|04-05-2012, 11:11 AM||#1|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From AA757
Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
03/03/11 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) When Pilots For 9/11 Truth was founded in the late summer of 2006, the objective was to find evidence supporting what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission as many theories were rumored that elements within the US Government might have had something to do with 9/11. Co-Founder Rob Balsamo explains how he was puzzled and motivated to pursue further research into the events of 9/11 in his citation at PatriotsQuestion911.com, which lead to the formation of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. More than four years of solid research through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, numerous interviews and expert analysis has revealed no hard evidence supporting or linking to -- and in many instances factually conflicting with -- conclusions made by the 9/11 Commission. Now there is overwhelming evidence which suggests the data that is being provided to the public through the FOIA, is not from an aircraft which has been operated by American Airlines.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth analysis of data being provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has revealed the data does not support an impact with the Pentagon, exceeds the capabilities of a standard 757/767 by a wide margin, while demonstrating control issues for an "inexperienced pilot" (See 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon, 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, and Flight Of American 77). The data itself does not support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. When contacted, the NTSB and the FBI refused to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth went on to research if there was any evidence linking the data to N644AA (the aircraft described as "Flight 77"), once again, there is no evidence to support the government version of events(1). Research was also performed to determine if there was any evidence whatsoever linking the limited number of parts found at the Pentagon, to N644AA(2). In an unprecedented turn of events, the parts were never verified by any government agency for any of the four aircraft reported to have been used on 9/11. In all instances, there hasn't been any evidence provided by government agencies to support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Further analysis reveals evidence demonstrating the data provided was not generated by an American Airlines airplane in the case of the attack on the Pentagon.
DATA FRAME LAYOUT
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been provided several files through the FOIA. One file in particular, a raw Flight Data Recorder file which is described as a direct download from the FDR, contains binary code which needs to be decoded for a proper readout in a spreadsheet such as Excel. In order to decode such data, a Data Frame Layout is required. Derived from a generic Boeing Data Frame Layout, American Airlines provided it's own custom made Data Frame Layout which was designed for decoding data from aircraft within the American Airlines fleet, based on airline needs exclusive to American Airlines (AAL). The custom made AAL Data Frame Layout was unable to decode the data in full, and in some instances, neither the AAL Data Frame Layoyut nor the generic Boeing Data Frame Layout were able to be utilized in decoding the data(3). Why would American Airlines design their own custom Data Frame Layout if it cannot decode data from their aircraft? Or perhaps the data being provided is not from an American Airlines jet?
FLIGHT DECK DOOR
Pilots For 9/11 Truth also found, according to the data, there is no evidence suggesting a "Hijack" had occurred. A Flight Deck Door parameter shows the door closed for the entire flight. No evidence has been provided thus far which shows the Flight Deck Door open in order to facilitate a "Hijack".(4)
Further evidence that the data is not from an American Airlines jet nor American Airlines Flight 77, comes in the form of Latitude and Longitude (Lat/Long) coordinates in the data itself. When plotted, the Lat/Long coordinates are more than 3,000 feet in error at time of departure from Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). According to American Airlines 757/767 Operating Manual, along with several American Airlines 757/767 Captains, the navigational instruments (known as an IRS or Inertial Reference System), is aligned at the gate, prior to all flights(5). If such an error is observed in an American Airlines airplane, the aircraft is grounded until fixed. It would never leave the gate. If such an error was encountered during taxi to the runway, the Captain would have had to return to the gate until it was fixed.(6)
DEPARTURE GATE AND FULL ALIGNMENT
According to official reports and audio provided by government agencies, American Airlines Flight 77 departed from Gate D26 at IAD(7). However, when the Lat/Long data is adjusted for the 3,000+ foot offset, the data shows a departure from a gate other than D26(8). American Airlines requires a full alignment (as opposed to a "fast alignment") prior to every flight with the pilots physically inputting the Lat/Long coordinates of the gate, provided by navigational charts, into their navigational system. The aircraft should have never left the gate with such a large error within it's navigational system. Although some aircraft have the ability to update it's position in flight, an "update" is very different from an alignment. Any "updates" in flight will not be accurate if the initial alignment was not achieved at the gate. It is interesting to note that Military Aircraft are capable of in flight alignment of an Inertial Navigation System.
AUTO-ALIGNMENT AND GPS
Military aircraft were equipped with GPS (Global Positioning Systems) long before GPS was offered for Commercial use. When equipped, they can auto-align the Inertial Reference System. N644AA (American Airlines Flight 77) was not equipped with a GPS. However, when one looks through the data, it shows a GPS as "OPERational"(12) and an airborne auto-alignment. How can a GPS be "OPER" if the data is reported to come from an aircraft which doesn't have a GPS? The data shows that the Lat/Long plots auto-aligned with Radar plots in flight after departure(9). American Airlines aircraft do not have the capability of in flight alignment nor would such an aircraft depart with such a large error and an IRS as it's primary source for navigation. It is impossible for an IRS equipped American Airlines jet to give accurate position information if the system was not aligned at the gate. The aircraft needs to be stationary for proper alignment or else the navigational device will have large errors and could perhaps be fatal(10). According to American Airlines 757/767 Captain Ralph Kolstad who has actual flight time in N644AA, if the Inertial Reference System (IRS) is lost in flight (or shows large errors), an emergency has to be declared. The aircraft is required to sit stationary for more than 10 minutes in order obtain a full alignment of the Inertial Reference System prior to every flight, according to and as required by American Airlines 757/767 Operating Manual(11). How can an auto-align occur airborne if American Airlines aircraft do not have this capability nor a GPS? This is more evidence demonstrating the data did not come from an American Airlines jet.
The data does not support an impact with the Pentagon, does not support a departure from the gate claimed by official reports, if the data was in fact generated by an actual aircraft, it was generated by one which is more advanced than N644AA capability in both avionics (instruments) and performance. Furthermore, the data is not able to be decoded in full by a custom data frame layout made by American Airlines exclusively for their aircraft.
The evidence is overwhelming. The data did not come from an American Airlines Jet. Pilots For 9/11 Truth are asked regularly, "If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?" That is a GREAT question! Pilots For 9/11 Truth recommend demanding answers in order to obtain the data from the aircraft which is claimed to have departed gate D26 at Washington Dulles on the morning of September 11, 2001 and most importantly corresponds through Lat/Long plots to a departure from Gate D26. From there, it can be tracked to where it went! Unfortunately, subpoena power will perhaps be needed to get such information and data, as FOIA requests have been exhausted and the government agencies who have responded to such requests refuse further comment. "We have fulfilled our request. You get what you get, the data we gave you doesn't support our findings? No comment! " has proven to be the case. Lawsuits have been filed by victims of 9/11, particularly one by April Gallop, a survivor from the Pentagon. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have signed an affidavit in support of Ms Gallop along with providing evidence for the case. Now all that is needed is a fair and just Judge willing to look at the evidence before throwing out the case(14).
Almost Ten years has elapsed since the events of September 11, 2001. There has been no hard evidence linking the claims made by the 9/11 Commission to their conclusions. Even the 9/11 Commission admits they have been lied to and "Set up to fail"(13). Write your Congress, write your Senators, inform them the data being provided by government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act does not support the 9/11 Commission findings, show them the overwhelming evidence that the data did not come from an American Airlines jet.
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
(1) Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77 - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-...-AA77-FDR.html
(3) Notes On Parameters - http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRD...arameters.html
(4) 9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/america...mpossible.html
(5) 757/767 Operating Manual Pre-Flight Checklist - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...ost&p=10795614
(6) Expert Statements - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...ost&p=10795633
(7) Pilots For Truth Forum - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...ost&p=10795631
(8) Aircraft Departure Gate Positional Data Conflicts With Government Story - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/aa77-gate-position.html
(9) In Flight Alignment - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pics/in-flight-align.jpg
(10) 757/767 Operating Manual Pre-Flight Checklist - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...ost&p=10795614
(12) Data provided by NTSB - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Fin...htComplete.zip
(13) 9/11 Commission Chair Lee Hamilton, "Set up to Fail" - (14) Pilots For 9/11 Truth Sign Affidavit In Lawsuit Brought By Pentagon Survivor - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html
You can read my recent articles here:
You can listen to all of my radio programmes here.
|04-05-2012, 12:03 PM||#2|
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In the mouth of madness
This is the issue, not one part of this whole stinking official account has tallied with actual reality, not one...Their pre-produced tissue of lies is just that.
And they are on here...Lying still.
'Life just isn't like the movies is it? We're constantly led to believe in resolution, in the establishment of the ideal status quo, and it's just not true. Happy endings are a myth. Designed to make us feel better about the fact that life is just a thankless struggle.'
Tim from Spaced
|04-05-2012, 01:14 PM||#4|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Great info and thanks for posting WUB.
Does it look to you like Time is speeding up? Now we know for sure its not. Creation is speeding up. There's more and more happening in less and less Time and that has been the pattern for 16.4 Billion Years - Ian Xel Lungold (RIP)
|05-05-2012, 06:07 PM||#5|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Flight Data Recorder Expert and Former Navy Combat Systems Specialist Dennis Cimino interviewed by pilotsfor911truth.org Co-Founder Rob Balsamo. Topics include radar, history of Govt cover-ups, TWA 800 and of course Flight Data Recorder information reported to be from American 77 - the aircraft which is claimed to have struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 - provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Common excuses made by biased supporters of the govt story are also addressed.
Biography of Dennis Cimino:
System’s Test Engineer, Minneapolis, MN and Seattle, WA., 1989-2007
Systems Test Engineer. Commercial, military, weather, traffic radar, ESM/ECM radar counter-measures, EMI/EMC system’s level MIL-STD. certification and qualification testing. Electronics design, system integration, logistics support engineering. Coherent 250 K.W. doppler weather radar design and development engineering at Kavouras, Inc., as Assistant to the Director, Radar Development & Engineering Group. Primary responsibilities focused on designing portions of both the receiver and R.F. exciter subsystems. Experienced in EN standards for EMI/EMC certification of electronics. Experienced WIN95/98, WIN2000 and WIN XP technical support. Recently involved in environmental, temperature, shock, vibration and EMC/EMI testing of militarized versions of commercial off-the-shelf systems, at Lockheed-Martin, Eagan, MN. Most recently, under contract at Smith’s Aerospace, Grand Rapids, MI as a liason / product engineer, specializing in EMI / EMC certifications of both flight management and commercial flight data recorders, HUMS (health usage and monitoring fault prediction) data recorder systems. Emphasis on A-380 Airbus video multiplexer certification, as well as upgrades for SH-60M Blackhawk high speed Ethernet capability integration. Recent DEF-STAN and DO-160/MIL-STD 461 & 462 intensive experience at Smiths Aerospace, supporting off-site testing at Elite Testing Labs, Downer’s Grove, IL. Recently completed work as an independent consultant on the Army’s latest THAADS Air Defense program, under sub-contract to Raytheon, Sudbury, MA.. Tasked for the EMC and EMP hardening of the THAADS missile main power generation system, or MPU.
Dynaspan, White Sands Missle Range, New Mexico, 1987-1989
EMI/EMC Test Engineer. Military and commercial hardware testing in accordance with MIL-STD. 461, 462 & 285/NSA-65 procedures and data collection methods. Operation of “special-purpose” high-powered R.F. transmitters, and the calibration of equipment used for EMI/EMC compatibility testing. Selection and procurement of systems used in 34 and 96 Ghz. R.F. targetry “imagery” and “fuzing” experiments. At Electromagnetic Effects Facility (EMRETF) acted as testing liaison between U.S. Army and Dynaspan Services Co, as well as others, such as Chrysler Motors and American Honda Motor Co., during airbag certification testing. Asked to testify before the J.D. Dingell Subcommittee regarding the UH-60 Blackhawk EMI problems, and instrumental in getting all UH-60 airframes retrofitted to Mil. Std. 461 / 462, 200 volts-per-meter immunity to alleviate the flight control failures in-flight, from a known susceptibility from induced EMI coming from ground based as well as adjacent formation flight airborne radio sources. Instrumental in flight data recorder retrofits for existing and not yet funded new production UH-60 airframes.
General Instruments Corporation, Hicksville, New York, 1984-1987
Senior Field Engineer.
· Technical support & training for AN/ALR-80(V) early warning receiver for the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and as classroom instructor in maintenance and system tactical operations training. Selected for on-site representative for Amman, Jordan.
· Field support of the AN/ALR-66(V)2, 3, & 6 Radar Warning Receivers, used by the U.S. Navy SH-2F LAMPS helicopter, and the P-3B/C Orion anti-submarine patrol squadrons stationed at Barbers Point, Hawaii. Served as tactical specialist for all aircraft flight crews based at NAS Barbers. Tactical operations briefer for aircrews.
· On-site representative for the AN/ALR-66(V)3 for Patrol Hydrofoil Squadron TWO, Key West, FL., as site representative for the U.S.S. Gemini (PHM-6)., Trumbo Pt. NavSta. Supported tactical communications (secure and non-secure).
· On-site representative for the PATRIOT Counter-Anti-Radiation Missile AN/TLQ-28(V) decoy system, at Redstone Arsenal, AL., and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Strategic Defense Initiative test & evaluation of Patriot MPQ-53A.
· Served aboard research and survey vessel U.S.N.S. Bowditch (T-AGS-21) during survey and mapping operations in the South Atlantic. Responsible for all on-board electronics systems, inclusive of the ship’s G.P.S. and I.N.S. (SINS) ship’s inertial navigational equipment. Advanced bathymetric sonar support for hydrography. Supported ‘special projects’ such as the Chaff Projector Counter-ARM Decoy projectile tests at Navy Weapons Center, Michelson Laboratory, Naval Weapons Test Center, China Lake, California. Assisted in the design of ballistic shock absorption technology for the chaff launched decoy subsystem to protect AN/SPS-48
long range air search radar from soviet threat anti-radiation missile systems.
General Dynamics-Convair, San Diego, California, 1983-1984
Test Engineer. Responsible for integrated electrical testing of the transporter/launcher and launch-control systems, and other acceptance testing on the BGM-109G GLCM Cruise Missile weapons system. Much of the work involved ‘oversight’ involvement in supervision of production technicians and mechanics, as well as ‘active’ planning board participation on the corporate level. Revised and updated critical test protocols and procedures used in D.C.A.S. sell-off and final acceptance testing, as well as authoring system improvements and enhancements to communications and tactical control systems for the Launch Control Shelter EAM reception capability. Also responsible for ensuring that launch enable timing of the missile launch enable software was modified to prevent or negate ‘single launch officer’ firing of nuclear armed GLCM’s, once deployed to operating theatres in Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. Trained subordinate test technicians in launcher / launch control system and GSETS system troubleshooting processes and procedures.
Raytheon ESD, Goleta, California, 1981-1983
Senior Field Engineer. Responsible for world-wide field support of AN/SLQ-32(V)1, 2, & 3 shipboard ESM/ECM set, under NAVELEX, Portsmouth, VA. Program Office management experience while assigned to the AN/ALQ-142 King Air surveillance aircraft design and production. Involvement in engineering testing on the AN/ALQ-131(V) tactical jamming pod. Assisted in design improvements as well as developmental engineering support to flight test personnel at the Air Force Test & Evaluation range, Tyndall A.F.B., FL., for captive carry in-flight testing. SH-60B SeaHawk ALQ-142(V) integration experience. Interim program manager for the ALQ-142 for the SH-60B SeaHawk helicopter. Provided shipyards in training on SLQ-32 system final checkout and at sea trial isolation verification testing for the (V)3 variant of the countermeasures set.
Electromagnetic Technology, Inc., San Diego, California, 1979-1981
Field Engineer. Provided shipboard testing and ‘quality assurance’ training in frequency-management and EMI interference-reduction techniques. Problem solving for COMMANDER, Naval Surface Forces Pacific, San Diego. Provided ‘quick-response’ to ‘severe’ system-to-system EMI problems. MIL-STD. 1310-D revision ‘technical writing’ experience. Technical support for both the EW and COMMUNICATIONS groups at Mobile Technical Unit Five (MOTU-5), San Diego, CA. Navigation and and shipboard system-to-system EMI problem troubleshooting expert. Recognized by the U.S. Navy as a ‘satellite navigation’ EMI/EMC technical expert, with WRN-5 and SRN-9 navigation systems. Shipboard Electromagnetic Compatibility Program (SEMCIP) rapid response ‘system-to-system’ problem solving experience, with emphasis on communications system troubleshooting and problem resolution.
US Navy, 1973-1979
Electronic Warfare Specialist, Leading Petty Officer U.S.S. Truxtun (CGN-35) 1973-1979. Expert in countermeasures and signal intelligence operations and system maintenance. Personnel Reliability Program security force member, and ‘key holder’. Highly recommended for Naval Officer program induction and retention, prior to expiration of service obligation and separation. Post separation recruited by U.S. Navy in 1981, for U.S. Naval Flight Officer flight instructor duties. Three time Navy Battle Efficiency ‘E’ Awards, National Defense Service Ribbon for Vietnam War service. Good Conduct medal. Passed pay-grade E-6 Exam prior to separation from active duty. Highly desired for retention by the U.S. Navy.
U.S. Patent Holder:
While at Kavouras Radar Group, working on the Triton HP ‘C’ Band, 250 Kilowatt precision Doppler radar, awarded ‘2’ U.S. patents, one for a ‘high voltage pulse droop compensation regulation system’ to improve output power of long pulse-width radars, enhancing their detection ranges significantly, as well as an additional patent for an ‘optical waveguide arc detection and magnetron modulator foldback’ circuit to protect high-powered radar systems from catastrophic failure from excessive energy buildup in modulators during magnetron or gyrotron transmitter misfiring that took place during waveguide arcing. A third patent was pending for coherent oscillator temperature stabilization techniques for multi-frequency, highly phase coherent ‘precision’ Doppler radar systems, but never submitted for patent, while at Kavouras Radar Group, Minneapolis.
You can read my recent articles here:
You can listen to all of my radio programmes here.
|05-05-2012, 06:08 PM||#6|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
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".
A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.
Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.
It is interesting that the authors, editors and Journal in which the above mentioned paper is published is highly critical and skeptical of the National Institute Of Standards And Technology (NIST) data and reports with respect to the collapse of the World Trade Center, yet is now attempting to use unverified data from another government agency to support the government story regarding a Pentagon impact. Motives are even more puzzling especially when the NTSB data in fact does not support an impact while exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, by a wide margin. This is also corroborated by precedent. It is also clear the paper was not reviewed by any aviation expert prior to publish, as it is littered with speculation and gross errors. For more information regarding this paper and the numerous errors it contains, please see the discussion at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum(4).
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 bullshit" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULLSHIT.
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
You can read my recent articles here:
You can listen to all of my radio programmes here.