It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FDR Analysis by DENNIS CIMINO, FDR-EXPERT at the Vancouver, B.C. Hearing, on June 17, 2012.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:11 PM
Because his article at "Veterans Today", as indicated in the last seconds of the first YouTube video in this Opening Poster's post on page 1 is deleted by the staff of that Veterans Today forum after one of the authors asked to delete it (they gave that as their reason), I offer two of the places where copies of Dennis Cimino his observations on Flight 77 and especially its recovered-FDR are saved :

1. 9/11: The Official Account of the Pentagon Attack is a Fantasy, by Dennis Cimino (with Jim Fetzer writing the intro).

2. 9/11: The Official Account of the Pentagon Attack is a Fantasy, by Dennis Cimino (with Jim Fetzer's intro).

This above forum thread holds a link to the article written by Dennis Cimino together with Jim Fetzer's intro for the Veterans Today forum, as indicated as a link to it, in the last seconds of the first YouTube video in the OP's post on page 1, which article has been deleted by staff of the Veterans Today forum, "after one of the authors asked for the withdrawal of it".

Jim Fetzer has offered a PDF-copy to a member of the forum.
This indicates in my opinion, that Dennis Cimino must have been the one who asked for deletion, since Jim Fetzer was the one who send a copy of it to Dennis Leahy, a member of the Project Avalon forum.

See Post #18 at the thread about Dennis Cimino at the Project Avalon forum :

Hi, All:

In response to the discussion above, Jim Fetzer's colleague Dennis Cimino wrote to the Avalon Forum with a requested clarification.

Jim Fetzer has also now applied to join Project Avalon as a member (and has been accepted). I also assured Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer that the following statement would be posted.

The reason that the VT article; "The Official Account about the Pentagon attack is a FANTASY" written by myself and sponsored by Prof Fetzer at Veteran's Today was 'pulled' is that Veteran's Today made that story unavailable immediately after my Vancouver Hearing talk referencing the article. The excuse given by VT at the time was that they were 'repairing it' or doing something to fix it, when in fact, this would have required Jim Fetzer's approval as he was the submittal agent. They did NOT have authority to mess with that article or make it OFF LINE. Hence, I then demanded ALL WORK OF MINE be removed from Veteran's Today, via Jim Fetzer, and the story was moved to Fetzer's website. It is not appropriate for anyone in your blog to cite or infer CRIMINALITY occurred and was the reason for article removal. That is not correct. The reason was that Veteran's Today, without Fetzer's approval, had made that story UNAVAILABLE after I had specifically referenced it in my speech in Vancouver, B.C. on June 17, 2001. I have issues with anyone inferring that anything in that story was CRIMINALITY on either my part or Jim Fetzer's part.

feel free to contact me if you need further explanation or contact Jim Fetzer at


D. Cimino

That article by Dennis Cimino offers an amount of highly interesting details unknown to the large majority of the ATS forums readers, and thus validates the posting of this wealth of interesting old and new details regarding the Pentagon attack.
I have to warn the fresh forum readers that a lot of the already discussed avionic details he mentioned in his article have been counter-argumented by many other aviation professionals.

Like the cockpit door subject, which is in my opinion not valid, since that feature was not installed nor connected to the necessary sensors feeding the DFDAU on AA 77. That's why we do not find any door opening data change in all its FDR registered multiple flights. This sensor simply was not present, but the space in the FDR data blocks, for it, was.
(DFDAU = Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit.)
edit on 10/9/12 by LaBTop because: Oooops, wrong date, not 2001, but 2012 in my title! Corrected!

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:14 PM
The biggest problem I have with his FDR remarks, regarding the rows of zero's in place in the header of the comma separated values, *.cvs file instead of the usual indication for AIRCRAFT ID or FLEET ID, is that I have not seen up to this day, any screenshots of such rows of zero's in a header/preamble of a FOIA'ed AAL77 FDR *.csv file.

I would expect from an FDR expert, as Dennis Cimino states he used to be, which I strongly believe he is, to take immediately such a screenshot when he discovered that anomaly in the header of the FDR copy he examined.
How else could he provide evidence of such clear falsification of that FDR?
It would break open the whole ongoing 11 years 9/11-discussions.

I also haven't seen any screenshots of the instance he said he saw evidence of a write-to operation, in the form of a NO ACFT ID and NO FLEET ID message triggered by a write-to jumper setting or jumper-wire.

His case would be iron-clad if he would provide us with such screenshots or other form of evidence of these lines of text from that AAL77 its recovered FDR, he himself saw, and hopefully recorded, for sake of strengthening of his own arguments.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:16 PM
This is another article by Dennis Cimino posted by him on Sunday, Jan 29, 2012 here :
VHF propagation from aircraft at 130 MHz.
Posted by: Dennis Cimino

Scroll halfway through that page. The first article about ACARS info is also interesting reading, combined with the ACARS threads in our ATS 9/11 forum from the same time span.

Our consensus at ATS was, that ACARS messages send to an airplane, does for sure not implement that they then also have been received, in a still flying plane. Its just a way of trying to get a message to a lost plane by an FAA ATC officer.
And it certainly does NOT indicate that f.ex. Flight 175 or Flight 93 were still in the air at the last ACARS message send-time. They were not, they were already long crashed.
Sergio's conclusions at the bottom of that page are interesting.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:19 PM
But there are still a lot of other details mentioned by Dennis Cimino, that I myself have never seen refuted seriously by other aviation professionals.

See this Pf911Truth thread's first post by ABEZ : Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect.

This 21 May 2006 article comes from by Jeff Scott, without the diagrams.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described below. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually de-creases with speed since induced drag has in-creasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

For example Dennis is mentioning the ground effect's increasing upward lift effect on the aircraft's wings in the last flight seconds above the lawn, caused by disturbed small wingtip vortices near the ground that changes the relative amount of lift and drag of the wings, flying about 18 feet above the Pentagon lawn, thus needing a correcting nose-down pitch of the steering column to keep its fuselage nearly parallel to the Pentagon lawn, as shown in both security-boot DoD-videos by that horizontal smoke trail, while such a steering column correctional input is not present at all in all the FDR data blocks he has seen from the NTSB (4 secs before impact), and the ones I have FOIA copies from, downloaded from Warren Stutt, for Flight AA77 its real last seconds (4 to 6 secs later than those from the NTSB).

And I am not so sure if Dennis based his first words from about a year ago, on the NTSB its FDR data he saw then, since that one (UnderTow's FOIA'ed one I suppose) ended 4 seconds before impact, but according to Warren Stutt's FDR's extra last seconds recovery, perhaps even as much as 6 seconds before impact.
That means Dennis could not have seen what I have seen in Warren's extra 4 secs data, namely the plane's positions above the Pentagon lawn. And still no movement of the pedals nor a steering column down-push.

Dennis would have seen in UnderTow's NTSB send FDR, the last plane position 4 secs before impact, as flying quite low, but quite higher than light pole height, above the far west side of the cloverleaf on the west side of Route 27, in fact just southsoutheast of the CITGO station, just 90 feet above the road leading round and up to Route 27 its South-going lanes. That's where I found it's last Lat/Lon data pointing at in that last NTSB data block second. In that last undamaged data block in the recovered FDR send to us after FOIA requests.

According to the smoke trail seen in those two released security-boot camera's DoD videos, Flight AA 77 flew just a few feet higher than the lawn at Mach 0.7 with its two jet engines nacelles undersides. If so, to keep his plane horizontal, the pilot would have had to push his steering column slightly down, to correct for the upward vector caused by the disturbed small (caused by its high speed) but still present vortices's at its wingtips.
Such a push is not to be found in the two pilots their steering column sensors output in AA 77's FDR, in its *.cvs file last seconds blocks recovered by Warren Stutt.

The last of the 5 cut-down lamp poles were cut by its wing-tips at a height of about 20 feet (6.10 meters), while the nose impacted the second floor slab at about 14 feet high above ground level.(4.26 meter), which is a 6 feet (1.84 meter) decrease in height over a circa 180 feet (54.8 meters) distance. There must have been damn little clearance for the undersides of both jet engines nacelles with the lawn. Perhaps even inches/centimeters only.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
Or those famous 4 feet found by Warren Stutt?
Which made me wonder if the detectors for that height value were situated in the bottom of those two jet-engine nacelles, since if they were inside the fuselage-bottom, it would have meant that the jet-engines would have both ploughed through the grass of the lawn.
Or, in Pf911Truth-scenarios, had crashed through the top sandstone blocks at 72 feet high, of the Pentagon's west wall facade during their proposed fly-over..

AND THE AUTOPILOT WAS STILL "OFF" DURING THE LAST SECONDS, 30 SECS (NTSB) or 36 SECS OF MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (Warren Stutt's extra 4 to 6 secs he found at the end of the raw data), (see page 2 from the NTSB Flight Path Study AA77) thus making all the bolded and following last text in the above linked-to aerospaceweb article obsolete, since it remarks only on AutoPilot-Engaged special flight controls, which however were NOT used. It was a full hands- and feet-only assisted run down to impact, as shown in that FDR. And in the NTSB animation.

And their feet were never used.... see the NTSB animation of the FDR data. No foot pedals used, ever, in those last 36 seconds NORin the 320° circling towards the Pentagon's west side.
Only two hands used to fly that plane MANUALLY into the Pentagon's west wall, while missing the lawn with no more than a few feet, even inches clearance.

Sorry, I can't believe in such a masterpiece of only flight-simulator-lessons-backed pilotry by hijackers who before the day of 9/11 supposedly never entered a 757 cockpit, only small, one or two engine propeller driven airplanes while taking flight lessons in the USA.

WHY I can not believe that?... BECAUSE there are NO control-assist-systems that work with the control surfaces during an auto-pilot OFF situation.
See for evidence of that, this post #4 and the Flight Path Study AA77 from the NTSB :

NTSB : At approximately 9:29 AM, when the aircraft was approximately 35 miles west of the Pentagon, the autopilot was disconnected (F) as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet. -snip-
At 9;34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.

edit on 10/9/12 by LaBTop because: Color tags may not have ' or " in their sentences! Corrected that.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Sorry, I can't believe....

So? Being able to do something once doesn't make you an expert, doing it twice does.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:28 PM
The nose was already not pitched down anymore as a result of pilot pressure on the steering column, many seconds before the moments when the plane crossed over the Pentagon lawn! And there it would have ascended slightly and missed the facade, if not any steering column input would have corrected that natural behavior.

All of my above reasoning based on the observation, that we believe that that HORIZONTAL smoke trail extending towards the west wall impact point, from the right side of that video screen from the DoD released two videos, is REAL.

You can not force a 757 flying at over 500 knots coming out of a 8° descending trajectory, suddenly into a perfectly horizontal last trajectory of 361 feet / 110 meters. After it allegedly hit that first light pole at about 10 meter high with its wing tip. Which pole stood beside that elevated Route 27 bridge, over the street leading to the Pentagon South Parking.
And flying at top speed at sea level, thus, in thickest air.
It would at least instantly explode both wing tips and its tail horizontal stabilizers all over the place at the first instance a pilot would try to get its nose up by suddenly pulling the steering column down, to pitch its nose up and to get its fuselage horizontally above the lawn. For sure it would have crashed into its grounds immediately.
Thus, that plane must have flown horizontally already many seconds before, to produce that smoke trail in those DoD videos.
The FDR shows different, a straight flying 8° descend starting from a point above the Annex level. And the terrain does not allow for a long progressive change from an 8° descend into a horizontal flight path above the lawn.

It was a 757, not a jet-fighter capable of such acrobatics.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:30 PM
This is a related topic : Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility.

If you check the last tenth of seconds of the FOIA released FDR its data blocks, the plane accelerated from the last 36th second (including the 6 extra last somewhat data-garbled-up seconds found by Warren Stutt) before impact, from 372 knots up to 500 knots. However, as one Pf911T member, IslandPilot remarked, ""Since a Simulator is not an AIRPLANE, it can be "made" to fly at any speed without "destroying" itself, unless it "hits something", like the ground,... or buildings programmed into its "database".""
In his opinion, a real plane can't be rolled out from that 320° manually flown turn and then rather fluently locked on visually to the west wall at about 500 knots speed (did he mean 530 MPH or 460 Knots?) and impact at 14 feet high, at that west wall's first floor ceiling slab, on its facade column number 14.

The following quote is in regard of the Twin Towers attack, I suppose they did try it for the Pentagon attack also, based on the above video title :

Dan : "After their Sim training period I said 'Hey, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these we saw happen. We used a 737, a smaller much more manouevreable airplane. So, I set it up for these pilots and keep in mind these pilots have many years experience.. They all took turns trying to hit the buildings AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY SLOWED DOWN TO ALMOST LANDING SPEEDS. THEY COULD NOT HIT THOSE BUILDINGS. AT HIGH SPEEDS THEY COULDN'T DO IT"

Interviewer: " I guess they were getting into 'Dutch Roll' and everything, right?"

Dan : " That's right, that's EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING"

Remember, the AutoPilot function was also OFF all the time in AAL 77, already many minutes before entering the 320° turn and into rolling out of that turn and aiming at the west wall, at increasing speed from 372 knots to 512 knots in those last 30, or 36 seconds (6 secs extra from W. Stutt's analysis).
IMPRESSIVE, to say the least.....or IMPOSSIBLE, if we may believe the words of this Captain Rusty Aimer, who has extensive experience flying 757's, in the above video.

However, the speeds registered in that 320° turn were not above Vmo/Mmo for that 757-200.
They however were in the last 30 or 36 seconds, and increasingly so.
But that was in its last, straight stretch, with a clean airplane, thus much less chance of deconstructive fluttering of external plane parts in those last few seconds.
The smoke trail indicates a horizontal path above the lawn, the FDR indicates a straight path 8° down into the west wall's second floor slab.
Something doesn't fit.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM
In the further above article quoted in that PfT-threads opening post, one has to differentiate between these two statements :

This dependency is rather simple to remember--if speed is high, angle of attack is low.
If speed is low, angle of attack must be high. Furthermore, when angle of attack is low, we have seen that induced drag is also low. If induced drag is low, the down-wash generated by the wing must be small. If down-wash is small, then the trailing vortices's must be relatively narrow in diameter. If the trailing vortices's are narrow, then the proximity of the ground can have little effect on their formation and ground effect will be minimal by definition.


Nevertheless, we do see that ground effect often does have some small effect on a wing even at low angles. Is it significant enough to somehow force the plane away from the ground or make it difficult, if not impossible, to control? The answer is again no since the pilot can easily reduce a plane's angle of attack to eliminate any excess lift and maintain a desired flight path. This feat is accomplished thanks to devices called control surfaces placed along a plane's wing and tail.
The primary surface used to control the plane's angle of attack is the elevator located on the horizontal stabilizer. Deflecting the elevator up or down causes the nose of the plane to rotate up and down changing its angle of attack. This rotation is called pitch. The ailerons at each wingtip can also be used to influence the angle of attack on each side of the aircraft causing the plane to roll about its centerline. When an aircraft enters ground effect and goes to a higher effective angle of attack, the pilot simply pushes the control yoke forward.
This adjustment causes the elevator to deflect downward and pushes the plane's nose downward to reduce its angle of attack. In so doing, the plane's lift is decreased.

And thus we could have seen at least a minimal manual control yoke correction in the FDR by pushing the steering column forwards.

Another factor to take in consideration is the moving of the Cp, center of pressure, aft-wards at higher speeds, which movement makes the elevator less effective in providing pitch control. See this post #3.
And thus even a bit more steering column input could have been expected.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:34 PM
One other example is Dennis his rudder pedals anomaly. It is indeed strange that both pilots did not touch their rudder pedals, while struggling with those hijackers. That could indicate a fully cooperative behavior of both pilots, or, a remotely controlled airplane and/or editing of that recovered FDR.
But since the air-crash of Flight Eastern 401, the autopilot-disengage needs a lot more force on the foot pedals to avoid air-crashes or accidents like that one.

He also mentions a switching of that FDR, since its brand is a totally other one than all the other FDR's build-in in American Airlines sister-ships fleet of B 757's that came from the same Boeing production line in the same period.
The FDR would have been a Sunstrand model 700 FDR, instead of the L-3 Model 2100 unit, offered by the NTSB, according to Dennis Cimino.
Of course a new brand of FDR could also have been reinstalled during one of the plane's scheduled total overhauls.

There are many more valid remarks by Dennis Cimino.
There are however also a few remarks, already proved to be mistaken. I have a feeling these were remarks based on his past misinterpreted readings at Pf911T forums, and some misrepresented by Pf911T subjects, he read in the Pf911Truth forums (cockpit-door sensor f.ex.).
This is by the way a 16 pages long discussion of the above mentioned link to Dennis Cimino's former article at VeteransToday, now saved at

This is the first post #37 by Dennis in that 16 pages long thread.
Then his Post #55.

And this is one at JREF, 2 pages long.
As usual, not ONE post about Dennis his FDR write enable jumper setting discovery, and the faulty solid state memory date problem (one day or 5 hrs too early) were addressed by these skeptics.

The solely FDR-specialist, experience-based remarks from Dennis, seem to be very logical and very reasonable, and ask for further and deeper scrutiny of the AA 77 FDR found at the Pentagon.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:37 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Wasn't the Vancouver hearing you're referring to in June this year, rather than on June 17, 2001? I know that a text you quote states the 2001 date, but that would seem odd as it was almost three months before the 9/11 events of 2001.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:40 PM
This is the explanation at why Dennis his article is saved on their servers:
Source :

26th June 2012 02:48
Paul (United States)

The original full pdf, authored by Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino, documenting the Pentagon attack on 9/11, that was at the above linked link has disappeared. Via way of Jim Fetzer to Dennis Leahy comes this copy of that pdf, attached to this post.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf
9_11_ The Official Account of the Pentagon Attack is a Fantasy _ Veterans Today - arrow.pdf (608.2 KB, 74 views).

This is the same link to Dennis his original posted article at Veterans Today, but now send to the Project Avalon forum admin by Jim Fetzer :
Last edited by Paul; 30th June 2012 at 16:52.

27th June 2012 17:22
iceni tribe
Avalon Member

ive just been in touch with veterans today, asking why the the article has disappeared and their reply was it was taken down by request of the author.
which author, Jim Fetzer or Dennis Cimino, i have no idea.

As I mentioned before, taking the original article down must have been requested by Dennis himself, since Jim Fetzer send it to another forum.
Their must be a reason for Dennis Cimino to ask for deletion at the Veterans Today forum.
It would be highly interesting for us, the readers, to hear his reason(s).
(SEE the UPDATE in my first post. Veterans Today first took it down themselves, which seriously pissed off Dennis, who then asked them to remove all his articles from their site.)

Btw, this is a sane voice of reason in an expanding sea of increasingly insane and perverse uncivil personal attacks over several 9/11 boards, weather true history seekers or 9/11 theories skeptics based, during the last few years.

amazed! : Point is this: whether Cimino or Fetzer or a long list of other individuals, it seems to be almost standard practice that, if Person A makes a statement or issues a paper of some sort, and that statement or paper contains an error or incorrect statement, then more often than not, Person A will be attacked and vilified by SOMEBODY claiming to be the Absolute Authority On Truth.

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much. An example is the map published as a part of Cimino's paper a few months back.

(LT: the many years old incorrect map by Koeppler, showing a further northern turn by AA77, quickly corrected by Fetzer/Cimino to the FDR-based 320° circling map over Virginia in Dennis his VeteransToday article).

A frigging map, containing several or just one tiny area, is held up to vilify the man. Turns him into a regular Judas Iscariot, overnight, by men claiming to be searching for the truth.

Is our understanding of what happened that day so looking insecure and juvenile that we are ready to hang a man because he presented a map with the wrong scale on it? Are we so incapable of viewing the big picture that we go to war over a looking map scale?

I don't know the answer, but it sure looks that way to me

Does nobody understand what's going on?
The entities ordered to disrupt the 9/11 Truth movements have piles of black-ops gathered black dollars to spend.
You, me, everyone is subject to the latest psychological-operations techniques used against us all. Mass psy-ops based on all the latest psychological research for the banking, advertisement, politics and governing niches.
Note very well : payed for, mostly by ourselves....Our tax money....The rest by those most interested.
Divide, then demolish; that's their motto.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by JustMike

Of course it was this year June, 2012. That was some big typo by them!
Thank you for noticing that!

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:47 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by LaBTop

No worries. If you still have your "edit time window" open, you can get into your OP and edit the title. If you can't then let us know and one of the staff can take care of it for you.

The reason I asked was because I was wondering if this was some new conspiracy angle, that somehow, about 3 months before 9/11, there was some link to info that would be relevant later...

Glad that wasn't the case on this occasion.

As for the technical stuff I'm not a qualified pilot so there's very little I could contribute to the discussion in that regard. But even to this layman, the flying feats on that day seemed quite remarkable, to say the least.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/9/12 by JustMike because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:50 PM
My chosen EXCERPT OF THE DENNIS CIMINO ARTICLE for which I would really like to have a solid refutation posted by another expert, who knows what argument is needed to convince Dennis, and us all, that his next argument is not valid for this AA 77 case :

Dennis Cimino : What is even a better question, is how did the data in the crash protected memory module get downloaded from the crash protected solid state memory a full DAY before the discovery of the unit on the premises? That’s right from the time stamp on the data given to us by the N.T.S.B. Now I know that you’re thinking; “oh, someone forgot to set the time on the system that downloaded the data then, obviously.”
Well, unfortunately there is a very precise process for setting the derivation bench system to take that data from a crash system and download it, and part of that process means you cross check the time the system says it is at. And most assuredly, there are many many other safeguards that are done to ensure that the data is not written to. Unfortunately for this data record set, it was written to. And that was not accidental.

The reason we know this, is that the only way data in the file header or preamble could be erased or reset to ‘zeroes’ is that the requisite jumper wire required on the bench setup that would be used to dump the CPM or crash protected memory data from the recovered CPM module, had to be in place when it would have been both not normally there at all and an intentional ‘addition’ by someone, and second, the bench unit used to talk to or communicate with the CPM module would not have any AIRCRAFT ID or FLEET ID data loaded into it as a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit., and upon connection with the never ever ever in place jumper wire EXCEPT FOR INTENT TO WRITE operations which would be prohibited by any reasonable data extraction protocols for a crash unit, the jumper had to be there to ERASE these two critical links to the plane itself that would not otherwise be blank. On this unit its FDR data, both fields are inexplicably blank or zero-ed out. (LT : blanked or zero-ed out in the raw data file Dennis studied, the compressed binary raw file alleged to be a direct data dump from the Flight Data Recorder send by the NTSB to the FOIA applicant.)


posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:55 PM

On bootstrap, the FDR does a BIT TEST or built in test function. Part of this BIT test is to validate the header / preamble data in the front of the file in the non-compressed portion of the CPM memory data, against the FDR UNIT’s own ROM values for AC ID and FLEET ID. In the case these do not match on bootstrap, the FDR sends a ‘FDR FAIL’ or command priority message to both EICAS flight displays in the cockpit. Furthermore, the pre-download checklist used by ANY agency downloading CPM memory module data stipulates that the requisite PIN JUMPERS to enable a CPM module write operation be verified ABSENT or NOT IN PLACE to prevent accidental record modification or data erasure. The only way the AC ID and FLEET ID data could be zero’d out on this box is that the jumper on the bench unit used to extract the data, was, in fact, there. That was the LAST linkage of that file to the airplane known as N644AA, other than serial numbers the F.B.I. and N.T.S.B. repeatedly refuse to provide to us under very specially and properly written F.O.I.A. requests. In any case, if this data was somehow erased or zero’d out by some technician before that aircraft took off, the unit would have failed BIT on power up on the airplane’s essential bus, and that is a ‘no go’ situation. Only a not for flight unit would write ‘zero’s to that header and preamble data, and only a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit would ignore the BIT failure due to masking in the BIT ERROR MAP of the unit.

In all likelihood, on this particular airplane, the FDR would have been a Sunstrand model 700 FDR, versus the L-3 Model 2100 unit, based on data from other aircraft in the production string. Are we to believe that this machine got the L-3 unit and the sister ships produced on the line got the others by accident? I don’t think that’s too very realistic, although it is possible. An FDR FAIL message is a “no push-back” for any Part 23 airplane, prohibiting flight.


posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:06 PM
Source :

FDR Expert Dennis Cimino further goes on to state:

[I]t just all comes down to two data fields being zeroed out. no tickee, no laundry. without those, there can... never be any linkage of the FDR to an 'N' number in the F.A.A. registry. not because the 'N' number is in the AC ID field, but the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to.

[T]hose missing, that [data] could come from anywhere...

[N]obody flies boxes with that data zero'ed out or missing. without this data in the CPM [Crash Protected Memory], in the preamble, there can be no linkage to an aircraft N-Number.

I saw that on the first look.... the test person who extracted that data should have seen the NO ACFT ID and NO FLEET ID and said; "oh, this is such bull#" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULL#.

Dennis Cimino experience and qualifications:

Electrical Engineer
Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981
Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications
Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial
Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973
Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ):
long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network,
and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR

Vipertech0596, you said you too have experience with FDR read-outs on a bench, which I presume from your posted words.
Please provide counter argumentation on the above.

Especially the jumper-wire addition to assist in a write-to operation to that FDR.
And the inevitable BIT failure due to masking in the BIT ERROR MAP of the unit after engine start-up at Dulles Airport on the morning of 9/11.

You wrote already that you saw more zero'ed out lines in many FDR's.
According to Dennis that could only happen when those FDR's you checked, were written to, i.o.w. altered.
If those lines were absent from a "fresh" removed FDR, so with rows of zero's, that means someone did alter that FDR before you got your hands on it. Perhaps that is standard procedure for many airlines or in some military units, if I may believe your explanation, but it does seem HIGHLY criminal to me.
The whole reason for maintaining FDR's in airplanes is immediately nullified by such behavior.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:08 PM
None of that happened, AA 77 left Gate D26 as usual, witnessed by all the airport personnel later interviewed by the FBI.
And that Gate D-26 double-checked as re-calculated from the official FDR data blocks their Lat/Lon data, by Tumetuestdubien from the Pf911Truth forum, and after that honed down to the meter by myself, see my "Watergate of 911" ATS 9/11 forum thread's final conclusions in my last pages.

You, Vipertech0596 already wrote that it is quite normal that rows of zero's were written.
From Dennis' words it can be concluded that in such cases, such planes would not have been allowed to take off.
So, surely also not this plane, Flight AA 77 with that -later- recovered FDR on board with that row of zero's instead of a proper Flight and Carrier ID field.
His words sound in first instance more logical than yours, in my opinion. So would you convince me otherwise, if you can and are willing to.

And I also can't find the rows of zero's, nor the header, nor the preamble data in the *.csv file..
However, I have the impression that Dennis saw a fresh send FOIA example of the NTSB compressed raw data file send to FOIA applicant "Undertow" from Pf911Truth.
And saw those rows of zero's in the small, uncompressed header / preamble data in the front of the file, i.o.w. in the non-compressed portion of the compressed CPM memory data dump.

I only have checked the comma separated values file from bluecollarrepublican's/John Farmer's website.
And from Warren Stutt's website. Perhaps they did not include that data, or did not receive the full file, including header etc.? As far as I know, those files are replica's from his former John Farmer AAL77-website, now defunct ( "911files" is his member-name at ATS, at JREF he's "BCR".)

Member "Undertow" at the PilotsFor911Truth forum also applied for the same NTSB *.csv file and received one as the first ever in August 2006, he at one time wrote. I suppose, that one can be copied by a Pf911T member at their website via a member-only link. I can't, I am not a member anymore. And I think that's the one Dennis Cimino checked.

Warren Stutt also provides a NTSB original FOIA copy send to him at his website, so you could check for rows of zero's too, in that one.

The 911myths website also seems to preserve an FDR copy.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:17 PM
These words are so damn important, I HAVE to post them in full, since if Dennis is right about this, and he can prove it, 9/11 was a psy-op!
We all know how fast the wwweb is cleansed by CIA etc.!

Post #233 at Pf911Truth shows this defense written by Dennis Cimino :

QUOTE (Dennis)
" is pretty clear that many would question issues surrounding the wholly fake and concocted FDR data, and with good reason. To many of you who have never plugged a computer into an FDR to do data extraction, you have no clue what the data is supposed to look like or the insanity of very important and essential data in the preamble or header of the CPM memory file, to be zero'ed out and MISSING, when on an operational FDR in an actual aircraft, that is a BIT FAIL and the unit won't be flight ready, which is a 'no push' issue with the crew. No flight crew has the authority to authorize a pushback and flight with a defective or BIT FAILED FDR in the plane.

The allegations made by Warren Stutt about the A/C ID and the FLEET ID being in the parameter stream in memory is ludicrous and fraudulent. The data is always in the header of the file where it can be bit checked by the FDR on power up. It makes zero sense for two STATIC parameters which do not change be repetitively encoded in the data stream going into the CPM memory after Huffman compression. Why? First, every data frame at some point has a potential use for flight parameters. Second, due to the nature of file corruption of Huffman encoded compressed data, it would not be out of the question for the header of the file to be readable and the compressed HUFFMAN data not be readable at all. At the very least, the A/C ID and FLEET ID then would validate the recorder contents.

Let's make something perfectly clear about this 'lie' being perpetrated by Warren Stutts about the missing data in the header. First, he has never worked on a real FDR in any capacity in his entire life. Second, he knows nothing about what these files are supposed to look like in the file header, and the fact that BIT checks these two parameters for validity and if the whole all up checksum fails, this is a BIT FAIL and the plane cannot fly with that.

A bench unit does not have A/C ID and FLEET ID data and still can pass BIT. Why? There is a special section of the firmware that controls BIT FAILURE MASKING for BENCH UNITS and in essence, makes the checksum computation 'ignore' the missing data that is not there because it has not been loaded yet. A unit to be shipped to an airplane maker HAS THIS DATA LOADED INTO IT AT THE FACTORY, by the manufacturer of the unit!!! This data is passed to the manufacturer by the aircraft manufacturer, who gets it from the F.A.A. This data is absolutely CRUCIAL to the positive linkage of the FDR to the actual airframe it is mounted in.

A lot of conjecture about the FDR has been openly speculated upon, and my stance about it wrongly represented in the forum at Pilots For Truth, not by Rob Balsamo, but by people who question my ability to discern and tell the truth about these facts. In one instance it was inferred that I have a hidden agenda and hence cannot be impartial, and that is why I have made my statements published at Pilots For Truth.

To some extent, any of us could be suspected of that if we strongly believe something is a 'lie' and that 'lie' is being the Official Government Bull# Story about 9/11. To disqualify me under those grounds, the person making that statement with their altruistic; "I'm above all that" ***** statement, is both a fraud and a liar himself. And I don't care who reads this. Any and all of us are biased in this arena and to so state otherwise is in fact ******.

Did I attack Warren Stutt's work because of my bias? Absolutely not. I sincerely wanted to believe his work was both honest and comprehensive and real more than any of you did. I actually wanted to know if anything that Stutt had decoded could shed light on the final moments at IMPACT of the plane, on the heading, speed, and deceleration forces the DFDAU shipped to the FDR and hence into the CPM. I don't believe that Warren Stutt is on the same page with that. To make assertions about American Airlines having it's OWN data format for it's FDR's, without F.A.A. approval of that, is both absurd and ludicrous. Why give American the pass and not allow all the other carriers the same free reign over data formatting inside the CPM's of their FDR's?

It makes no sense that American Airlines management would have a need of such specialized FDR parameter sets in their planes. For what purpose? Does anyone in their right mind believe that the management at American Airlines gives a rat's **** about the data order in the way that data is sequenced, relative to other air carriers? Without hard proof in documents, I cannot buy that assertion, and neither should you.

edit on 10/9/12 by LaBTop because: Removed strong language typed by Dennis....

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:27 PM

Additionally, people question the engine start sequencing that I see in that data record. Now, for a person who has never done power testing to certify any FDR, none of you are qualified to understand why this statement by this detractor of mine in the forum has questionable validity as a criticism of my work. Airplanes on power up on ground power, and then to Engine ONE and ENGINE TWO startup, cause ESSENTIAL BUS spikes which re-boot the FDR because the internal power circuitry in these boxes cannot tolerate interruptions or spikes beyond 500 milliseconds in time. The buss pull downs that take place when engines start, are substantial and hard enough to force these FDR's into reboots. These reboots are NOT decoded in the rack when the data is dumped, and only a trained specialist who has done power testing and is familiar with these units can truly understand the significance of what the bootstrap sequences in the coarse file, the unencoded file, look like under these engine starts. To blatantly make false and misleading statements about these as criticism of my work is like a proctologist such as the detractor, attacking a brain surgeon about neurology concepts. Till you work on FDR's, do power testing, and also understand that every ***** TWIN ENGINE jet aircraft with an FDR on board has distinctive engine start bootstrapping going on that is related to the BUSS POWER SPIKES during start, you are truly whining about **** you have no concept of. But I do have a concept about this, and know the significance of it. To my knowledge, Warren Stutts has not for one second mentioned that information in his decoding, and in fact, no decoding is necessary to see these bootstrappings going on due to the power buss spikes from engine starts. So what is his excuse?

I'll tell you what that excuse is. Warren Stutts doesn't know aircraft. He doesn't know FDR's. He's never flown anything, never worked on anything in an airplane, and his associates never worked on FDR units or did power certifications of them either. None of these guys knows what the header data on that file has to look like to pass the BIT TEST ON POWER UP on a READY FOR FLIGHT UNIT. None of them knows about the BIT ERROR MAP in the unit firmware that says to 'ignore A/C ID and FLEET ID on a non ready for flight unit', but I know that. I have worked on FDR's, and I have done Mil. Std. Power testing and DO-160 power testing on these units.

So let's make it crystal clear that yes, I am biased, but that does not disqualify me from making sound engineering and aeronautical judgments about the validity of Warren Stutt's work. Or for that matter, any of the existing evidence about the government perpetrated mass murders on 9/11/2001.

I call it like I see it. For any of you to infer my 'bias' is tainting my work, is both disingenuous and fraudulent. I do not work that way. We all have biases, but I do not let them interfere with the way I look at this information during analysis.

Warren Stutt's cocky; "Prove me wrong" comment in the blog is pollyannish and childish, and immature. He has proven himself wrong by making absurd and wholly unsubstantiated statements about proprietary data stream or parameter stream sequences used ONLY ON AMERICAN AIRLINES planes, and then claims he and only he could decode the last portion of the FDR record when the manufacturer could not.

I think Warren needs to get a reality check and look at his lightweight resume."

Post #240 at Pf911Truth forum shows this next defense written by Dennis Cimino :


top topics

<<   2 >>

log in