Flight AA77 on 9/11

[BCR]

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

Warren's paper is hot off the press. Worth a review.

A brief look-over compares with the analysis and conclusions reached by folks here at JREF.

Quote:

The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

[funk de fino]

I'd like to see the CIT defenders here have a shufty at this.

[adkinsjr]

The 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics will be all over it soon enough, declaring the paper a fraud just like they did the NIST report on WTC7. Just give them time...

[DGM]

I was surprised to see Frank Legge listed as one of the authors. Didn't he have some "unique" theories about what happened at one time?

[Triterope]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

I'd like to see the CIT defenders here have a shufty at this.

I'm sure they will, since the paper is a big middle finger to CIT. It all but calls them out by name:

One group asserts that the plane approached from a direction which would not have permitted it to create the observed straight line of damage through the light poles and inside the Pentagon. This assertion is based on the group’s discovery of 13 eyewitnesses who allegedly place the course of the plane to the north of the former Citgo service station.

[Senenmut]

did you ever receive a copy of the files? if so, was this before warren did?

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

did you ever receive a copy of the files? if so, was this before warren did?

If that is directed at me, yes. Warren picked up where I left off. I did not have the programming skills required to decompress the data. All of my pre-decode work was done correlating the radar data to the available FDR data which indicated ~6 +/- 2 seconds of missing data. Warren recovered ~ 5 seconds of data no available in the NTSB CSV file output.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by BCR

If that is directed at me, yes. Warren picked up where I left off. I did not have the programming skills required to decompress the data. All of my pre-decode work was done correlating the radar data to the available FDR data which indicated ~6 +/- 2 seconds of missing data. Warren recovered ~ 5 seconds of data no available in the NTSB CSV file output.

so the file you got via foia also had that data attached to it but you couldnt access it because you didnt know how?

a couple of things interests me:
from that pdf file ya linked-

"One form could not be understood by inspection and the other, a readable comma-separated values (CSV) file, had some columns of data missing, a critical omission being radio height. After considerable difficulty, assistance in interpreting the coded file was received and the result came into public hands."

1. what is that "one form that could not be understood by inspection"???


2. when the article states that "after considerable difficulty, assistance in interpreting the coded file was received", are ya talking about the csv or the 1st form that "could not be understood by inspecion"?

3. did the file that you got from your foia contain "two forms" of data? if so, it sounds like you knew there was more data there and you just couldnt access it?

4. did pilots for 911 truth get both forms of data when they filed their foia? could they "see" that there was extra data there that they coulnt access. i know you might not be able to answer for them but you might know something.

thanks

[BCR]

Well, the short version.

1) The fdr file which is a raw dump from the FDR.

2) The fdr file.

3) The data in the fdr file is compressed with a Hoffman algorithm so that more data can be stored in the fdr. This requires some work at the binary level to solve unless the manufacturer provides the algorithm used to compress the data. Warren was able to reverse-engineer the algorithm.

4) Yes. Warren belongs to P4T. Well at least he did until his work began to verify mine

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

1. what is that "one form that could not be understood by inspection"???

The raw data structure was specified in a file and individual items were defined. Here is the descriptor for DME, it is found in word 222. 10 bits are used to store this DME value. The raw file has 256 12 bit words for each second of data, that is 256 words per sub-frame in database. The raw files have to be decoded.

Quote:

Uid: DM_DST_L
Abbrev: DM_DST_L
Name: DME DISTANCE-LEFT
Units: NM
Minimum Value: 0
Maximum Value: 255.75
Digits Displayed: 2
Signed Value: No
Parameter Type: Linear
Format is y = m*x + b: m = 0.25, b = 0
Sampling Freq.(hz): 0.25
Number of bits: 10
Locations/value: 1
Frame(s) Subframe(s) Word Start Bit End Bit
ALL 3 222 3 12
Number of Tests: 0

Originally Posted by Senenmut

2. when the article states that "after considerable difficulty, assistance in interpreting the coded file was received", are ya talking about the csv or the 1st form that "could not be understood by inspecion"?

Warren used a file with hundreds of descriptors to build a program to decode the data.

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/

Originally Posted by Senenmut

3. did the file that you got from your foia contain "two forms" of data? if so, it sounds like you knew there was more data there and you just couldnt access it?

Anyone could have access to the files. Anyone could see if they analyzed the data that some information had not been decoded by the NTSB. I think there were over 24 hours of flight time on the FDR - As you can see in the OP paper, Warren can decode any time he wants from many flights contained in Flight 77's FDR which confirm it was Flight 77 and confirms or shows what kind of errors there are in position and pressure altitude in regular use, in reality, due to the way aircraft and systems are.

Originally Posted by Senenmut

4. did pilots for 911 truth get both forms of data when they filed their foia? could they "see" that there was extra data there that they coulnt access. i know you might not be able to answer for them but you might know something.

Pilots for truth also got "both" sets of data. The pilot for truth decode included one extra second more than the NTSB decode. Warren was able to decode the 4 seconds the NTSB did not. Remember the NTSB was not trying to solve why 77 crashed, they were producing products for the FBI. I assume or guess the FBI might be interested in when the terrorists took the jet physically, which is seen in the data if you know what you are looking for. The fact is the NTSB did not do an NTSB investigation, they investigate accidents, not crimes.


For those who think Warren's work is not valid; the NTSB and the Pilots for Truth decode match Warren's work, and Warren's software is able to decode the incomplete Frame (or whatever was stopping the p4t and the NTSB; why did the p4t EXPERTS fail to decode the last seconds and get teh truth out?), the last 4 seconds.

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/ Warren's website tells all.

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by BCR

Well, the short version.

1) The fdr file which is a raw dump from the FDR.

2) The fdr file.

3) The data in the fdr file is compressed with a Hoffman algorithm so that more data can be stored in the fdr. This requires some work at the binary level to solve unless the manufacturer provides the algorithm used to compress the data. Warren was able to reverse-engineer the algorithm.

4) Yes. Warren belongs to P4T. Well at least he did until his work began to verify mine

Can the process that Warren and yourself have undertaken be replicated?

Is the data pure and raw?

Can the data be gained via FOIA?

Has P4T had the capability and knowledge to be capable of doing this themselves?

If they have..........why would it be that they havnt?

If they havnt...........have you given them enough guidance for them to now do it themselves?

Are CIT capable of even following this thread?

Thanks John. Warren.

Sure is more interesting than chasing T2 and T3.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Jackanory

Can the process that Warren and yourself have undertaken be replicated?

Yes, Warren has the C# source code he developed available for download on his site (Beachnut gave the links above). He also has a link to Microsofts C# compiler linked (free).

Quote:

Is the data pure and raw?

That I can't tell you. The NTSB says it is the raw data dump from the FDR recovered at the Pentagon. At this point, no reason to dispute that claim.

Quote:

Can the data be gained via FOIA?

Beachnut covered that in his post above. Yes, you can submit a FOIA and obtain a copy for yourself directly from them, or you can just download it from Warren's site.

Quote:

Has P4T had the capability and knowledge to be capable of doing this themselves?

Yes, they had Warren. I also started out doing my research with P4T. Just like when I discovered the missing data issue, Warren is learning what it means to disagree with CAPT Bob.

Quote:

If they have..........why would it be that they havnt?

They have, like I said, both Warren and I began with P4T.

Quote:

If they havnt...........have you given them enough guidance for them to now do it themselves?

It does not fit their paradigm so they do not wish any 'guidance'.

Quote:

Are CIT capable of even following this thread?

Yes, but they are too invested in their 'earth-shattering cuckoo-flew-over-the-cuckoo's-nest hypothesis'.

Quote:

Thanks John. Warren.

You are welcome.

Quote:

Sure is more interesting than chasing T2 and T3.

But I love the terminator series

[BCR]

Poor Warren, thrown under the P4T bus ....

Quote:

It's a team out of Australia. Stutt, Legge, and Bursill. Working in conjunction with the American and Canadian (Jeff Hill) counter parts. The movement is infested and they are desperately trying to contain the evidence/analyses from PFT/CIT.

Someone in the truth movement actually does some first class analysis and people just don't appreciate it. And after all that hard work too.

[KDLarsen]

I see Tino/Turbofan isn't having any of it either over on ATS.

He even started a new topic, declaring that Legge et al was disgracing the truth movement. Funny enough, if you ask the rest of the TM, they believe the no-planers are the ones doing the disgracing

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by BCR

Yes, Warren has the C# source code he developed available for download on his site (Beachnut gave the links above). He also has a link to Microsofts C# compiler linked (free).



That I can't tell you. The NTSB says it is the raw data dump from the FDR recovered at the Pentagon. At this point, no reason to dispute that claim.



Beachnut covered that in his post above. Yes, you can submit a FOIA and obtain a copy for yourself directly from them, or you can just download it from Warren's site.



Yes, they had Warren. I also started out doing my research with P4T. Just like when I discovered the missing data issue, Warren is learning what it means to disagree with CAPT Bob.



They have, like I said, both Warren and I began with P4T.



It does not fit their paradigm so they do not wish any 'guidance'.



Yes, but they are too invested in their 'earth-shattering cuckoo-flew-over-the-cuckoo's-nest hypothesis'.



You are welcome.



But I love the terminator series

Thanks John.

I was aware that most had been answered previously. I just wanted to clarify with some none techy questions for the none techy lurkers. Me included. I also wanted it made clear that the frauds over at the tree fort have access to it too. It would appear that they did, ignored it and are now building their defences. LOL.

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, so after more then 9 years some members of the Truth Movement have proven what the rest of us knew on 9/11. (And the rest of the Truth Movement is still denying it. )

[tsig]

Originally Posted by BCR

Poor Warren, thrown under the P4T bus ....



Someone in the truth movement actually does some first class analysis and people just don't appreciate it. And after all that hard work too.

And now the rest of the story:

to produce a paper to undermine PFT and their sterling, and truly peer-reviewed, analysis of the alleged Flt77 black box data



Alleged black box? If they didn't think the data was reliable why spend time decoding it?

[Edx]

Originally Posted by tsig

Alleged black box? If they didn't think the data was reliable why spend time decoding it?

Because if its real then it proves inside job, if its fake it proves inside job.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by BCR

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

Warren's paper is hot off the press. Worth a review.

A brief look-over compares with the analysis and conclusions reached by folks here at JREF.

one more question. if warren was a member of PFT, why did he not just use their copy of the data? why go through the whole motion of filing a FOIA request?

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The raw data structure was specified in a file and individual items were defined. Here is the descriptor for DME, it is found in word 222. 10 bits are used to store this DME value. The raw file has 256 12 bit words for each second of data, that is 256 words per sub-frame in database. The raw files have to be decoded.

Warren used a file with hundreds of descriptors to build a program to decode the data.

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/


Anyone could have access to the files. Anyone could see if they analyzed the data that some information had not been decoded by the NTSB. I think there were over 24 hours of flight time on the FDR - As you can see in the OP paper, Warren can decode any time he wants from many flights contained in Flight 77's FDR which confirm it was Flight 77 and confirms or shows what kind of errors there are in position and pressure altitude in regular use, in reality, due to the way aircraft and systems are.



Pilots for truth also got "both" sets of data. The pilot for truth decode included one extra second more than the NTSB decode. Warren was able to decode the 4 seconds the NTSB did not. Remember the NTSB was not trying to solve why 77 crashed, they were producing products for the FBI. I assume or guess the FBI might be interested in when the terrorists took the jet physically, which is seen in the data if you know what you are looking for. The fact is the NTSB did not do an NTSB investigation, they investigate accidents, not crimes.


For those who think Warren's work is not valid; the NTSB and the Pilots for Truth decode match Warren's work, and Warren's software is able to decode the incomplete Frame (or whatever was stopping the p4t and the NTSB; why did the p4t EXPERTS fail to decode the last seconds and get teh truth out?), the last 4 seconds.

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/ Warren's website tells all.

thanks for all the input.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

one more question. if warren was a member of PFT, why did he not just use their copy of the data? why go through the whole motion of filing a FOIA request?

You do know Warren is a member here? Why not ask him?

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

one more question. if warren was a member of PFT, why did he not just use their copy of the data? why go through the whole motion of filing a FOIA request?

That is something you should ask him. All I can say is, when I began, I was a member of P4T but I wanted original data from the source myself so the NTSB was my first FOIA.

[Dragon37]

Originally Posted by adkinsjr

The 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics will be all over it soon enough, declaring the paper a fraud just like they did the NIST report on WTC7. Just give them time...

Yeah you just have to give them time to release one hand from their circle jerk long enough to type some emotional wailing.

[I Ratant]

I would like to see a detailed plot of the aircraft heading, to help the north or south of the Citgo station dialog.

[ktesibios]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

I would like to see a detailed plot of the aircraft heading, to help the north or south of the Citgo station dialog.

I wonder if a sufficiently good plot of ground track could be derived from the VOR/DME data.

If I have read the NTSB report "Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 Digital Flight Data Recorder Information" correctly, the right VOR receiver on AA77 was tuned to the station DCA at Reagan airport shortly after the hijacking and remained tuned thus, receiving signal for most of AA77's subsequent flight. The left VOR receiver was tuned to a nearby station in Virginia and then tuned to DCA at 9:32, about 5 minutes before impact.

If valid data from these receivers was recorded by the FDR, what should emerge is a series of points at which the distance and bearing to the ground station is specified. Since the location of DCA is known, perhaps this would permit the plane's ground track to be reconstructed solely from the FDR decode.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

I would like to see a detailed plot of the aircraft heading, to help the north or south of the Citgo station dialog.

There is no north of the Citgo station, it was made up by idiots.


Take google earth and put in 61.5 degrees for the last 3200 feet and you see a NoC is a idiotic lie, made up by morons. RADAR data verifies the official flight path and FDR course.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by beachnut

There is no north of the Citgo station, it was made up by idiots.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...rueTrack77.jpg
Take google earth and put in 61.5 degrees for the last 3200 feet and you see a NoC is a idiotic lie, made up by morons. RADAR data verifies the official flight path and FDR course.

.
I did that yesterday in the other thread... but I hadn't seen a heading plot in the latest publication which supported an extended straight flight for any length of time.
A less high-brow presentation of the time slice units is required on this heading plot here. Seconds, not '5 Hz, please.
Graphics should be used to educate, not intimidate.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
I did that yesterday in the other thread... but I hadn't seen a heading plot in the latest publication which supported an extended straight flight for any length of time.
A less high-brow presentation of the time slice units is required on this heading plot here. Seconds, not '5 Hz, please.
Graphics should be used to educate, not intimidate.

.5 Hz is like seconds, cycles per second.
The descriptor for the data includes the sample rate.

Quote:

Sampling Freq.(Hz): 0.5

Sorry, but it is a simple fact. Means there are only 2 samples with data for your ploto, your graphic. 61.5 degrees, and

The plot you have is an excellent approximation for the real path. Case closed. Perfect plot, remember Flight 77 is traveling over 800 feet per second at impact.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9&d=1295200358

Your plot on the graphic is good, and covers 4 seconds therefore the true track in the FDR is 61.5 degrees. In reality the plane is never going straight, your plot is perfect and is very close to the ground track 77 flew.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by beachnut

.5 Hz is like seconds, cycles per second.
The descriptor for the data includes the sample rate.

Sorry, but it is a simple fact. Means there are only 2 samples with data for your ploto, your graphic. 61.5 degrees, and

The plot you have is an excellent approximation for the real path. Case closed. Perfect plot, remember Flight 77 is traveling over 800 feet per second at impact.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9&d=1295200358

Your plot on the graphic is good, and covers 4 seconds therefore the true track in the FDR is 61.5 degrees. In reality the plane is never going straight, your plot is perfect and is very close to the ground track 77 flew.

.
Why is the speed, or better yet, the distance from impact not noted?
Seconds or hertz mean zip unless there's a modifier that converts time to speed/distance.
Quite important when relating the north or south problem, in that the plane -could- have come in north of the Citgo and turned, but not in the space available, nor survive the stress in such a turn, which would be worth noting for the NoCsayers to accept.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Why is the speed, or better yet, the distance from impact not noted?
Seconds or hertz mean zip unless there's a modifier that converts time to speed/distance.
Quite important when relating the north or south problem, in that the plane -could- have come in north of the Citgo and turned, but not in the space available, nor survive the stress in such a turn, which would be worth noting for the NoCsayers to accept.

Because the plane does not know its about to hit something? 0.5Hz means IIRC that data is recorded once every 2 seconds. Not enough time for it to do very much without being recorded.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Why is the speed, or better yet, the distance from impact not noted?
Seconds or hertz mean zip unless there's a modifier that converts time to speed/distance.
Quite important when relating the north or south problem, in that the plane -could- have come in north of the Citgo and turned, but not in the space available, nor survive the stress in such a turn, which would be worth noting for the NoCsayers to accept.

over 800 feet per second. Hz means a lot. With speed and the fact the last two recored samples of 61.5, at .5 hz, solves all you need. It is neat to see CIT has no clue what Hz means.

here is the true airspeed. KTAS
470 ~5 seconds to impact
472 ~4 seconds to impact
476 ~3 seconds to impact
484 ~2 seconds to impact
488 last FDR value before impact

KTAS - True Course
470 - no sample
472 - 61.5
476 - no sample
484 - 61.5
488 - no sample

It gets worse, or better, with other data in the FDR we could calculate true course, independent of the true course stored in the FDR.

[I Ratant]

I just downloaded and corrected this image of the two flight paths to put North where it is always shown on such information.
I doubt the plane could have accomplished the heading alterations in the time available as shown on the red line, nor is there anything in the FDR data that supports the required control inputs.
Now, put the time hacks on the flight paths.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

I just downloaded and corrected this image of the two flight paths to put North where it is always shown on such information.
I doubt the plane could have accomplished the heading alterations in the time available as shown on the red line, nor is there anything in the FDR data that supports the required control inputs.
Now, put the time hacks on the flight paths.

Both those flight paths are impossible. The image purpose was good and valid but the flight paths are not possible, or close to reality. The image was only good for its purpose.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by beachnut

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...tpathstuff.jpg


Both those flight paths are impossible. The image purpose was good and valid but the flight paths are not possible, or close to reality. The image was only good for its purpose.

Namely?

[I Ratant]

The aircraft speed.
It is not possible to change the headings as shown in the time available.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Namely?

Ever heard of aerodynamics? If you have you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Namely?

To show CIT are morons.

[I Ratant]

In the last two seconds, at the speed the airplane was going, that heading change would require a loading on the airplane of 4.6 G.
It -CAN'T- do that!
Physically impossible for an airplane like that to turn, much less survive that G loading.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Ever heard of aerodynamics? If you have you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

.
The uninformed don't ask stupid questions.
Knowledge of aerodynamic principles is not common knowledge.
The poorly informed need to have misconceptions explained without rancor.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

The aircraft speed.

Originally Posted by Reheat

Ever heard of aerodynamics? If you have you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

I was asking him to name the valid purpose this facepalm image was good for. Is it from the "paper"?

Originally Posted by beachnut

Both those flight paths are impossible. The image purpose was good and valid but the flight paths are not possible, or close to reality. The image was only good for its purpose.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Namely?

Originally Posted by beachnut

To show CIT are morons.