New FDR Decode

reply to post by trebor451



oh im sorry your anonymous cia buddy who started this thread won't provide a source so i did.

the person whom he references is discussing this with balsamo. did you actually click the link?

anyways "reheat"s source doesn't dispute balsamo saying the plane is too high to hit light poles or the pentagon. do you know why?

Originally posted by wholetruth

which after tracking this down i've developed serious doubts about the author of this thread as the "newly decoded" additional seconds only further corroborates claims that the plane did not hit light poles or the pentagon.....

maybe thats why the originator of this thread won't source it?

The source is easy to find. He is a member at PFT and has been there a while. His name is Warren Stutt. (I believe)

Here is his web page:

warrenstutt.com...

Here is his e-mail address:

[email protected]

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by wholetruth
oh im sorry your anonymous cia buddy who started this thread won't provide a source so i did.

the person whom he references is discussing this with balsamo. did you actually click the link?

anyways "reheat"s source doesn't dispute balsamo saying the plane is too high to hit light poles or the pentagon. do you know why?

Keep in mind that Warren is a current member of Pilot 4 911 Truth.

More information from Pilots 4 911 Truth:

It's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed.

Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.

In my post on J.R.E.F. announcing my new program, I included a link to this thread so that readers could follow the views expressed here.

I am in the process of adding more flight parameters to the program for the next release which will hopefully shed more light on this issue.

Warren.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas

 

i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?

I hate to break the news but I am way ahead of you.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by wholetruth
oh im sorry your anonymous cia buddy who started this thread won't provide a source so i did.

the person whom he references is discussing this with balsamo. did you actually click the link?

anyways "reheat"s source doesn't dispute balsamo saying the plane is too high to hit light poles or the pentagon. do you know why?

Keep in mind that Warren is a current member of Pilot 4 911 Truth.

i wasn't calling warren an anonymous cia mockingbird i was talking about the poster using the name 'reheat'.

warren stutt is not anonymous.

reheat is.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas

 

i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?

I hate to break the news but I am way ahead of you.

yea lets see einstein :

rob balsamo
The last Radar Altitude in Warrens data is 4 feet. This does NOT mean 4 feet above the ground. Radar Altimeters send out a signal straight down from the aircraft that bounces off any object, ground, building, tree.... whatever, and returns to the aircraft giving a read out of your height above that object. Kind of like a Fish-Finder or depth gauge on a boat.. if you will....

The Radar Altitude prior to that is 57 feet. There is a one second interval between the two. Based on speed, thats only 815 feet horizontally. The light poles cover an area up to ~1020 feet from the pentagon. The light poles only get up to 36 feet above ground IIRC? 57' is too high to hit the initial light poles The slope made by the RadAlt is also above the tops of the poles when working backwards from the impact hole.

This is why we have to look at Pressure Altitude adjusted to True altitude and correlate for a more precise measurement and placement of the aircraft. Since the Pressure altitude is still too high, the only logical conclusion based on the data is that the Radar Altitude at 4 feet is not measuring the distance to the ground, but some other higher object, perhaps the top of the Pentagon?

Now, I'm sure the GL's are hand waiving and making all types of excuses for the higher pressure altitude, such as "altimeter lag", as they did before we decoded the raw file and only had the original CSV file from the NTSB, and therefore only Pressure altitude. But like then, they have no evidence for such lag, just innuendo, theory and speculation while we now have several American and United 757/767 Captains who have actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and have never seen such "lag" in their aircraft not to mention they think the speeds are ridiculous, especially pulling more than 2 G's at more than 130 knots over Vmo in a 757. Warren, you may want to inform Randi's kids to familiarize themselves with a Vg diagram.

Randi's kids are probably also reaching at the limits of margins for error in favor of their "impact" theory as well. The FAA allows +/- 75' margin for error on altimeters which pilots check prior to take off. The AA77 FDR altimeter margin was -13 feet at take off. This is the correct margin for error which should applied as no altimeter "drifts" 62 feet more off True Altitude during a single flight creating the largest margin for error. Not to mention you have to add the 13 feet to AA77 FDR altimeter to get a proper height. In other words, I calculated 174 feet above in the Alt Sim. When adjusting for instrument error, the True altitude is 187.

To keep it simple...

If the FDR was in the aircraft which flew over the pentagon, the data recorded would look like what Warren has provided.

If the FDR was in an aircraft which caused the damage at the Pentagon, the data would not look like what Warren provided and would show a lower Pressure altitude to match the Radar Altitude.

warren stuttIt's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed.

Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by wholetruth]

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that theory.

DOI.

As you well know, we accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 4 hijackings by Arabs. The evidence tells us what happened. We can evaluate it rationally rather than what 9/11 "Truthers" do by uncritically believing "stories" told to them by other "Truthers" and making claims they cannot support.

We understand that you need to hijack the term, "skeptical", but you are not skeptics by any rational and true sense of the word. Real skeptics evaluate all of the evidence and don't, as the 9/11 "Truth" Movement does, draw conclusions when there is no evidence to support them and when "Truthers" deliberately ignore or deny massive evidence inconvenient to them, misrepresent facts, and repeat debunked claims as if they were true.

That, my friend, is not "skepticism" but outright "denial." You have demonstrated repeatedly why everyone is correct in being extremely skeptical of your claims.

That is why we are skeptics and you are not.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that theory.

DOI.

As you well know, we accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 4 hijackings by Arabs.

who is "we" and what have "we" seen that the fbi hasn't since they don't list obl as wanted for the crimes of 9/11?

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas

 

i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?

I hate to break the news but I am way ahead of you.

yea lets see einstein :

[quote=rob balsamo]The last Radar Altitude in Warrens data is 4 feet....

Let me be clear so you understand.

You see my avatar to the left? That top frame is from Balsamo's animation representing his claim that AA77 pulled up and "flew over and away from the Pentagon." That is also the claim CIT makes.

Many of us here have repeatedly challenged Balsamo and CIT for the last few years to demonstrate with positive evidence that said event occurred. That means Balsamo and Ranke have to accept the implications of their claim that a flyover took place and deal with those implications. They categorically refuse.

And the implications are quite clear. One of them is represented in the bottom two frames of my avatar. I simply represented Balsamo's claim from a different perspective, that of what someone standing at the parking lot security cam video would have easily seen.

The fact is that there were hundreds of people on the freeways, the bridges over the Potomac, in surrounding buildings, and in the Pentagon parking lots, all of whom were in a position to not only see a flyover but to hear it too had one occurred. Many of those people, particularly crossing the bridge from DC towards the Pentagon would have had the jet and the explosion behind it directly in their line of site.

Yet there has never been one eyewitness report or media report ever of any flyover being seen or heard. And Balsamo and CIT can't and won't produce any. They know full well that their lack of any positive evidence for their flyover claim completely and utterly destroys all of their claims

Sorry, but Balsamo is one of the most dishonest human beings around. Don't ever expect him to be taken seriously about anything. WE know what he's trying to do. And we know that no matter what he says, or what the evidence shows, he will always claim AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon but flew over it. Apparently, you don't know that yet.

And if you think there is any doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon, it's best you not reply.

i will reply because you completely ignored what i said and drove this whole subject off topic and then told me not to bother replying if i dont believe in fairy tales......

again you made a claim about "4 feet is 4 feet"......

so what do you mean by that?

The fact is that there were hundreds of people on the freeways, the bridges over the Potomac, in surrounding buildings, and in the Pentagon parking lots, all of whom were in a position to not only see a flyover but to hear it too had one occurred. Many of those people, particularly crossing the bridge from DC towards the Pentagon would have had the jet and the explosion behind it directly in their line of site.

please name these hundreds of people so i can begin contacting them.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by wholetruth]

Originally posted by wholetruth

please name these hundreds of people so i can begin contacting them.

If you are serious about wanting to contact these imaginary people whom you claim do not exist and who were not present on the roads, parking lots, and surroundings of the Pentagon on 11 Sept 2001, I would recommend you begin with a FOIA request to the Pentagon for any and all records of employees who were in the service of the US Government and DoD on the morning of 9/11. From there you can search for their home address and contact them that way.

There is no requirement for a rationale for the request, but you may get preferential treatment if you claim that your goal is to prove those people never existed and as such were never on the aforementioned roads, parking lots and surroundings of the Pentagon.

A FOIA request should be easy. The DoD Freedom of Information Act Program, outlined in DoD Directive 5400.7 provides policies and procedures for the DoD implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended) and promotes uniformity throughout the program.

The directive clearly states:

The public has a right to information concerning the activities of its
Government. DoD policy is to conduct its activities in an open manner and provide the public with a maximum amount of accurate and timely information concerning its activities, consistent always with the legitimate public and private interests of the American people.

As a private party, the following section would apply to you (unless you and Cap't Bob still contend that PfT is a "professional" organization"):

C5.1.2. Requests from Private Parties. The provisions of the FOIA are reserved for persons with private interests as opposed to U.S. Federal Agencies seeking official information. Requests from private persons will be made in writing, and should clearly show all other addressees within the Federal Government to which the request was also sent. This procedure will reduce processing time requirements, and ensure better inter- and intra-agency coordination. However, if the requester does not show all other addressees to which the request was also sent, DoD Components shall still
process the request. DoD Components should encourage requesters to send requests by mail, facsimile, or by electronic means. Disclosure of records to individuals under the FOIA is considered public release of information, except as provided for in subsections C1.5.6. and C3.2.1., above.

You could request "Expedited Processing" by establishing and demonstrating a "compelling need" for the information. Saying PfT is not getting anywhere because of their poor research, unverifiable claims and the questionable intellect of its members is not a "compelling need", though, so I would recommend a different tact.

You could try the following, though, in the previous paragraph's stead:

C1.5.4.3.1. Compelling need means that the failure to obtain the
records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual

But nobody takes anything you PfT people do seriously, so why would anyone want to threaten your life or physical safety?

Again, there is no requirement in the FOIA guidelines to provide a reason for the request, but you may want to warn the agencies you are requesting this information from that their very participation as a US Government employee and by providing you with your requested information may subject them to the trials, eventual incarceration and possible execution in a public setting that is due anyone who does not tow the PfT Party Line. Fair use and all that jazz.

After the DoD FOIA request, you can start with full-page adds in the Washington Post asking for those non-DoD people who were never on the roads, parking lots and surroundings of the Pentagon on 9/11. Since, however, you and the other PfT and CIT people claim there was never anyone ON those roads and parking lots and surroundings or that anyone who WAS on those roads, parking lots and surroundings were Government Shills and who are paid to keep quiet about the a) TWO HONKIN' big pylon turns for an aircraft to go first from just north of the Citgo in a big ol' right hand turn to end up over South Parking at "50 to less than 100 feet (as per Roosevelt Roberts) and then turning BACK LEFT to head to the Mall side of the Pentagon, b) overfly (was it an overfly or was the aircraft over South parking, Craig? Make up your mind!), c) planted explosions, d) staged light pole events, e) aircraft wreckage planting and f) cruise missiles or A-3's or F-16's or C-130's dropping bombs and sprinkling aircraft parts, I doubt you'd get many takers.

In lieu of all that, though, it would be easier for you to keep sitting back in PfT's new basement office and stick with the claim that nobody was on the roads, parking lots and surroundings of the Pentagon, so why look for them?

In any event, good luck.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by trebor451]

reply to post by trebor451



why do you insist on living in a world full of deception and spin. oh what tangled webs you weave for the uninitiated to get trapped within.

jthomas arrives and claims there were hundreds of people in many different places who all saw what happened. he said they were here they were there they were everywhere.

i tried to see how he came to this belief so i challenged him on his claims.

then like a faithful cheerleader you arrive and respond for him demanding now that it is up to me to file foia requests to validate the claims of jthomas.



orwell much?

continue to spin. spin away the night. i can already see the hole you're spinning in the ground below you.

i dont' believe there were hundreds of people staring at the pentagon prior to the explosion there.

i don't believe people near reagan international airport become awestruck at the site of a low flying plane and it appears that by the time it got low enough to cause concern there wasn't much time to see anything.

but you guys want to claim hundreds of people were surrounding the pentagon that morning staring at the building prior to the explosion then you should be able to back these claims up.

YOU CAN'T. FACT.

you and your friends are arguing on a belief system that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. none.

here i'll swap you shoes :

'hundreds of people saw the plane fly over the pentagon'

then you can tell me to prove it and i can tell you to file foia's and contact witnesses if you don't believe me.

oh what tangled webs you weave.........

I have no knowledge of what the truth is on this topic. I believe deep in my heart and mind that there are serious questions that are left unanswered. Sitting here, every so often in front of my computer, I come here to ATS to get fresh information regarding a broad areas of interest. Lately, it has been like revisiting jr high school. There is no one here that really wants answers, they all just want to argue like children about who they think is right and wrong.
I have a great idea.....come together and really research this. You have a perfect opportunity to put your knowledge to work as a group. And maybe....just maybe you all might agree on something.
Let me know when you all grow up and can play nice, see ya!

Originally posted by wholetruth

jthomas arrives and claims there were hundreds of people in many different places who all saw what happened. he said they were here they were there they were everywhere.

i tried to see how he came to this belief so i challenged him on his claims.

Well, lets start taking apart this "hundreds of people" claim and see if it has any merit.

Sheer numbers belie your claims.

On edit, you can call this an "appeal to numbers" if you like. or call it an "appeal to percentages". or call it an "appeal to common sense". Call it whatever you like. There is a phrase used in the professional world that applies here - the "reasonable man's approach" or the "reasonable man's theory", and that is what I am applying here. The problem is that everyone defines "reasonable" differently, something I nor you nor anyone can control. So be it. Having said that, however, lets take a look at the numbers of people that occupy, transiently or otherwise, that little slice of the world on a typical weekday morning and see if we can find reach a conclusion on what a number is who might have possibly been in the area.

The Pentagon building itself provides workspace for over 25,000 DoD employees. South parking, the parking lot that is closest to the impact point, holds spaces for over 3,000 vehicles. North parking holds a similar number. The Navy Annex holds another 1,200 or so parking

The Pentagon Transit Center, comprising 1,571 bus arrivals and departures per day with 24 bus bays as well as access to the Pentagon Metro stop serves about 29,000 people each day.

A 2007 license plate survey of vehicles using the 14th Street Bridge, both north bound and south bound, between the hours of 7 and 10 am, showed nearly 50,000 vehicles transited I-395 and the I-395 HOV lanes. In case you think that these numbers are significantly different from the 2001 time frame, the Pentagon employee number has been unchanged for many, many years and the current Wash DC population is only 15,000 souls higher than in 2001. True, government employees in the DC and Northern Virginia region numbers were higher in 2007 than in 2001, but not by a large order of magnitude.

Necking down all those numbers - parking lot slots, employees at the Pentagon and Annex, traffic on I-395, commuters, etc down to who was present in a spot to see AA 77 slam into the side of the building is a bit more challenging, and I won't attempt to put an exact number on it. We have witnesses who state, however, that traffic on I-395 was pretty much a parking lot and traffic on Route 27 was not much better.

I think a number of at least a couple of hundred would be a good, albeit low estimate as to the people who could have seen the event take place.

Contacting them? That is up to you. I could care less if you do or don't. If you don't, the status quo remains as it is. If you do, you'll find more people who saw the aircraft slam into the side of the building. It is up to you.

As far as your "turning this around":

'hundreds of people saw the plane fly over the pentagon'

We can start with CIT's own "witnesses", who report they *all* never saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. I know for a fact that CIT has been drooling like a hungry vampire over any witness - ANY witness - who definitively saw the aircraft "fly over" the building and they have nobody - let me say that again - they have found *nobody* who saw a 757 pull up and fly over the building.

Next?

[edit on 23-10-2009 by trebor451]

Back to the actual topic somewhat:

I have the a copy of the original FDR raw data 'AA77_FDR_raw.fdr' as was used for the PFT 'readout2' study and also just downloaded the ISO of the FOIA CD released data as posted by W Stutt containing the file he decoded independantly which is timestamped 5:45PM 14/9/01 'American 77.fdr'. I did a binary compare of these 2 files and they are identical which means the extra data excluded from the NTSB .csv file is present in both.

I interpret this to mean that the FDR was recording for a minimum of 4 seconds past the end of what we see in the NTSB .csv file as has been suggested previously.

I did notice a small 'glitch' in the timestamps within the csv files IE timestamp corresponding to the last displayed pressure altitude (173') in the NTSB csv is 9:37:44 while the corresponding altitude reading in the independantly decoded csv is 13:37:48 GMT which is a 4 second difference. This 4 second difference exists over the entire recording so it isn't a sign (to me) of any 'fiddling' with the data as everything else appears to line up perfectly.



[edit on 23/10/2009 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that theory.

DOI.

As you well know, we accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 4 hijackings by Arabs.

who is "we" and what have "we" seen that the fbi hasn't since they don't list obl as wanted for the crimes of 9/11?

I just educated another "Truther" on that very subject a few days ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by wholetruth
i will reply because you completely ignored what i said and drove this whole subject off topic and then told me not to bother replying if i dont believe in fairy tales......

Do you want to actually claim that the fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon is a fairy tale?

You're not serious, are you? State for the record, please.

again you made a claim about "4 feet is 4 feet"......

so what do you mean by that?

That 4 feet altitude in the last second is consistent with the eyewitness testimony of AA77's crash into the Pentagon.

The fact is that there were hundreds of people on the freeways, the bridges over the Potomac, in surrounding buildings, and in the Pentagon parking lots, all of whom were in a position to not only see a flyover but to hear it too had one occurred. Many of those people, particularly crossing the bridge from DC towards the Pentagon would have had the jet and the explosion behind it directly in their line of site.

please name these hundreds of people so i can begin contacting them.

That silly ploy doesn't work. We didn't know the names of the eyewitnesses that witnessed the crash until they came forward, but we know approximately how many people were in a position all around the Pentagon to witness a "flyover" had one actually occurred.

For those of us who live in the real world we deal with uncertainty and probabilities. Do you want us to actually believe that the probability of seeing a flyover is zero because you don't have the names of those people? Do you want us to accept the notion that no one saw the explosion above the roof line of the Pentagon from all around the Pentagon because we don't have names? Why would we have names of those people unless they came forward to report a flyover? Or contradict the eyewitness testimony of AA77's crash into the Pentagon?

It's funny to hear your claims and evasions repeated again years after they first surfaced in 2002 and have been debunked so many times since. You might want to do some research first.

Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by trebor451

 

why do you insist on living in a world full of deception and spin. oh what tangled webs you weave for the uninitiated to get trapped within.

Because we think we can help you out of your world of spin, deception, and fantasies.

jthomas arrives and claims there were hundreds of people in many different places who all saw what happened. he said they were here they were there they were everywhere.

i tried to see how he came to this belief so i challenged him on his claims.

This is how your spin works: we are supposed to accept your proposition that - magically - there was all of a sudden no traffic on the freeways, no people in the parking lots, no traffic on the bridges. How do you expect any rational person to accept that spin of yours, wholetruth?

i dont' believe there were hundreds of people staring at the pentagon prior to the explosion there.

Only "Truthers" would make that claim. No one would have to be "staring at the Pentagon" and you know it. Maybe you don't drive automobiles but for those of us who do, our eyes are looking outside the car, keen on situational awarement and understanding what is going on and to drive correctly. Try to educate yourself on the layout and direction of movement of automobiles on the freeways and bridges around the Pentagon and you will see quite readily that no matter from which direction a "flyover" jet would fly from OVER the Pentagon, there will always be automobiles facing in the direction of the flyover and explosion.

i don't believe people near reagan international airport become awestruck at the site of a low flying plane and it appears that by the time it got low enough to cause concern there wasn't much time to see anything.

Who cares about Reagan airport? We're talking even closer.

I am sure you understand now how silly your claims are. If you don't, here is some further help:

Pentagon View Shed Analysis

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by wholetruth

jthomas arrives and claims there were hundreds of people in many different places who all saw what happened. he said they were here they were there they were everywhere.

i tried to see how he came to this belief so i challenged him on his claims.

Well, lets start taking apart this "hundreds of people" claim and see if it has any merit.

Sheer numbers belie your claims.

Excellent posts, trebor451.