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
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.
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.
Dan : "After their Sim training period I said 'Hey, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these buildings...uh..like 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"
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.
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 VeteransToday.com link has disappeared. Via way of Jim Fetzer to Dennis Leahy comes this copy of that pdf, attached to this post.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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:
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
"...it 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.
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."