Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Flight AA77 on 9/11: Real FDR Analysis: Frank Legge / Warren Stutt
Topic Started: Jan 9 2011, 02:25 AM (3,424 Views)
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon -
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
http://journalof911studies.com/ January 2011

P4T / CIT being exposed once again by evidence and data!


Pdf link -

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf








Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
For some strange reason this analysis is consistent with the witness testimony -

http://www.pumpitout.com/pentagon.htm

:blink:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Further discussion about the new Legge/Stutt AA77 FDR data analysis can be followed at 911Blogger:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-08/new-paper-journal-911-studies




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
As the paper on the data file from the Flight Data Recorder by Warren Stutt and myself has been attacked severely we have prepared a rebuttal to the issues raised in these attacks.


A Response to Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Frank Legge and Warren Stutt
January 2011.
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal

Introduction


Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group which has supported the work of many other groups and individual researchers who present evidence that the destruction of the three buildings at the World Trade Centre on 11 September, 2001, was brought about by controlled demolition,[1] and not by fire and impact damage, as asserted in official reports.

One of the useful and important actions of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT) was to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to call for release of the data files from the Flight Data Recorders (FDR) of the planes involved in the attack. In the case of the flight which hit the Pentagon, reportedly American Airlines flight 77 (AA77), the data was released in two forms. One was a comma separated values (CSV) file, easily read. The other appeared to be a raw file copied direct from the original file from the FDR, which needed special software, and data frame layout information, in order to reveal its contents. The CSV file showed the flight terminating at a point far higher than the Pentagon. Eventually the raw file was decoded and again it appeared to show the flight finished too high.

Some of the people who studied this file compared the course shown with the course as shown by radar reports and concluded that the data had been truncated. One researcher, John Farmer, concluded that 4 to 8 seconds of data was missing.[2] In this view there was no reason to doubt that the plane could have descended safely, during those missing seconds, and hit the Pentagon in the manner described by the many eyewitnesses. Unfortunately PFT carried out an incorrect calculation which purported to show that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon, as the wing loading in pulling out of the dive would have been too great. They calculated the force to be 10.14g, far above the plane’s legal limit of 2.5g and well above any reasonable safety margin. Their calculation was shown to be incorrect by several researchers who found various paths were possible, with forces ranging from 1.6g to about 2g, depending on factors such as the assumed height the plane passed above the VDOT antenna tower.[3]

It appears PFT has become attached to this notion that the plane could not have survived the approach and has not, to this day, admitted that its calculation is incorrect. They continue to maintain that the topography would prevent the observed approach. They further assert that the FDR data proves the official account of the path of the plane false. This argument has had the unfortunate effect of giving support to those who say the plane could not have hit the Pentagon on the basis of an improperly conducted survey of eyewitnesses who say the plane approached from a more northerly angle. If true, the plane could not have done the observed long line of damage outside and inside the Pentagon and therefore must have flown over, the damage being done by other means. There are good reasons to believe the reported northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail which preceded a traumatic observation, as all these witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon,[4] as have many other people.[5]

The FDR file has now been fully decoded by Warren Stutt who has shown it contains 4 seconds more data than previously believed and that it records a path that fully corresponds with the official account of the flight.[6] This proves the PFT claim that the data proves the official account false is unfounded. To maintain their position that the flight could not have hit the Pentagon, apparently unwilling to admit their calculation error, they now must resort to various strategies to denigrate the new decoding and to attempt to undermine the many researchers who contradict them. Their strategies are dealt with below.


Complaints and responses

1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine. This is an illogical claim as it is the only FDR file available. It is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false?

2. The data file is missing crucial information (aircraft ID). Is this true and does it matter? Warren Stutt has files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID in the preamble. Apparently it is not crucial and does not matter.

3. Radio height marked “not working or unconfirmed”. Apparently it was working perfectly well. The file contains data from all four radio height systems, which are in agreement with one another. Furthermore, the Ground Proximity Warning and Pull Up signal were both recorded in the file. How can that be explained if the radio height system was not working? We note that PFT was perfectly happy to use the radio height to confirm the “too high to hit the Pentagon” theory when it appeared to do so, while the last five readings were still missing. Quoting PFT: “A radar altimeter presents no lag. The 273 feet you see above is a hard number above the ground.”[7]

4. There hasn’t been any reply confirming a “bug”. Warren had found that the FDR file had not previously been fully decoded because there was a deficiency in the decoding software. Its error checking system was not able to handle a particular type of missing information. He succeeded initially in decoding the final frame by using his own software without this error checking function. Then he inserted the missing information into the file and found the standard software was able to decode the final frame. He has thereby achieved the final decoding in two distinctly different ways, getting the same result. As the radio heights match the observed impact damage it is hard to see how his results could be wrong. It is true that the NTSB has been informed of this software problem and has not yet replied. Does that prove there is no problem with the software they used or that Warren’s decode is flawed?

5. The Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level. Think about this for a moment. The only object near the last radio height recording was the Pentagon itself, 77 feet high. The last height measured was 4 feet. If the plane, descending rapidly, passed close over the Pentagon, where would it have been one second earlier? According to the pressure altimeter, which PFT trusts, it was 59 feet higher. We would therefore expect the radio height there to be 77 + 4 + 59 = 140 feet. It was 57 feet. Was there a building there which was 140 – 57 = 83 feet high? There was no building there at all. How about two seconds earlier? At this point, near the Citgo service station, it was 134 feet higher by the altimeter, 77 + 4 + 134 = 215 feet. It was 89 feet. Was the service station 215 – 89 = 126 feet high? It looks about 12 feet high. This is proof that the final reading is not from the top of the Pentagon.

6. The plane was travelling too fast for the capability of the Radio Height system. Certainly it was travelling faster than the manufacturer’s certified operating speed but to say it was outside the capability of the device is an unfounded assertion. What proof is there of that? It certainly appeared to be operating satisfactorily. In the specific case of the flights which landed normally, the data shows that the pressure altimeter was diverging from the altitude calculated from radio height and ground elevation. This is proof that the pressure altimeter in this plane was giving misleading information even at normal landing speed. Clearly we should not trust the altimeter but there is no evidence to suggest the radio height was flawed.

7. The NTSB data in fact does not support an impact. There may be a grain of logic in the claim the data cannot be relied upon because the supplier cannot be trusted, but there is no logic whatsoever in the claim the data does not support an impact. The pressure altimeter is proven untrustworthy in that particular aircraft and radio height leads inevitably to impact at the level observed, close to the ground. Note, we only say that a divergence is found between radio height and altimeter in the particular aircraft which produced the file. It is indisputable that there is a divergence.

8. Exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757. This is the “shifting the goal posts” argument. Worried that people might be waking up to the fact that the PFT calculation of g-force is grossly wrong, they search for another means to discredit those who say the plane hit the Pentagon. That is a lot of people they set out to discredit. The first falsity in their argument is the assertion that there is no safety margin in the published maximum safe speed data. This is absurd. Can you imagine the scandal that would arise if a pilot inadvertently strayed one or two knots above the stipulated maximum speed and the plane was destroyed! The second falsity is the assumption that the destruction of the plane would be virtually instantaneous. Excessive speed will produce fluttering. Fluttering will cause excessive loads to be imposed in a pulsating manner. This will cause fatigue. Fatigue can cause failure, but it takes time. From the time the plane reached its maximum operating speed until impact was 14 or 15 seconds. Even if there was no safety margin, could the plane be destroyed by fatigue in 15 seconds? The FDR file gives a hint that fluttering occurred but it did not commence until about 4 seconds from impact, suggesting a safety margin exists. We have no way of knowing what was fluttering. There is no proof here that the plane could not have withstood the observed and recorded flight path for the brief period involved.

9. It is littered with speculation and gross errors. Certainly there is some speculation in the paper, as is usual when discussing an intriguing subject. Such speculation is clearly identifiable by context. I do not think the keen student of the 9/11 event would want it removed. There may well be minor errors which we would appreciate having drawn to our attention. The charge of gross errors is another matter. So far I have seen only snide comments, trivial complaints and false assertions, as demonstrated above. I have seen no willingness to engage in civilized debate, as would be appropriate for this very serious matter. There is a complete failure to address their own gross error in calculation of the g-force involved in the final seconds of flight.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: http://stj911.org/

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The Science of 9/11: http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

[2] Farmer, J. Direct links are no longer available. Some people have tried to discredit Farmer’s work because he presented a theory that 2 planes were involved. There appears to be no doubt however that he believed a plane came up Columbia Pike, did the observed damage to the light poles and hit the Pentagon : “The FDR file positional data ends 6 ± 2 seconds prior to the reported impact location.” Quoted in a study by W. Clinger: http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html#finalseconds

[3] Legge, F. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

[4] Sarns, C. http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/

[5] Eye witnesses. One estimate is that there are about 89 published reports of witnesses who state that they saw something hit the Pentagon, many stating that it was a plane.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html. Here is another with 104 saying they saw a plane hit the Pentagon: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk&feature=fvw

[6] Legge F. and W. Stutt, Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

[7] http:/ /pilotsfor911truth. org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4801










Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Storm is Coming

shure
Jan 9 2011, 03:21 AM
For some strange reason this analysis is consistent with the witness testimony -

http://www.pumpitout.com/pentagon.htm

:blink:


For some strange reason, I must agree with you

:blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
A storm is coming
Jan 24 2011, 10:46 PM
shure
Jan 9 2011, 03:21 AM
For some strange reason this analysis is consistent with the witness testimony -

http://www.pumpitout.com/pentagon.htm

:blink:
For some strange reason, I must agree with you
:blink:


:blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MAC


Not sure if this is relevant and i haven't read the whole thread as yet (it's all very technical for me :blink: ), but for the sake of balance there's this from P4T;


Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77


What's right, what's wrong.. i dunno.

MAC
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Storm is Coming

MAC
Jan 25 2011, 12:29 PM
Not sure if this is relevant and i haven't read the whole thread as yet (it's all very technical for me :blink: ), but for the sake of balance there's this from P4T;


Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77


What's right, what's wrong.. i dunno.

MAC
It is Sooo Relevant that it was covered HERE>

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=880982&t=4050122

:)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MAC

A storm is coming
Jan 25 2011, 06:10 PM
MAC
Jan 25 2011, 12:29 PM
Not sure if this is relevant and i haven't read the whole thread as yet (it's all very technical for me :blink: ), but for the sake of balance there's this from P4T;


Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77


What's right, what's wrong.. i dunno.

MAC
It is Sooo Relevant that it was covered HERE>

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=880982&t=4050122

:)

I see.


I was under the impression though, that Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon was posted here on Jan 9th

whereas Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77 - Dennis Cimino was posted at P4T on Jan 20th

So naturally i assumed - according to linear time - that the latter might be a response to the former.

Not quite sure, therefore, how the former can be a piece 'covering' the latter B-)


Looks like everyone on both sides has made up their minds what to believe and will not budge. Shame about all the egos.

Oh well.


MAC
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
MAC
Jan 25 2011, 09:13 PM
Looks like everyone on both sides has made up their minds what to believe and will not budge. Shame about all the egos.

Oh well.


MAC
It has nothing to do with beliefs! It has to do with FACTS and EVIDENCE!!!

One side is lying, the other is telling the truth...

Hmmmm, I wonder which is which???

^o)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

excellent. a slightly self-satisfied aside to this, when i worked out CIT for the liars they are, i told PfT it was only a matter of time before they also fell. no longer does the pentagon need to be spoken of in hushed corners of the 911 research community. PfT - you lose ^_^
if i could be bothered debunking the lies, ae911t would be next. don't let ae911t lead your community into the upcoming tenth-anniversary and KSM trial period. they are PfT on a bigger scale. EVIDENCE AND FACTS LEAD THE WAY
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
broken sticks
Jan 25 2011, 11:59 PM
EVIDENCE AND FACTS LEAD THE WAY
;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MAC

shure
Jan 25 2011, 11:02 PM
MAC
Jan 25 2011, 09:13 PM
Looks like everyone on both sides has made up their minds what to believe and will not budge. Shame about all the egos.

Oh well.


MAC
It has nothing to do with beliefs! It has to do with FACTS and EVIDENCE!!!

One side is lying, the other is telling the truth...

Hmmmm, I wonder which is which???

^o)

Fair enuff, and you may of course be right.

You've looked into it more than i have. I don't know who is, or isn't lying.


It's just that we've had 10 years of almost everyone shouting THEY know the facts and the truth, and anyone who doesn't agree is a liar.. the other side shouts the same :ermm: . Many 'facts' are often just strong opinions though and it ends up a battle of egos... is all i'm saying.

Many of us thought video fakery was the real TRUTH once upon a time. "Fakery is real man! It's not belief, it's fact!" ect. Turned out to bs of course.





MAC




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Storm is Coming

MAC
Jan 25 2011, 09:13 PM

I see.


I was under the impression though, that Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon was posted here on Jan 9th

whereas Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77 - Dennis Cimino was posted at P4T on Jan 20th

So naturally i assumed - according to linear time - that the latter might be a response to the former.

Not quite sure, therefore, how the former can be a piece 'covering' the latter B-)


I diddn't care when it was posted HERE

The Internet is a bit bigger than HERE

Since the pft info was covered HERE, it must have been found on the Internet "BEFORE" the response was made

It takes a mighty big ego to think that "WE" are the biginning and the end of all research related to 9/11

;)
Edited by A Storm is Coming, Jan 26 2011, 02:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Response to Robin Hordon
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/response-to-robin-hordon

Frank Legge

The first point to note about the post by Robin Hordon, criticizing our paper, is that it appears to assume that Warren Stutt and I are claiming that the decoded Flight Data Recorder (FDR) file provides proof that a plane hit the Pentagon. If you take the trouble to read the footnotes you will see that we specifically say that there is no proof that the file is authentic, and that it is impossible to prove that it is authentic. All we assert is that the FDR file provides one more piece of evidence to add to the very many other pieces of evidence that indicate a large commercial plane hit the Pentagon. We also point out that the file provides proof that those who say the file shows the plane could not have hit the Pentagon are wrong: the radio height clearly shows the plane descending smoothly, pulling up safely and hitting the Pentagon near the ground, as reported by the vast majority of eyewitnesses and as indicated by the long straight damage trail, both outside and inside the Pentagon.

Dealing with Robin’s points in order, he first states that there appear to be discrepancies in the time line. It is a reasonable proposition that a major strategy used by the perpetrators of the Pentagon attack was to provide confusing, contradictory evidence, and thus cause good people seeking the truth to argue against one another. If one accepts this, then all strange pieces of evidence, like the reported extraction of data from the file at a time before it was reportedly discovered, become just part of the evidence that this was a cunningly conceived complex inside job, designed to confuse and deceive. Likewise the lack of serial numbers is not proof that the file is not authentic, but likely just one of the many denials of information we have a right to know; a deliberate tactic to raise doubts.

Robin’s second point is his claim that the report of the plane commencing descent at 08:54:43 is contradicted by the FDR and that, at least from that moment, the file cannot be relied upon. Unfortunately it appears that Robin has misread the reference. It states “Shortly after the turn the aircraft was observed descending.” If you examine the data you will see that the turn finishes at about 9:00 and descent commences at about 9:02. A gap of 2 minutes would correspond pretty well with “shortly after the turn”. See graph.

Finally Robin draws attention to the discrepancy between the final bank angle recorded in the file, 0 degrees, and the bank angle observed at impact. We discuss this in the paper and point out that, prior to impact, the control wheel was near central, so this sudden left bank was not commanded, whether by human or on-board control device. The only conclusion that appears reasonable is that the plane was rotated left by impact of the right engine with the heavy generator trailer which had been parked in front of the Pentagon. This rotation may have been too rapid to be correctly recorded. Furthermore Warren reports that the last roll angle is in word 238, whereas the last longitudinal acceleration is in word 225, so the last roll angle is 13 words, or about 0.05 seconds, after the last longitudinal acceleration. He also says it is possible that the last roll angle is invalid due to its being the sixth to last word in the data. In other flights, up to the last 9 words had unusual values. It seems unreasonable to reject the whole file on the basis of this last reading, recorded after impact.

It appears than none of the issues raised by Robin carries any weight.

Posted Image
Final flight, showing altitude and heading


The official reports state the plane deviated from its course at 8:54. This is about 43.75 minutes before impact. The graph agrees within a few seconds. The turn finishes about 38 minutes before impact, about 9:00, and descent from 35,000ft commences about 2 minutes later.

© 2011 The Science of 9/11





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply