Flight AA77 on 9/11: Real FDR Analysis: Frank Legge / Warren Stutt

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, if you are claiming all the FDR data is fake that pretty much ends our debate. I would just point out that you have offered no evidence in support of that. Nor have you, imo, offered a credible way in which this FDR containing records of millions and millions of parameters over not only the final flight but 11 previous ones could have been faked.

Anyway, to go back to the radio altimeter, you say it can't work that fast with aircraft speed well over spec. From my perspective I have you saying that but Warren Stutt has an honours degree in computer science and he was obviously not phased by the speed nor were any of the peer reviewers. The Avionics Engineer John Bursill was also not phased and said on 9/11 Blogger " the angle to the horizontal is very small so the sampling rate is not so important ." I wont pretend to know much about radio altimeters but it would appear that " the angle to the horizontal " is significant and you haven't yet alluded to that.

Can you produce any more evidence to support your position ? Any radio altimeter experts to support you ? Will the manufacturers say their product wont work at 400 knots plus ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Sorry that you don't like my view on things. I've shown my evidence, you don't like it. I'm not going to cry about.

I never said the RAD ALT wouldn't work...I said it's inaccurate and can't be trusted. It's not designed to produce
credible results over 330 FPS. Period.

Computer science doesn't make data real, or fake. I can produce a file full of fake data, merge it with old flight
records and send it off as one new file.

Old flights are not in question. Just the last flight.

Warren's ability to write a program to extract data from a file doesn't prove, or disprove anything. It proves that
he is capable of writing a program to extract data, and that 's it.

I've received my reply from my source and it will be made available once I assemble my response to Bursill
who conveniently had my posting rights removed from 9/11 Blogger when discussing this topic.

You'll see the response here, or OZ911 when I'm ready to upload it.

Originally posted by Alfie1
turbo, if you are claiming all the FDR data is fake that pretty much ends our debate. I would just point out that you have offered no evidence in support of that.

Just like you have not been able to provide any evidence that the data is from N644AA.

Fbi Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

FDR Expert Confirms FDR Data Unverified

Alfie, you support the govt story, that much is clear. The burden of proof is upon you. Please let us know when you get some evidence for your argument. All evidence gathered conflicts with your theories.

Here is just a sample.



Here is more.

reply to post by CharlieHarper


All you have given me are links to P4t. I know P4t still clings to CIT's absurd flyover theory so I am unlikely to be persuaded by anything from that source.

You suggest the data used in the paper may not relate to N644AA which flew as flight 77 on 9/11. So you are retreating in the same direction as turbofan and declaring it all fake.

Well, I have various reasons for thinking it most likely is data from N644AA. The flight data recorder was recovered from the Pentagon along with wreckage identified as belonging to a Boeing 757 with American Airlines livery . Body parts dna identified as belonging to passengers and crew were also recovered from the site. Many eyewitnesses attest to a jetliner impacting the Pentagon and some of those witnesses specifically say it had AA livery. After the aircraft changed course and turned its transponder off it was lost to radar for a while but was re-acquired and tracked to the Pentagon. Air Trafffic Control at Reagan National Airport, close to the Pentagon, were aware of the approach and asked the crew of a nearby C130 to look out for it. The flight crew of the C130 visually identified AA 77 and watched it go in. They reported to Reagan ATC that the aircraft had crashed into the Pentagon.

We now have the flight data recorder recovered from the Pentagon fully decoded and not only does the data mirror what is known of AA 77's final flight, ending with 4' altitude and off the scale deceleration, but the data also mirrors the 11 previous flights known to have been made by that aircraft N644A. Millions and millions and millions of parameters and they all correlate.

If you want me to dismiss all this you had better come up with something better than links to P4t.

reply to post by CharlieHarper


I have to respond, for the benefit of posterity, and those who will read this thread in future. Not "replying", of course, to the banned former member....who, by his own admission elsewhere on ATS, IS none other than Rob Balsamo. Back yet again, with one of about twenty (or so, by now) sock names, to plug HIS OWN WEBSITE. As you can see, by just looking at the links. I suggest you just watch the YouTube video, though...no need to give his site any more "hits" than it deserves....I have some other idea of "hits" that would be more appropriate.

Like, the "hit piece" that the YouTube junk, clipped from the Jesse Ventura TV show episode (also JUNK!), deserves.

Notes, and clarifications on the GROSS and BLATANT LIES distortions, altering of the truth.

@ 1:27, in the "interview" with Jesse that discusses Hani Hanjour and his escapade at the College Park Airport.

Balsamo exclaims "That's unheard of!" in the scripted session mentioning that the owners refused to rent to Hanjour. It isn't. Further, the tone and implications of the "conversation" are deceptive....the repeated mention that Hanjour "could not control" the Cessna 172. Obviously, the man DID HAVE a U.S. Airman's Certificate ("pilot's license"), as it's on record. AND....he never even would have gotten to the point of the "check out" (flying, to assess his skill level) IF he had not shown them his certificates!!! So, somewhere along the line, he DID pass the written, oral and flight test, in order to be issued the certificate.

Balsamo, and his band of merry men, continue to distort and edit, by NOT including information that is vital to understanding.

Further, as to the "check out"...it is NOT just about "controlling" the airplane....far, far more is involved. One thing is to assess a person's JUDGEMENT, when it comes to flying the airplane. And, having not been there, I can only surmise at how the flight would have progressed. Since, I have been in that situation many, many times in the past...judging if a person, who is as yet an unknown to the airplane rental company, is suitable and sufficiently capable for the ENTIRE gamut of operating the airplane safely.


First, there is the inevitable language problem...and the likely BIAS of the instructor in the first place. Just a guess. Second, the flight would have progressed for about an hour, typically...with it being a sort of "mini check ride", where the prospective renter re-demonstrates many of those skills that he did originally. Hanjour had a reasonable high amount of time...but, even then , he could STILL have been pretty crappy, overall. And, I imagine a LOT of tension was in that cockpit, as the Instructor possibly became more and more frustrated.....since it's likely that Hanjour didn't meet that instructor's personal "standards".

Eventually, after all of that bad blood, the landing is the finale. If Hanjour was as rough handling on the controls as indicated in the FDR (after he disconnected the autopilot) then he WOULD have been ham-fisted with the 172. Here is one more thought on this...not knowing the timeline, but IF Hanjour had been spending some time in a full motion Boeing simulator somewhere, then his "feel" for the much smaller, lighter and easier to over-control Cessna might have been his problem.

Balsamo tries to further cloud the facts, by using the (typical for those at his site) "cockpit comparison" fallacy.

It really is more about just looking out the windshield and side windows, and just STEERING the airplane where you want to go, in terms of flying it into the Pentagon on a suicide attack.

Soon, the clip jumps to "an airport somewhere"...??? And, we meet "Rusty" Aimer, and *cough* "investigator" Daniel Coogan (???). I want to know what airport that is....I'm looking for clues.....

@2:32, and Aimer's false assertion, used for dramatic effect only (speaking of "dramatic effect, the non-sequitor, and totally inaccurate, computer simulated clip of UNITED 175 in NYC is inserted!!! Total BS....)...Aimer asserts that the "Wings wold have departed long time ago."

NONSENSE!! Yet another of the bogus claims, from the crew that follows Balsamo. Aimer, a former airline pilot, prostituting himself this way?? You'd think the guy would care more about his reputation...(and his side business, as a "consultant"!!).


Then, @ 3:02, Jesse Ventura's voice-over says it's a "757 simulator" that they're about to jump into? LIE. LIE. LIE.

Either Jesse IS that stupid, or he wishes to add to the distortions.

Finally....the whole "demonstration" is rigged to fail, that is obvious. It's pablum for the gullible, and total, utter BUNK!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey Weedy,

How many Commercially rated pilots with an alleged 600 hours flight time do you know that were refused to rent a 172 because they couldnt control it?

Here's a hint from Peggy Chevrette....

"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager.

Source - CBS News (5/10/02)

Read more source quotes here.

Originally posted by Alfie1
All you have given me are links to P4t.

The next time you buy a ticket on an airline, be sure to request a Chemist and a Computer geek for your flight crew, as it's clear you trust them more than real and verified pilots.

Although, dont expect to survive the flight if you get a guy like Legge in the left seat.

Originally posted by FrankBarone

Originally posted by Alfie1
All you have given me are links to P4t.

The next time you buy a ticket on an airline, be sure to request a Chemist and a Computer geek for your flight crew, as it's clear you trust them more than real and verified pilots.

Although, dont expect to survive the flight if you get a guy like Legge in the left seat.

edit on 19-1-2011 by FrankBarone because: (no reason given)

This thread is about decoding a flight data recorder. Are you saying a pilot would be more qualified to do that than a " Computer geek " ? If so, why ?

New Article released based on this paper.

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77, FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews).

One file in particular, the compressed binary raw file alleged to be a direct data dump from the Flight Data Recorder, was recently analyzed by an alleged computer expert. He has claimed to decode 4 more seconds worth of data, above and beyond the NTSB decode, although the "additional" data has not been verified by anyone. The claim was made that the reason the NTSB did not decode this "additional" data is because the software used by the NTSB, along with the software used by the manufacturer of the FDR (L3 Communications), has an alleged "bug". If correct, this has grave consequences for Flight Safety as Flight Data is used in the promotion of safe flight through changes in regulation and procedure. The NTSB and L3 have been contacted, along with an Aviation Safety Report being filed with NASA. There hasn't been any reply confirming such a "bug".

More at above sourced link.

reply to post by JennaJameson


HEY!!! Hello, and welcome to ATS!!

Regarding the link....are you aware of some newer information??

There are some recent threads that discuss it....perhaps yo may wish to take some time and review them, then come back with your comments/opinions afterwards? You may be surprised at what you can learn!!

Best, and again....Welcome!!

Cool, it's nice to see that some of my research was added to that press release.

Tracking capability. Either taken from this forum, or my discussions with Dennis.

Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, maybe WW or Turbofan can chime in.

My question was, these last four seconds that have been decoded. Do they include any information that would confirm damage or any inclination of the impacts with the five light poles?

Obviously, it is trailing a large amount of smoke, I'm guessing that any damage large enough to cause white smoke to pour from one of the engines would register on the recorders. Was any of that information gleaned from the newly decoded data?

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Good question.

From what I recall when researching the pole separation width and wing span, the contact area for the
wing was outside of the engine, closer to the wing tip.

At that section of the wing, aside from electrical, there is some hydraulic fluid and fuel..but neither of those
fluids would produce white smoke.

It has been suggested by some that the white smoke may actually be fuel spraying from a fractured fuel
cell. This would be highly unlikely as a fire would have started if the wing struck the pole at such speeds.

I don't know that fuel level sensor would have updated information in the time remaining before "impact",
and I don't know that hydraulic pressure would have updated information with such time.

Even then, we are discussing data that is likely reproduced by a level D flight sim and therefore discussing
data at this level is a waste of time.

The focus should be Pentagon officer Roberts, and the lack of impact damage to the wall of the Pentagon.
These are inconsistent with the official story.

reply to post by turbofan

The focus should be Pentagon officer Roberts, and the lack of impact damage to the wall of the Pentagon.

Speaking of Roberts, did you ever manage an explanation as to why the 757 flew over the Pentagon at 4 feet, made its turn back toward the West without being seen by the air traffic controllers? Remember, they reported a crash not a flyover:

(Washington Departure/Washington Tower recording)


Also, Turbo, can you explain why the C-130 pilot reported that the 757 was "down" instead of reporting a flyover?

reply to post by JennaJameson


I think it is typical of P4T that when the data inevitably demolishes the absurd CIT flyover theory it is decided that you can't " link the data to a specific aircraft i.e. N644AA ." When the data gets too tough to handle, cry fake.

Can someone please enlighten me as to what exactly in the data exceeds " the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 " thanks ?

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


The only thing I can see in the paper pertinent to your question is on page 11 under accelerations where it says :- " There is also a dip during the last second which may be the result of a shock wave running through the structure of the aircraft due to impact with a light pole. "

So far as the smoking engine is concerned, have you seen this simulation ?

www.youtube.com...

The suggestion is that the smoking resulted from ingestion of the light from the 3rd pole struck by the right engine.

reply to post by Boone 870


Pretty easy.

The govt. data / story is fake.

Roberts is a reliable witness. He saw the commercial airliner after the explosion.

Logic says, the explosion wasn't caused by the commerical airliner.

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, turbo....my man! Some clarifications, please:

At that section of the wing....

Referring to out near the tip? That was the discussion, yes?

....aside from electrical....

Huh? About the only things "electrical" out that far would be wires to route the electricity to the lights. More wires, also likely, for the fuel quantity system, as probes are situated in many place, in the "tanks". Also, of course, would have to be wiring for the slat position sensors, and such...in order to communicate to the FDAU.

I have NO IDEA of the specfic location where those various wires would be routed...but, it is safe to assume that from a design and engineering standpoint, they would all eventually be "bundled" together, and then routed into the fuselage. There is NO reason to assume that they would be anywhere near the leading edge....as that area contains the slats, and their mechanisms. If anything, I would wager they are routed along the forward spar location, well inside the wing, and AFT of the leading edge. ALSO, certainly not within the area that held fuel.

... there is some hydraulic fluid and fuel..but neither of those fluids would produce white smoke.

Incorrect. When an hydraulic line is breached, and the fluid flows out, it DOES appear as a white vapor. SO does fuel.

Look....a fuel jettision in progress. Viewed from the ground. Ironically, the REASON this jet returned was because of an hydraulic leak.....the Control Tower SAW the fluid vapor trail, as it left the airplane...and told the crew. Of course, THEY knew as well....duh!! It happened as they tried to retract the Landing Gear....the hydraulic system that powers the gear blew a leak at that moment. BTW, I don't know the exact total quantity of hydraulic fluid on the B-777, but it is similar to most jets....somewhere around ten-fifteen gallons, depending on the system, and the length of the lines, and such...and how many hydraulic systems installed:



View from the passenger's seat:

It has been suggested by some that the white smoke may actually be fuel spraying from a fractured fuel
cell. This would be highly unlikely as a fire would have started if the wing struck the pole at such speeds.

Why? Why would a "fire" start, just from a fuel leak?? You need an ignition source to ignite the fuel.

I don't know that fuel level sensor would have updated information in the time remaining before "impact",
and I don't know that hydraulic pressure would have updated information with such time.

Yes, THAT is llkely correct. The updates of fuel quantity would be insufficient in the time alloted. An hydraulic quantity loss? Would happen faster (due to the smaller quantity to begin with). BUT, still the time span of the sensors and computers, in this case, when talking fractions of seconds?

Even then, we are discussing data that is likely reproduced by a level D flight sim and therefore discussing data at this level is a waste of time.

NO!!! NO, NO , NO!!!! I have explained this delusional idea already, countless times!!

NO!

The focus should be Pentagon officer Roberts, and the lack of impact damage to the wall of the Pentagon. These are inconsistent with the official story

???? OH, cripes.....here, you NEED to see this!!!!:



....and.....

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, Roosevelt Roberts is a confusing witness and you are not going to make a dramatic impact with him. In any event, he never said he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

I think, in fact, that if you objectively consider what he said you are forced to the conclusion that he is a witness for the " official " flightpath.

He says he was watching tv just inside the loading dock on the south parking lot and ran outside after an explosion. His statement is ambiguous and it has never been established whether he was talking about on tv , where he was watching the news from New York, or at the Pentagon. Anyway, he runs out to the dock and says he saw an aircraft over about lane1. Lane 1 is adjacent to the cloverleaf road figuration as then was and which the Stutt/Legge paper says was bisected by AA 77 on the way in. From his perspective , about half-way down the south parking lot , a plane over the cloverleaf may well have looked to be over lane 1. I am inclined to think he saw AA 77 on the way in.

However, if I am completely wrong and he saw AA 77 flying away from the Pentagon, how can that possibly be ? Roosevelt said it took him 10 seconds tops to get out on to the dock and the plane was then over lane 1. In other words AA 77 had rattled over the west facade of the Pentagon at 400 knots plus but was able to do a complete u-turn and be over lane 1 within 10 seconds. Any idea of the g's involved in that ?

Why hang on to Roosevelt Roberts when there are plenty of reliable witnesses to AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon ? The fact that you prefer one ambiguous witness, who doesn't claim to have seen a flyover anyway, tells it all I suppose.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, you gotta let go of your errors.

Level D flight sims produce flight data.

Period. I've proven it with a call to a flight school instructor who operates and owns level D sims.

Just get over it.

You can't even explain how you see fuel levels, altitude, engine RPM, etc, etc. in a LEVEL D flight sim
and it doesn't have any engines, fuel, nor does it leave the platform!

How the hell do you think the PFD and EICAS is displaying the information?

Do yuo think there are little mice inside the simulator running on tiny tread mills?