show "You challenged me to a" by Mark Roberts

How about i post my challenge to you here?

uh.. hello??? Read above Mark.. you know..The blog that started this thread? Its a challenge to you and others (and i posted it in other blogs as well. You seemed to have overlooked them as well.. i wont waste my time looking for them)

But since it doesnt seem you see the above challenge to you... yes.. i accept your challenge regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder. Please email me at pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org. If you dont feel comfortable about giving me your phone number. I will give you mine and you can call so we can work out the details.

As for your 'execution..." i never said that. What i said is that anyone who gets in my way of questioning my govt including you... while i am surrendering my freedoms, should die a traitors death. I apologized for the harshness of the statement... But you still continue to use it and spin it up. Typical.

I look forward to hearing from you.


Rob, you said,

Rob, you said, "All of the above i have challenged to a debate in the past, using real names, in a real forum (not the internet), to email me with their number to set up the debate and/or recorded call. None have stepped up to the plate."

I asked you to post your previous challenge to me, so that people know you're not lying. Please do so, or retract your claim.

Rob Balsamo, posting as Loose Change Forum Moderator johndoex:

“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”

Can you name a single instance in which I tried to suppress a 9/11 victim from seeking the Truth? No, you can't, because it's never happened. It's just another sad lie you told.

How about this one: "Supporting a terrorist? Don't do that again...i will not take it lightly...that is slander..and i will find you."

Tsk, tsk, Rob. Such violent "patriotic" fantasies you have. Here's another:

"If hes trying to take over my ship. .and all he has is a boxcutter? Im gonna grab my crash axe and chop him up... while tossing fire extingushers to passengers. .you? Or do you cower and say.. "Please dont cut me Mr. Big Bad Terrorist" –Rob Balsamo

And you presume to lecture me about respect for 9/11 victims?

Why don't you present your armchair hero's fantasies to the families of these men:

Jason Dahl

Leroy Homer

John Ogonowski

Thomas McGuinness

Chic Burlingame

David Charlebois

Victor Saracini

Michael Horrocks

Go ahead, Rob. Report back to us on the support you get from the Burlingame and Charlebois families after you explain how their husbands and fathers cowered and begged, whereas you – while strapped in your seat – would have singlehandedly defeated all the hijackers.

Oh, but I thought there were no hijackers. Huh. 



I have no expertise in determining the possible sources of possible errors in the sensing and recording devices of 757s, and neither do you.

The errors in your arguments have been pointed out to you in detail by JREF forum members who have experience designing, testing, and maintaining such equipment. One of them is a 757/767 avionics technician. Another built such instruments for the Air Force. I defer to their expertise.

Not surprisingly, the additional "evidence" that your followers arrogantly promised to deliver, never materialized. If you have something new that you think is important, present all your data so that experts in the relevant fields – not you and I – can review it.

You say you've "challenged" the NTSB to a debate. Is that how science is done? Have you presented your data to them? If so, who reviewed it and what were their conclusions? After all, you can't very well claim that you stand for the capital T "Truth" if you don't present your arguments and data to the experts who are best able to analyze them.

You claim flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. Do you agree to a public debate on all flight 77/Pentagon attack issues? Yes or no?

Pilots For Truth Members

John Panarelli
friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11
ATP: L-300, B-737, DC-10, DC-8, FE, TT=approx. 11,000 hours
USAF-C141-IP, Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

Gretchen Burnett-Simrall
Flight Attendant American Airlines
15 years
Co-worker of Betty Ong and Karen Martin


I can include Family members of the Family Steering Commitee if you like.. but too many to list here. Better off going to our site and clicking the link.

I dont claim anytihng. Im showing people what is in the FDR as provided by the NTSB. You havent done your homework Mark. Please quote our site, pilotsfor911truth.org, where we say AA77 didnt hit the pentagon.. thanks!

Now, i have asked you to a professional debate based on the Flight Data Recorder. We have a FDR expert who is helping us so the experts you seek are there. You have Anti-Sophist and he is way wrong. If he were really an FDR expert he would know what we know regarding the sophisticated equipment used to reproduce the entire flight. Hint: Watch the animation as i have told him to many times in the past... Follow the 'yellow brick road'.

We have called the NTSB, FBI, ALPA and Congress people. Seek and ye shall find.

I will not debate you on this thread. You can email me like i asked or you cannot. It takes much longer to type out responses than it does to have a verbal debate and i dont have time to keep checking for your replies. You can email me and agree to the terms stated in the original blog, or you can back out. Up to you. Let me know through email please as i told you i will not debate here. I am thinking a radio show for the debate. If you do not have the expertise to debate such issues, find someone that will. In the words of Anti-Sophist, "He isnt even wrong...", "There could be an error of up to 2 seconds". A-S needs 8 seconds. And there isnt an error. We hold onto facts, you people hold onto 'possible errors'. Period.

If you dont want to debate, i look forward to your Pandora's Black Box Chapter Two Guide. Get all the experts you can muster. But you may want to pick up a DVD as the FDR Expert call is in the extras (although i will release the FDR Expert call as well as the new FBI call to the public soon.. so you can wait and get it for free.. up to you).

Let me know...


something called mark

LOL, ROFL, PMSL.......

How can the NTSB be presented with the FDR data which they provided in the first place fool?. And if you watch the PBB film you will notice the findings were submitted to them via a phone call. But twits like you deliberately misinform by making certain aspects to be something entirely different.

You are easy meat, and easy to see through. Like taking sweets from children.

prepare to be taken to pieces :D

Show "Submitted via phone call." by Mark Roberts

"Name one thing I've gotten

"Name one thing I've gotten wrong, TS."

So are you saying it is your belief that your positions on 911 are 100% correct with NO chance of error?

I am in awe. Truely. You might become my new hero now that Ronnie is gone.

Oh, and thanks for your contribution to CrossBall! ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

playing the victim again i see Mark.

"Perhaps you're just shy, Rob, since you called for me to be EXECUTED AS A TRAITOR"
Mark, this tactic is really low and really tired. nobody cares enough about you to call for your execution.


"nobody cares enough about you to call for your execution."

That totally makes up for not realizing the secret identity of "Deadpoopoo" (I can hardly stand to type it, even) until yesterday.


haha, yeah, hes so obvious

haha, yeah, hes so obvious though i still feel like an idiot. i dont know what his deal is with poop though. he just made a crack in another thread about William Rodriquez of all people and said, and i qoute-"the poop is not as it seems". i shit you not.

Show "i wasnt makiing cracks----i" by DEADPOOPOO666

oh my god, you want me to

oh my god, you want me to debate you on if William Rodriquez is a shill or not? seriously poop, how old are you anyway? i am NOT going to debate the likes of you on a topic like that. friggin ridiculous kid.

Show "the points are in the" by DEADPOOPOO666

The amazing thing, deadpoopoo666,

is that your posts have gone up the tiniest smidgen in comprehensibility since you changed your moniker.

The "666" is a nice touch, btw.

Show "thanks!" by DEADPOOPOO666

OK Mark !

Put your effort ino something with TEETH! You can do something that us truthers can:t.Bring it Mark!
But i must warn you! Your Leaders will not go for it.
Why you ask? Pull your head out and see the truth!

DAMN! Youy make me smile!

Run Mark!................
How much are they paying you to sell out your country?
I thought you had balls? Show me!
Bring your experts!...........Lets see the truth!


ACCEPTED ! You set it up!........we'll be there!


ACCEPTED ! You set it up!........we'll be there! But don't go half assed! Let's make this one count!

Ill give you a lil warning

I served my country..........Blead more times then you can count.
Ex Navy S.E.A.L..........Your a fool. Bring it,and quit hiding!
Set it up and we will be there!


Come on! set up a media event.Not just a few second interview.
Your make me laugh!...........I wonder what selling out your country is going for these days?


Although i appreciate your enthusiam, please keep it professional and lets wait for his email. We'll work out the details at that time. Thanks for your understanding.


Dear Rob

..................OK have at it !

So i take it

Your accepting Mr Balsamo's challenge?
GOOD DEAL!..........Bring all the media you can to cover it ok?

I am sorry Rob

Like i said............Have at it ! I think Mr Robert will run. I am wondering why?He has the backing of the elite.
Even though that is the case.The truth to this will prevail.
I am looking forward to seeing his acceptance,and the final result.

Mark Roberts

Mark really isnt the proper one to debate this stuff as he isnt a pilot.. He's a tour guide. I want Anti-Sophist. I included Mark to see how bold he can be. He doesnt have a clue how to debate anything aviation related. He hasnt done much with his life except harrass people looking for answers from their govt. So i dont expect him to know much about avionics or aviation. We'll take Apathoid and Anti-Sophist. The people who claim to have some expertise. We'll be waiting for their emails.



From my limited perspective having simply read the posts and not knowing much of the background per se, it does appear this Mark fellow challenged, was responded to, and now must make good his challenge or be discredited. Fairly permanently I would hazard. My guess is that he will not make good. Pity.

Show "What are you afraid of, Rob?" by Mark Roberts

I dont make any claim

I show people what the Flight Data Recorder shows. You say its in error (but of course. .you buy the govt fairy tale hook line and sinker). Please show us the exact errors and by how much since the NTSB and FBI are having a tough time explaining it.. nor do they post retraction or feel the need to fix any errors (hint: they cant.. once they fix one error.. another conflict arises within the parameters. They all cross check the way it is now.. something you will not understand since you are not a pilot). You may if you watch the film. Others are.. over a half million views for my organzation so far in the past few short months.. doesnt that just get your panties in a wad? lol

But if you want to prove the plane hit the pentagon.. Start with the parts. Please produce the parts with their respective part number which should match the maintenance logs from the NTSB with the respective tail number. We want a posiitive Identification of American 77. Parts is a good start. Then we'll talk with Pentagon Officials.

I knew you wouldnt email me and waste your Friday night in front of your computer forcing an internet debate instead of a simple email to call and work out the details. If you want to debate, the terms are listed above. If you dont agree to those terms (which i can see why.. you are a tour guide and not a pilot), you are certainly welcome to back out. Which you are trying to do but not much integrity.

But if you feel you can prove beyond a resonable doubt that American 77 hit the pentagon (remember, Positive Identification).. we are all ears. It seems the US govt is having a hard time doing just that. Perhaps a tour guide such as yourself can prove it. Give it your best shot. Remember.. we'll take the maintanence logs first. Thanks!

Dont forget to keep an eye on www.thepentacon.com folks! They video taped uniformed Pentagon Officials at the Citgo gas station confirming the aircraft North of the Citgo which matches the FDR. It is solid. I listened to the audio over the phone.

Mark, stop wasting your time with people you think are 'kooks' on a Friday night.. Go out. .have a beer. Get a life..lol

Or email me.. and we'll hammer out the details of the debate over the phone when i have a chance ot call you (or i can give you my number as i said above)

Or i suppose you can continue your diatribes here on blogger. I'll get around to you when i can.



Do you not understand English mark roberts?. JDX has already laid down the gauntlet, or are you really so dumb?.

Why don't you do what JDX has already done throughout this blog? prove you are right, but I know without doubt, you will go running like the scared cat you are, as you will never be able to back your ludicrous statements up.

How about someone to

"The issue is whether flight 77, piloted by a hijacker, hit the Pentagon. You say no. I say yes."

 How about someone to advocate a third, more likely scenario: AAL77 hit the Pentagon while piloted not by human hijackers, but by a remote navigation system such as Global Hawk?

Rob Balsamo is FULL of it!

I believe 9/11 was an inside job. I think there is enough to say that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. I find it unbelieveable that any plane was allowed anywhere near the Pentagon and especially after the WTC plane crashes. There is much more evidence to suggest 9/11 was an inside job which I won't go into at this point, but I wanted to make the point that I'm part of this truth movement to expose the official theory on 9/11.

Having said that , I find PilotsforTruth completely irresponible with a total disregard for logic of evidence that has been substantiated and by providing a theory which debunks itself. Let me explain what I mean...

How can you propose a theory of no plane hitting the Pentagon based on so-called discrepencies obtained from the FDR of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?

These guys have been all over forums everywhere promising the release of their self-tauted movie "The Pentacon" for months saying that they are still working on it, all the while all that they do is beebop from forum to forum boasting about their upcoming movie. How do they make time to finish there movie with so much forum activity? I've been having a hard time just trying to keep up with all of thier posts, and that's just reading.

These guys are seriously causing damage to the truth movement and it's time more fellow truthseekers spoke up to these guys. This is not about infighting anymore, it's about exposing PilotsforTruth and CIT for what they are.

 Rob, please address this post which was originally posted by Anti-Sophist...

"I gathered up all the publically available flight-data-recorder information, looked at it closely. My initial intent was to properly analyze the data and debunk the variety of dopey conspiracy theories that abounded. After reading all of the NTSB reports, looking carefully at the data provided about the hardware, and the CSV file, I realized that virtually all conspiracy theorist attempts at using this data for sub-second accurate reconstruction is completely and utterly baseless. In the words of Pauli, paraphrased, they aren't even wrong.

What follows is a copy/paste of the bulk of a longer doc file I've been writing. This details, specifically, what flight data recorder data looks like, how it is recorded, how it is decoded, and what the CSV file flying around actually is (and how it was made). I'd really appreciate a proofread and some constructive criticism on any gaps. The full document contains some examples to illustrate teh concepts, but the tables don't translate very well, so I've gotten rid of several examples and paragraphs to do with those examples.

Contained in this document is a pretty thorough description of all the sources for error that pop up when using the CSV file as a "raw" fdr data output, and I explain how the real "fdr" data has few of these problems. I don't actually debunk any specific claims (ie, JDXs), entirely because almost all of the flaws in the analysis are simple and trivial to point out given a thorough understanding of what the CVS file is.

The meat of the paper is section 3. Sections 1 and 2 are scientific background and descriptions of the various technical aspects.

About Me:
MS Electrical Engineering, worked with the USAF (as a civilian) on F15s doing data recording and telemetry. I've designed, built, tested, installed, and maintained flight data acquisition systems, of which the FDR is a very low-bit-rate version. It also has the unique characteristic, among data recorders, of being crash survivable.

I. Recorded Flight Data Format

The recorded flight data is serial binary data. So that means the guy who sat down with Flight 77s data recorder, put the tape into a computer, a single wire as the input, and across that wire comes a series of bits: 1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1.

When you consider the problem of sitting at a computer, and seeing a serial stream of 1s and 0s come in, and trying to make sense of it, you will begin to realize the engineering difficulties in making this process work well. Well, the first (and most familiar) is to break up the signal into bytes (8 bytes), or other units of length (the FDR on flight 77 uses words of 12 bits in length, instead of bytes). Throughout the document, I will refer to “words” which simply means a predefined number of bits. For Flight 77, specifically, it means 12 bits, however the logic below will apply to any number of bits per word.

The next major abstraction is to frames. A frame is a specific group of words. On Flight 77, the frame length was 256 words. In order to correct for errors, each frame has specific “synch” words that are used to keep the data-processing software “in synch”. Every 256 words, the recorded inserted a known “synch” word. This synch word, literally, is used to keep the data-processing in synch, and help correct for errors.

All frames are exactly the same length, with the known synch words in the exact same places. For this reason, when you are receiving data from a data recorder, you would know there is supposed to be 2000 bits between synch words, and so if the current frame you’ve received only has 1999 bits between synch words, you would know that a bit has been dropped (this happens more often than you’d think). The question becomes: “Ok, we dropped a bit… but from where?” Chances are high only one of your words is corrupted (11 bits instead of 12), but it’s impossible to know which one, so you are forced to throw out the entire frame. (Please keep that thought in mind when conspiracy theorists talk about “partial frames”).

Often times, frames of serial data are structured even further into “major frames” and “minor frames”. A major frame is simply a collection of minor frames, and it’s done almost always for convenience. Flight 77 has major frames that are 4 seconds long, and it is broken down into four 1-second minor frames, each consisting of 256 12-bit words.

All frames have time stamps. Since each frame represents an exact amount of time, the recorded time of any single word can be calculated by its position in the frame and the time-stamp of the frame. If a word is exactly half way into a frame, it’s time of recording was exactly halfway between this frame’s timestamp and the next one.

There are some important issues to note about recorded:

1)The amount of data flowing is always constant. There are exactly N bits in T time, never more, never less (if you were designing a system, you’d put filler words in to make sure of this).

2)If there are too many, or too few bits, between a pair of synch words, it’s virtually impossible to tell which data is corrupt, and almost always all of this data is thrown out.

3)Data, relative to the frame, is always recorded at the same time. If your frame period is 1 second and you set it to record the altimeter at 0.3 seconds, it’s going to be in the data stream at 0.3, 1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.3, etc. Each piece of data gets his one shining moment specially reserved for him, so he had better be ready to go at that moment.

II. On-Aircraft Recording Systems

A recording system, then, is a system that samples data from around an aircraft, compiles it somehow into a fixed bit-rate serial data stream, and sends this data to a recorder. First, let’s discuss the type of data recorded on an aircraft. There are two main sources of data, as far as the recording system is concerned:

1)Data the recorder can access at any time (almost always analog sensors)

2)Data that the recorder is told, at certain, unpredictable, times (almost always digital information from a computer).

An accelerometer is an analog sensor. The recorder can read the accelerometer at any time. So if the accelerometer data is programmed to be recorded at 19.723 seconds, the recorder can read the accelerometer at 19.721 seconds, get the answer, and store it. This means, for data of type I, the time the data is recorded is virtually identical to the time it is measured. This is the key distinction between the two types of data.

This time the data will come from a digital source like, for example, an Air Data Computer (ADC). The ADC might compute the air speed 5 times per second, along with helping the pilot fly the plane. It’s much smarter (and safer) to let the ADC say to the recorder “Here is the computed airspeed” when it isn’t busy. The opposite approach would be to let recording system interrupt the ADC and say “Give me the airspeed”. The ADC might be doing more important things during this time, and giving out data to the recorder might not be the highest priority. In almost all situations, the first method is preferred: The device, when it’s ready, sends the data to the recording system.

This fundamental design decision has serious implications. The airspeed data might not be programmed to go out in the serial data stream until 0.75s (remember, this data is stored at a specific time), but the ADC has informed the recorder at 0.3s of his airspeed. The recorder unit must be able to receive this information from the ADC or other digital sources, and store it, until it is time to record it. Recording systems all employ some type of digital buffering, so that they can receive and hold information until that particular piece of data gets his turn to be recorded.

Be mindful, that this introduces an error. If the data was measured at 0.3s, and recorded at 0.75s, our poor software engineer who is decoding it later will think it was measured at 0.75s. This problem is generally solved by reserving space in the data-stream for time-stamps of the data. In other words, word 3 might be for the computed airspeed, and word 4 might be for the time-stamp that the computed airspeed was measured. In this way, the actual altitude signal might be recorded at time 1.7, but the timestamp will tell us it was measured at 1.3. It’s very important to understand that when this type of data was recorded does not indicate when it was measured. You need this timestamp information to do know when it was measured. Flight 77 raw's FDR data probably has these timestamps, but the CSV file does not.

Hardware and Terminology
All flight data recording is split into 3 distinct, logical, components. Modern recorders contain all 3 modules in a single box, but if you were to crack it open, and look at the design, you’d see three very distinct components:

1)DAU: Data Acquisition Unit: The DAU is responsible for buffering all digital data (and timestamps of when it was measured), and having all analog data sampled and ready to go. Basically, you can think of the DAU as the RAM or memory of the recording system.
2)Controller: The controller is responsible for executing the program (the frame). Basically he follows the tabular chart. If we are at word 1, we tell the DAU “Send Major Synch to the Recorder”. Wait for the word to finish sending, and then tell the DAU “Send the Time Stamp to the Recorder”, and so on.
3)Recorder: Obviously receives a stream of data and stores it to some medium. The actual recording medium used in the FDR of Flight 77 was “solid-state”. It’s a fairly new recording technology and a large improvement over the older methods (magnetic tapes).

III. Flight 77s Flight Data Recorder

The vast majority of information about the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) that is found in the public domain is the result of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests to the NTSB. The full versions of all the reports are available here: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Beyond the FDR report, from the NTSB, there are two released attachments:
1)The .fdr file which contains the actual data-dump from the FDR
2)A CSV file which contains processed FDR data

Some technical details about the serial data on the FDR:

This output is a continuous sequence of four-second frames. Each frame consists of four subframes of 256 separate 12-bit words, with the first word containing a unique 12-bit synchronization word identifying it as subframe 1,2,3 or 4.

The FDR Raw Data File

A raw data file is only useful if also given the frame description, which describes the synch words, and the location inside of each frame for each recorded value. This frame-description was included in the NTSB report, according to the NTSB Flight 77 FDR report, page 2, footnote 1:

Based on Boeing’s 757-3B data frame. See Attachments IV and V. Boeing Document D226A-101-3, Rev. G, October 27, 1999 (D226A101-3G.pdf); American Airlines database printout (757-3b_1.txt)

To the best of my knowledge, none of these documents exist in the public domain, and were not released with the FOIA request. Without the frame description information, the raw data is almost entirely useless.

The only issue is to what extent can this file be reverse engineered, and what useful data can come from it. First, and most importantly, I am not sure if this data file has been uncompressed. The Flight 77 FDR report mentions (page 3) that specific software is necessary to uncompress the data. If the data in this file is compressed, then there is virtually nothing useful to be gained, without first uncompressing it. Given a brief look at the header of the raw file, it appears to contain plain-text, which would imply it was not compressed data.

Under the assumption it is uncompressed, already, I will speculate, briefly, on the potential gain from reverse engineering it. First, it’s very likely that someone with minor amounts of effort could figure out the synch words, and extract the major and minor frames in raw format. In this sense, you could get “frame lock”. You’d be able to align all the data between frames. This may be useful in determining the number of frames, or the state of the final few frames. Extracting any information, beyond that, would be incredibly difficult to pull off successfully.

The CSV file

The CSV (Comma Separated Values) is the main data source used by all Flight 77 “amateur” forensic analysis. First, we will discuss the reason for this files existence. This can be found in the NTSB Flight 77 FDR report, page 4:

Attachments II-1 to II-17 contain plots of those parameters that were recorded and validated. The timeframe of the plots is from 8:19:00 EDT to 9:39:00 EDT, with the last recorded data occurring at 9:37:44 EDT.

The data plotted in Attachment II are available in tabular format as a comma delimited (*.csv) file in Attachment III.

It is very important to note that the FDR data in the CSV file was processed to be made able to be plotted. I will explain what the purpose of this processing is, and what the effect of this processing had on the information contained in the CSV file.

The single most important point of this entire document is to be found here: These frames represent just that: frames. The vertical axis represents the number of samples taken during that frame, not the time those samples were taken. Many conspiracy theorists, incorrectly, believe that each row of this file represents 1/8 of a second.

The flawed interpretation is quickly disposed of by realizing a few key pieces of evidence. First of all, if you look at the longitudinal acceleration data above, you will see that it is sampled 4 times, and then the other 4 rows are blank. Without getting into the technical details, sampling at 0, 1/8, 2/8 and 3/8, and then not sampling again until 8/8 is absolutely silly. In digital signal processing, sampling out-of-phase like this would result in horrible aliasing effects and poorer reconstructed signal quality. It requires the same amount of effort, and the same amount of bandwidth to sample in equally spaced intervals, and the data is far superior. There is absolutely no way that the data was sampled “out-of-phase” like the incorrect interpretation would imply.

The second major clue is that our serial multiplexed signal is a constant bit-rate signal. This means that the same amount of data flows during the same period of time, at all times. All data points in this file are squished towards the top of the frame. This would mean much more data has to travel out from 0 to 1/8 then has to travel from 6/8 to 7/8. This violates the principle of constant bit-rate.

The key point is worth reemphasizing, so I will do it again: the proper interpretation of each frame of in the CSV file is that N samples were taken during that second. We know nothing about the time of these samples other than the fact they were taken during the frame, and are equally spaced. Pressure altitude could have been sampled at 0.0 or 0.99, and they would both show up exactly the same in the CSV file.

This means we can calculate an error rate, in time, for each data point, due entirely to not knowing where in the frame this particular data-point was recorded. For a data-point sampled at 1Hz, like pressure altitude, that sample could have occurred at any point from 8:19:00 to 8:19:01. This is an error range of 1 second. A similar calculation can be done to be show that the maximum error range is equal to the time period between samples. Samples done at 8Hz have an error range of 0.125s, and 4Hz has 0.25s, and so on.

Also note that the timestamps of the major frames have been processed from the original data (the NTSB FDR report mentions this on page 3). There is no way to know the error in these timestamps, nor do we know the precision. It is a mistake to try to correlate these timestamps with the outside world (like official time of impacts).

The Final 1 to 2 Seconds

Given that the data was compressed, and synched, it’s very likely that any frames that were not complete would be difficult to recover, if even recoverable at all. The implication of this is quite simple, and that is the FDR data in the CSV file “runs out” well before the plane actually hits.

This means that 9:37:44 was the last, complete frame, gathered by the recorder. That puts the likely time of impact in the 9:37:45-6 range, and possibly even into the 9:37:46-7 timeframe. The presence of 9:37:46 in this data suggests that its timestamp may have made it onto the tape. How is that possible if 9:37:45 is not a complete frame? That’s a good question, but a reasonable hypothesis has to do with the storage mechanism used. Solid State Recorders, like all medium, are quite unpredictable if they fail during write operations. The actual area being used to record data can very easily be corrupted if power fails while writing. It’s plausible that the crash caused problems in and around this local area of data, causing corruption of the 9:37:45 data frame (again, changing a single bit in a synch word is enough to cause software to completely choke).

The moral of the story here is that the FDR data runs out anywhere from up to 2 seconds before the plane actually crashed into the Pentagon.

Pitfalls Using the CSV File to Reconstruct the Flight of Flight 77

Please keep in mind the CSV file is not raw FDR data, and it was not meant to be used forensically. As such, much information that is present in the raw FDR is lost. Using the CSV file for this purpose is not what it was intended for, however that does not make it impossible. Any analysis done using the file must successfully justify it’s correctness despite the following errors:

0) Absolute Time Error
The times calculated in the file were processed after the fact by the NTSB analysts. This information can be found in the NTSB FDR report, on page 3. We have no idea what the precision or accuracy of the original time stamps is. Any attempt to correlate FDR times to non-FDR (“real world”) times is flawed from the get-go, given this level of uncertainty. It’s probably safe to assume +/-2 seconds of error in the absolute time. This has no effect on relative time (e.g., if it says two frames are 19 seconds apart, chances are good they are exactly 19 seconds apart, to several decimal places).

False Claim: The FDR couldn’t have recorded 9:44:46, the official time of the crash is 9:44:45!

1) Instrument Error
First, and foremost, if the sensor or instrument is giving the recorder a bad number, it’s obviously not going to record the right one. This type of error must be dealt with on an instrument by instrument basis. Any reconstruction should justify the precision used for each value attained. Please keep in mind that all other errors in this document are due to the recording system, and the lost information in the processed version of its data. The uncertainty caused by the data scheduling into a frame, plus the digital buffering, is in addition to any instrument errors.

False Claim: I already debunked the lagging altimeter nonsense!
(The recording-system errors discussed in this document are in addition to, and independent of, any instrument errors.)

2) Intra-frame Time Error
Since we do not have the frame descriptor, all we know is that N samples are taken during a 1 second period. This means that 1/N of a second is the possible error range for a particular data point. With the frame descriptor, this error would be completely removed if using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The aircraft’s speed at 09:37:14.00 was 305.5 knots!

3) Digital Buffering Latency
One of the most important purposes of the DAU is to buffer digital outputs from things like the ADC (Air Data Computer). It is a reasonably safe assumption that the Air Data Computer updates the DAU at least once per sampling, and more than likely twice. This means that for a 1-Hz sample, recorded into the data stream, the actual measured time could have been anywhere in the entire previous second. This means, combined, a digital reading in the CSV file, like Computed Airspeed, which comes from the Air Data Computer, has an enormous error range, in the vicinity of 2 seconds, although 1.5 seconds is probably a safe estimate (0.5s for the buffering latency, and 1s for the uncertainty of when the sample was actually recorded). More then likely, the raw data stream has embedded the actual measurement times, so this error might be completely removed using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The worst case scenario for the 9:14:14 frame’s airspeed is 9:14:14.00, then!
(Yes, that is the worst case time it could be recorded… not measured).

4) Simultaneity Issues
You cannot assume any two samples occurred at the same time. Any analysis that combines two columns of numbers is risking using numbers that did not happen at the same moment in time, for a calculation that assumed they did.

False Claim: The altimeter data shows you’d need positive acceleration to hit the light poles, the accelerometer is showing negative acceleration! (Did you account for the +/- 2 seconds, potentially, between those two separate data points?)

The Bottom Line on Error

Two variables sampled at 1Hz will appear on the same line in the CSV file, however they have a total, combined, error range of nearly 3 (or even 4) seconds. How is that possible? Let me walk you through it.

In this example we consider two samples, A and B, both sampled at 1Hz, during the time frame between second 1.0 and 2.0:

Sample A:
Measured at 0.5s ADC->DAU (buffered)
Recorded at 1.0s DAU->REC (recorded)

Sample B
Measured at 1.98s ADC->DAU
Recorded at 1.99s DAU->REC (recorded)

Please note that sample A and Sample B will both appear on the same line in the CSV file, as they are both part of the frame with timestamp 1.0 second. In this example, Sample A and B are on the same line of the CSV file but were measured 1.5 seconds apart. The entire method could be reversed for A and B, giving a total error between the two of +/- 1.5 seconds, for a full error range of 3 seconds.


1) The FDR did not record the final moments of Flight 77. There is up to 2 seconds missing.
2) The CSV file is not meant to be analyzed forensically, it is meant to be plotted.
3) The CSV data is not raw FDR data. It is not even serial bitstream data.
4) The CSV data is not meant to be broken down into 1/8th seconds and analyzed.
5) The CSV data, properly interpreted, says that there are N samples during this particular frame.
6) Without the frame description, we do not know when in a frame any one sample occurred.
7) Without the frame description, we have lost the measurement timestamps, so the time a particular word was recorded does not necessarily equate with when it was measured.
8) Given these time-shift errors, any mathematics that uses more than one data-point runs the risk of assuming that two numbers occurred at the same time, when they didn’t.
9) Many of these errors can be corrected, greatly, with the frame descriptor.
10) Any analysis must account for (or justify ignoring) these issues in order to draw any valid conclusions."

...or maybe you could respond to this originally posted by William Seger...
"When I first tried to plot the heading indicated by the FDR on a map, I made the same mistake that whoever put that animation together made: I rotated the magnetic heading the wrong way. When I got it right, sonofabitch, the path went right over the lightpoles. Another hint: At least a dozen people reported seeing the plane hit those lightpoles, and dozens more saw it fly right into that big hole in Pentagon where all the plane parts, human remains, and the FDR were recovered."

So does this mean...

That you will be joining Mark Roberts, on his debate team ?

This will be a video, I will not miss.


........Go with the debate

No, RAVEN is full of it!

You said:
*How can you propose a theory of no plane hitting the Pentagon based on so-called discrepencies obtained from the FDR of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?*

PF911T is not proposing a theory. The NTSB supplied evidence *to support the government's theory* that Flight 77 hit the pentagon. However, PF911T analysis of the evidence they supplied proves just the opposite, that the flight from which this data was derived *could not have* hit the Pentagon. This is not a "theory" this is an interpretation of the evidence supplied by agencies of the Federal government.

Now if you want to run a simulation and come up with a different interpretation of that evidence, by all means, please do so.

I dont have time to waste

For an internet debate. If you want to debate the facts on a recorded interview, please email me as i have suggested. Why are you people still hiding behind your computers?

As for my reply to Anti-Sophist.. it is here... i took some time this morning to punch out a few things on my keyboard for A-S.


A-S Quotes in the post and replied. FDR Expert Interview excerpt in the post as well.

The bottom line..

If Anti-Sophist knows anything about FDR's and the reproduction of flights, he would know the sophisticated equipment involved and how accurate it is. Anti-Sophist has been blowing smoke up people's asses claiming to be an expert and telling half-truths to fit his agenda. They twist, spin, bend, use 'possible errors', do anything in their power to make it fit. Thank goodness all we have to do is look at the straight foward facts which all cross-check. We dont need to come up with excuses. If Anti-Sophist is one of those paid pentagon 'bloggers', he might want to look into firing someone who released the FDR the way it is....

If you want to debate the facts. Email me as i have asked numerous times and we'll hammer out the details of the debate. Dont hide behind your computer. I dont have time to keep coming here checking for replies that is why i put in the original blog, "replies to this blog dont mean a thing". Email me. I check it regularly and get alerts when a new email comes in. I will also be out for the game today.

Or, you can keep replying on the net trying to force a net debate and i'll get to you when i can.


Show "You don't have time to debate on the internet?" by -Raven-

You're kidding right? I mean...

... Did you even read my post?

His interperetation is flawed, and he knows it. Just ask Dylan Avery why he's no longer an admin at the LC forum, though I'm not sure he wishes to engage the matter. Here, read through these threads, and maybe you'll begin to understand...




This is not about skeptics vs. truthseekers, Team A vs. Team B, or some other false paradigm you wish to fall into. This is about cold hard facts and the truth.

You are after the truth right? I mean we do call ourselves the truth movement after all ya know.

No, you're the one who must be trying to kid us.

You don't think I was there? That I don't know what went down at LCF? You truly are clueless! I was an administrator of that forum at the time, I know damn well what happened and who started it and so do a lot of other people, earwig.

I hear you SAY the PF911T analysis of the FDR is flawed. I see no evidence of this fact beyond your saying it. Anyone hiding behind a internet pseudonym can say anything and it means nothing. Everyone knows who Rob is now. He's made his information public and he's presented an analysis of the FDR and challenged anyone, including you, to a debate on this subject.

Taker? Give him a call. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke as all of us can plainly see.

Show "Painter, Rob and two of his" by Mark Roberts

I have NEVER posted on the JREF forum

Nor would I.

Show "Yes or no, Mr. Balsamo" by Mark Roberts

Why hide behind the computer?

Why hasn't Rob gotten an email yet? Why are you guys hiding behind the computer wasting people's time with lame-ass blog exchanges instead of debating, say, on a radio show? All though you feel the need to distract P4T from their research by debating on the net, do it the proper way. Rob has already said he will have a professional debate and will set aside time for it. Again, email him and the details will be worked out.

P4T does not claim whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. They show what is involved within the flight data recorder. That is the debate. Mark is trying to bait and switch. If you want to prove AA77 hit the Pentagon, produce the parts that match up with the maintenance logs. The burden of proof is on the government to prove it's story. P4T makes no claims. If they do, please quote it directly. Again, Rob looks forward to your email. Come out, come out from behind the computer.

Your friends at pilotsfor911truth.org,
Gideon524 and JDX

P.S. Now go enjoy the game, boys, and get a life.

Email: Gideon524@yahoo.com
Website: myspace.com/911thebiglie

Show "If you can't debate on a forum..." by -Raven-

From Raven

"Then what is a public debate going to do except promote your ludicrous theories?"

We stopped reading there. Please quote a 'ludicrous theory' from pilotsafor911truth.org website. Thanks.

You are trying to detract us by forcing an internet debate. If you have the guts for a real debate, you will email us. Its that simple. We will set aside time for it. What are you afraid of? You call yourself a 'truth seeker" but you want to keep us checking this blog. Not to mention you keep coming to this blog when you think it is 'ludicrous'. If you think its 'ludicrous' and doesnt deserve any merit.. why do you even bother with it?

Come out, come out from behind your computer. We dont have time to keep checking this blog. We can debate in real time on a recorded call and post it here for all to see. You are afraid of doing that and would rather distract. Email us, and we will debate you. If you think we are 'ludicrous' we expect you to post diatribes on the net, make excuses for not emailing, and post ad hom's as you have been doing. If that is your choice, we'll get to you when we can. Or you can email us and we'll debate.. the proper way and set time aside for a real debate.

We have not received one email from anyone in the original challenge of this blog entry.. We have seen alot of excuses for not contacting us. We are not surprised.

Rob and Gideon
Email: Gideon524@yahoo.com
Website: myspace.com/911thebiglie

Show "You don't read my posts..." by -Raven-
Show "Gideon, since Rob apparently" by Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts.. pay very close attention...

I didnt have time to read any replies here... but pay VERY close attention to the quote below and click on the link if you like.

"Let me also add here.. i accept Mark Roberts bait and switch tactic of public debate. I want him to call me and email me to hammer out the details. We will talk about ALL the evidence. Mark Roberts claims AA77 hit the Pentagon. I want a positive Identification on AA77. If Tour Guide Mark Roberts (read: loser) does not know what positive ID means.. i will explain it over the phone when he has the balls to email me to set up the debate.

I accept his bait and switch tactic.. tell him to email me. "


Mark, i accept your term.. .even when you side stepped mine. Email me and we'll work out the details of your claim that AA77 hit the pentagon.. into a debate.. if you got the balls to deal with real professionals.

I will be looking forward to your email and you proving that AA77 hit the pentagon for us professionals. Its now on your shoulders.. .Mr Tour Guide. You may be able to deal with kids like Dylan.. but can you deal with real professionals? Step up... email me. Bring some guys from Popular Mechnics, Anti-Sophist (read:coward) and Apathoid (read: loser) if you like.. you are in way over your head here. Us real professionals will enjoy tearing you to shreads. We deal with the FBI and NTSB on a regular basis. I suppose a loser tour guide like you has all the answers regarding AA77. Bring your best. .you'll need it. Email me.


JDX cracks up once again

Balsamo accepts debate, but renews call for my execution! Hope we can get the debate in before they string me up!

Well, glad to see he's going to produce his evidence that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. All negotiations for the debate will be done publicly, on the Pilots for Truth blog.

This guy was a pilot of COMMERCIAL PASSENGER PLANES.

"Im ready to tear Mark.. the loser who does nothing with his life... to pieces. (in a verbal way)

He took advatage of a friend. Im am going to bend Mark over the coals and have him begging for more...

That is if he accepts. I suspect he will try another tactic.

Mark Roberts is a loser.. plain and simple.. that preys on anyone who questions the govt story (and is about 10 years his junior) I would actually like to get in an official ring with Mark Roberts to break his jaw.. .the loser he is.. .but i will settle for exposing how much of a loser he is with our professional team.

Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

"The ultimate test of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and moments of convenience, but where he stands in moments of challenge and moments of controversy.
--Martin Luther King, Jr., 27 January 1965 "

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.

I defend our Constitution. Mark Roberts makes excuses for changes and dismantling. If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic. Mark Roberts is a loser and preys on kids like Dylan Avery. He is a disgrace to America.

This is not a game.. this is not a fad.. this is real life.. this is America on the foundation of law..

(disclaimer: i have read the Constitution. I know it thoroughly. I will not arbitrarily put a bullet into Mark Roberts head based on individual interpretation. I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and will debate the articles verbally till provoked. When provoked, I will defend the American Constitution till death. I am prepared to die for the integrity of the American Constitution.
-- Rob Balsamo)" http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4467&st=...

This is getting boring...


There is a difference between saying "I'm going to kill so-and-so" and "So-and-so deserves to die a traitor's death." These back and forth blog arguments are boring me and I'd much rather listen to a debate on a radio station or watch one face to face. Who has time to read all this stuff?? I sure don't and I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say that this needs to be debated NOT ON THE INTERNET! All the stuff that can be spread out on about 5 or 6 pages online can be covered much easier in about 10 minutes on a radio show. Enough already with the "keyboard commando" tactics.

Email: Gideon524@yahoo.com
Website: myspace.com/911thebiglie

Your blathering has no end!

Rob, you say,

"You may be able to deal with kids like Dylan.. but can you deal with real professionals?"

Are you seriously on an egomaniac headtrip? Dylan has done waaaay more for the truth movement than you have or ever will. In fact, you are in the negative column as what has been done for the truth movement.

You posted a friggin challenge to the world here, but you won't even respond to my 1 post here. You call everyone a coward and you can't even respond to 1 post? And then you go run back to your stupid forum which only allows those who agree with you and post away into oblivion. What's the matter? Does my 1 post just completely blow your theory and analysis out of the water. I dare say, YES. But if not, I can add more.





Please, give your ego a rest!

Anytime you want to debate Raven.

The email is pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org. We'll swap phone numbers, record the call, and post the call right here on blogger. You are a coward who hides behind your computer screen. Think you can debate professionally, without attacks, based on facts? I think you may not be able to, thats why you hide behind your screen trying to get others to sit in front of their screens talking to you...lol

Now try ripping yourself away from your computer for an hour or so.. really. It does the body (and perhaps your brain).. good.


I'm not going to...

...Give you any of my personal information. From accounts I've heard and from what I've read from your own posts, you are mentally imbalanced at best. Personally, I think you could be a plant, and at best you are a con artist. I'll debate you any day on a forum, except yours. You won't do that because you want attention. Sorry pal, I'm not gonna help you with that. I want your responses in writing so they can be referenced. I have nobody but me sitting behind this screen and I don't talk to others to make my point. It's just that I have a good grasp at deciphering facts from crap. And you my friend, have crap.

Your afraid to debate in a forum because you know that you can be picked apart, where as in a live conversation you can just produce crap arguments, talk over people, and spin people's points. Then you can use that to con more people into believing your lies and run back to your stupid forum and say, "I totally kicked butt in that debate!"

You can't get away with that in a forum. That's why when people read the forums you've posted in already where people actually have valid arguements and facts, you get totally exposed. I guess you don't like that, huh? That's why nobody can post in your forum who disagrees with you. Duh!

Good luck with your campaign and any debate you encounter, because your gonna need it. And just so you know, I'll be keeping an eye on you and your lackies so that when you campaign somewhere on a forum, I'll be there to expose you. How you like me now? :)

Seems people need a reminder.

From the original blog entry..

"Replies to this blog don't mean a thing unless you are willing to offer
a public debate, with me (and the professionals I choose to attend with me), recorded"

That said, since no one has emailed me nor do they want to debate the proper way, i covered most of the govt loyalist arguments in this interview.


right click and save target as...

Raven.. you dont have to give us any of your info. I will give you my number and you can record the debate just like i will record it. I know you are trying to distract us into a pointless internet debate, and thats fine. If you want to do that.. i'll get to you when i can. I know you're a coward who hides behind your screen. So if it takes me a week or two to get to your questions, dont automatically think im avoiding you as i have other things to do (it seems you spend all day, every day in pointless Pilotsfor911truth.org bashing. I remind you, Sofia, David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones are all part of our core members. So when you bash us.. you bash them. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html).

Or perhaps you can come out from being a coward and get this debate over with in less than a 2 hour phone call. I dont suppose you want to come out from behind your screen. So be patient.

As i said, most arguments were covered in the above interview. It would have been nice for Raven to join me on air.. but he is too much of a coward.



Here is where that debate took place...

-Raven- is Mark Robert's sock-puppet

Let's see how long it takes our Mark to come over to squeal "foul".

Mind, I have no evidence for this beyond the fact that "Raven" only appears to post in threads Mark is posting on, and--more to the point-- this thread is the ONLY one -Raven- has posted on. That and my general antipathy for Mark Roberts coupled with a broad dislike of most "debunkers" and a willingness to believe they're capable of anything.

And if you think this is going a bit far, Mark, I'm just following Sword of Truth's "non-reasoning" that Jenny is at fault for anything bad that happens at SLC.

So I think you're using Raven so it looks like you have a friend here..now that Ronnie's gone.

Oh, I never did tell you lot--after Ronnie was banned once, then twice, and it looked like he was gone--I found his pomeroo account here,still active. I'm sure he planned to use it on the sly --then dz deleted it. I was the bastard who found it and told dz it was still here.

And let me tell you, watching my Ronnie scream and moan at JREF about being banned--I know it was deleting the old account that enraged him. Rarely has a dish been served so cold...>;-)

Be seeing you...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.