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

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 3 2012, 01:26 AM) *
Dear Mr Ciminio.

Thank you again, for the extra effort you have made, to clarify matters.

Does the FDR information you have analyzed, suggest to you, that the aircraft the FDR was mounted in, had two engines?

Robert S


From Dennis -

To Robert S:

QUOTE
“ from what I see in the data stream that was released by the N.T.S.B., the evidence supports that this data was heavily modified using a bench unit, using ground power in a lab, and does not reflect normal twin engine start sequencing and generator’s going on line, before every FLIGHT data segment loaded into it. In addition, I want to point out that the header data erasure signifies that this record was written to by a BENCH UNIT ON GROUND POWER, and that in layperson’s terms, means that it disqualifies the data entirely because during extraction post crash, the WRITE ENABLE JUMPER on the BENCH UNIT used for the post mortem data extraction for this unit, was in place, and
in-fact, nobody would ever jumper those two pins on the FDR for extraction, and furthermore, the software in the extraction rack WARNS YOU that you are about to perform a WRITE to the CPM. Now, I don’t know what L-3 people were thinking, but
if they were trusted to do the extraction without at least ONE trusted witness from the
N.T.S.B. who would not look the other way and allow a WRITE to take place on that data record in the CPM module, and that a checklist that made damned sure that WRITE operation was NOT POSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES before beginning,
Then something was terribly wrong with the lack of adherence to proper protocols and
Procedures for data extraction from a CRASH UNIT memory module or tape unit.

Having said this, it is CLEAR beyond any reasonable doubt that the CPM module was written to by a bench unit, which ‘erased’ the header data that may have existed for the actual aircraft the unit was removed from. As you are well aware, the unit that this CPM came out of was most likely destroyed to the point where it might have been board level tested, but here again, the A/C ID and FLEET ID reside in NV RAM in that unit, and if the board itself with the chip intact had not been destroyed on impact, which I have reason to believe it was not, that data in NV RAM that is what initializes the CPM and puts the header data on the record in the very beginning of the file in a place that will not be written again but is on every power up, rechecked for CHECKSUM validity, was not part of the record we got from the N.T.S.B. because the data analysis does not stop with the CPM record, but includes, and I do mean, INCLUDES, the ERROR MAP FROM THE NV MEMORY in the FDR as well as this A/C ID and FLEET ID data. There is no record from the N.T.S.B. in their paperwork for this FDR that cites this, and that is a major red flag. Every component (as well as it’s SERIAL NUMBER) would have been also compared with the build list on file at L-3 for that particular unit. Yet, we don’t even have any report on the condition of the internal circuit boards which would be part of a comprehensive POST CRASH analysis for ANY FDR being examined for crash data. This is not only ridiculous, it’s indicative of a probable ‘cover up’ because of the lack of completeness in the forensic ‘autopsy’ if you will, of the subassemblies of that FDR after it was allegedly recovered ‘twice’ on two different occasions, at the Pentagon, once near the entry hole and also deep in the building under an INTACT PILOTS CREW SEAT. J

I went a bit long in the explanation but I wanted you to know that from what I can see, the data record in this FDR record is ALTERED due to this missing A/C ID, and the very peculiar and very suspicious bootstrapping sequences in this record that do not reflect TWIN ENGINE startups and generators going on line, are evident in this data record.

The engine start sequences are NOT decoded by the FDR decoding process post crash, but they tell as important of a story as the actual decoded HUFFMAN data in the file itself. For those who speculated in prior #ty commentary about my assertions, with the; “well then, why didn’t it show up in the NTSB recreation??” and the simple answer to that is that the N.T.S.B. recreations never show any analysis about the PRIOR FLIGHTS and the ENGINE STARTS seen in the bootstrapping going on in the data writes to the file as the recorder begins to record and reboot because of those.
Secondarily, the N.T.S.B.’s recreation doesn’t match the .CSV data released that was a derivative of the same memory file. How can this be? We know this is a fact because of the way the FL-180 descent reset is shown but not present in the .CSV file, and honest to dog here, there is no excuse for that disparity to exist. IF the N.T.S.B. truly did a faithful and honest recreation of the flight based solely on the DATA extracted, which the .CSV file would have revealed, then there would be absolutely NO DIFFERENCES between the two products. So which one is it? The N.T.S.B. got sloppy when doing the recreation and did NOT use the data derived from the decoded unit’s data, or was one of these two Records altered for some unknown reason. We know that the altimeter reset is the bone of contention in Pandora’s Black Box: FLT 77, and that’s not because we misread the .CSV file.

--more--

In any case, two things here: One, the WRITE ENABLE ( LT : jumper cable ) is not needed to dump the CPM memory file from ANY CRASH PROTECTED MEMORY MODULE, and clearly it had to have been in place to ERASE the A/C ID and FLEET ID data in the header.


These two fields are checked in the all up CHECKSUM during power up and would show on both E.I.C.A.S. CDU’s in the cockpit, a FDR FAIL if they were missing on any of the last flights of N644AA.

The government can make all the sorry excuses they want, and John Farmer can whine all he wants about ‘no header’ and **** like that, bug jesus ****** Christ, he has no ****** clue what he’s talking about with regard to FDR data, and he should stay the **** out of the argument if he has no idea clearly what he is stating. EVERY data file has a header,
Which in essence tells the system how to deal with the file. In the case of FDR’s, it is BIT CHECKED ON EVERY SINGLE POWER UP of the unit, and if the unit on N644AA had a malfunction in NV RAM that wiped that data, the box would have reported itself as INVALID and that means a ‘no pushback’ for damned sure.

The one thing most ***** in the J-REF forum don't realize is that WRITE ENABLE is never ever ever done on a CRASH memory extraction, ever.

And second, I wanted to clarify something here:

The main control circuit board with the processor and the NV RAM and hence the FIRMWARE the box had loaded into it, would have been analyzed and the A/C and FLEET ID data would have been extracted from that and presented to us in the final report.

It was not.

I saw no documentary evidence that reflected that the box was so destroyed that it pre-empted the removal of the MAIN PROCESSOR CARD and the NV RAM DATA and BIT ERROR MAP then checked to determine what the box state was on the LAST FLIGHT, as NV RAM would not be written to and erased regardless of the WRITE ENABLE to the CPM module data.

That box, if it is still intact, and the parts not destroyed by the government, STILL HAS within it, in that one circuit the A/C ID and the FLEET ID, and the BIT ERROR MAP.

Those are crucial pieces of evidence. And why they are not cited in the final report on that FDR is beyond me. The post mortem on the box would include matchups of serial numbers, and if board were destroyed, it's unlikely the chips on them would be so wrecked they couldn't be piggy backed and then read by a technician to get that data out.

So, I hope I answered your questions, Robert. Thanks for asking.”

ATS member SnowCrash posted this comment at 911blogger.com :

As for AA 77's FDR: numbers which would qualify as serial numbers (Stutt didn't find aircraft ID in FDR data preambles from other flights either) were indeed found inside the FDR data and Legge mentions this on his website, addressing known ************** Rob Balsamo's complaints:

2. The data file is missing crucial information (aircraft ID) from the preamble.
If true, would it matter? Warren Stutt has files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID in the preamble. Apparently it does not matter. Furthermore Warren has now decoded some more columns of data and has found the plane ID. It is aircraft 35, fleet 1. This information has been passed to PFT. As some members of PFT work for American Airlines perhaps they will be able to check whether the ID in the file corresponds with AA77. They show no signs of being interested in this useful work.

Source

This next post of him deserves a serious read as well :
A short bird's eye perspective on the genesis of 9/11: one possible explanation.

This poster "Ynda" brings up an interesting conclusion, namely, that all AWACS flying around while covering the east coast area where all events unraveled on 9/11/01, would radar-record all flights with, and without transponders on.

Their full radar profiles would have been transmitted to the E4B "white "Doomsday" plane seen flying low nearly above the White House and a mile away from the Pentagon just after the impact of AA 77 at its west wall.
According to the RADES 84 radar-records data team, that E4B departed from Andrews just a few minutes before or after the impact of AA 77.
Of course the AWACS feedback would also proceed while that E4B was on the tarmac at Andrews, waiting for clearance.

For operators inside that E4B, hijackers who were switching-off transponders would immensely facilitate the filtering of just those 4 hijacked planes out of the thousands of other normal flights with their transponders on.

They just had to filter all the transponder-on flights out, with one entry in their keyboard, and only the four hijacked, no-transponder on flights would be left over on THAT screen.
Nobody in those AWACS would know, and nobody in the E4B would know, only that specific screen operator.
ONE INSIDE man/woman who could feed back accurate information on those four hijacked flights, to whomever wanted such secure and factual info.

See the next post, about a Boeing AWACS E3F used to detect an unresponsive to air traffic controllers, single-engine German aircraft in France, which type of aircrafts have no transponders at all.

That sounds to me as another logical conclusion which would be a very clever insertion inside a real 9/11 false flag operation, where as little operators as could be would be striven-after, by eventual perpetrators.

REFERENCES
1. Interview With Flight Data Recorder Expert - AA77 Interview by Balsamo from Pf911T, with Dennis Cimino.
2. 911 Pentagon Flight Recorder Fraud Revealed - Dennis Cimino in Vancouver. (mirror with better audio).
3. www.ntsb.gov...
NTSB AAL77 FDR report
4. www.ntsb.gov...
NTSB FOIA Reading Room
5. www.ntsb.gov...
NTSB Flight Path Study AA77.
6. www.ntsb.gov...
ATC Report American Airlines Flight 77
7. www.ntsb.gov...
Autopilot American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 Study
8. www.ntsb.gov...
Recorded Radar Data Study all Four Aircraft.
9. Nick Kollerstroms Vancouver Presentation.
9a. Barbara Honegger’s Vancouver PowerPoint Presentation, 194 slides.
To View PowerPoint Presentations Download the Free PowerPoint Viewer
9b. Clare Kuehn’s Vancouver PowerPoint updated PDF file.
9c. All Vancouver Links from the ‘9/11’ Category.
10. www.youtube.com... 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert
11. www.youtube.com... 9/11: 2nd Plane Hit Collection
12. Erik Larson/Caustic Logic maintains a huge collection of documents online for those interested at the 911 Document Archive on Scribd.
13. John Farmer's complete file collection is available as a single torrent download.
14. A huge collection of John Farmer's other 9/11 files is also available for download via torrent.

Another excerpt from Dennis Cimino his text :

Then, later as they got closer in, they did something puzzling for a crew of neophyte hijackers. On their way down through Flight Level 180, or 18 thousand feet, they magically, without having listened to the ATIS or automated terminal information service, broadcast from Dulles International Airport that morning, these guys somehow knew the barometric pressure reported on that automated broadcast though no controller passed that information to them, and they set that in the Kollsman window on BOTH of the cockpit altimeters, simultaneously. That’s not only clairvoyant, that’s SYNCHRONIZED knob twisting going on there, by any pilot’s
standards. Machine precision out of hijackers turning two knobs at the same time in perfect, instantaneous fashion, is extremely unlikely for these guys, yet that was exactly what took place when both the hijacker and his co-hijacker buddy, who must have gotten VERY lucky to pick those barometric pressure numbers for DCA that morning out of their asses, because they had no way of knowing them otherwise…as no radio in the cockpit was tuned to the ATIS frequency, as that is recorded in the FDR data and not reflected in the data the N.T.S.B. released from that plane’s Flight Data Recorder. Notwithstanding the absurdity of this kind of coordinated crew work, it really ranks as one of the most glaring issues of the morning because the crew could not have known those numbers they put into both altimeters via the Kollsman setting knobs that morning on their descent. They could NOT know them nor could they have so precisely guessed them.

Anyone able to explain that behavior to us? Is it also hinting towards an edited (written to) recovered FDR.?

Dennis : And then they did something quite unusual. They were able to penetrate that highly protected airspace without the proper MODE 4A military I.F.F. response, and no communications with ATC of any kind, no clearance issued of any kind, and they flew a nice leisurely 330 degree turn after passing right past the White House, the more desirable high value target, than their intended Pentagon target could ever dream to be. After they completed the turn, they managed to accelerate the aircraft well beyond 150 knots faster than it could ever possibly fly at that altitude, even full throttle.

Dennis showed in his own embedded "Figure 3. - DC Area Flight Path" map, that that plane never even came near such a restricted airspace and was not passing right past the White House. It flew miles south of it on its nearest path. At least according to the 911 Commission Report. So, I am not sure if Dennis has faith in that pictured flight path.

They did this without touching the rudder pedals for even one moment after their hijacking of the plane several minutes earlier, too! Needless to say, to perform a coordinated turn as the N.T.S.B. flight data recorder data shows, they would have had to use rudder inputs, but they never touched the aircraft rudders once during their entire time in the cockpit after they slid under the crack below the cockpit door to gain entry. Was this because neither of them had legs? They walked onto the plane and did not require wheelchairs, so is it not a little strange or odd they never ever once touched the rudder pedals in that plane?
After careful analysis of the flight data recorder stuff provided to us by the N.T.S.B., in their
recreation, we see the fact the rudders and the yoke were not moved nor did the autopilot
disengage while the crew fought for their very lives in that cockpit. And, at no other time did
the rudders ever get so much as a passing foot kick. At the very least, these guys would have
probably inadvertently tested them a bit with their feet, yet they never touched them. And to do the nice 330 degree turn into the building, they would have absolutely NEEDED TO USE THE RUDDER to carry this out in what is called COORDINATED FLIGHT without slipping or skidding the plane in three dimensional space that morning. We know they flew a perfectly coordinated turn because the data the N.T.S.B. released to us shows us that. To do this, the rudders would have absolutely, beyond all reasonable doubt, been needed to accomplish this. No accomplished pilot could do that ‘flat footed’ with his or her feet not on the rudders. Impressive performance here, execution of coordinated high G turns without rudders used at all by the hijackers.

The above piece of text has been explained on this forum as Dennis not knowing about a Yaw Damper utilized on a 757-200. But it seems also to me, extremely strange that novice pilots like those two hijackers would not touch those rudder pedals at all during the rest of the flight.
And also both AA pilots did not during them leaving their seats at the hijack.
It would have disengaged the autopilot :

Dennis : the no disengage of the autopilot doesn’t work for me, as the crew would have kicked the rudders and the yokes and the autopilot would have disengaged during any STRUGGLE to take the plane over.

And for the rudders to be static and non moving for the rest of the flight, except for small deflections attributable to ‘air loads’ or deflection by the relative air movement against them, the rudders were for all practical purposes, ‘dead’ meaning the hijackers legs were not working, or both hijackers exercised EXTREME body control and kept their feet off of those pedals. And they executed a 330 degree COORDINATED turn without slipping or skidding the plane, at an impossible 465 knots airspeed, when an accelerated stall most assuredly would have been the likely result of such a course of action on their part. We know the rudders worked on the climb-out as Burlingame used them to compensate for thrust related yaw on takeoff, and that’s reflected in the FDR data record. After the hijackers took over, the rudders might just as well have been dead weights down there under their feet, because they simply were never again used. Why? Or more appropriately is ‘How?’ with regard to the total lack of rudders by the hijackers, while maintaining COORDINATED FLIGHT?????

So, the yaw damper in this 757-200 was not capable to fully correct thrust related yaw on takeoff, but for the rest of the flight it handled all these turns?

As shown, I tried to use our "9/11 Vacation" productive, and in fact I am grateful for the time-off.

I apologize as usual to my known adversaries who I respect for their knowledge, for this long winding posting, but as usual, I like to lay the arguments on the table before being distracted by "passers by" with no intention to assist in getting a clear picture of my thread subject.


It's a LOT of information to absorb, take your time to read all links, then react, since this is a very touchy subject for many members here.
Everybody understands by now, that if Dennis can prove his arguments with further HARD evidence, the United States government is gone.

The fact that he is still alive puzzles me, and is in fact counterproductive to his arguments.
When 9/11 was a false flag operation, and they suspect Dennis to have hard evidence at hand, he will be eliminated soon. I hope with all my heart for him though, that I am wrong.

It is my strongest reason to doubt Dennis slightly, as I said already :
WHY on earth did he not give directly HARD evidence together with his first arguments?
That would surely save his life, since then it would be on the www-streets already, no need for silencing him.

Or do they know already he has no evidence that would convince every reader immediately, like a screen shot of his preamble-findings.

OR, was there no false flag at all at hand...?

I await productive remarks.

As usual you post a great deal of detailed information in your 9/11 threads LaBTop.
Such details however can make people's eye's glaze over and can only be read with a fresh mind ready to take it in piece by piece. I will come back and read in detail though I need no convincing of what the real story is or isn't. I knew on the day of 9/11 itself that many things weren't right and couldn't possibly have happened as they were purported to.
Cheers.

First and foremost, invoking the name of "James Fetzer" should automatically make people think of the word HOAX as Fetzer likes to advertise and peddle the "no-planes / video fakery at the WTC" hoax. And as such, anything he says cannot be considered credible by any means.

Dennis Cimino has allied himself with James Fetzer. And it appears that Cimino is also now on the "no-planes / video fakery" hoax bandwagon. Thus anything that Cimino says also cannot be considered credible by any means.

We discussed some of this stuff in the thread that exists already for this topic here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


_BoneZ_, I prefer to play with the arguments, be it pro or contra my beliefs, and not on the men proposing them.

I really don't mind the overall niche a 9/11 researcher/defender places him/herself in, based on their overall research items and resulting believe system.
When they, like Dennis Cimino, or Jim Fetzer, or even Rob Balsamo, bring forth credible arguments, I do address them.

I do agree partly with you, that Jim Fetzer does use a lot of stale arguments, already long time ago proven partly or totally wrong. We should point him on his misunderstandings, instead of falling all over him.
But I surely do praise him for his never-ending promotion of logical and critical thinking regarding all 9/11 subjects. Even regarding his own theses....

I do certainly not suspect him of not being genuine. He believes in what he preaches.
And lately, he has substantially watered down his former stiff stance on 9/11-video fakery / no planes theories.
If I remember right, while discussing it over several pages with Balsamo at Pf911Truth, before he got the same treatment as you and I got there: -The desperately fought for, always ending in an inevitable lost case on them, Pf911Truth - Troll status!


I have included a link to his discussion over there, somewhere here, in this new Cimino thread.
The one you quoted, was really no advertisement for on-line behavior, that's why I chose to start this fresh one.
I thought I referenced his threads in my OP?

reply to post by LaBTop


Thank you for the mature and respectful response. We'll just leave it at that with a "fair enough". Cheers.

Link to Post #31

Dennis Leahy 28th August 2012 14:01 : -snip-
However, since you're unable to take the time to back-up your assertions right now, and since Dennis Cimino (after spending 10,000 hours already) is ready to debate any specifics in that article and show that not only is his data solid but that he is competent to make the statements in the article, well, I'd recommend an unqualified public apology.

Link to Post #32

Bill Ryan :
3) Here is information I can contribute which I'm as sure as I can be is reliable.

a) In April 2010 I met and interviewed a young lady who, as a US Army medical trainee, ended up in the room where and when the decision was made to shoot down Flight 93. She witnessed the executive decision when it was made by conference call. The full account (including an interview with her in her own unaltered voice) is here. Elizabeth Nelson is not her real name.

projectcamelot.org...

Full transcript:
projectcamelot.org...

What's interesting about this first-hand witness report is that the decision to shoot down the plane was made by senior military personnel who knew nothing of the 'inside job'. They were following military "by-the-book' protocol. Flight 93 was not responding to communications (the transponders had been turned off), and was entering restricted airspace.

The authorities could have come clean about the whole Flight 93 incident, but instead chose to invent the entire "Let's Roll" story -- which was a fabrication (see below).

b) The important Project Camelot witness, Henry Deacon (real name Arthur Neumann) who was a very gifted electronics engineer, and who Kerry Cassidy and I got to know personally over hundreds of hours of meetings and conversation, told us that he had worked personally on the guidance system for the two aircraft that were steered into the twin towers by remote control override. His account is here:

projectcamelot.org...

The control signals were relayed from a third aircraft that has become known by 9/11 researchers as "the white plane". There were software modifications that permitted the two target planes to make maneuvers beyond their regular flight characteristics. The planes were guided remotely from thousands of miles away. ('Henry' told us where the control center was, but we pledged not to reveal his workplace.)

Henry knew nothing about the 'hijackers', what happened at the Pentagon or Shanksville, what happened to the passengers, or any other logistics. As usual, everything was highly compartmentalized. He did confirm that no phone calls were made from any of the planes, and that all that theater was fabricated and dramatized.

The interesting part of Henry's experience (for me) was that at his place of work, everyone there was briefed several hours before the incident about what was going to be on the news later that day. They were told [my glib paraphrase]: "Don't worry -- this is just one of our projects."

Henry was appalled when he heard that, and realized for the first time what he'd been working on. Black projects engineers are always just told the design and functional specs for a device to be created, and never told what it would be used for. No need to know.

For the next several hours, he debated with himself whether to sabotage the operation. He was in a position to do that: he could have reprogrammed the software so that the planes would miss their targets. The price he would have paid was that his sabotage would certainly quickly have been identified -- after the event -- and he would have spent the rest of his life in military jail, or worse.

He chose to do nothing. He now lives with that. None of us in the free world are gifted to know from our experience what immense dilemmas and conflicts good people, working on the inside, are subjected to.

Unusual for me, I have not used bolded text. The text itself plus the links speak for themselves.

This text from the third link should be read first :

For Henry's background and for a transcript of our first interview, please click here.

A few months later, we published this update, which was a compilation of further information from ongoing communications we had received.

Both should ideally be read carefully before studying the further compilation which follows here.
Click here for an important new statement (December 2007)

First thing coming to mind is some kind of a " informed forum visitor" we had here too a few of.
Turned always out to be a hoax.

Btw, all 4 "livermore_physicist" links were published in 2007.
Bill Ryan repost of them in this above linked to 2012 thread on his projectcamelot.org board is an indication he still believes in the "Henry" character.

PS, I filled in their member page, turned out I got a second page after admitting the first, where they want to know about everything personal about you first, before giving you access to their board. I neglected. I highly appraise my personal privacy. They now know my age.
PS2, Elizabeth's story about the shootdown order for Flight UAL 93 before it reached Camp David and Site R their airspaces sounds genuine, to me.
PS3, Damn, at last found our old ATS friend Griff (structural engineer, banned here for who knows what, I don't) back there :
Link to Post #36

Dennis Cimino (after spending 10,000 hours already) is ready to debate any specifics in that article and show that not only is his data solid but that he is competent to make the statements in the article

I am frantically searching the Net for a place where Dennis is doing what is noted above, can't find any to this date.

Did anybody found anything new from Dennis Cimino ? Please post it here then.

I am really very curious if he will have add anything new, verifiable and shocking to his recent words.
One would expect him to frantically defend his words at least at one of the many 9/11 websites.

This will also bump up this thread just above the thread about the 2011 Toronto Hearings, so the readers can find both enormous amounts of information together for now.

I have a problem when the OP runs on and on.

It's say's they don't have any real proof. Instead they just want to 'word' us to death.

And since when does another country hold 'hearings' on a US event?
It's more like a paid convention of conspiracy people.

One of the most obvious new finds for me, instigated by Dennis his words, is the fact that the auto-pilot was disengaged already quite some time before AA 77 started its descending 320° circular turn around to line up again in a straight flight line with the Pentagon's west wall.

While I, during all these past years, thought that that plane was steered into that circular flightpath by its autopilot.

And that meant that I never paid much attention to the videos where professional pilots showed in -paid-for-rent hours- professional flight simulators (not the games) that not one of them could copy that same maneuver, without the help of the autopilot function.
They all ended up in Dutch rolls when coming out of the turn, at the FDR recorded huge speeds, they said and showed in those videos. They only could do it at near landing speeds, and never at the exceptional high speed read from the recovered FDR.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by samkent

And since when does another country hold 'hearings' on a US event?

The Canadian government has nothing to do with the Toronto 2011 and Vancouver 2012 Hearings held there.

It's a group of very active American 9/11 truth-seekers together with a few foreigners who choose to organize their meetings in a somewhat more neutral neighboring country, I suppose.

And I am not "wording you to death", it's you who has been conditioned by your networks to pay only attention for no more than about 3 to max 7 minutes, the length of advertisements blocks in between equally conditioning entertainment. You are constantly getting dumbed down by tricky advertisers who want you to consume instead of think if you really need what they try to sell you.

70 Years ago, teachers teach us to read as many books as we could, and write our work with as many references to others their work attached as was necessary to support our ideas.

Nowadays, Americans are so conditioned by all these sophisticated psychology tricks from the huge advertisement conglomerates that you get physically upset when you have to read more than a few short sentences, you even feel offended by old-school forum writers who try to inform and/or educate you with as much information you can grasp.

You get so upset because your belly feeling is telling you that you probably have to read these big text blocks to be able to grasp what is explained, but your conditioning tries to stop you from doing just that, leaving you with a nagging feeling you took a wrong decision and did something wrong, but the realization of it can't break through, even when you try as hard as you can.
Your a victim of the implementation of a psychological blockade on a sub-conscious level.
If you managed to reach this line, you're not lost yet for some healing process.