Version 5 of "What hit the Pentagon" is at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Version 5 has considerable revision from page 8 on, and a few minor edits earlier. The main addition is a table showing that there is a range of flight paths which would enable the plane to hit the light poles and the Pentagon, without excessive g-force being encountered.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

Already I have found errors in version 5 so there will be a version 6. The errors are in the table of flight paths going over the Navy Annex. The argument remains unchanged however. The paths going over and to the south of the VDOT antenna I still believe are correct.

If anyone can give me the height of the Navy Annex roof above sea level I would appreciate it.

Some comments have already appeared on the previous thread. It would be best if future comments were placed in this, the curent thread.

Legge's Analysis is Flawed

I can't believe what I'm reading! Where do you [Mr. Legge] see the additional altitude required to enter the parabolic path you claim? Have you even looked at the flight data? Six seconds of data missing? How is this possible when the data system clocks in buffer information every 500 milliseconds? Have you studied FLASH EEPROM at all? This paper is peer-reviewed? By whom?

Misplaced trust

This file was in the hands of the FBI for years. Why would they not manipulate it? One of the purposes of the Pentagon attack clearly was to confuse the public. It was very successful at that apparently. May I ask whether you think the authorities had a hand in 9/11? If so, why trust them?

Also I am not claiming a parabolic path, but a circular one, which is more realistic and easier to calculate. Furthermore the table provides a range of entry points, none too high to be feasible. I suggested that my preference would be to pass the antenna at about 120 feet above ground level. This is not high, provides an easy entry angle, ample ground clearance and low g-force. Note that the g-force required is so low that the pilot, if there was one, would not have had to stick exactly to the circle but could pull up a bit if needed.

Can you prove it could not be done?

Show "Confuse the public?" by rob balsamo

Did you use...

My Dave Lindorff interview in your new movie?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Show "David Lindorff" by rob balsamo

Please...

Answer the question. I sent you the same question on facebook, you didn't respond, so I'm asking you here.

Edit: Should I assume by the fact that you refuse to answer my question that you did use the clip even though I told you that you did not have my permission?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Sure...

Keep thinking that John.... whatever floats your boat...

im going back on topic...

You'll see if we used it when you see the film.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

My name is spelled J-O-N.

You're not getting a dime out of me. The fact that you won't answer my simple question shows that you are an ________.

Continue your Pentagon "discussion."


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

peer review

Yes, Rpb, version 6 is needed. This will be one of the most thoroughly peer reviewed papers ever by the time I decide it is finished.

I'll go to your last question first. You ask whether I think the authorities had a hand in 9/11. As you perfectly well know the answer to that question, the question is obviously a form of abuse. If you want to use that style, so be it, but it is not science.

I have a purpose in writing this paper, which again you perfectly well know, as it is spelled out in the paper. But I will state it again in case it has slipped your memory. The purpose is to point out that it cannot be scientifically proved that the 757 did not hit the pentagon. The hope is that people like you will stop trying to confuse the public by saying that it could not have hit the Pentagon.

Regarding your point about witnesses not reporting that the plane passed through trees, it seems you do not understand the concept of g-force very well. Consider the path passing the VDOT antenna at 120ft above the ground. This path has a force of 1.57g. That is so far below the planes rated capacity of 2.5 that the pilot would have plenty of scope to fly higher than the stated path, which has a 44ft ground clearance. Given that there is so much scope for missing the trees, Google Earth is quite accurate enough.

Here is a question for you - how high were the trees in 2001?

Purpose of This Paper?

Frank,

You state -

"The purpose is to point out that it cannot be scientifically proved that the 757 did not hit the pentagon."

Argument from ignorance:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

Thank you Frank for confirming your paper is nothing but an Argument From Ignorance.

"The hope is that people like you will stop trying to confuse the public by saying that it could not have hit the Pentagon." - Frank Legge, 911Blogger Comment section, Version 5, "What hit the Pentagon"

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth is careful to point out on its website that it does not make the claim that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon." - Frank Legge, Revision 5, page 10

Frank, who exactly is confusing the public here?

Confuse the public? You mean like this public? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Frank, why does the above list grow with my peers, many of which have more experience than me, if my "agenda" was to "confuse the public"?

Keep in mind, the FDR research was analyzed and distributed between Sept 2006 and Feb 2007 when we had about 12 core members. Why did our list grow exponentially since if our research is so confusing? Perhaps you want to use the argument Pickering used to use in 2006-07? That i "manipulated" them all?

Frank, we record the FBI and NTSB based on this supposed "confusing" data. What have you done but to make excuse for the data, confused the public with your massive and blatant contradictions, revised your paper 5 times with number 6 on the way, mostly due to elementary math errors, and make excuse for the govt story at the Pentagon?

Frank, anything above 1 G at 460 knots/530 mph (as you state in your paper) would rip apart a 757. Google "Vg Diagram". Furthermore, according to our latest presentation, data, Flight crews with thousands of hours in UA/AA 757's, Aeronautical Engineers, Fighter Pilots, and precedent set, a 757 would rip itself apart at even 1 G at such speeds. It is you who doesnt understand the concepts of g-force.

As for how high the tree were in 2001, im not going to do your homework for you anymore as you have ignored everything we have told you. Now im just pointing out your errors very publicly. We just sent out a bulk email to our more than 2500 forum members directing them to this thread exposing your "errors".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088

Its also noted you still refuse to answer the question of why you arent listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

a question

When I discover an error I correct it quickly. Rob, when are you going to admit that your g-force calculation is wrong? This was pointed out to you over a year ago.

Show "Errors in our Calculations?" by rob balsamo

errors

Bob, I was very polite to you in giving you credit for pointing out a typo.

Re the error in Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculations, Yes your Jeff Latas pointed out an error. You attended to it. Then someone else pointed out another error. You have not attended to that. As a result your calculation of g-force is greatly exaggerated.

Why do I need a US pilot's licence to work out g-force? It is only high school math. Your argument is clutching at straws.

Show "Typo?" by rob balsamo

JREF

is certainly an 'interesting' phenomenon!

However, the following seems a bit JREFy, if you know what I mean :)
"Frank, i ask again, why arent you listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com?"

Maybe Frank isn't patriotic. I'm not. Anyway, is it really relevant?

---------

Does The Amazing Randi believe in gnomes?

Show "Is sourcing JREF Relevant?" by rob balsamo

on errors

One person who pointed out your errors was Myriad, as you would know if you had read the paper.

You may disagree with some things he says. Does that mean he is always wrong?

I disagree with some of the things you say. Does that mean you are always wrong?

I already knew your calculation was wrong before I came across Myriad's post. It is common courtesy to refer to prior work. If I had not done so I could have been criticized justly.

Show "Myriad?" by rob balsamo

typo

Yes it was a typo. I had previously referred to to an approach angle based on your own material using the vertical and horizontal velocities of the plane from the FDR. This ratio is 1 in 10, hence 6 degrees. Then I came across Jim Hoffman's work using the impact point on the light poles to calculate a slope of 1 in 20, 3 degrees, but forgot to alter the 6 to a 3.

Finally I looked at your information about the ground slope and used it to calculate a slope of about 1.5 degrees. I acknowledged your correction of the ground slope. Thanks again for that. I have used the corrected value for the altitude of the ground at pole 1 in all subsequent calculations.

Thanks Frank and Rob

Frank, you said:
"The purpose is to point out that it cannot be scientifically proved that the 757 did not hit the pentagon."

But maybe you should have said:
"The purpose is to point out that it **has not** been scientifically proven that the 757 did not hit the pentagon."

To say otherwise is to imply that a plane *did* hit the pentagon, as otherwise it would be presumably be possible (in the future at least) to prove it didn't . I don't know if the above is a true statement, but I do not understand how it is an argument from ignorance. Rob, if you can prove it didn't then I think the proof should be written in essay form (possibly with multiple revisions!), and honed until it is completely convincing even to a layman. If you have already done this could you post a link? Then I could compare both papers.

btw, I watched the new Loose Change yesterday. I have to say the lack of the evidence for a plane in Shanksville is *far* more convincing to me at the moment. I can't believe Shanksville doesn't get more attention.. it's so blatant, just ridiculous, and there's nowhere for the plane to 'hide'.

Focus on the hypothesis

Influence device, thanks for a polite comment. I see your point that although it has not been proved yet that a 757 could not hit the Pentagon, it might be in the future.

However that is really what I am getting at. The hypothesis I present for discussion and argument is that it cannot be proved that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. If in the future someone does prove that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon in the observed manner I will be delighted. It will be a wonderful way to get the public to understand that 9/11 was an inside job. At the moment we should not use the idea as it has not yet been proved, despite what certain people say.

I don't know why people try so hard to insist that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon as we have already such clear proof that 9/11 was an inside job, as can be seen here for example:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

Give some thought to the warning in my paper about the precautionary principle.

Show ""Cannot" vs "Has Not"" by rob balsamo

trust

Why do you trust the FDR data when it has been in the hands of the FBI? You can review the FDR data till the cows come home but if it had been modified you will be none the wiser. Can you scientifically prove the data has not been modified?

You should

turn that question around. Can you scientifically prove it was modified? Nobody can ever scientifically prove electronic data was not modified, except perhaps within certain confinements within quantum cryptography. However, it always comes down to "trust".

Therefore, positive proof of alteration is better to resolve the situation. This is another one of those confusing "burden of proof" discussions bordering on fallacious.

FDR

There is pretty good evidence that it has been modified and that is why it is too high just prior to impact. See John Farmer's study.
http://aal77.com/ntsb/Final Analysis of NTSB Fight Data Recorder Freedom of Inform.pdf

Regardless of whether Farmer is right or wrong, it is not logical to rest a case on data which cannot be authenticated. If the chain of custody goes through the FBI you have to find something else to rest your case on.

FDR

"There is pretty good evidence that it has been modified"

I know, I agree. It's extremely easy. All it takes is a computer and a computer program.

Show "John Farmer Study Debunked" by rob balsamo

too much trouble

Hi Rob, I see you have gone to a great deal of trouble about John Farmer. You could have saved yourself the trouble if you had taken the time to read:

"Regardless of whether Farmer is right or wrong, it is not logical to rest a case on data which cannot be authenticated. If the chain of custody goes through the FBI you have to find something else to rest your case on."

Show "Trust in data?" by rob balsamo

I'm not listed there either...

Does that mean I'm not a patriot?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

John Gold - Engineer? Scientist? Pilot?

Nope...

Gee... why arent you listed there JOHN!

(spelling intentional...)

John, i suppose you can be listed as an "Entertainer", although some may beg to differ.. but you have my vote! :-)

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

Let's look at this logic.

Oh why bother.

Trust the FDR Data?

Frank, pilots train by FDR data every 6 months.Passengers spend money on tickets entrusting those same pilots.

If you do not trust "FDR data", do you fly on any aircraft as a passenger? If so, why do you trust your pilots? Why do you pay money for it?

With that said, can you please quote P4T as saying we "Trust" the data provided by govt agencies regarding Sept 11?

Didnt think so....

Frank, why arent you listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com?

Frank, why do you hand waive data provided by govt agencies that does not support an impact?

Why do you not hold such people accountable and instead make excuse ignoring all evidence, which can be admitted into a court of law, and instead you choose to support the govt story via speculation and elementary math errors?

Frank, why do you have such blatant contradictions in your paper?

Frank, why are you up to "Version 5" with number 6 on the way if this paper was "peer-reviewed" prior to its first publish?

Frank, why do you evade these questions?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

confusion

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth is careful to point out on its website that it does not make the claim that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon." - Frank Legge, Revision 5, page 10

Yes that is what you keep saying. And you also say:

“Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate”

Transcribed from the G Force video we read: “As we can see, G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757”.

So what will the average reader conclude?

Show "Frank fails to read thoroughly - See here for full sources" by rob balsamo

thanks for proof of falsity

Thanks for confirming your position that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon.

It shows the falsity of your statement that Pilots for 9/11 Truth does not make the claim that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

listing

What is the purpose of your persistent questioning of why I am not listed on Patriots for 9/11, given that my position on 9/11 is well known to you. I am listed on Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and that is enough.

For one, manipulating the

For one, manipulating the data would take exceptional care and human input beyond comprehension. Aside from altitude, you would have to match the accelerometer data, yoke inputs, pitch angle, etc. Something that strikes me as odd, is that you agree that there is government involvment, however you have not taken all of the information into consideration. If the aircraft struck the Pentagon, the last stored data would show a lower altitude, with a distance ending much closer to the impact point. A flight data recorder MUST store information every 500 milliseconds (typical period), with data retention beyond anything a plane crash could produce. Look at the function of EEPROM and what must happen in order to erase data (IE: enable bit lines, voltage bias, duration of stable power, etc.) Look at the integrity specifications of the shell (rated at thousands of g's). There is no reasonable explanation for flight information to be void from the recorder unless it was stripped away. If you agree that the data is manipulated, you shuold look into the function of the system and how all the sensors relate. YOu cannot simply change one parameter without exposing others. It would be foolish to assume a human typed in millions of data points just to alter the height of the aircraft. it would be foolish to suggest data was wiped out during impact. This is not how an electrical, solid state storage device operates/behaves. If you want to learn more about this, we can discuss as adults under scientific terms. There are several errors in your analogy and unfortunately, they do not support your theory. if you believe the aircraft hit the Pentagon, please do not use the excuses of data alteration, and/or missing data from impact to make your case. Once again, there are several factors you are not considering, nor understand about the system and I would be happy to explain them and unite this push for the truth.

FDR

I gather that you are addressing Legge, but I really must respond to this. Are you saying FDR data can't be faked or altered? From an IT stand point, what you were saying is utter tripe. Do you know why? Because none of us has accessed the actual FDR ourselves. You do understand how easy it is to alter binary and/or CSV data, don't you? Or maybe you're just leaving that out on purpose.

"Foolish to assume a human typed.." ...what kind of nonsense is that?! Never heard of 'software'? There are simulators. There is software to convert FDR data into a replay with visualization...with a little extra effort and simulations, this means it could be done the other way around by people with money and time....And don't forget the actual embedded devices writing to the FDR are in the 757 itself. There you have your magical FDR altering machine. Are you saying such a device could not exist outside of a 757? Laughable. And if it was faked.....then YES, OF COURSE there could be anomalies that could help us detect such manipulation. Computer forensics and data statistics.

But....Do you even know how advanced and professional software is these days? Do you know the computing power at the disposal of the NSA? And then that nonsense about EEPROM...for an agency like the NSA, it would be so FREAKING easy to manipulate it. But none of that matters, because none us have had access to it, now have we. All we have is FILES.

FILES. Not hardware. How could you have missed that? Why are you presenting the case as if it pertains to the physical Flight Data Recorder? Unbelievable. Can you name one person in the truth movement who has seen or touched the physical FDR?

"if you believe the aircraft hit the Pentagon, please do not use the excuses of data alteration, and/or missing data from impact to make your case. Once again, there are several factors you are not considering, nor understand about the system and I would be happy to explain them and unite this push for the truth."

Please, don't use that authoritative tone to mislead people here. Your condescending tone, mixed in with claims which I know as an IT expert to be utter nonsense is intolerable, sorry.

Oh, one more thing. I suspect you DON'T believe a plane hit the pentagon. In case I am right about that:

You attempt to have us believe the FDR data could not be altered. So in other words, the plane flew the south path and did a flyover?

P.S. I'll have you know these people already did things digitally to Moussaoui trial exhibits that I consider fraudulent. I've researched this myself. Yet they were so smart about it that they can explain it all away with human error. That's how these people operate.

Is that so?

Please explain to me, and everyone here how you alter the altitude of the aircraft without manually altering the
entire file. You do also realize this file is stored in a mult-plexed fashion, and requires a specific frame layout
to access certain "words" of interest? You will understand "word" as a string of bits as you are familiar with IT.

This isn't about chaning a few 1's and 0's in a binary file. I've already explained you have to account for the
supporting sensors. IE: accelerometers, yoke inputs, pitch angles, etc.

So, please give me an example of how to change the altitude from 632 feet AGL, to 74 feet AGL.

You pick the point in time of flight.

Manual?

I really don't get this.

Yes, obviously you don't change single bits at one time from software. You write bytes, words, dwords and qwords. And if the nature of the device only allows writing blocks, then you read in the entire block, alter the data required, and write the entire block back..The same thing happens in USB sticks, harddisks, and even floppies. And even if the mechanism is different, that doesn't exclude manipulation.

To change the altitude, you change the relevant data fields. If that affects other parameters, you modify those to match. The relationships between the various variables and parameters will be known to experts, and software can be used to assist.

But I knew you were going to go here. Because now suddenly it isn't impossible anymore to alter the block device, but the difficulty is in making the parameters match, right? What were all those technical comments about writing to an EEPROM or SSD about then?

For you as an FDR technician, the question would be: if a 757 can modify an FDR, then why can't a three letter agency? What security measures are in place to prevent such tampering? Is the data cryptographically signed? Is it impossible to solder a new flash chip onto the circuit board? How about creating your own FDR device pre-filled with data and physically mangling it? Can we be sure the raw or CSV data received by various FOIA requesters is exactly identical to the physical FDR? Can you be sure the government is incapable of creating plausible FDR data? That nobody at boeing is able to alter the height while accounting for linked parameters? What were the C-130 and the E4B's doing? Could they have been gathering atmospheric data that could have been used in such a forgery? Et cetera, et cetera.

P.S. The serial port controller != the EEPROM.

Wow, umpteen million

Wow, umpteen million pentagon arguements later and only two facts stand out in all the B.S.....

1)....No one KNOWS what hit the Pentagon. Neither side of this arguement knows for sure. Regardless of what each side THINKS they know.

2)....911 Blogger aint what it used to be....

Show "Actually it's gotten better" by Adam Syed

I look forward...

To the video you have being posted showing this.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Elevation of Navy Annex

I believe the two best options are
(1) Go out there (or ask someone to) with a GPS device, get elevation, convert if needed, add height of building
(2) Use latitude and longitude and calculate elevation, convert if needed, add height of building

38.868212,-77.069000

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=38.868212,-7...

http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/elevation

Just a tip. Best I can do.

BTW, how many alternative flight paths did you calculate? Where are the possible flight paths and their calculations? Any calculations on a U-turn to the south west?

I will refrain from commenting on the feasibility of anything, just asking. I encourage everybody to have a constructive discussion instead of fighting out personal battles. Some of us are actually interested in information.

gps

Thanks SnowCrash,

I had a look at the gpsvisualizer site. I found it had a place to enter lat,lon and it worked very nicely. There is still a problem however. Going along the south face of the building the ground seems to slope quite a bit. The altitude varies from 154ft at the SW corner to 139ft at the SE corner. It will be hard to know what altitude to add the building height to.

Re the flight paths, they are listed in version 5. Please note that the paths over the Navy Annex are incorrect. If you give me an email address I will send you the spreadsheet on which I calculated them. You can type in any starting point and it will calculate the rest.

I guess

that means option 1 remains: have somebody go out there with a GPS device. The question is what is the elevation of the building foundation/ground floor....Do you have a friend in Arlington?

I'll contact you about the spreadsheet, thanks!

Arlington

Do I have a friend in Arlington? I don't know where a great many of my friends live. Is there anyone out there who could find the altitude of the roof of the Navy Annex, or the altitude of a datum and the height of the building above it?

It would help.

Show "Franks "Spreadsheet"" by rob balsamo

Are you a disruptor?

Since we're talking about things that "quacks like a duck."


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Show "Disruptor?" by rob balsamo

From your...

Very first post in this thread (I could collect more from other comments, but why bother?)...

"It is clear who is confused" "What is your agenda?" "Frank, what is your agenda?"

"May i ask if you think the "authorities" had a hand in 9/11? If so, why arent you listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com? I have asked you this question as many times as your revisions, why do you refuse to answer it?"

These aren't questions and statements of someone having a discussion. These are statements from someone attacking someone else, and questioning their integrity, and making accusations.

On top of that, you refused to answer my question about whether or not you included my clip in your movie.

My record of everything I've done for this cause should speak for itself.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

John Gold is now going to provide proof of Legge Claims

John, since you feel i am questioning the "integrity" of Legge and being a "disruptor". certainly you have proof to discredit my questioning?

1. Please provide proof of Legge PhD
2. Please provide proof of Legge Calculations in his table
3. Please provide proof Legges' paper was "peer-reviewed" prior to first publish in which he now claims to be "indebted" to me for correcting his elementary math errors.

I'll leave it at that for now as i dont want your head to implode... :)

Believe it or not John.. i do have respect for what you do... we have even donated to several of your fund raisers. Despite your attacks on us and refusal to "unite".

Finally, are the above questions "disruptive" to you John Gold? Do you seek Truth? Or do you accept anything someone tells you that suits your bias?

John, why did you refuse to let me use your Lindorff interview of which i think is an excellent piece, despite the unprofessional recording, and the fact even your own cohorts doesnt know it exists?

John, are you seeking Truth? Or is your ego in the way?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

When...

Have I attacked you?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Show "John ... Jon..." by rob balsamo

I didn't...

Call you a disruptor. I asked you if you were one. Not that a genuine disruptor would answer that honestly, but ya never know...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Typos above

For some reason, im am getting "Access Denied" when i tried to edit my typos above.

For anyone a bit confused by the above post, please look at your keyboard and realize i have big fingers. :)

I apologize for leaving such sloppiness, but Blogger denies my access to fix typos on the above post. Not sure if its a server glitch or intentional.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

No Rob

As soon as somebody responds to your comment, you can no longer edit it. That goes for us all.

Thus, neither a server glitch nor intentional.

Hmmm.. .interesting...

Thanks for the heads up. It wasnt that way in 2006-07 nor 08 IIRC. You could still fix typos back then...

Either way... thanks.

But i do have to say, dont expect a timely reply from "Pur_SSyn" as his posts are being mod approved and it apparently takes an email to mods to approve them.

If you would like to debate him however regarding FDR data acquisition, i would love to set it up... and watch you fall flat on your face... recorded. What do you say?

If you reply here and i dont reply to your reply.. .... feel free to email us.. contact form left margin of home page or email addy bottom of any page on site....

We look forward to your participation...

Rob Balsamo

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

FDR data acquisition

What has FDR data acquisition to do with it? Did you receive a file or not? Or did you actually physically access flight 77's FDR?

I'm not an FDR expert. But I AM an IT expert. And I say "humans typing in parameters" is a straw man argument.

It's is extremely easy to alter files, especially with professional software. What is there to debate about? Are you saying files can't be altered? Are you saying the military industrial complex can't write software to manufacture or alter a flight path and write it to a CSV or raw dump? Have we compared the raw data back to the physical FDR? Can we be sure the FDR wasn't overwritten? I've hacked stuff Rob. I've hacked my high school network and laughed at the administrators. I understand machine language. I've looked at hexadecimal data dumps all my life. I know how it works.

There are hackers in Germany who reverse engineered the Mifare chip by slicing it layer-by-layer, precisely horizontal in order not to get diagonal cross-sections, then photographing it by a microscope hooked up to a computer and have software analyze the chip logic automatically, thus getting a handle on the cryptographic authentication mechanisms. In the end, they cracked it completely together with Nijmegen University. This is what people at a university can do with time, equipment and obsessive patience. They can do that which is considered to be impossible by even experts. I've attended presentations about that by Nijmegen university, who augmented their research. It was a national scandal, and the roll-out of the public transportation chip card was delayed.

Now you want to tell me that the NSA can't even modify an FDR EEPROM/Solid State Drive? Apart from the fact that we haven't even been able to access it ourselves yet? Come on. These people have remote controlled minitiature insects with freaking cameras installed flying around at the RNC. Don't believe me? Look it up. They have robots that you can't push over. The NSA probably has backdoors installed in the cryptographic libraries of your Windows PC Rob. Better refrain from using advapi32.dll's cryptographic API. For your privacy's sake, I hope you run *nix. And even then your data isn't safe.

To me, the suggestion that an embedded system storing inputs can NOT be subverted, NOT even by a government with unlimited money, time and resources, is absolutely ludicrous.

Direct from the FDR According to NTSB

http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.asp

Feel free to get your own and decode it. After all, you're an "IT" expert. Right?

SnowCrash, do you understand the implications of "manipulating" a file with a .fdr extension? Apparently not.

But these people do.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

The list grows.

Do you fly as a passenger? If so, and you think .fdr files can be "manipulated", you may not want to get on your next flight. Unless of course your destination is more important than by what pilots train. Hopefully you make it to your destination.

Again, anytime you want to debate someone with actual expertise on the matter, you let us know. I'll set you up with an opponent faster than a NY minute.

I suspect you'll just continue to make excuses from your "SnowCrash" name on Blogger though...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

FDR Data

Could this not be uploaded somewhere for public access? How large is the particular file in question?

Download AA77 NTSB Data, DCA01MA064 Source

Download AA77 NTSB Data, DCA01MA064 Source
Sep 1 2006, 02:29 PM

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=64&view=findpost&...

Note that it was posted back in September 2006.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/FOIA_Envelopeanimati...

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/FOIA_Letteranimation...

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays

Dead links

Thanks, but the actual data files (first three links on that forum) are missing, or at least the server at 71.18.155.196 appears to be down.

Have they been backed up anywhere else?

The 2 data links just now worked for me

1 MB compressed or 19,618,136 byte .CSV file
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/AAL77_tabular.zip

21.7 MB raw .FDR file (but not many will be able to do anything with this).
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/AA77_Raw.zip

The .TXT header link is broken (there is a note about this on that thread), but the .CSV file does have column headings...
--------------------------------------------------
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays

Implications

Yes, if you forge it, you better make sure it is a plausible forgery.

As soon as something is a file, you can manipulate it extremely easily. The extension?? Are you serious? I think you meant to say: it's not difficult to alter an .fdr file (as in: reading and writing to it) but it is difficult to alter the data plausibly, without anomalies. Which is is why we have a chance to detect such a forgery. But only if there are flaws in the forgery.

What parameters or variables in an .fdr file are so difficult to modify? Are you saying the NSA, CIA or DoD have no Boeing technicians who can assist? Do you know how seemlessly integrated these companies are in the Military Industrial Complex? Boeing and Lockheed Martin ARE the MIC, together with the other military contractors.

And what is this about my alias? My name is Michiel de Boer, if you'd clicked on my username to view my profile page, you would have known. My name is signed to the bottom of my latest blog entry, too.

Furthermore, if the North side flight path is true, and perhaps it is, then doesn't that MANDATE FDR forgery? The NTSB animation didn't match the FDR, did it?

Lastly, after reading the report, I am even more skeptical. Could you comment on page 10 onwards "parameters not working or unconfirmed"? Is this large a volume of "unconfirmed" parameters normal? Compare it to the flight 93 report.

Rob

I believe the debate you suggested is now no longer necessary. I believe your expert has just admitted in this thread that it would be theoretically possible to forge FDR data....and I commend him for saying so.

The relevant quote is:

#3 + 4. By hand typing...not a chance. With some sort of software flight sim which accounts for all
parameters simultaneously and mimics aerodynamics. Sure, why not.

Show "Frank, It seems as though" by Adam Syed

RE: FDR Function

For one, manipulating the data would take exceptional care and human input beyond comprehension. Aside from altitude, you would have to match the accelerometer data, yoke inputs, pitch angle, etc. Something that strikes me as odd, is that you agree that there is government involvment, however you have not taken all of the information into consideration. If the aircraft struck the Pentagon, the last stored data would show a lower altitude, with a distance ending much closer to the impact point. A flight data recorder MUST store information every 500 milliseconds (typical period), with data retention capability beyond any fprce a plane crash could produce. Look at the function of EEPROM and what must happen in order to erase data (IE: enable bit lines, voltage bias, duration of stable power, etc.) Look at the integrity specifications of the shell (rated at thousands of g's). There is no reasonable explanation for flight information to be void from the recorder unless it was stripped away. If you agree that the data is manipulated, you shuold look into the function of the system and how all the sensors relate before making statements in a public journal. YOu cannot simply change one parameter without exposing others. It would be foolish to assume a human typed in millions of data points just to alter the height of the aircraft. it would be foolish to suggest data was wiped out during impact. This is not how an electrical, solid state storage device operates/behaves. If you want to learn more about this, we can discuss as adults under scientific terms. There are several errors in your analogy and unfortunately, they do not support your theory. if you believe the aircraft hit the Pentagon, please do not use the excuses of data alteration, and/or missing data from impact to make your case. Once again, there are several factors you are not considering, nor understand about the system and I would be happy to explain them and unite this push for the truth.

If you're posting crap anyway

Why not post it twice, right? My reponse to this is above, at the original copy of your comment. I can't overemphasize how misleading your claims are. You even attack and take down obvious straw man arguments such as "It would be foolish to assume a human typed in millions of data points". Yeah, they don't have computers at the NSA, only a basement full of typist slaves. Obviously the NSA is not quite there yet.

Did you expect non-IT people to be intimidated by jargon or something?

Well I know the jargon and I know what you're attempting to do.

Not Exactly

My comment wasn't posted in a timely manner, and I submitted twice after contacting the admin team here. Would you like a copy of our correspondence for proof? Here is my reply again so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle:

Please explain to me, and everyone here how you alter the altitude of the aircraft without manually altering the
entire file. You do also realize this file is stored in a mult-plexed fashion, and requires a specific frame layout
to access certain "words" of interest? You will understand "word" as a string of bits as you are familiar with IT.

This isn't about chaning a few 1's and 0's in a binary file. I've already explained you have to account for the
supporting sensors. IE: accelerometers, yoke inputs, pitch angles, etc.

So, please give me an example of how to change the altitude from 632 feet AGL, to 74 feet AGL.

You pick the point in time of flight.

Please don't think I'm 'speaking over' anyone here; I'm certainly aware there are educated members amongst us.
What I'm saying is factual. We can debate this in laymans terms, or technical terms if you like.

raising the altitude is easy

I agree that to manufacture a false flight data file would be difficult but to simply raise the altitude of the final moments of the flight all you have to do is erase the last few seconds. Erasure requires no calculations.

How the animation came to have the wrong final heading is an interesting question. It seems in this case that the whole file was altered.

That's correct!

To erase some data at the end of the file would be simple enough. Now, the issue is: how do you explain the data loss based on the device used to store the information (FLASH EEPROM).

You have a few options at this point:

#1. The data shows the plane is too high, and directly (nearly) over the light poles to knock them over. If the plane did not strike the five light poles, what did? This doesn't coincide with the official story.

#2. The data shows the plane is too high, and directly (nearly) over the light poles to knock them over. If the plane did not strike the five light poles, then we can deduce that it must have continued forward.

#3. If the data has been stripped at the end of the file, what is the government/individual hiding? We can conclude that if the data does not support an impact of the poles and Pentagon wall, something else happened. It likely flew over as seen by a couple of witnesses working around the Pentagon.

Going back a little bit; if we assume the data supports the government story…it just ends early for some reason we need to come up with the following:
- How does an electrically erasable device lose data if no electrical power is present to perform the erasure?

- How does the logic of the system enable the erase voltage (which is different from the write voltage) and wipe out six seconds worth of data if the maximum power reserve is 200 milliseconds (approximately a quarter of a second) after main power loss?

- What are the chances the system would be able to begin the erase procedure, select the very same cell address locations, write and confirm the erase code and THEN begin to remove the data? This is not part of the integral logic, so it would have to be a random event; all the while power is decaying and unstable.

There is much more to this, but just think about those points for a second. Also include the fact that the FDR manufacturer certifies these recorders to 1200-3400 g’s of impact force depending on model year and designed electronic filters/circuits to protect the data in the event of an abrupt blow of a crash. Yes…it’s true, FDR companies factor in crash effects into the design of aircraft electronics!

More food for thought? The critical sensors in question have the precision and accuracy to determine speed, altitude, distances within incredible tolerances. If I’m not mistaken, RADAR altitude is accurate to within THREE FEET below 1000 ft. AGL ; Pressure Altitude within 5 feet; Speed within 2 knots; DME +/- 1 nmile!

These sensors are independent of aircraft speed as they transmit and receive signals at the speed of light (give or take). The signals are RF (Radio Frequency) with respect to RADAR Altitude, and DME. The acquisition of information through the system happens many times per second with certain sensors. Having said that, you can imagine the importance of the avionics system design to capture these data and store it in a timely manner.

I’ve read quite a bit of ‘stretching’ on this “missing seconds” topic. When you factor in the function of the sensors; the speed of travel and the distances of key points along the flight path you need to give up one of the following:

- The avionics systems and / or electronics decided to work outside of their typical limits on 9/11

- AA77 was traveling much slower than 462 knots to account for more than two seconds of missing data

- Distances shown by USGS are incorrect

Throwing another wrench into the mix is the difference of altitude between the raw/tab file and the animation near the end of flight. Since the animation is based on the raw file and the tab file is based on the raw file, there should be ZERO difference between the two. When you export a CSV file format from a root file, the values DO NOT CHANGE. This is a big problem for the NTSB and whomever manipulated this parameter.

I ask you all this in the name of simplicity and unity: put down the ego. Stop fighting. Nobody is going to win a cash prize from George Bush for getting this story cracked. Understand there is clear evidence of data manipulation and media corruption. Understand that “we” have several witnesses interviewed on site by independent reporters/researchers that drew a similar flight path and described the aircraft on the north real estate of Citgo. Some of them saw the plane lifting up and flying pole height over the South parking lot.

These witnesses never met. They drew and describe an alternative flight path. What are the odds and probability of 13 people coming up with the same story that never talked to each other?

- These witnesses are all liars and were coached. CIT is looking to make millions?

- These witnesses are telling the truth. Their stories support the lack of damage to the Pentagon and explain the oddities within the flight data.

You pick.

I'd really like to see all of these professional bodies banding together instead of resorting to competition.

the switch

I am afraid I do not follow this argument. You say: "Now, the issue is: how do you explain the data loss based on the device used to store the information (FLASH EEPROM)."

Why are you assuming the data loss occurred at the point of original storage? I don't know how many steps are involved in getting the data from the black box to the hands of people calling for it using FOI legislation.

The fact that people have been fiddling with the data is proved by the divergence between the supposed FDR file and the animation. They must have manufactured a complete new file for the animation using some sort of computer program. Surely if these people can manufacture a complete new file it would be child's play to snip a few seconds off the end.

I don't disagree with your theory

regarding the "point in history" in which the data was "lost". I'll agree that it was stripped away by human intervention.

My question is: why?

If the plane hit the Pentagon, why strip the data? What gains would 'they' realize by keeping this portion of the file
from view?

This opens up a can of worms and more speculation. If 'they' manufactured the file using software, then it's reasonalbe
to hypothesize that it never flew the South approach.

I think we can both (all) agree the data was tampered with.

The questions that remain are:

Can this commerical airliner negotiate the landscape, strike five light poles (which rested at impossible positions),
level off and hit the Pentagon at the alleged point?

Sure, a 757 might be able to hit the building, but under all of the conditions outlined within the official story? Not
at all likely; and certainly not at 462+ knots.

At 781 feet per second there is not enough time, distance, or agility for this massive lump of metal to make such
maneuvers.

Let's get away from the FDR data for a whle.

Do you know about Lloyd England's account?

Have you heard about Mike Walter's account? Specifically when he mentions the aircraft **banking**?

Have you studied the accounts of the 13 witnesses interviewed by CIT? Where they place the plane?
The speed they estimate? The **banking** of the aircraft?

Have you seen the damage to the light poles?

Do you know where light pole #2 came to rest?

Tampering

"I think we can both (all) agree the data was tampered with."

Well color me pink and slap me silly. ;-) I thought you said earlier:

"if you believe the aircraft hit the Pentagon, please do not use the excuses of data alteration, and/or missing data from impact to make your case."

Are you saying the only possible tampering could have been deletion of data? I disagree. Nevertheless, carry on, we can all learn from each other.

To Clarify:

Data Alteration meaning - tampering with certain parameters.

Missing Data - data lost due to 'crash' impact forces.

Agreement?

Substituting your definition of 'Data Alteration':

"if you believe the aircraft hit the Pentagon, please do not use the excuses of *tampering with certain parameters*, and/or missing data from impact to make your case."

But you are saying everyone agrees someone tampered with the parameters?

I think

he's trying to say the following:

  1. Portions of the FDR data were erased to hide something, because high speed impact cannot erase EEPROM data in the manner observed
  2. You can't modify the FDR to create a fictitious flight path, and:
  3. You can't modify imported FDR data to create a fictitious flight path, because:
  4. It is too difficult to plausibly alter all FDR parameters to fool experienced pilots and FDR technicians interpreting them

I tend to agree with 1, but I don't agree with 2, 3 and 4.

Sort of...

#1. Agree
#2. Subjective, possible within limits

#3 + 4. By hand typing...not a chance. With some sort of software flight sim which accounts for all
parameters simultaneously and mimics aerodynamics. Sure, why not.

Oh Boy...

We are getting caught up in semantics. I'm saying it's impossible for certain parameters to be modified without editing several other data points. For example, to change the altitude alone...at one point in flight to account for the error in height to hit the light poles, you would have to modify a host of related parameters. To do this manually would take countless hours, and would be easy to spot. Many of the sensors update four, to eight times per second.

In the context of the NTSB released data, we need to get the aircraft down several hundred feet and much earlier in the flight path in order to hit the
light poles. Imagine what it would take to "reverse-input" all of these data points while ensuring the behaviour of the aircraft remained realistic.

All I'm saying is; this is not a case of typing in a few numbers "here and there".

The cause of the missing seconds would have to be truncated data...by human intervention using software.

With respect to the NTSB file, it does not support the official story. Pilots for Truth has done a very solid job of stating these facts.

I'm just finishing the tail end of Mr. Legge's PDF. From what I gather thus far, he also believes the data is fake and believes the aircraft took a different
path.

He does believe an aircraft took down the light poles and struck the Pentagon. This is where our research differs.

What it would take

"Imagine what it would take to "reverse-input" all of these data points while ensuring the behaviour of the aircraft remained realistic."

A 757 simulator? Just throwing it out there..I don't know why you insist on humans editing parameters manually, because clearly this is a straw man argument.

My whole point is, it's difficult but not impossible. Any comment on those missing parameters in the flight 77 FDR report? Is that large a volume of 'invalid' or 'unconfirmed' parameters plausible? Is it coincidental? Could it be a cover for manipulation? Just saying.

Fake FDR file?

I don't like the term fake. I think it is highly likely that the FDR file, as handed over from the FBI to various requesters, was almost genuine. All they needed to do was trim off the last few seconds. I have said this several times now and it does not seem to sink in. The reason why removing the last few seconds could explain a great deal is simply that the data shows the plane descending rapidly, at an angle of about 1 in 10. Surely it is obvious that removal of the last few seconds would completely create the final altitude error. It would probably also be necessary to alter the time record through the whole file by the number of seconds removed. That should be easy.

Answers are in the paper

Pur_SSyn

There is a very good reason why "they" would want to modify the data file. No need to go into it here. Read the paper.

You ask: "Can this commerical airliner negotiate the landscape, strike five light poles (which rested at impossible positions), level off and hit the Pentagon at the alleged point?" Yes, read the paper.

If the poles were found in "impossible positions" can you prove they had not been moved?

Have you studied the accounts of the 104 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Will Read the Paper

I will read your paper more carefully momentarily and then address your questions. Please keep my previous questions in your thoughts as I'd like to debate these points with you further.

the paper

Good. As has been pointed out already a few times, the table contains two paths over the Navy Annex which are incorrect, just in case you missed that. The argument that feasible paths over the Annex exist remains unchanged however.

In defense of CIT

Very few people actually saw the plane enter the building. They instead deduced it. This is because they flinched, fell, dropped, ran away, or their view of the Pentagon was obstructed by the complex topography...

Therefore I agree with CIT that it's very informative to contact these witnesses yourself and verify what they actually saw.. Besides, JREF-ers are notorious liars:
Ryan Mackey lying about NIST
Mark Roberts lying about the EPA

In fact, it is my opinion that these two promote lying to the point where it almost becomes art.

Anyways, here's CIT's witness list, and afaik they do admit when a witness actually claims seeing a plane hitting the building and not deduce it....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632&st=0&start=0

Glad to see my Mackey entry

Glad to see my Mackey entry came in handy. ;-)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Dude, you're using Mark

Dude, you're using Mark Roberts' "debunker" website as a legit source?!?!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Show "Oh and before anyone chimes" by Adam Syed
Show "Keep up the good work Adam!" by rob balsamo

Bob Ralsamo ...

it is embarrassing to watch you carrying on like a 3 year old. Every one of your post violates the site's rules. It is obvious you are trying to get banned again so that you can claim that there are "attempts to hide/suppress information on this website."

You are either clueless, mis-informed and rude, or, a really bad actor. Either way, you are boring.

i.e.: Spare us, we all have work to do.

"Every one of your post violates the site's rules."

Really? Every post? Care to back that up? It does appear to me, however, that your post above violates the site rules.

"It is obvious you are trying to get banned again..."
Actually it seems that it is you who is trying to get Rob banned.

It's Wolsey...

It's probably better you just refer to me as "idiot" because at least you know how to spell that word, or at least don't mis-spell it intentionally. Want to try to piss me off too Rob? Perhaps you can intentionally mis-spell my name too like you did to Jon Gold? Good luck sir because I will not be taking your bait. It is very obvious why you are here Rob, I can see right through you.

ROBREF

Rob won't be able to read this due to the code word in the subject line, however I have hypnotized him into a more 'relaxed' state. It will still take a few days for him to calm down, during which time he should be treated with understanding.

*claps hands*

You're not fit...

To wash Michael Wolsey's 9/11 Truth underwear. See Roob... those of us who have been around for years pretty much know who are the doers, and who are the charletans that tack on years to this cause by promoting bunk, and nonsense for our opponents to latch onto in order to make us look bad. Guess which category you fall into.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Woosley, Hoffman and Ashley Claims NTSB Data Not From NTSB

Hey Woosley... you get your own data from the NTSB through the FOIA yet? Or do you still think it came from a "back door" and "covert channels".... lol

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17787

For those who missed it the first 500 times stated....

If the FDR data is flawed, fabricated or manipulated, its as grave of an issue as being authentic. Legge doesnt seem to get this point.

Also, P4T never states a 757 "could not have hit the pentagon" as Legge spins. We claim based on data, topography and obstacles,and witness statements, its impossible for a 757 to have hit the pentagon. Big difference as what Legge claims we state, and what we actually state. Remove the data and any one of those variables, and it is possible. Legge seems to remove them all in his paper to suit his theory.

That is why this list grows with people who understand the implications...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

and Frank posts speculation, and opinion, mostly wrong.. .and misquotes.

Be sure to check out our new presentation as 757/767 Capts from United and American Airlines prove Legges paper the Argument from Ignorance Frank admits.

We will also be doing several upcoming interviews which will also expose Legges' fallacies, albeit indirectly as we wont be giving him too much exposure.

And as a reminder, big update coming to add more aviation professionals to our roster! Of course we'll make the announcement and spread it wide.

Enjoy your day folks! Dont wear down your mouse! :-)

Rob

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

Rebuttal

Hi Rob,

I hear you plan to submit a rebuttal to the paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. That seems efficient. I will await the rebuttal and no longer comment on the flaws in your your posts here. Thanks for saving me some time.

One last comment:

You say: "If the FDR data is flawed, fabricated or manipulated, its as grave of an issue as being authentic. Legge doesnt seem to get this point."

I agree it would be a grave issue. Where did you get that idea?

Altitude Error

I disagree that the altitude error is caused by trimming the final second of flight. The cross-over point for setting the Pressure Altimeter is 18,000 feet ASL (keeping in mind, this is when a real pilot is trained to set BARO). The BARO COR fields were set as per CSV file well before the end of the file.

The animation does not reflect this change in local pressure at all upon descent; unlike the resetting of the Altimeter clearly seen as the aircraft ascends through 18,000 feet.

The animation aligns with the CSV file from the beginning of the study, so the time factor is not a reasonable hypothesis to explain the difference
in altitude. I urge you to view this video of the NTSB animation:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405#

Notice the altimeter 'snaps' back at the 12:25 time of the video. This corresesponds to the BARO COR field updates in the FDR data CSV file.

The video shows the aircraft descending through 18,000 feet at about 1:08:40. If I'm not mistaken the change in the CSV file happens very close
to this time, however is not reflected in the animation (although it MUST).

You can see that there is about 20 minutes of time between the Pressure Altimeter calibration and the end of the flight which cannot possibly
explain the altitude error by way of "trimming the end of data".

Sincerely.

Trimming data

If the plane is descending at the rate of say 80 feet per second, how can removal of the last 6 seconds of data not increase the terminal altitude by 480 feet?

RE: Trimming Data

For one, as mentioned in my previous reply, the BARO COR entered by the "pilot" 20 minutes
prior to impact was not reflected on the altimeter (in the animation) at the jet descended through
18,000 feet.

In other words, trimming a few seconds of data at the end of the file has no impact on the resetting of the
pressure altimeter 20 minutes earlier.

Second, the DME value of 1.5 n_miles was the last recorded value from the radio beacon. This distance
is measured from the airport transmitter.

Stripping away 'a few seconds' at a speed of 462 knots (or 781 feet per second) would expose the DME value.
This parameter is accurate to 0.1 nautical miles.

The data shows the aircraft 1.5 n_miles away (last recorded value from the last polling request) from the
transmitter and several hundred feet above the light poles.

trimming

You do not seem to understand what is involved here. We have a data file which is at least one step removed from the device which collected the data. The data file contains a number of streams of data. One is a time line. One is altitude.

Where the data terminates, which would normally be the last record just prior to the crash, there will be an altitude record and a time stamp. As the plane is descending, if you delete the last six seconds of altitude records the plane will appear to be hundreds of feet higher. Surely you can't be disputing that, so we will press on.

Now the last six seconds of time will also be deleted. This will have the effect that the plane will appear to have finished its flight 6 seconds before the known crash time, which would look ridiculous.

Since this is just a data file, what would be hard about adding 6 seconds to every time stamp in the file. This would make the plane appear to crash at the right time and also take off 6 seconds later. Nobody would notice the later take off time.

It still seems to me that trimming the last few seconds would be a very easy way to cause confusion.

Quite the Opposite

As a matter of fact I am disputing the altitude, and I’Il have you know I’m well aware of the data; how it is laid out;how it is stored and how it is retrieved. Don’t forget, the group which you are doubting has a copy of the raw data and they were able to produce a read out in addition to getting a copy of the CSV file.

Maybe you're not aware, but I am a core member of Pilots for Truth and have been studying, and researching this data for
several years. If you'd like to see my field experience in Aerospace and Military electronics, I would be happy to provide
you with records of employment and academics...this however seems to be the least of everyone's interest these days
unfortunately.

< “”Since this is just a data file, what would be hard about adding 6 seconds to every time stamp in the file. This would make the plane appear to crash at the right time and also take off 6 seconds later. Nobody would notice the later take off time. “”>>

You cannot simply add time to the end of the file, and or strip away time. The parameters are multiplexed into a frame of data. If you add six seconds, you need to account for six seconds worht of acquisition time and data for all of the sensors.
You cannot simply leave the parameters blank.

You cannot strip away seconds, or rows of data without stripping away all other parameters. There is positional data that you need to consider within. The most important being DME which indicates the distance from the airport transmitter with
an accuracy of 0.1 nautical miles (see manufacturer data ).

For each second, you need to account for flight time at the speed shown in the data file. If you take away six seconds at 781
feet per second, the DME (distance) in relation to the Pentagon/Radio Beacon will not balance out as recorded at 1.5 nm.

Have you at least studied the CSV file? Do you understand what I mean about the data frame and how the altitude is
'mixed' in with all parameters including the DME distance values?

Please also remember, the animation is based on the raw file. The CSV file is based on the raw file.
These pieces of information must match, however they do not.

Files and tools

Links to the raw data and CSV file were posted earlier (on the pf911truth forum):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=64&view=findpost&...

but the server linked to is down. Also, have you got any extra tools or scripts to help parse the data?

When you say 'multiplexed' do you mean a list of data structures like:

FDR_Frame
{
double Time;
...
double Speed;
double Altitude;
double DME;
...
}

with one of these every 0.5 seconds?

I think I understand why you're saying you couldn't just erase six seconds, and I don't understand why that wouldn't be noticeable at take off.

But why don't you think it is important that a 757 simulator has a 'Save as FDR' option in the 'File' menu? Software even more suitable for creating FDR files could have all kinds of options, producing thousands of 'wrong' files a second. Are you saying it's strange because some of the variables match one flight path, and some match another? Surely the FBI has software that could just alter one field in this structure at a time, and only keep some of the others consistent with the changes, if required. Are you saying they were forced to keep some values 'correct'?

Rob mentions above that it is very important that the FDR data is bogus, and I agree, but feel I may be missing a deeper point about 'how'.

Would it be possible for you to provide a list of variables, indicating which were wrong and how?

Thanks, and sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake here.

Short Answer

I will elaborate on this later, but for now:

Yes, I agree that the entire file is produced by other means than "AA77" based on the evidence
and anomalies found.

It's quite possible and logical that this data was produced using a flight sim.

Once we get over the discussion of the FDR data and aerodynamics, I'd like to futher debate
the 104 witnesses vs. CIT's research.

My position is the aircraft flew with a nothern approach as drawn and described by 13 separate
eye witness accounts.

The 2 data links work fine at P4T

I just checked again this morning (using your link), and the zipped .CSV and the raw .FDR file work just fine- twice now (for nearly 50 MB worth). The .CSV column headings are essentially the same information that is contained in the .TXT headers file (which I will need to search for on my hard disk). I will probably post the headers or a link on that thread when I locate the .TXT file, but I've got several other projects going right now. There is also a notation about the .TXT file on that thread.

The "debunking" John Farmer's on-again-off-again website has mirrored a 156 MB .ISO FOIA request that Farmer stated he filed. Farmer's file timestamps do NOT match the one that P4T obtained, but the file sizes did as I recall. I have not found major discrepancies between the 2 data sets, but "911files" based much of his AA77 work on the "RO2" decode that was NOT directly produced by the NTSB.

http://www.aal77.com/ntsb/aal77.ual93.ntsb.records.iso

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays

Thanks

I've got the important files now, maybe it was my connection.

Have you got a script to import this into a flight simulator, or maybe convert to .kml for Google Earth? It would be useful to load this data into a viewer of some sort.

Also, have you got something to convert the raw data into CSV, and a model of the area in 3D?

Thanks for the other link too, I've set that downloading.

data file adjustment

Pur_SSyn,

I think I am understanding this a bit better now. Thanks. It is clear that not only the time line but also the position information will need to be altered if a few seconds is cut off the end. The DME and VOR will clearly position the plane horizontally with considerable precision while the pressure and radar position it vertically.

I don't think it would be difficult to slide all these data back a few seconds. Once converted to a format like a spreadsheet it would be easy. One would think that programs for converting the FDR file to a manipulable file must already exist as that would be the way to start an investigation. The hard part it seems to me would be to then convert the file, after manipulation, back into a form which looked exactly like a FDR file. There would not be a program off the shelf to do that.

So how hard would that be?

Reading/writing/manipulating raw data

It's easy for somebody with the right software, and the right software is certainly not Microsoft Excel. (Yes, in theory, but it's crazy)

You need a description of the file format which you translate to structures in any programming language. Suppose you take the smallest time unit the FDR can record. One horizontal row of data then corresponds to a snaphot in time with the resolution of the smallest time unit. The task of an FDR decoder is to read the data header, decompress (if compressed) the FDR data, and read and translate the data into one row at the time. Multiplexing might make decoding more complex, but obviously not impossible. It's a typical challenge for a programmer.

The data then exists in memory ' in between' two formats: depending on what you want for output, you then write output rows in the format desired. For example, Comma Separated Value (CSV). Another option could be a MySQL database. After all, the FDR file is simply a database with rows and columns. One column corresponds to a gathered parameter such as height or pressure. A row corresponds to the smallest recordable time unit.

The complexity is in the fact that people such as us don't have access to the Boeing proprietary file format just like that. Companies designing commercial software that can decode this buy licenses in order to obtain this information. Once you know this format, you can commence with the program design. You could also reverse engineer the file format by reverse engineering the commercial software, but this is 'illegal' since the DMCA law. A law which I reject with all my heart, since I do not acknowledge the right of any government to forbid me to study code. And yes, that is really what that law says.

Note that once you can read it, you can also write it, but to plausibly fake FDR values your software needs to have the internal logic of a 757 flight simulator.

Programmatically, if you cut off the time from the end, you can then shift the entire time stamp column in whatever direction by whatever amount you like, but the data will still show the plane where it was and how it behaved during the actual time it happened. However, you don't know that actual time then, so...

Anyways, just some thoughts.

ETA:
There are several reasons why Excel wouldn't be my first choice for manipulating such data:

  • Excel gets slow when large data sets with many rows and columns are loaded
  • Excel's macro language is similar to Visual Basic, and compared to other programming languages, it's just horrible (and slow)
  • It could be preferable to work with the raw data, so that one gets accustomed to and can play with manipulating an actual FDR file
  • The logic of plausibly manipulating 757 FDR data is too complex for Excel
  • Connecting the data to other software that can visualize the data is complicated by using Excel (import, export, import again, etc)

In sum, you need time, manpower, money, resources and expertise. For simple tasks, sure Excel can be used, but you'll find yourself eventually regretting it.

getting clearer

Thanks SnowCrash. That all sounds very logical. I still have a query. You say:

"Programmatically, if you cut off the time from the end, you can then shift the entire time stamp column in whatever direction by whatever amount you like, but the data will still show the plane where it was and how it behaved during the actual time it happened."

I was never contemplating cutting the time off from the end. I was thinking of something like sliding the vertical position data out a few seconds. The time line and all horizontal position data, and all other data would be left where it is. Then the exposed few seconds of vertical position data would be deleted. Since the plane was descending rapidly at the end, according to the data, would this not have the effect of creating a file, which looked genuine, in which the flight terminated at the right time but too high?

Pitot-Static Sensor, Accelerometers, Raw File

Mr. Legge, as explained before, moving one column of a parameter such as altitude will expose the supporting sensors which are all read into the frame at the same time.

Other issues arise when you change the altitude by a large margin, and the pressure sensed by the speed sensor on the aircraft (pitot-static tube)
begin to show discrepencies. Air density changes with altitude so you can't expect the Calibrated and True Airspeeds to equal out as altitude changes.

Another thing is the accelerometers show changes in vertical position. If you move the altitude column, the trend of data does not align.
IE: the radar and pressure altimeter may show a change by 40 feet, whereas the accelerometer will not reflect that change in altitude.

Lastly, the raw file must match the CSV file.

Right

This is all true.

I mentioned shifting the time stamps back or forth, but altering the height requires you to plausibly alter all the other sensor data.

You need 757 simulator logic, and if you want to go all out, you need various atmospheric data from 2001-09-11. Of course, you can attempt to transpose this from the original 757 sensor measurements with educated guesses, and hope pilots and FDR experts studying it won't notice. Another way to do it would be to simply state that various parameters are 'unreliable' or 'unconfirmed' as was stated in the AA 77 FDR report, but then again, such deviations could have an entirely innocent explanation as well. These things are for Pur_SSyn to consider though, not me.

Word Format

That's great Mr. Legge, I'm happy that we are forging ahead.

You are right about the spreadsheet format. Once the data has been exported to a CSV format
and read into a program such as Excel, you could manipulate the time information without
affecting any of the aircraft sensor infomation as it is not linked together.

There may be an issue when the time stamp is so far off, that it will conflict with ATC records.
One would have to be careful how far to adjust a time reference before the red flags start raising.

Having said that, we've already established that the raw file contains the information shown in
the CSV file. We know that P4T has the raw file and has decoded it.

We also agree by design that the position data cannot be stripped away without causing issue
with the radio beacon distance.

At this point we have to take the data at face value. The last recorded value for DME is 1.5 and
in addition, the aircraft recorded two more frames of data beyond the last polled request for
DME. This means that we're even closer than 1.5 nautical miles to the transmitter/Pentagon,
but the next DME value would not have been recorded until the proceeding frame (which was
not included).

"Snow_Crash" made a good point about the software. Although I don't agree 100% with his
reply, there is one particular line that stands out about the software logic required to reproduce
realistic data. Once again, these values are not something that a human would enter manually.

Furthermore, getting the data back to a ".fdr" format would prove to be quite the chore as sync
words, and data layout would have to be converted in reverse order. See the attached link for
an example of how the data is read out from the FDR memory:

ARINC Word Format Graphic Link

This image was taken from proprietary documentation which Pilots for Truth obtained by
purchasing. If you would like to see more, you will have to contact the admin team there
and ask for their permission to obtain specific documentation. Please don't ask me directly
as I have been instructed in the past to keep this information confidential. These very same
documents can be purchased from Boeing, and ARINC.

I think we all agree that the Pentagon and NTSB have software capable of making .fdr formats.
Whether that be a flight simulator and/or a flight sim software.

We can all now agree that one parameter cannot be stripped away without effecting other
parameter (in the sense of speed for example).

We can all now agree that removing data from the end of the file cannot make one parameter
appear to have different values without effecting all parameters (IE: speed , altitude, DME, etc.)

Where do we go from here? The two options staring us in the face are:

- The plane could not have hit the light poles based on this data

- The FDR data does not belong to AA77 (it is fake)

Are there any other reasonable options?

Is everyone clear on the altitude error in the animation which contradicts the CSV file?

Conversion tools / models

That seems reasonable. But now we are talking about possible flight paths, I'd like to generate a visual representation of the CSV data first.

Do we have a way to convert the CSV into (say) MS Flight Simulator or maybe Google Earth .kml?

Could you post a link to the format of the raw file or (preferably) source code converting it to CSV?

Are 3D models of the area and plane available?

Stuff

CIT might have 3D models of the topography, a 757 and the Pentagon. Didn't they use it for NSA? The NTSB created it for its animation, I believe. For government agencies, this is easy. For us, well, perhaps Google earth can assist, but since the topography for the final run should include trees, buildings, road signs and other objects you're in for quite some monk's work. Small errors will have large (research) consequences.

As for importing CSV FDR data into MS Flight Simulator, heh. Easier said than done. Better to create your own visualizer. A simulator is even more difficult. Who would believe an amateur simulator anyway. Something to think about.

As for the source code of converting raw data to CSV...wouldn't we all want that. See my comments above about licenses and reverse engineering/DMCA. I'd like to rub it under the nose of all of you that not only civil rights are eroded by legislation at an incredible pace, but so are computer user and internet rights. This is a perfect example of how such laws can be used for nefarious purposes: in the end, to keep us from knowing the truth about AA 77.

BTW: Here's a link where you may find models of the Pentagon, etc.
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/

I know some brilliant 3D / game designers, and I also know brilliant programmers, but alas, these people have jobs and better things to do with their time. I don't think they'd waste man years to research a "conspiracy theory". :-( If put to the task, though, they'd probably create something rivaling a professional simulator that can manipulate FDR's also.

We need to bring 9/11 truth minded developers together from across the globe via internet. That's the only way to go, I'm afraid.

Prior art

It would be very useful to use models already created by other 911 researchers (not least so I'm on the same page), otherwise I will see what I can find in the 3d warehouse. Does anyone here from P4T know where I might find some models?

Anyway, here's a plugin for MS Flight Simulator that can import FDR data, through a simple intermediate format (many fields supported):
http://secure.simmarket.com/eszett-solutions-sz-flight-data-recorder-for...

I just wondered if anyone had done any research on this already. For present purposes (looking at the flight path / plane) Google Earth would probably be sufficient. There are open source alternatives too.

"As for the source code of converting raw data to CSV...wouldn't we all want that."

Pur_SSyn indicated above that P4T had done just this. Are you saying they acted illegally, or just that it would be illegal for them to tell me? I assume P4T finds no discrepancy between the two files..

"..better things to do with their time.."

I'm not so sure.

Errors Found in Files

You may want to sign up at Pilotsfor911truth.org and/or search though the Pentagon and AA77 sub forums to find animations, and discussion about the FDR data.

P4T did not act illegally; there were people in the industry and also core members with access to software, frame layouts, etc. to help crack the .fdr file.

The data engineers found issue with the raw file and were able to pull parameters that the NTSB could not/did not. A full explanation is available on the site, but for reference sake, one of the most important decoded was RADAR altitude which confirms Pressure Altitude.

The team of pilots and aero engineers were able to find an altitude error in the NTSB animation when setting the local pressure. They found the aircraft to be much higher than shown in the animation (pressure altimeter).

This page has several pinned topics, and threads concerning the info you are looking for. Start here and get ready for a mountain of info:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=9

"Anyway, here's a plugin for

"Anyway, here's a plugin for MS Flight Simulator that can import FDR data, through a simple intermediate format (many fields supported):"

Wow! Somebody actually went out and did it! Yes...the intermediate format being CSV or TSV, I presume.

"Are you saying they acted illegally, or just that it would be illegal for them to tell me?"

Hmm. How to make a long story short. Corporations develop FDR's. These manufacturers and/or other corporations develop commercial software to import data from FDR's. This software is proprietary, is copyrighted and falls under the DMCA. I am not aware of any free software (free as in freedom, not free as in free beer) that can import and read FDR data.

Therefore no source code is available. Businesses developing commercial software don't just give out their "source code". That would be the same as Coca Cola publishing their ingredients.

And yes, P4T might have done things that are technically 'illegal' in the same way that you downloading an MP3 with bittorrent is 'illegal'. There is a difference though. The former relates to the DMCA, and the latter relates to plain copyright. I don't support these laws though, for various complicated reasons I will not go into here. P4T might have used a combination of own software and proprietary software to do the job. There is no "source code" for this, if you know what I mean. They might help you with file format specifications, but I believe Pur_Ssyn referred to possible litigation if he shared too much of this info publicly.

I'm not so sure.

Indeed...but in the Netherlands, people are very anti-"conspiracy theories"...since here, being as "normal" as possible is considered a great "virtue". Neither are people interested in politics, except as it relates to immigrants and money. So, not only would I have to get people who are otherwise very busy to indulge in pro-bono development, I'd have to ask them to defy strong cultural norms, causing them harm. Ironically, these cultural norms are harmful in the first place. Nevertheless, the 3D designer is simply a genius and intelligent enough to know 9/11 is a joke, so we've talked about it already. Maybe he'd help, don't know. I'm not in any position to make demands.

ETA: I'll have a look around in the free software catalogues. Who knows.

Evidence of wrongdoing?

So does anyone have any hard evidence of "illegal" acts done by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, or is it only that much more insinuation, implication, and speculation? Has it occurred to anyone yet that the .FDR decode might have been nearer to the lines of something like this:

Arlington Whistleblower Fired For Trying To Grant Media Access To Military Funerals
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/10/arlington-whistleblower-fired/

Some might want to also contemplate how many people have put in how many hours just on SSFDR data analysis alone over the space of several years to determine/verify[???] exactly WHAT IT IS that the NTSB and FBI has "officially" been telling us. I'm not aware of ANY of P4T's "critics" who have gone to so much as 1/10th of that effort in PRODUCTIVE channels yet, but time will tell.

How many of these blogs, papers, OpEd pieces, etc. would actually be germane as an exhibit in a court of law (like the FOIA NTSB release is)?
-----
Also, there are no "decode scripts" anywhere that I'm aware of, and I don't personally have any 3D models, but I do have some 2D AutoCAD drawings that I obtained from Boeing's website long ago (I no longer have a bookmark though after several computer upgrades, but those may still be available).

Several places sell 3D models of various objects for various software:

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=0&search=Bo...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of th

Show "Just remember, folks..." by Adam Syed

How do members vote on the replies?

I can't seem to find this function anywhere; not even the FAQ. Thanks.

Log in, look to the little arrows below the first word

Log in, then look for the little arrows below the first few letters of the comment. Click on the up or down arrow as you wish.

Thanks!

I didn't see the shaded arrows until you pointed them out.

Patterns of reality

In all my confusion, there's something satisfyingly recursive about Adam's meta-posts being voted down.

Just remember folks...

The 9/11 Truth Movement has some people in it that like to promote theories that have major contradictions to them, that come from charletans, racists or worse, and they have ultimately tacked on years to this cause because our opponents latch on to those theories to make us all look like fools. This system has been in place for years, and there is no doubt that the success of that system has made the perpetrators of 9/11 very happy.

I suggest everyone read this.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I suggest

everyone get a full assessment instead of guessing.

I think there's at least one statement on that page that criticizes certain views without basis. However, as I agree with the majority of the statement, and at least a 'weak' form of the precautionary principle, I will save everyone my opinion on which one :)

Where Do We Stand Now?

First off, I must tip my hat to Mr. Legge and others here who were able to conduct this debate peacefully and learn from each other. I'm normally engaged in battles that are far less fluid and resort to logical shut down. I hope that the once divided position on FDR data can now become a focus of both parties to work together and spread the word.

Next I'd like to ask how many of you believe the aircraft hit the Pentagon? How many believe it flew over? Are there any other theories involving the plane that are worth discussing?

Keep in mind when you answer these questions: the NTSB data does not support the government story and they refuse to comment when contact via phone and/or letter. They have even turned down certain FOIA requests by researchers. I believe the most recent and most known decline for FOIA is
Mr. Aidan Monaghan.

Looking forward to finding out your views and coming to some sort of unified conclusion based on evidence/facts.

Aero Engineer and Pilot Talks about Hani and AA77

Excellent points here against the official story. Unfortunately, Nila Sagadevan makes
some errors about the building particulars, but it still hits home:

http://arcticbeacon.com/audio/2005/2005-RBN/11-2005-RBN/1122-2005-RBN-Hr...

http://arcticbeacon.com/audio/2005/2005-RBN/11-2005-RBN/1122-2005-RBN-Hr...

FDR partial decoder

Pur_SSyn's links to P4T led me to this site. Mr Stutt filed FOI requests earlier this year to obtain the FDR 'raw' frame layout and an uncompressed raw file. Source code is in C#.
http://www.warrenstutt.com/

I've set this downloading. Does anyone know if Mr Stutt's decoder produces the same values as the CSV file?

So now we only need a script to convert the CSV to KML (or something) to see a visual representation in 3D.

Is Rob still around, or does anyone know how he created the flight paths for the AA77 movies on P4T - are they models or KML paths?

RE: Warren Stutt

>> I've set this downloading. Does anyone know if Mr Stutt's decoder produces the same values
as the CSV file?<<

No it does not. His program checks for data integrity characteristic such as "parity".

>> Is Rob still around, or does anyone know how he created the flight paths for the AA77 movies on
P4T - are they models or KML paths? <<

.

As far as I'm aware, the flight path was reconstructed using NTSB data and USGS information for
the Arlington area. I'll send him a message and get back to you, or feel free to sign up at P4T
and contact him directly. He's very good at returning messages.

Compressed parts

What were the problems decompressing the compressed parts?

Huffman coding

I think most of the raw data has Huffman coding, which is lossless.

The symbols in this case are 12 bit 'words', and are encoded individually. This prevents data being left 'in the compression pipe' on impact, and may make decoding easier.

Having the uncompressed data (the CSV) available should help too, assuming the values are correct.

New program

He has also written an AA77 decoder now (2nd link down) - though the parity checker is still available. I should have chance to run this later today.

However it does appear like most of his raw data *is* still compressed, and isn't decoded by his program. Maybe this verification step will have to be mostly skipped.

Thanks for contacting Rob. If he doesn't have a conversion script handy maybe one could be created. Once we hear back I can get in contact directly if I've any other questions etc.

The USGS data sounds useful. It would be good to have a page somewhere (P4T?) with details on how to 'see' the data.