Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Latest News _ 9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 11:55 AM

9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]

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 along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

[1] Hijacker Timeline - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17

[2] Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001 - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

[3] Right click and save target as http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/FinalFlightComplete.csv to download csv file with "FLT DECK DOOR" parameter.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 27 2009, 12:42 PM

cheers.gif

Posted by: painter Nov 27 2009, 12:48 PM

WOW!

ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif

handsdown.gif handsdown.gif handsdown.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 12:54 PM

For easier reference, i have uploaded a csv file of the FLIGHT DECK DOOR and GMT (Time) parameters side by side.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XX44XLUH

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 27 2009, 01:16 PM

Official Story - Busted

cheers.gif

Posted by: painter Nov 27 2009, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 09:54 AM) *
For easier reference, i have uploaded a csv file of the FLIGHT DECK DOOR and GMT (Time) parameters side by side.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XX44XLUH


Rob, I think this information is going to spread fast. Would you give those of us who are not airline professionals (and those who may be visiting this forum for the first time ever) a laymans understanding of what this .csv file actually represents?

I understand this is data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) allegedly found inside the Pentagon shortly after 9/11; allegedly from AA Flight 77 which was reported to have struck the Pentagon.

Having been on this forum for years I understand that this data was received by Pilots for Truth (and other organizations) from the NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board, the federal agency tasked by Congress to investigate every civil aviation accident in the US) via a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) submitted in 2006. I also understand that the NTSB regard this FDR data as a "work product" generated FOR the FBI's 9/11 investigation "Pentbomb" team. In other words, the NTSB was not investigating an "accident" but the FBI was investigating a crime scene and requested the NTSB decode the FDR for their investigative purposes.

Moreover (and correct me if I'm wrong), the "Black Box" FDR was allegedly found within the Pentagon (two different stories of its discovery were reported at the time) and turned over to the FBI prior to having been given to the NTSB (establishing chain of custody).

Finally, I also know that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has found MANY inconsistencies within this FDR derived data that strongly suggest (in brief) that the aircraft from which it came could NOT have impacted the Pentagon -- and, thus, that the FDR is a planted, fake piece of evidence. These numerous inconsistencies have been the subject of many of the Pilots for Truth presentations generated over the past three years.

If any of the above is inaccurate, please correct me.

SO.. my request is that you tell those of us who are not professionals in this field precisely what this .csv file represents. If I have it correct, it is ONE parameter (of many thousands) that was ostensibly recorded IN FLIGHT; that it shows that throughout the timeline of the flight the cockpit door was NOT opened.

Do you have any further comment or clarification to add to this? It would be appreciated by many, I'm sure.

EDIT to add: From the .csv file, it appears this information regarding the status of the cockpit door was updated EVERY FOUR SECONDS throughout the entire flight and not once during that time does the data indicate that the door was open.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 27 2009, 01:31 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 25 2009, 04:28 PM) *
Rob, I think this information is going to spread fast.



i know i'm doing my best!

thumbsup.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 01:56 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 27 2009, 01:28 PM) *
SO.. my request is that you tell those of us who are not professionals in this field precisely what this .csv file represents. If I have it correct, it is ONE parameter (of many thousands) that was ostensibly recorded IN FLIGHT; that it shows that throughout the timeline of the flight the cockpit door was NOT opened.


You can download the data from our pinned topics section in the AA77 forum, the above OP or if you dont want to wade through all the parameters, i have copy/pasted only the FLT DECK DOOR parameter, side by side with the Clock into a new csv file and uploaded at the megaupload link above.

For those who do not want to scroll through 1.5 hours of flight, just click Edit/Find on your spreadsheet and type in OPEN, click find. Its not there. The door was closed for the entire flight according to the data.

Also, i cross checked this with Capt Ralph http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Kolstad who flew the 757 with American just to make sure their 757's have a sensor for when the door is open. They have an overhead button to push to open the flight deck door. The button lights up when the door is open. There is a sensor on the door.

Hope this helps...

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 02:33 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 27 2009, 01:28 PM) *
EDIT to add: From the .csv file, it appears this information regarding the status of the cockpit door was updated EVERY FOUR SECONDS throughout the entire flight and not once during that time does the data indicate that the door was open.



Just saw this edit. Sorry i missed it painter...

yes, thats correct. Once every 4 seconds, which no doubt will be the excuse used by those who find any excuse to hold onto their support of what the govt has told them...

I suppose its certainly possible to get one person through the door in 4 seconds and close it fast therefore not being recorded. But was Hani the only one through? And did he take down Chic and the FO all by his little ol' self? Also remember, the pilots were "herded" to the back of the plane according to Barbara through Ted Olson and CNN. Were the pilots shoved through the door one by one with tiny Hani closing the door after each pass in hopes the FDR wouldnt record the door open?

Another theory that some may use is that Hani was on the jumpseat and therefore the door never needed to be open. After 9/11, the cockpit jumpseat was closed to all offline commuters (pilots from other airlines who couldnt be verified) due to the fact govt officials thought the hijackers had access to the flight deck. Is the above parameter the reason why they thought this? Because the door was never opened? If this were the case, you still have 2 pilots against one, and the problem of 'herding the pilots to the back of the plane'. The door had to be open either way, and for more than 4 seconds... if the govt story is to hold true.

Im sure the theories will be-a-plenty and far reaching from those who make excuse for the govt story... as usual... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: painter Nov 27 2009, 02:42 PM

Thanks, Rob.

One of the difficulties I think many people have with understanding the SIGNIFICANCE of the FDR information is that it is what I call a "conundrum." On one hand, we've been given data from an agency of the Federal government (NTSB) but, on the other hand, the data itself suggests that the aircraft from which it came could NOT have struck the pentagon on 9/11. If the aircraft could not have struck the Pentagon then it follows logically that the FDR could not have been discovered within the Pentagon unless it was planted there by parties unknown. This, however, begs the question, if someone was going to go to all the trouble to in some way FAKE the FDR data and plant it as evidence, why does that data NOT clearly indicate a feasible impact scenario?

I understand that question can not be answered with certainty, it necessitates a degree of speculation which Pilots for 9/11 Truth is reluctant to make. All that can be said with certainty is that the FDR data indicates the plane from which it came did NOT strike the Pentagon. This is especially evident in the last Radar Altitude which places the plane too high to impact the light poles and too high to descend in tact and strike the Pentagon precisely at foundation level. (Incidentally, no foundation damage from the engines was recorded or reported by government officials.) NOW we understand that according to this data the plane could NOT have even been hijacked. This is astounding and perplexing information with highly disturbing implications.

Would you care to comment on this? For example, is it possible for this data to have been generated by some other means than that of a flying aircraft -- a flight simulator for example?

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 27 2009, 02:42 PM) *
Would you care to comment on this? For example, is it possible for this data to have been generated by some other means than that of a flying aircraft -- a flight simulator for example?


You know me painter, i dont speculate.. wink.gif

But i'll rephrase the question.

Is it possible to simulate FDR data from a cockpit simulator? I dont see why not... its all bits and bytes.. smile.gif

What makes this FLT DECK DOOR parameter extremely damaging is that this is only a 1 or 0. Either its open, or it is not. Simple open and shut case, (no pun intended). As compared to say altitude which has a string of binary in which software then interprets into an actual altitude.

Keep in mind, Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not confirm or deny any validity of the FDR data provided by govt agencies. What makes this data so alarming is that govt agencies claim its data from AA77, yet doesnt support their story. Its clear why they refuse to comment.

We actually had this parameter when we decoded the raw file ourselves more than 2 years ago. But, it showed all zero's so i just skipped it. Once Warren provided it in terms of the Data Frame Layout (0=CLOSED, 1=OPEN), is when i decided to scroll through and see when it was open and if it corresponded with the roughly 3 min hijack timeline (which in itself is an absurdly short time frame to take over an aircraft). As you can see, the data shows the door closed through the entire flight.

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 27 2009, 03:24 PM

http://twitter.com/colmanjones/status/6117740726

Posted by: painter Nov 27 2009, 03:47 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 12:03 PM) *
You know me painter, i dont speculate.. wink.gif

But i'll rephrase the question.

Is it possible to simulate FDR data from a cockpit simulator? I dont see why not... its all bits and bytes.. smile.gif

What makes this FLT DECK DOOR parameter extremely damaging is that this is only a 1 or 0. Either its open, or it is not. Simple open and shut case, (no pun intended). As compared to say altitude which has a string of binary in which software then interprets into an actual altitude.

Keep in mind, Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not confirm or deny any validity of the FDR data provided by govt agencies. What makes this data so alarming is that govt agencies claim its data from AA77, yet doesnt support their story. Its clear why they refuse to comment.

We actually had this parameter when we decoded the raw file ourselves more than 2 years ago. But, it showed all zero's so i just skipped it. Once Warren provided it in terms of the Data Frame Layout (0=CLOSED, 1=OPEN), is when i decided to scroll through and see when it was open and if it corresponded with the roughly 3 min hijack timeline (which in itself is an absurdly short time frame to take over an aircraft). As you can see, the data shows the door closed through the entire flight.


Thanks, Rob. This is exactly what I was looking for!

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 27 2009, 05:11 PM

AWWWright let me be the first to debunk this.

Have any of you heard of human osmosis? I've seem people walk through solid objects many times in the movies. Them 911 hijackers were ten feet tall and surely capable of this.

Just kidding . . .

Nice work Rob!

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 27 2009, 05:11 PM

AWWWright let me be the first to debunk this.

Have any of you heard of human osmosis? I've seem people walk through solid objects many times in the movies. Them 911 hijackers were ten feet tall and surely capable of this.

Just kidding . . .

Nice work Rob!

Posted by: painter Nov 27 2009, 05:20 PM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Nov 27 2009, 10:31 AM) *
i know i'm doing my best!

thumbsup.gif


I notice 911blogger hasn't said word 1 about it

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 05:40 PM

Wow, this article is going viral. Over 1000 people logged onto this thread alone at this time. We're setting records today.

I took a stroll around the net to see the excuses made by a select few who blindy follow anything the govt tells them. I'll address them here for now.

Claim - How can anyone trust data from some anonymous guy in Australia?
A. We agree, but he is not really anonymous. He does give his name, but we werent able to ask him if he wanted his name used in the article. That is why we cross checked it with our own data we received from the NTSB. You can also get your own directly from the NTSB as we did. Visit ntsb.gov and fill out their FOIA request form online.

Claim - Does the cockpit door show open for the pilots to get in?
A. No, it shows closed for entire flight. The FDR starts recording when the engines are started. Clearly the pilots would be in their seats and cabin/flight deck secure during this phase of flight.


Claim - Does the FDR record if the door is open or closed?
A. Clearly it does. It says closed for the entire flight and was confirmed by the Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB and a pilot who has flight time in this exact 757 at American Airlines.


Claim - The sensor must have failed.
A. Speculation, but if the sensor failed, it would "ding" the FDR that a sensor has failed during self-diagnosis. If the FDR is inoperative, the airplane is not allowed to take-off. The sensor was operative. People who make this claim, would also have to prove the sensor fails in the closed position.


Claim - The hijackers kicked in the door and jammed the sensor in the closed position.
A. Again, pure speculation based on incredulity. But the fact remains, the data shows the door as closed, the altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, Vertical speed too great for level off as seen in DoD 5 frames video, the list goes on. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on such blatant conflict with the govt story.


Claim - The bird strike which took out the Flight Data Recorder prior to impact also took out the door sensor 30 mins prior to impact
A. Not really a claim made by "duhbunkers" at this point in time, but give it a few days. wink.gif

Posted by: 911analyzer Nov 27 2009, 06:35 PM

Excellent work!

So I guess my next question would be is if this data parameter is present on any other FDR data of the day, also showing a "no cockpit door opened status." That would be double trouble.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 27 2009, 06:46 PM

It will be interesting to see whether or nor Stutt squirms about this after working so hard to use this decode to push his bogus 4 foot claims.

Posted by: painter Nov 27 2009, 06:49 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 27 2009, 02:20 PM) *
I notice 911blogger hasn't said word 1 about it

STIKE THAT -- http://www.911blogger.com/blog/2852:

Posted by: painter Nov 27 2009, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 27 2009, 03:46 PM) *
It will be interesting to see whether or nor Stutt squirms about this after working so hard to use this decode to push his bogus 4 foot claims.

You know, Craig, most of the hundreds of people looking at this thread will have no idea what you are talking about or why it is relevant to this topic. Would you please provide a little context for them?

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (911analyzer @ Nov 27 2009, 06:35 PM) *
Excellent work!

So I guess my next question would be is if this data parameter is present on any other FDR data of the day, also showing a "no cockpit door opened status." That would be double trouble.


This is the first flight of the day.

But, you do bring up a good point.

There are allegedly 11 other flights in the FDR raw data. Those flights would have to be cross-checked as well. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources at this time to cross check all that data.

With that said, even if the data shows closed for all flights, it doesnt mean the data is faulty as many pilots prefer to keep the cockpit door closed at all times during flight or just have no reason to open the door (no need for potty, have their food and drinks already with them prior to flight.. .etc)

Another claim that could be made is that the NTSB lists this parameter as "not working or unconfirmed". They also list Radar Altitude the same - "not working or unconfirmed". Those who make excuse for the govt story cherry pick the newly decoded Radar Data for their impact theories but disregard confirmed Pressure altitude data which shows too high to hit the Pentagon. It is quite possible the NTSB listed "FLT DECK DOOR" as "unconfirmed" due to the fact they believe the door would and should have been opened during flight for the hijack to take place. Again, this goes back to the jumpseat issue and why the FAA ceased all offline commuters access to the jumpseat post-911.

This discussion will get complicated i'm sure, and no doubt bogged down into debate/spin by anonymous idiots on the net spending their days and nights obsessed with people they think are nuts. I just hope they're getting paid for it. If not, pretty sad life.. lol

The above article has been sent out to our full media contact list which includes hundreds of Mainstream and Alternative Media contacts, Airline Union Reps, NTSB, FBI and Congress. Of course, listing our names and credentials in full as you see linked above. You should also see the article on more news outlets in the coming days.

Posted by: mvb Nov 27 2009, 06:54 PM

850 views same time biggrin.gif
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=853d4ru.jpg

This is great news biggrin.gif

Funny that the matter of one "0" is making the difference in such a gigantic conspiracy

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 27 2009, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 28 2009, 12:52 AM) *
You know, Craig, most of the hundreds of people looking at this thread will have no idea what you are talking about or why it is relevant to this topic. Would you please provide a little context for them?


The Aussie researcher referenced in the article, Warren Stutt, suggested on other forums that the last reported altitude in the data was 4 feet from the ground meaning the data would support an impact.

This is simply not true yet several others have run with it.

His thread on this issue and Rob's debunk of the 4 feet claim is here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239&st=0&start=0

Stutt doesn't push the claim in the thread but it has been run with elsewhere nonetheless.

However this has nothing to do with this new important find by P4T.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 07:20 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 27 2009, 06:55 PM) *
The Aussie researcher referenced in the article has been suggesting on other forums that the last reported altitude of the aircraft was 4 feet meaning the data would support an impact.

This is simply not true yet several others have ran with it.



It is important to note that the 4' Altitude is a Radar Altitude, has not been verified by anyone and is also listed by the NTSB as "not working or unconfirmed". Those who "run with it" as support for their impact theory at the Pentagon, conveniently disregard confirmed Pressure Altitude parameters showing too high for an impact.

In other words, if they want to throw out the "FLK DECK DOOR" parameter as "not working or unconfirmed", they also must throw out their newly decoded, unverified Radar Altitude parameter, thereby admitting they still have no proof for their impact theory.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 27 2009, 07:34 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 28 2009, 01:20 AM) *
It is important to note that the 4' Altitude is a Radar Altitude, has not been verified by anyone and is also listed by the NTSB as "not working or unconfirmed". Those who "run with it" as support for their impact theory at the Pentagon, conveniently disregard confirmed Pressure Altitude parameters showing too high for an impact.


Precisely.

Whenever some previously unknown researcher shows up out of nowhere providing fodder for the liars there is ground for suspicion.

His odd reaction to the information we have uncovered as shown in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18264 did not ease my concerns regarding him personally so that's why it will be interesting to see his reaction to this important find that he looked over in his analysis.

Bottom line...questions about his honesty/intent can not change the data!

I think it's important to keep stressing to people that these types of fatal anomalies in govt provided data simply prove that THEIR story is false because THEIR data does not add up with what THEY say. This is key.

That is EXTREMELY important and blows the lid off their story but it does not indicate the data they provide really came from any plane at all. Most importantly we know for a FACT that the data is irreconcilable with the plane that the witnesses report on the north side of the citgo that could not have hit the building.

Basically when you tell a lie so big it's hard to make sure all aspects are covered and this is further proof that they did a sloppy job with their lie.

Posted by: Raptor911 Nov 27 2009, 08:10 PM

>This, however, begs the question, if someone was going to go to all the trouble to in some way FAKE the
>FDR data and plant it as evidence, why does that data NOT clearly indicate a feasible impact scenario?

Because the Evil-Doers have made mistakes.
It would be unlikely they are -perfect-.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 27 2009, 08:20 PM

smile.gif Never saw that one coming!


May be a dumbass question guys but does the cockpit door open outwards or inwards?
If the pilots were ´herded´ to the back of the plane how could they possibly open the door
and walk them out in ´4 seconds´?

How easy/hard is it to ´kick the door in´? What locks are used?
And more importantly how would the FDR not pick this up?

Excellent news.
I see the govt loyalist site are strangely quiet on this LOL

They must be KEEKING themselves both at the news and the SOURCE! laugh.gif
Ah man, I´m getting a beer!

Cheers big ears!

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 08:29 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 27 2009, 07:34 PM) *
Basically when you tell a lie so big it's hard to make sure all aspects are covered and this is further proof that they did a sloppy job with their lie.



Well said.....

Posted by: KP50 Nov 27 2009, 08:31 PM

Great work guys and good spotting to pick the needle out of the haystack of data.

Just saw this in my email :-

Busiest Time: 169 users were online on 9th November 2009 - 10:32 AM

We seem to have well over 600 people viewing this topic alone at the moment.

Posted by: bobcat46 Nov 27 2009, 08:34 PM

This is just one more brick in the wall that is missing. Good job, Rob, I didn't even realize that there was a data point for the cockpit door position.

Has anyone out there actually taken their cell phone out during a flight and tried to make a cell phone call while sipping along at cruise speed or while descending at >250 knots? Just like the lady on Flight 77 did just before impact? Or like the people did on Flight 93 that supposedly crashed in Shanksville?

salute.gif

Posted by: tinynate Nov 27 2009, 09:59 PM

not many follow this any closer than I, and this is potentially huge news of course ... just curious why it took 8 years to find this seemingly blinking red light?

love to hear Rob's explanation, or anyone elses

thanks
Nate


ps bobcat, everytime I have flown in last 4 years I have pulled out my cell and it never works until im 500' from ground at best ... and it stops as soon as we get off ground ... Ive tested it dozens of times ... cells never could work and dont on commercial flights I take anyway

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 27 2009, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (tinynate @ Nov 27 2009, 09:59 PM) *
love to hear Rob's explanation, or anyone elses

thanks
Nate



From page one...

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 03:03 PM) *
We actually had this parameter when we decoded the raw file ourselves more than 2 years ago. But, it showed all zero's so i just skipped it. Once Warren provided it in terms of the Data Frame Layout (0=CLOSED, 1=OPEN), is when i decided to scroll through and see when it was open and if it corresponded with the roughly 3 min hijack timeline (which in itself is an absurdly short time frame to take over an aircraft). As you can see, the data shows the door closed through the entire flight.


Also, take it easy on the full bold posts. Thanks.. smile.gif

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 27 2009, 10:19 PM

HDD (hugely damning discovery)... i mean wtf? how do you hijack a plane if you don't get in the cockpit?!?

Posted by: DonM Nov 27 2009, 10:52 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 27 2009, 07:19 PM) *
HDD (hugely damning discovery)... i mean wtf? how do you hijack a plane if you don't get in the cockpit?!?


This has always been one of the BIG, HUGE, ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC questions, hasn't it?

In four purported hijackings, not a single transponder "hijack code" was sent and not a single MAYDAY was sent. How tough would that have been... they are all wearing boom mics and have the transmit button right under their thumbs. Maybe once, highly unlikely twice... but four times... IMPOSSIBLE!!!

DonM

Posted by: Sanders Nov 28 2009, 12:33 AM

WOWOWOWOWOW !!!!

blink.gif


I just logged on after seeing this in my email box.

It doesn't surprise me that it took this long to uncover this, nor that the perps and cover-up people overlooked it --- who would think about such a thing!???


Excellent work people.

Again, Wow. Another big nail in the coffin.

Posted by: aerohead Nov 28 2009, 01:33 AM

HAHA !!! Another nail in the coffin.
Excellent work Rob !

Cockpit doors werent flimsy push overs even pre-911 .
Although the ms-media would have you believe they could have
been easily removed by your average 3yr old toddler.
I assure you they could not.


Its obvious that the "hijackers" opened a window in the cabin, shimmied up the fuselage
and entered the cockpit windows, thus overtaking the flight crew. Ive seen it
done in the movies many times, and the Corporate News Networks would never
lie to me. huh.gif

The entire government version is an impossibility. This is just one
of thousands of pieces of evidence proving the fraud of
9/11.

Posted by: Turbofan Nov 28 2009, 02:39 AM

Here's a little tech for those interested. The Flight Deck Door was most
certainly assigned as a recorded parameter as per this chart:





A port that is not used looks like this in the documentation:



It is clear, without debate that Flight Deck Door was assigned and being
polled by the system.

These captures were taken from a Boeing 757 manual, document number:
D226A101-3, revision G.

As shown the flight data recorder receives a logic low (binary 0) when the
door is closed. With electronic circuits (specifically digital signals), you
must NEVER leave a pin open. It must be referenced to VSS (signal high),
or Ground (signal low) at all times. It CANNOT remain floating or the input
circuitry will receive noise, and/or an undetermined value.

For this reason, the following circuit is the standard for switched logic
circuits. There may be variations, however the signal input line will
ALWAYS sense Ground (logic 0), or VSS (logic 1)



So what does this mean? Well, according to the documentation, the door
is closed when a logic zero is received at Port D14, word 251, bit 1, subframe 3.

If this parameter was NEVER recorded the documentation would not assign
a port, and/or a word/bit position.

If the door was left open, the value would read logic 1 (VSS) as shown on the right side (Figure 2).

Parameters that are not recorded (IE: spares, or unused ports) are tied
to ground instead of VSS to reduce current draw and power consumption
in a circuit.

Summary:

Unused pins, spare ports, etc. are tied to ground and are labelled as spare
in the third chart from the top of this post.

Assigned parameters are never 'floating' and will either see a logic 1, or
logic 0. In the case of the Flight Deck Door, it was reading ground which
means it was closed (logic 0).

Posted by: SlackerSlayer Nov 28 2009, 03:27 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 26 2009, 01:19 AM) *
HDD (hugely damning discovery)... i mean wtf? how do you hijack a plane if you don't get in the cockpit?!?


They called it the remote recovery system. It used the transponders radio circuitry to inform the remote pilot what the flight parameters are. This explains no emergency transponder signal of a hijack as well as all the other questions raised.

Posted by: tit2 Nov 28 2009, 04:03 AM

It would be necessary to formally inform the FBI of this fact and many others that would justify the opening of a new investigation for certain events concerning the attacks of September 11, 2001. If when he was informed the FBI does not investigate these facts, in this case, in my opinion, a person should perform a lawsuit against the FBI director.

Posted by: SlackerSlayer Nov 28 2009, 05:23 AM

A question for an experience large passenger aircraft pilot.

What would be your problem if any when all the passengers are herded into the back area as far as the balanced load goes? Isn't a huge shift in the center of gravity going to throw the inexperience off just a little?

Posted by: bobcat46 Nov 28 2009, 08:48 AM

tinynate:

Thanks for your reply on the cell phone question. That confirms what the electronic geeks are saying about how difficult it would to be for a cell phone to lock onto a tower while going >250 kts.

Are there any other out there that have tried to use your cell phones during a flight??

bobcat46

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 28 2009, 08:51 AM

Given Turbofan´s excellent summary of the actual circuit functions could someone explain how there would even BE a ´four second´ window of error? I mean, to a layman (on electronics) the operation of the circuit would come down to a simple circuit breaker. The door is either open or closed. Why have this 4 second window in a fairly simple operation?
Thoughts?

PS I may be talking out my rear here lol.

Posted by: Turbofan Nov 28 2009, 09:25 AM

Hey "Oneslice",

There is NO delay. The signal is presented at the DAU port immediately (near speed of light!).

The parameter is polled every 4 seconds however. That is what everyone is talking about now.

Did Hani open the door...shut it...get two pilots out of their seats...open the door and shut it again.

He would have to open and close the door before the second poll in order for it to read CLOSED,
and within that time frame have two pilots walk through the door. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 28 2009, 10:23 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 28 2009, 03:25 PM) *
Hey "Oneslice",

There is NO delay. The signal is presented at the DAU port immediately (near speed of light!).

The parameter is polled every 4 seconds however. That is what everyone is talking about now.

Did Hani open the door...shut it...get two pilots out of their seats...open the door and shut it again.

He would have to open and close the door before the second poll in order for it to read CLOSED,
and within that time frame have two pilots walk through the door. rolleyes.gif


Cheers for the clarification TF smile.gif
Also ´Hani´ would have had to have first entered as a new parameter was being polled to give
him the full 4 seconds. Hani the Ninja huh? laughing1.gif

So even if the inevitable spin begins that the ´hijackers could have broken it when they kicked the
door in´ the door being opened would have registered given this circuitbreaker system?

Sorry for all the questions mate. I´m still trying to take in the enormity of this.

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 28 2009, 10:25 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 27 2009, 07:34 PM) *
That is EXTREMELY important and blows the lid off their story but it does not indicate the data they provide really came from any plane at all. Most importantly we know for a FACT that the data is irreconcilable with the plane that the witnesses report on the north side of the citgo that could not have hit the building.

Basically when you tell a lie so big it's hard to make sure all aspects are covered and this is further proof that they did a sloppy job with their lie.



Dead on Craig. I was on the border before, thinking this FDR data maybe could have come from the plane the witnesses saw and that the older inconsistencies about the altitude and course could be reconciled with the NOC witnesses. The four foot final altitude above some object seemed to fit in with a fly over. But this door thing just about convinces me that this FDR Data has no relationship to anything and was manufactured out of whole cloth.

Why would they be so sloppy an release it via FOIA? Because they didn't think anybody would be able to read it let alone dig into and analyze it.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 28 2009, 10:35 AM

A little additonal info for you all...

Our resident researcher and associate in Arlington, VA was made aware of a strange flyby performed in the wee hours of the morning, under the cover of night, about a week or two prior to 9/11. Witnesses he knew told him that what sounded like a large aircraft flew over their house/neighborhood-which is right along the official story attack jet's flight path just a mile or two from the pentagon. This flyover was loud and low that it shook their house and woke them from their sleep. This could have only been the plane they used to record the data IMHO because planes in the area landing or taking off from reagan national do NOT fly over this part of Arlington at all, let alone low, loud, and fast.I would surmise that the pilots for this plane would not need to open the cockpit door. At least they forgot to or didn't realize they needed to. For all we know, this plane did not have any type of human pilots housed in the cockpit at all.

This information is still developing...

Posted by: Kesha Nov 28 2009, 11:18 AM

QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Nov 28 2009, 02:48 PM) *
tinynate:

Thanks for your reply on the cell phone question. That confirms what the electronic geeks are saying about how difficult it would to be for a cell phone to lock onto a tower while going >250 kts.

Are there any other out there that have tried to use your cell phones during a flight??

bobcat46


Woody Box and me are discussing this issue in German forums since 2003 or so...

As my wife is from Moscow, we are flying a lot. Each time we do, we`re checking our GSM mobiles phones,
and the result is always the same... no matter which phone, airline or aircraft:

After take-off, the signal is vanishing at about 1700-1800 ft, and it does not come back until final approach at
about the same height. The second factor is the speed, it seems that apprx. 150 ml/h is the limit... this can also
be verified at ground level in a fast car on a German Autobahn. Could be it`s a bit more up in the air, but not
much.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 28 2009, 11:28 AM

mockingbird farmer claims :

QUOTE
Yes, there are 11 flights in the Warren RO besides the one in question. During NONE of those fights was the door ever recorded open. I checked the frame structure and I was correct, the default value is closed. So in 42 hours of recorded flight, no 'signal' was ever sampled for that parameter, hence no binary 1 recorded.


is he making this up?

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 28 2009, 11:33 AM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 28 2009, 04:35 PM) *
A little additonal info for you all...

Our resident researcher and associate in Arlington, VA was made aware of a strange flyby performed in the wee hours of the morning, under the cover of night, about a week or two prior to 9/11. Witnesses he knew told him that what sounded like a large aircraft flew over their house/neighborhood-which is right along the official story attack jet's flight path just a mile or two from the pentagon. This flyover was loud and low that it shook their house and woke them from their sleep. This could have only been the plane they used to record the data because planes in the area landing or taking off from reagan national do NOT fly over this part of Arlington at all, let alone low, loud, and fast.I would surmise that the pilots for this plane would not need to open the cockpit door. At least they forgot to or didn't realize they needed to. For all we know, this plane did not have any type of human pilots housed in the cockpit at all.

This information is still developing...


This method would have been a HELL of a lot easier than manually fiddling
with a complex binary code.
Actually fly the ´official path´ beforehand with a functioning FDR unit.

As Aldo said, the cockpit door could have been overlooked. Look how
many people have been sniffing and probing every angle of the Pentagon
op for years and this info has taken everybody by surprise.
Why not the perps?

The NOC and East of Potomac witness testimony also adds weight to the FDR
being falsified this way.
It would certainly explain a lot.

The FDR at the Pentagon had no serial numbers.
It was ´found´ in various areas (entrance and ´C´ring).
It was ´found´ BY various people.
The time code on data extraction was different to the alleged
time of discovery - 3-4 hours EARLIER.
P4911T PROVING that the plane was too high to hit either
the lightpoles, the trailer or the building itself.
The fact that NO witness testimony bar Lloyd England´s
suggest an SOC path.
The above mentioned verified NOC witnesses.
( I STILL get a chill when I watch the CIT interview with the
ANC workers!)
Now this.

The FDR is a fabrication.
The Pentagon op isn´t a ´honeypot´ that should be ´ignored´ as suggested by some.
It was a f*ckup. We have tangible physical proof of an inside job.
´Ignore´it???
Are you f*cking mad??

Rant over protest.gif

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 28 2009, 11:38 AM

mockingbird farmer is also claiming that :

QUOTE
The FLT DECK OPEN parameter was not added to the FDR frame (757-3 A2) until 1997. The plane was manufactured in 1991 using an earler frame structure which did not include the parameter, so a binary 0 for an unused data block.

Posted by: RickMason Nov 28 2009, 11:49 AM

This is very cool info! I don't know how many wheels the "Official Theory" train has, but between the two 9/11 Truth groups I belong to(ae911truth and this one) we keep knocking them off and sooner or later the train has to derail. I'm just curious what it's gonna take to blow this wide open........I doubt that if Mrs. Olson herself walked up and kissed some of the nay-sayers square on the mouth and told 'em "it was a 'work'" they would believe it!!!
I'm going to forward this to all I can!

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 12:55 PM) *
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]

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 along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

[1] Hijacker Timeline - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17

[2] Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001 - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

[3] Right click and save target as http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/FinalFlightComplete.csv to download csv file with "FLT DECK DOOR" parameter.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Nov 28 2009, 12:01 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 26 2009, 06:39 AM) *
Summary:

Unused pins, spare ports, etc. are tied to ground and are labelled as spare
in the third chart from the top of this post.

Assigned parameters are never 'floating' and will either see a logic 1, or
logic 0. In the case of the Flight Deck Door, it was reading ground which
means it was closed (logic 0).

Nice summary.

In other words, and following aircraft design regulations, the indication system for the door fails safe.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Nov 28 2009, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 26 2009, 02:35 PM) *
A little additonal info for you all...

This information is still developing...

And very interesting too.

I had been wondering if something like this would emerge once you guys got the word out.

Well done all.

Posted by: SPreston Nov 28 2009, 01:02 PM

QUOTE
A little additonal info for you all...

Our resident researcher and associate in Arlington, VA was made aware of a strange flyby performed in the wee hours of the morning, under the cover of night, about a week or two prior to 9/11. Witnesses he knew told him that what sounded like a large aircraft flew over their house/neighborhood-which is right along the official story attack jet's flight path just a mile or two from the pentagon. This flyover was loud and low that it shook their house and woke them from their sleep. This could have only been the plane they used to record the data IMHO because planes in the area landing or taking off from reagan national do NOT fly over this part of Arlington at all, let alone low, loud, and fast.I would surmise that the pilots for this plane would not need to open the cockpit door. At least they forgot to or didn't realize they needed to. For all we know, this plane did not have any type of human pilots housed in the cockpit at all.

This information is still developing...


Great work guys. This is the most likely scenario to explain the bogus Flight 77 FDR which was found near the Pentagon Entry Hole and also found near the C-Ring Exit Hole allegedly created by the now official focused cone of energy from the alleged exploding jet fuel.

From official US Department of Defense Pentagon 9/11 book:

http://aal77.com/pentagon_911_book/first_floor_areas.jpg <<1.3MB image file

http://aal77.com/pentagon_911_book/aa_fdr.jpg << 1.2MB image file

No sign of an aircraft or debris anywhere near this after-explosion fireball with one of the alleged downed light poles in the foreground



Much much too high to hit the Pentagon 1st floor, but just about right for a recording mission flyover a few weeks early.




EDIT by painter: Preston, I've removed the imbedded image files but left the links to them intact. With a total of 2.5MB, they were making this page load VERY slowly, even w/ DSL.

Posted by: DonM Nov 28 2009, 01:41 PM

UA 93 FDR data is available, isn't it? Has anyone had time to check to see if it has Flight Deck Door status?

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 28 2009, 02:00 PM

QUOTE (DonM @ Nov 28 2009, 01:41 PM) *
UA 93 FDR data is available, isn't it? Has anyone had time to check to see if it has Flight Deck Door status?



Yes, i checked it. It doesnt record FLT DECK DOOR status according to the NTSB. Its not a parameter listed for UA93.

Its a different airline, with a different FDR and of course a different plane (s/n).

apples and oranges basically.

However, when i checked with Rusty (UAL 757 Capt), he could have sworn the door had a sensor. If i get more information, i'll pass it on.

Posted by: Turbofan Nov 28 2009, 02:08 PM

Flight 93 is also a different sample rate, word structure, etc. If I recall off the top, only 128 words per second
(which is half of Flight 77).

Not nearly as many parameters recorded for that flight. Don't let anyone make that parallel in a debate, it
is dead wrong.

Posted by: aerohead Nov 28 2009, 02:24 PM

To me this is 1 of 2 things.


1- An error caused by a sloppy fabrication of the FDR info.

OR

2- A rouge patriot on the fabrication team who is leaving his
"signature" with this, and saying "FXXK YOU" to his tyrant masters
who own him.


I would like to think it was #2 and i think we are going to see alot more
of this . Just like the hero that hacked those emails that prove
the fraud of global warming and will land MANY of those assholes in
Prison, likely the puppet master himself Al Gore. The plans of the elite are falling
apart, be vigilant and prepare for the worst and push for the best. Revolution is in the air.
Be courageous and dont let up till they are ALL held accountable and we have our Republic
back.

I can almost see the finish line and THAT is a beautiful thing. wink.gif

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Nov 28 2009, 02:50 PM

First of all- this has got to be something approaching the jackpot...

C-o-n-g-r-a-t-u-l-a-t-i-o-n-s-!!! salute.gif

I've been wondering for years as to exactly how those guys managed to get through the cockpit doors to begin with.
There was a program in the late 70's relating to a new type of cockpit door to be fitted to airliners, in the aftermath of a series of highjackings carried out by the PLO.
The program mentioned that the new doors, while not bulletproof, would be nonetheless secure against any attempt to break them open by force. As a result, i found the 'Drinks-Trolley-as-a-ram'-scenario somewhat strange.

But that whole question aside, this has a different kind of significance to it altogether.

Assume there were no highjackers.
Assume the planes were controlled from the outside- or whatever else takes your fancy.
Then obviously the real culprits could not afford to leave any evidence recorded on any genuine flight recorder.
The question as to wether or not FDR data can be faked using a flight-simulator was already posed and answered positively by Rob above.
Painter pointed towards the problem of finding the FDR of a plane which evidently did not really strike the Pentagon at the impact site of the Pentagon already as well.
The data of the FDR in question might be precisely that:
A deliberate fake, to be used as "Evidence" in a situation were the culprits would be in some trouble unless a Flight Data Recorder was actually found.
I would also assume that there would be inevitable differences between the data recorded on board of the actual aircraft, and any fake created by way of a flight simulator- unless the actual FDR of the aircraft was available to the fakers.
(In other words- if the data in question was faked, it may have been faked before the actual events; otherwise they could simply have used most data from the actual FDR and only changed some details).

This leads me to a question:
Is a Flight simulator likely to have a similar sensor on the cockpit door as to the actual plane ?

Edit:
(If a flight simulator was involved, then it must by needs be equipped with a similar sensor since the "Cockpit Door Parameter" has been recorded.)

Posted by: tinynate Nov 28 2009, 05:11 PM

just some added trivia for those that dont know....

Olson's third wife, Barbara K. Olson, was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (his 61st birthday). The following year Olson met Lady Booth, a tax attorney and native of Kentucky, and the two were married on October 21, 2006 in Napa County, California.


so this would be his 4th marriage cleanup.gif

Posted by: richard cranium Nov 28 2009, 05:20 PM

First off I would like to quote painter and sanders. WOW!!!!!!

Secondly, I would like to thank everyone here who works so hard. You are true patriots and heros. Thank you.

Well done!!!!!!


One point I would like to bring up that I think no one has mentioned yet. What are the chances that Hani even KNEW he had a 4 second window to open the cockpit door before the fact? I mean does anybody relly think he knew he had only 4 seconds? Or was he just fast?

Let me again say thank you to Rob and the rest.

sign me a very happy rc

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 28 2009, 05:31 PM

QUOTE (richard cranium @ Nov 28 2009, 11:20 PM) *
One point I would like to bring up that I think no one has mentioned yet. What are the chances that Hani even KNEW he had a 4 second window to open the cockpit door before the fact? I mean does anybody relly think he knew he had only 4 seconds? Or was he just fast?


But if he knew he had 4 s, did he knew the right interval?

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Nov 28 2009, 05:38 PM

QUOTE
One point I would like to bring up that I think no one has mentioned yet. What are the chances that Hani even KNEW he had a 4 second window to open the cockpit door before the fact? I mean does anybody relly think he knew he had only 4 seconds? Or was he just fast?


Why should a hijacker worry about a detail like that in the first place ?

Posted by: richard cranium Nov 28 2009, 05:38 PM

QUOTE (jensdarup @ Nov 26 2009, 09:31 PM) *
But if he knew he had 4 s, did he knew the right interval?



Exactly. It's impossible from every angle.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 28 2009, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (jensdarup @ Nov 26 2009, 09:31 PM) *
But if he knew he had 4 s, did he knew the right interval?



if you were going to hijack a plane with the intentions of crashing it into a building therefor killing yourself, the passengers, and countless people on the ground would you be worried about the ntsb finding out you got into the cockpit by checking the fdr data?

of course not.....

Posted by: mirageofdeceit Nov 28 2009, 05:59 PM

Where is the sensor, and how does the locking mechanism work, exactly?

Is it at all possible to kick in the door and have the sensor read CLOSED?

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Nov 28 2009, 06:04 PM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Nov 28 2009, 10:51 PM) *
if you were going to hijack a plane with the intentions of crashing it into a building therefor killing yourself, the passengers, and countless people on the ground would you be worried about the ntsb finding out you got into the cockpit by checking the fdr data?

of course not.....


Precisely. In which case those guys could be expected to open that door any moment, including the one the FDR was checking the status of the door- especially if several people passed through that door simultaneously:
Several highjackers entering the cabin to overwhelm the Pilots,
Then Pilots plus guards going aft.
Opening and closing that door would narrow that 4-second window as well, as far as time left for moving through the door is concerned.

Posted by: richard cranium Nov 28 2009, 06:06 PM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Nov 26 2009, 09:51 PM) *
if you were going to hijack a plane with the intentions of crashing it into a building therefor killing yourself, the passengers, and countless people on the ground would you be worried about the ntsb finding out you got into the cockpit by checking the fdr data?

of course not.....



Yes, of course you are correct.


rc

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 28 2009, 06:07 PM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Nov 28 2009, 11:51 PM) *
if you were going to hijack a plane with the intentions of crashing it into a building therefor killing yourself, the passengers, and countless people on the ground would you be worried about the ntsb finding out you got into the cockpit by checking the fdr data?

of course not.....


That Hani I mean is an imaginary one. One who has to fit into the FDR data [to stay in the official construct/context]. Therefore those questions of RichardCranium and me should be considered as polemic.

Posted by: de_Genova Nov 28 2009, 07:00 PM

I can't take any of this new information seriously because I am absolutely convinced that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. If the pilots and all other concerned members of this forum are saying that an airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon then you are all in denial. The governments contention is that the so-called airliner disintegrated - a preposterous notion. In fact the governments contention is that all four supposed airliners completely disappeared into the ground and into the rubble of the buildings. If this is so then how can there even be a black box to examine? It sounds very much like a dis-info ploy designed to confuse and divide. Trust none of it OK..............PD

PS....there were NO hijackers and there were NO commercial airliners............period !!!

Posted by: painter Nov 28 2009, 07:07 PM

QUOTE (de_Genova @ Nov 28 2009, 04:00 PM) *
I can't take any of this new information seriously because I am absolutely convinced that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. If the pilots and all other concerned members of this forum are saying that an airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon then you are all in denial. The governments contention is that the so-called airliner disintegrated - a preposterous notion. In fact the governments contention is that all four supposed airliners completely disappeared into the ground and into the rubble of the buildings. If this is so then how can there even be a black box to examine? It sounds very much like a dis-info ploy designed to confuse and divide. Trust none of it OK..............PD

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. You might want to try reading the whole thread before you toss out such baseless accusations. The POINT of the FDR is that it is a DATA set given to the public from an OFFICIAL source. It is damning in that it is a badly wrought FAKE proffered from officialdom.

Posted by: de_Genova Nov 28 2009, 07:23 PM

So your agreeing with me then...............there were NO commercial airliners and NO hijackers at the Pentagon or at any other 9/11 location. And you are in agreement with me that the so-called FDR 'data' is nothing more than disinformation. You also agree with me that it is impossible for there to have been any black box at all because there was NO PLANE ? Right? That's all I was trying to affirm. No offence intended and there certainly was not any accusation involved in my post..................sorry for any misunderstanding..............PD

PS..........Several posts that I have read in this thread give tacit value to the governments position on the present piece of well crafted dis-information. The governments statement below should be given NO CREDENCE whatsoever. Regardless of the obvious falsity of the comments made, its designed to further plant into the minds of the ordinary layperson that a hijacking actually took place; that there were actually hijackers; that the Olsen calls were real; that everyone really was herded to the rear of the plane, etc., etc., etc. To even respond is to give the impression that the governments position in the present article is a real one. The government is solidifying their claim here that an actual hijacking took place, and that there really was a commercial airliner involved, and that it really did crash into the Pentagon. All they have to do later on is to acknowledge that they were in error on the 'data' - in other words they will claim a mistaken data translation. But the propaganda deed will have been done much to their satisfaction.

Link: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

(extracted):

......."On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?".........

Posted by: painter Nov 28 2009, 07:38 PM

QUOTE (de_Genova @ Nov 28 2009, 04:23 PM) *
So your agreeing with me then...............there were NO commercial airliners and NO hijackers at the Pentagon or at any other 9/11 location. And you are in agreement with me that the so-called FDR 'data' is nothing more than disinformation. You also agree with me that it is impossible for there to have been any black box at all because there was NO PLANE ? Right? That's all I was trying to affirm. No offence intended and there certainly was not any accusation involved in my post..................sorry for any misunderstanding..............PD

Yes. It is obvious. If the Flight Deck Door was never opened, no hijacking and subsequent airliner crash occurred: Therefore this "EVIDENCE" given to the NTSB by the FBI allegedly having been found inside the Pentagon IS A PLANTED FORGERY -- an incriminating piece of evidence of a cover-up of the actual event.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 28 2009, 07:44 PM

Cointel much? Haha.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 28 2009, 07:55 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 29 2009, 12:38 AM) *
Yes. It is obvious. If the Flight Deck Door was never opened, no hijacking and subsequent airliner crash occurred: Therefore this "EVIDENCE" given to the NTSB by the FBI allegedly having been found inside the Pentagon IS A PLANTED FORGERY -- an incriminating piece of evidence of a cover-up of the actual event.


To be clear....the evidence presented in this thread has nothing to do with whether or not an airliner crash occurred.

The evidence proving no airliner crash occurred is provided via the eyewitnesses presented in http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html.

The witnesses prove the physical black box that was allegedly found in the Pentagon had to have been planted there.

But to take it a step further....there is no proof the data released by the NTSB really came from the physical black box that was allegedly found in the Pentagon.

We can't give them the benefit of the doubt for anything since the INDEPENDENT evidence already proves their entire story a lie.

This new discovery regarding the cockpit door parameter proves that their own data does not add up with their own story. It's a simple as that but entirely devastating to the official story.

Posted by: painter Nov 28 2009, 08:07 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 28 2009, 04:55 PM) *
To be clear....the evidence presented in this thread has nothing to do with whether or not an airliner crash occurred.

Correct.

QUOTE
The evidence proving no airliner crash occurred is provided via the eyewitnesses presented in http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html.

Correct.

QUOTE
<snip>
But to take it a step further....there is no proof the data released by the NTSB really came from the physical black box that was allegedly found in the Pentagon.

We can't give them the benefit of the doubt for anything since the INDEPENDENT evidence already proves their entire story a lie.

And to take that a step further still, we have no proof ANY black box was found at all, only "reports" emanating from sources already shown to be dishonest.

QUOTE
This new discovery regarding the cockpit door parameter proves that their own data does not add up with their own story. It's a simple as that but entirely devastating to the official story.

Correct, their OWN data proves their account false (and has for 3 years in regards to the FDR) which leads some to wonder why? Is it simple incompetence, a botched cover-up attempt, or is there a potentially deeper implication? Why produce an FDR (or equally bogus security camera video) at all?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 28 2009, 08:12 PM

QUOTE (de_Genova @ Nov 29 2009, 12:23 AM) *
PS..........Several posts that I have read in this thread give tacit value to the governments position on the present piece of well crafted dis-information. The governments statement below should be given NO CREDENCE whatsoever. Regardless of the obvious falsity of the comments made, its designed to further plant into the minds of the ordinary layperson that a hijacking actually took place; that there were actually hijackers; that the Olsen calls were real; that everyone really was herded to the rear of the plane, etc., etc., etc. To even respond is to give the impression that the governments position in the present article is a real one. The government is solidifying their claim here that an actual hijacking took place, and that there really was a commercial airliner involved, and that it really did crash into the Pentagon. All they have to do later on is to acknowledge that they were in error on the 'data' - in other words they will claim a mistaken data translation. But the propaganda deed will have been done much to their satisfaction.

Link: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

(extracted):

......."On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?".........


Clearly you don't understand the context with why this statement was quoted.

It was merely meant to show what time they CLAIM the plane was hijacked.

You said..."All they have to do later on is to acknowledge that they were in error on the 'data' - in other words they will claim a mistaken data translation. But the propaganda deed will have been done much to their satisfaction.'

Whether or not they take the unprecedented step to answer to this information contradicting their story and try to wave it away as an "error" (not a feasible excuse) it doesn't change the fact that this error/anomaly/contradiction exists and it does not reinforce their myth any more than it has already been solidified in the mainstream consciousness.

Nor does it refute the independent verifiable evidence that exists proving their story false.

You aren't going to be a productive contributor here (or to the movement at all) if you are going to argue that fatal anomalies in govt provided data should be left unreported.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 28 2009, 08:27 PM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Nov 28 2009, 05:38 PM) *
mockingbird farmer is also claiming that :

"The FLT DECK OPEN parameter was not added to the FDR frame (757-3 A2) until 1997. The plane was manufactured in 1991 using an earler frame structure which did not include the parameter, so a binary 0 for an unused data block."


Actually this needs to be addressed.

It's the only reasonable excuse they've come up with and if true seems like a viable one.

Posted by: painter Nov 28 2009, 08:30 PM

QUOTE (de_Genova @ Nov 28 2009, 04:23 PM) *
PS..........Several posts that I have read in this thread give tacit value to the governments position on the present piece of well crafted dis-information. The governments statement below should be given NO CREDENCE whatsoever.

Your substantial editing of posts makes it difficult to give full replies.

No one is giving it credence as factual but it must be given credence as DIRECT EVIDENCE by agencies of the US government to deceive the public -- a crime in itself. Your concern that this will be simply waved away as an 'error' is not based on observation. What they do is simply ignore us completely because they know any attempt to address these anomalies will only bring further attention and increase suspicion.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 28 2009, 08:30 PM

Thank you painter and Craig. I get tired of repeating myself for people who dont understand the implications of govt provided data which doesnt support the govt story.

It appears alot of these people who bring up such subjects attempt to get others to ignore the data. "Nothing to see here folks... move along.. its just more disinfo provided by the govt".... seems to me like something taken straight from a cointel field manual.

de_genova, shape up my friend or i will be showing you the door very quick.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 28 2009, 08:33 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 28 2009, 08:30 PM) *
Your substantial editing of posts makes it difficult to give full replies.


He's editing his post significantly after replies?

Ok... he's now on mod review.

Posted by: keroseneaddict Nov 28 2009, 08:48 PM

Outstanding work!!!!! After carefully reviewing the data file, I have forwarded this to my Congressional "representatives" (lower case intentional)

By the way, during one of my many furloughs, I worked for a large cellular provider.....Cell towers and antennae are built usually on a tight budget, meaning not enough antennas for the proper coverage. The way the antennas need to be angled and calibrated require that the signals sent and received be at "close" to ground level.

Anecdotally, I have never had any coverage above approximately 8K ft....

Edit to correct spelling only......

Posted by: Swordfish350 Nov 28 2009, 08:53 PM

As a former Avionics Tech I know exactly what this information means. Excellent work Patriots!
BTW, You should kick de_genova. He's obviously trying to mislead the discussion.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 28 2009, 09:01 PM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Nov 28 2009, 05:38 PM) *
mockingbird farmer is also claiming that :

QUOTE
The FLT DECK OPEN parameter was not added to the FDR frame (757-3 A2) until 1997. The plane was manufactured in 1991 using an earler frame structure which did not include the parameter, so a binary 0 for an unused data block.


QUOTE
Yes, there are 11 flights in the Warren RO besides the one in question. During NONE of those fights was the door ever recorded open. I checked the frame structure and I was correct, the default value is closed. So in 42 hours of recorded flight, no 'signal' was ever sampled for that parameter, hence no binary 1 recorded.




I wouldn´t sweat Farmer´s claims Dom. This disinfobot has made how many incredible
claims that have been proven to be lies and subsequently deleted them?
Turbofan made a VERY important point as regards the just such a claim.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779422

The ´frame structure´ was ´different´?
Smells like typical Farmer bs to me.
Sounds like the first volley of disinfo to keep the troops happy until they make up the next salvo of horse manure.
Farmer is a proven liar and traitor. I´d take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Maybe WStutt could verify his claims as to the the other ´eleven´(?) flights?

WStutt?

Peace.

Posted by: Jupiter Nov 28 2009, 09:02 PM

QUOTE
The FLT DECK OPEN parameter was not added to the FDR frame (757-3 A2) until 1997. The plane was manufactured in 1991 using an earler frame structure which did not include the parameter, so a binary 0 for an unused data block.


This claim is wrong because actually all the FDR system has been updated before 08/18/2001...

According to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/s01txt.html

Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, without an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, with an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured after October 11, 1991, after August 18, 2000, and after August 18, 2002.

AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32.

The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80.

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=644AA

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001

Posted by: lipsmalloy Nov 28 2009, 10:08 PM

QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Nov 26 2009, 11:48 AM) *
tinynate:

Thanks for your reply on the cell phone question. That confirms what the electronic geeks are saying about how difficult it would to be for a cell phone to lock onto a tower while going >250 kts.

Are there any other out there that have tried to use your cell phones during a flight??

bobcat46


Bobcat, every single time I fly, I test my cell. Doesn't work. I've flown from LA to NY and DC several times, flying over areas the 911 planes flew. Consider also, back in 2001, cell phones were not as advanced, not even Blackberrys, and there were fewer cell towers than now. The best I've managed is two bars for about 30 secs. at low altitude (maybe 2500 feet) - not even enough time to complete a call.

I've also tested a hand held GPS. It could not latch onto a single satellite. In all cases I was in a window seat and held the device up to the window. I've tested my cell for entire flights, from takeoff to landing.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 28 2009, 10:34 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 03:02 AM) *
This claim is wrong because actually all the FDR system has been updated before 08/18/2001...

According to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/s01txt.html

Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, without an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, with an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured after October 11, 1991, after August 18, 2000, and after August 18, 2002.

AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32.

The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80.

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=644AA

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001


Excellent post Jupiter.
Thanks very much for the links and info thumbsup.gif

Lie number one exposed already by yourself and Turbofan.
Nice one.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Nov 28 2009, 10:51 PM

I imagine there will be some looking for other sensors that may indicate something other than the officail story now.
So if a previous flyby or simulator fake blackbox recording was sent out representing Flight 77, and a reall 767 flew over the Pentagon on 9-11 as per eye-witnesses, what is the take on the actual damage and the knocked-over light-poles ? Its surprising there are no witnesses to something hitting the poles unless the five-frames movie was also fabricated at some previous time, and then that leaves a rather messy scenario for laying out mangled light poles. Its a bit odd that none of the eye-witnesses who saw the plane fly to the north side of the Citgo didn't see anything fly down the path to knock over the light poles. Has anyone seen people planting mangled light-poles ?
Mangled light-poles pre-planted would be a reason to consficate nearby camera footage.
Could they be covered up ?
What about lights being on the previous night ?
Anyone monitor such things as street lighting around the Pentagon ?
Or is it that another large aircraft capable of taking out all the light poles flew in at the same time un-noticed ?
Also all the calculations regarding Flight 77 might be useful for determining what kind of aircraft could have made the manuever and at what speed. Also the five frames would indicate to some degree the speed of the object, if that was real-time and authentic. The damage to the light poles may indicate the speed of what hit them also.

Off topic (cont.), the video of the F-4 atomizing against the wall which is used as evidence that an aircraft at 500 MPH can vaporize, has to be considered when one looks at the planes hitting the trade towers and showing no vaporization against the steel tubing or floor structures. Another point is that the 767s are not capable of 500 MPH at Sea level, so at their top speed at Sea level, would they vaporize like the F-4 Phantom does hitting the wall ? (I think most of you have seen the video of the F-4 on a rocket sled hitting the 12 foot thick wall)

Not to minimize the latest data or any of the other points, I just don't get on here very often, sorry.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 28 2009, 11:24 PM

QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Nov 29 2009, 04:51 AM) *
I imagine there will be some looking for other sensors that may indicate something other than the officail story now.
So if a previous flyby or simulator fake blackbox recording was sent out representing Flight 77, and a reall 767 flew over the Pentagon on 9-11 as per eye-witnesses, what is the take on the actual damage and the knocked-over light-poles ? Its surprising there are no witnesses to something hitting the poles unless the five-frames movie was also fabricated at some previous time, and then that leaves a rather messy scenario for laying out mangled light poles. Its a bit odd that none of the eye-witnesses who saw the plane fly to the north side of the Citgo didn't see anything fly down the path to knock over the light poles. Has anyone seen people planting mangled light-poles ?


Hi Maha Mantra,
I would check out this site on the Pentagon:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showforum=6

Have a look through and you will find that the lightpoles HAD to have been
planted given the witness testimony collected and presented in ´National Security Alert´:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

The ´lightpole witnesses´ have been totally debunked here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t51.htm

NOBODY except one official dubious witness, the cab driver who´s
cab was allegedly speared by a lightpole, saw the lightpoles being hit. This guy
was interviewed here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=429&st=0

Well worth the watch.

In fact detractors cannot produce witnesses who claim that they saw the plane
on the path necessary to strike the lightpoles. NOBODY saw the plume of white
smoke in the gatecam video.

The guys here have PROVEN that the FDR data shows that it was either

1) a fraud

or

2) the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles, generator or even the Pentagon.

Either way. Inside job.

It´s up to the authorities to show US how the poles were hit. Not US having to
prove how the poles were planted.

Peace.

Posted by: brian78046 Nov 29 2009, 02:09 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 05:40 PM) *
Wow, this article is going viral. Over 1000 people logged onto this thread alone at this time. We're setting records today.

I took a stroll around the net to see the excuses made by a select few who blindy follow anything the govt tells them. I'll address them here for now.

Claim - How can anyone trust data from some anonymous guy in Australia?
A. We agree, but he is not really anonymous. He does give his name, but we werent able to ask him if he wanted his name used in the article. That is why we cross checked it with our own data we received from the NTSB. You can also get your own directly from the NTSB as we did. Visit ntsb.gov and fill out their FOIA request form online.

Claim - Does the cockpit door show open for the pilots to get in?
A. No, it shows closed for entire flight. The FDR starts recording when the engines are started. Clearly the pilots would be in their seats and cabin/flight deck secure during this phase of flight.


Claim - Does the FDR record if the door is open or closed?
A. Clearly it does. It says closed for the entire flight and was confirmed by the Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB and a pilot who has flight time in this exact 757 at American Airlines.


Claim - The sensor must have failed.
A. Speculation, but if the sensor failed, it would "ding" the FDR that a sensor has failed during self-diagnosis. If the FDR is inoperative, the airplane is not allowed to take-off. The sensor was operative. People who make this claim, would also have to prove the sensor fails in the closed position.


Claim - The hijackers kicked in the door and jammed the sensor in the closed position.
A. Again, pure speculation based on incredulity. But the fact remains, the data shows the door as closed, the altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, Vertical speed too great for level off as seen in DoD 5 frames video, the list goes on. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on such blatant conflict with the govt story.


Claim - The bird strike which took out the Flight Data Recorder prior to impact also took out the door sensor 30 mins prior to impact
A. Not really a claim made by "duhbunkers" at this point in time, but give it a few days. wink.gif

Posted by: brian78046 Nov 29 2009, 02:26 AM

Rob writes,

"Claim - The hijackers kicked in the door and jammed the sensor in the closed position.
A. Again, pure speculation based on incredulity. But the fact remains, the data shows the door as closed, the altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, Vertical speed too great for level off as seen in DoD 5 frames video, the list goes on. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on such blatant conflict with the govt story."


Since the sensor indicates that the door is "closed" or "open" (not "locked" or "unlocked"), then if the door were kicked open the sensor would indicate "open". Jamming is moot in the preceding scenario. However, if the sensor indicated a "locked" door, then, yes, the indicator could be jammed in the "locked" position if the door were kicked in.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Posted by: penalt Nov 29 2009, 02:52 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 01:56 PM) *
You can download the data from our pinned topics section in the AA77 forum, the above OP or if you dont want to wade through all the parameters, i have copy/pasted only the FLT DECK DOOR parameter, side by side with the Clock into a new csv file and uploaded at the megaupload link above.

For those who do not want to scroll through 1.5 hours of flight, just click Edit/Find on your spreadsheet and type in OPEN, click find. Its not there. The door was closed for the entire flight according to the data.

Also, i cross checked this with Capt Ralph http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Kolstad who flew the 757 with American just to make sure their 757's have a sensor for when the door is open. They have an overhead button to push to open the flight deck door. The button lights up when the door is open. There is a sensor on the door.

Hope this helps...


A question.

Has anyone checked to see if the FLT DECK DOOR parameter shows any change at all at any point from the beginning of the recording onward? I ask this because a basic question regarding this will be,"Was the sensor working at all?"

If the sensor value in question does change then that shows the sensor was working and this information is of use. If it does not change at all then the arguement could be made that the sensor was not working at all and thus not seeing a change in the sensor value means nothing. I looked thru what I could find myself and did not see anything. However, that does not mean much as no doubt others have more ability to read this sort of thing than I. So, respectfully, has anyone checked on this?

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 29 2009, 05:46 AM

QUOTE (penalt @ Nov 29 2009, 02:52 AM) *
Has anyone checked to see if the FLT DECK DOOR parameter shows any change at all at any point from the beginning of the recording onward? I ask this because a basic question regarding this will be,"Was the sensor working at all?"


Hi penalt,

Welcome to the forum...

Turbofan went over this earlier in the thread regarding if the sensor was "working at all"...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779422

The rest of the discussion can be found starting here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779429

Posted by: Jupiter Nov 29 2009, 06:53 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Nov 28 2009, 10:34 PM) *
Excellent post Jupiter.
Thanks very much for the links and info thumbsup.gif

Lie number one exposed already by yourself and Turbofan.
Nice one.


No problem guys. In France we don't believe in Hanjour the X-men either.

http://forum.reopen911.info/p213605-pilots-for-9-11-truth-hanjour-n-aurait-jamais-ouvert-la-cabine.html

I'd like to add something. Is that right that the FLR records the FDD parameter every 4 seconds ? If it is right, I mean, I tried to enter a room within 4 seconds. It's OK. But, to enter a room, to threat two guys, to kick them, to struggle, then to remove them to the back of the plane = Impossible.
So I mean, even if there is no parameter "door open" for the 11 predecent flights, it's possible that the pilots went to WC etc... opening the door within 4 seconds.

And how long does the FDR record ? 25 hours ? 40 hours ? The minimum required is 25 hours since 1997.

25 - 1,3 = 23,7 h
23,7 / 11 = 2,15 h

You could stay in a cockpit for 2,15 h right ?

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 29 2009, 07:44 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 12:53 PM) *
No problem guys. In France we don't believe in Hanjour the X-men either.

http://forum.reopen911.info/p213605-pilots-for-9-11-truth-hanjour-n-aurait-jamais-ouvert-la-cabine.html

I'd like to add something. Is that right that the FLR records the FDD parameter every 4 seconds ? If it is wright, I mean, I tried to enter a room within 4 seconds. It's OK. But, to enter a room, to threat two guys, to kick them, to struggle, then to remove them to the back of the plane = Impossible.
So I mean, even if there is no parameter "door open" for the 11 predecent flights, it's possible that the pilots went to WC etc... opening the door within 4 seconds.

And how long does the FDR record ? 25 hours ? 40 hours ? The minimum required is 25 hours since 1997.

25 - 1,3 = 23,7 h
23,7 / 11 = 2,15 h

You could stay in a cockpit for 2,15 h right ?


Wstutt is looking at the thread now.
What´s Farmer talking about Wstutt, please?

Yeah, Jupiter, not only that but Hanjur would have had to enter the cockpit
on the first of those 4 seconds. It´s impossible.
That is an interesting point you made on the pilots going to the WC.
(Or an air-stewardess entering the cockpit with coffee/refreshments?)
What was the procedure pre 2001 on the opening of this door
for both pilots and staff?
Surely it was a security risk to open this door too often. Or leave it open
for too long.
Or that when it HAD to be opened for whatever reason, it had to be shut
straight away.

Sorry if this has been answered already, but did the doors open outwards
or inwards?

Edit to add:

I have been on COUNTLESS international flights from Spain to Ireland in
recent years due to health/family issues, The flight usually lasts @ 3 hours
and NOT ONCE have I seen the cockpit door opened.
In the last 20 years of flights I have never seen that door opened.
I´ve been searching for staff procedure regarding entering and/or leaving the cockpit
pre 2001 but have yet to find it. Pilots?

Posted by: Turbofan Nov 29 2009, 08:41 AM

QUOTE (penalt @ Nov 29 2009, 02:52 AM) *
A question.

Has anyone checked to see if the FLT DECK DOOR parameter shows any change at all at any point from the beginning of the recording onward? I ask this because a basic question regarding this will be,"Was the sensor working at all?"


Just to clarify:

If the door latch was broken, or the switch sensing the door 'CLOSED' position was faulty, the signal would default to a logic '1' and the FDR would
show "OPEN" all the way through the flight. This is due to the "pull up resistor" built into the electric circuit connected to the power source.

Because the ground signal is only presented when the switch/door is shut, it is a strong case to show the sensor was functional.

You could argue that it would appear most suspicious to see the field parameter reading OPEN for all flights and never change as this
would be out of practice for pilots in flight.

As Mr. Balsamo stated earlier, it's very common and logical to accept the fact that pilots do not leave the flight deck during short
flights, and therefore a constant CLOSED value is what we would expect to see.

Posted by: bobcat46 Nov 29 2009, 08:53 AM

QUOTE (lipsmalloy @ Nov 27 2009, 01:08 AM) *
Bobcat, every single time I fly, I test my cell. Doesn't work. I've flown from LA to NY and DC several times, flying over areas the 911 planes flew. Consider also, back in 2001, cell phones were not as advanced, not even Blackberrys, and there were fewer cell towers than now. The best I've managed is two bars for about 30 secs. at low altitude (maybe 2500 feet) - not even enough time to complete a call.

I've also tested a hand held GPS. It could not latch onto a single satellite. In all cases I was in a window seat and held the device up to the window. I've tested my cell for entire flights, from takeoff to landing.



lipsmalloy: Thanks for your comeback. I can't seem to find a credible witness to confirm that they have had a cell phone work while flying, either. I have only taken two commercial flights since 9/11 and they were before my questioning the cell phone question. You better believe that the next time I do fly, I will have my cell on the whole way, looking at the bars. If I do see bars, I'll try to connect a call.

The phone call where the guy called his mother and said his full name to identify himself was always very strange to me and others. I can't imagine calling my mother and saying, "Hello, Mom, this is Bob ****" No one would ever talk to their mother like that, giving their last name, even in an emergency.

I do believe that the phone calls were made to the relatives and operator, but not from the planes. Could it be that they were made under instructions from the real perps? The guy using his last name to his mother could have done that as a signal that something was not right, or, the perps screwed up the script.

Just too many things that do not fit the 9/11 Commission Report!!!

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 29 2009, 10:55 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 06:53 AM) *
No problem guys. In France we don't believe in Hanjour the X-men either.



Jupiter, let me personally thank you for taking the time to look up the appropriate regs.

As you can imagine, my hands have been quite full over the past few days. Matter of fact, we're also breaking records for new core members signing up through our join form (different from forum members, these are aviation professionals wanting to be listed at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core)), unfortunately, its going to take me some time to verify them all and publish the next update. But it will be the largest update ever!

As the old saying goes, "Many hands make light work". So I thank you for spending the time to make my job a bit easier as studying the regs for this particular topic to counter excuses made by the GL's was on my "To-Do" list.

Welcome to the forum my friend. Thanks for signing up to provide quick reference to the information.

To all others who have helped in spreading the word and joining me in battle on the front lines of this information war based on your expertise and knowledge through research (you know who you are... ), I thank you as well, from the bottom of my heart.

Rob

Posted by: Kesha Nov 29 2009, 11:59 AM

QUOTE (lipsmalloy @ Nov 29 2009, 04:08 AM) *
Bobcat, every single time I fly, I test my cell. Doesn't work. I've flown from LA to NY and DC several times, flying over areas the 911 planes flew. Consider also, back in 2001, cell phones were not as advanced, not even Blackberrys, and there were fewer cell towers than now. The best I've managed is two bars for about 30 secs. at low altitude (maybe 2500 feet) - not even enough time to complete a call.

I've also tested a hand held GPS. It could not latch onto a single satellite. In all cases I was in a window seat and held the device up to the window. I've tested my cell for entire flights, from takeoff to landing.


While I agree with you on the unavailabilty of GSM signals, I have to disagree on the GPS...


I tried it last year on a flight GE - UK, using a normal car navi... plaese note the indicated speed, lower left corner whistle.gif

http://www.bilder-hosting.de/show/88TCH.html

Click on pic to enlarge...
...and as you can see, it even tried to "navigate". wink.gif

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 29 2009, 12:00 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Nov 27 2009, 12:01 AM) *
I wouldn´t sweat Farmer´s claims Dom.



yea im not all he did was prove the plane wasn't hijacked on the previous 11 flights either as far as im concerned.....

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 29 2009, 12:18 PM

Hi All!

Regarding diGenove:

It looks like his hero is the pseudonymous Robert diGenova, the Republican Fire-Breathing Former Federal Prosecutor who frequently appears as a "legal expert" on FOX news. Too him, everybody but himself is a criminal. He often appears with Greta Van Sustren and/or Ann Coulter when she is masquerading as a lawyer. Needless to say, the format is always A Circle-jerk With The Newsreader.

Editing Posts to cover your tracks is consistent with the behavior usually exhibited by this particular species of a s s h o l e. For a prosecutor, similar behavior is witholding or falsifying evidence.

Posted by: Obwon Nov 29 2009, 12:25 PM

Perhaps a "truth table" would make it more clear.

Door Conditions:
O=open
C=closed
F=fault

Truth Table
_ O|C|F
O|1|1|1|
C|1|0|1|
F|1|1|1|

Since the door cannot be both opened and closed at the same time, these conditions are the equivalent of a fault and therefore yield a "no operation" condition, which devolves/falls back to the default condition which is 1.

As the table makes clearer, there is only one of nine possible conditions that yield a "closed door" condition and that condition requires that no fault be present as well. Anything else gives an "open door" condition or 1.

Thus, a closed door condition, not only tests the door, but the equipment as well. As long as you have a 0, you know that the door is closed AND the sensor/system is working.

Hope this is of some help.

Posted by: painter Nov 29 2009, 01:29 PM

Thanks obwon and welcome to the forum!

Another way to think of it is an electrical circuit. As long as the circuit is intact (closed/grounded) it reads "0". Breaking the circuit yields a "1" (open/ungrounded).

Posted by: Ligon Nov 29 2009, 01:32 PM

QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Nov 28 2009, 10:51 PM) *
So if a previous flyby or simulator fake blackbox recording was sent out representing Flight 77, and a reall 767 flew over the Pentagon on 9-11 as per eye-witnesses, what is the take on the actual damage and the knocked-over light-poles ? Its surprising there are no witnesses to something hitting the poles unless the five-frames movie was also fabricated at some previous time, and then that leaves a rather messy scenario for laying out mangled light poles. Its a bit odd that none of the eye-witnesses who saw the plane fly to the north side of the Citgo didn't see anything fly down the path to knock over the light poles. Has anyone seen people planting mangled light-poles ?


Frequently Asked Questions >> Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-were_light_poles_downed_in_real_time.html

Frequently Asked Questions >> How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-staged_light_poles.html

More FAQ
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq.html

Minimum hypothetical wingspan for south side plane, There was no such second plane, however
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=621

Light pole on hwy goes unnoticed for years, planted poles wouldn't have been noticed
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=464

"The First Known Accomplice?" ft. Lloyde England the cab driver (video)
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-firstknownaccomplice.html

Lloyde England and his tax cab: The eye of the storm (video)
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-eyeofthestorm.html

Posted by: paranoia Nov 29 2009, 02:26 PM

just to add to Ligon's post, here is video of a (post-9/11) night-time driveby on washington blvd (next to the pentagon),
in the same direction as the cab driver:

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=518431

note that there are so many poles and so many lights, that a few of them being down or out of place would not draw much (if any) attention.

Posted by: painter Nov 29 2009, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Nov 29 2009, 09:18 AM) *
Editing Posts to cover your tracks is consistent with the behavior usually exhibited by this particular species of a s s h o l e. For a prosecutor, similar behavior is witholding or falsifying evidence.

tnemelckram, do you happen to know the legal parameters of "withholding or falsifying" information/evidence provided by a government agency? In this instance we have data from a government agency that contradicts the hijacking narrative -- what legal ramifications could this have? What would be the procedure for pursuing this legally?

Posted by: Obwon Nov 29 2009, 02:29 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 29 2009, 01:29 PM) *
Thanks obwon and welcome to the forum!

Another way to think of it is an electrical circuit. As long as the circuit is intact (closed/grounded) it reads "0". Breaking the circuit yields a "1" (open/ungrounded).


Glad to be here, I've read and I feel at home, your welcome only adds to the good feelings, thanks.
I see that there are deep thinking processes going on here. I like that. While I don't have so many skills, I hope that what little I'm able to add will be of some use in the "effort". smile.gif

Now then, the way you present it is indeed the simplest way to think of it. Unfortunately that way also masks out features, that I'm sure the designers agonized over at some length. Here they had these three conditions to work with: Opened, Closed and Fault. Now the "puzzle" they were faced with, is exactly the reverse of what this thread and the studies decrypted.

"How do you ensure that one condition is absolutely irrefutably true?"

"Which condition is so precious that it's validity is best put beyond question?"

And finally "How do you accomplish it?"

Well, in assembly language, one has so much to do, with so few; (at least some time ago) so few instructions to do it. You had to think very clearly about, not just what an instruction did, but you also learned it was useful, to know and understand what it would not do.
This kind of problem solving became very complex when stringing instructions together. So, what instructions would not do, could be as useful as what they did, if only one clearly understood all the relationships. So they created the "truth table" to reveal the possible choices (or "gates") that 1's and 0's could open and close.

As you can see in my post, while there is merely on and off conditions, by their arrangement, they create 9 possibilities: Open, Closed and Fault. Quite a bit of work for such a simple set of factors, eh? But, as you can see from the truth table, there's quite a bit of work they can do that doesn't meet the eye easily. So that's the point that I'm making.

The engineers decided, that of the nine possibilities they had to work with, that "door closed" was the one they needed to preserve the validity of. In other words, if the system wasn't working, they assume that the door is open, in spite of whether or not it is. If the door is open, then, obviously access to the cockpit is available/possible. While if closed, it is not possible.

So the question is then: Why did they want to be sure, that if the cockpit door was closed, the system had to be --most reliably truthful -- working AND the door had to be closed? Obviously they could have constructed the truth table, such that the door had to be open and the system working. They decided against that. Why? Perhaps one of the pilots here can answer that for me? I'm glad that they did it that way, because the data that the door remained closed is now even more useful because it's veritical. If they'd done it the other way around, we'd still have to assume that the door was opened and that a hijacking could therefore ensue.

So there's something more important about the cockpit door being closed, that only a pilot would probably know about, because of their knowledge of aircraft operational routines etc., that wouldn't be at all obvious to the lay person.

In fact, I'm not even sure that the answer matters, but I do know that even the smallest details, the simplest facts, can yield big things if looked at closely and in their proper context. Maybe there's nothing there, or maybe there's something there that might be useful elsewheres.

Warm regards, will be waiting to hear.

Posted by: Obwon Nov 29 2009, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (Ligon @ Nov 29 2009, 01:32 PM) *
Frequently Asked Questions >> Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe...<snip>


(hope I don't have to re-post the full quote?!?)

Anyway, I remember looking at the damage inside the Pentagon, before I was distracted away, and thinking: Gee, it looks like the whole plane flew inside the building -- from looking at the damage path -- with it's wings fully extended, almost all the way to a stop at the hole in C ring. But, I'm almost certain that cranes and flat bed trucks, needed to remove the debris, would have made great fare for news coverage. But I don't ever remember seeing any cranes and/or flatbed trucks carting the debris away. Yet the hole in C ring is empty, where I'd have thought it'd be plugged with a crashed plane that had come to a stop there, it seems.

Posted by: Jupiter Nov 29 2009, 03:12 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 29 2009, 10:55 AM) *
Jupiter, let me personally thank you for taking the time to look up the appropriate regs.

Rob


Thank you Rob,

Are you planning to call AA to have confirmation ? Are you planning to write a news giving all the official regs proving that this particular plane was recording the flight deck door data ? If you are, please send me an email as soon as it is finished for me to translate it in french.

Turbofan, Thanks for your arguments.

If I can help you, just ask.

http://www.reopen911.info/

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 29 2009, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 03:12 PM) *
Thank you Rob,

Are you planning to call AA to have confirmation ? Are you planning to write a news giving all the official regs proving that this particular plane was recording the flight deck door data ? If you are, please send me an email as soon as it is finished for me to translate it in french.



Top of page 2....


The above article has been sent out to our full media contact list which includes hundreds of Mainstream and Alternative Media contacts, Airline Union Reps, NTSB, FBI and Congress. Of course, listing our names and credentials in full as you see linked above. You should also see the article on more news outlets in the coming days.


We have contacted American and the NTSB/FBI in the past regarding many other anomalies we have found as noted elsewhere on this forum and in our presentations. NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

http://www.condonlaw.com/att_christensen.htm is the lead counsel for AMR. I have him recorded if it ever goes to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html. I will not get into the particulars in a public forum.

Posted by: Jupiter Nov 29 2009, 03:49 PM

Thanks,

According to Reopen911.info, we would need the NTSB official checksum on that particular file to prove it's the real one. The CSV file is modified and press could argue that it's not the original one.

Let imagine that press demand the file from NTSB and that this file proves the door = open.

If the checksum has changed, you could prove that FBI or NTSB has also changed the file given to the press.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 29 2009, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 03:49 PM) *
Thanks,

According to Reopen911.info, we would need the NTSB official checksum on that particular file to prove it's the real one. The CSV file is modified and press could argue that it's not the original one.

Let imagine that press demand the file from NTSB and that this file prove the door = open.

If the checksum has changed, you could prove that FBI or NTSB has also changed the file given to the press.



Click here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

Scroll down to Claim 4.

There are many people around the planet who have this data including those who make excuse for the govt story, who received it directly through the FOIA request form at ntsb.gov. Lets hope Govt agencies claim the data didnt come from them as it will make our job easier exposing their lies.... wink.gif

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 29 2009, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Nov 29 2009, 09:00 PM) *
(hope I don't have to re-post the full quote?!?)

Anyway, I remember looking at the damage inside the Pentagon, before I was distracted away, and thinking: Gee, it looks like the whole plane flew inside the building


When I looked at the pictures, I thought it must have been a cruise missile.

Posted by: Jupiter Nov 29 2009, 04:46 PM

I can see that when you have posted more than a certain number of messages, you can become "Extreme Pilot" like Rob, why the maximum is not "Hanjour pilot abilities", which are more than extreme ? biggrin.gif

Rob, be sure that you keep the original CD with the original file. As soon as the file is on the website, it is already modified. The checksum is not the same.

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 29 2009, 04:51 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 10:46 PM) *
I can see that when you posted more than a certain number of messages, you can become "Extreme Pilot" like Rob, why the maximum is not "Hanjour pilot abilities", which are more than extreme ? biggrin.gif

Because Hani does not post here?

Posted by: mvb Nov 29 2009, 06:10 PM

Btw.

A "Hijacker" who is about to "Sacrafice" himself does not care about a door
that is recording "Open/Closed" Status! biggrin.gif
And "if" there where "realy" "Hijackers" and they "realy" moved both Pilots out,
the door would be open longer then 4 secs 100% sure! tongue.gif

Posted by: JOHNNYASIA Nov 29 2009, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 11:55 AM) *
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT


Here's what some debunkers are saying:


"As for this silly claim, the FDR shows that the door had never been
opened in the 40 hours of flight data stored in it. This would
indicate that the most likely explanation was that the door sensor was
not in use on that version of aircraft.

This is written by someone that works on large-jet electronics. His
claim can be discusseed via the link, below.


"... the FAA mandates 70 [FDR data values] , I believe. Its up to
the airlines if they want to record other params. The vast majority
are just open, not wired to the systems that they are supposed to
record. This one just happens to support Balsawood Bobs newest
snakeoil scheme. "


http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?postid=5354984#post5354984

Posted by: amazed! Nov 29 2009, 06:53 PM

A good job, Rob Balsamo!

Every little fact is a nail in their coffin.

Posted by: trimble Nov 29 2009, 07:15 PM

QUOTE
"... the FAA mandates 70 [FDR data values] , I believe. Its up to
the airlines if they want to record other params. The vast majority
are just open, not wired to the systems that they are supposed to
record. This one just happens to support Balsawood Bobs newest
snakeoil scheme. "


Such a hypothesis has already been answered earlier in this thread (#37 - Boeing manual extracts, #85 - Boeing FDR certification / upgrade dates). Try again.

Posted by: Akula Nov 30 2009, 12:17 AM

QUOTE (JOHNNYASIA @ Nov 27 2009, 09:34 PM) *
Here's what some debunkers are saying:


http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?postid=5354984#post5354984

LOL

That is way too funny...thanks for the laugh.

Good find guys....I mean very good find guys. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Obwon Nov 30 2009, 03:21 AM

QUOTE (jensdarup @ Nov 29 2009, 04:08 PM) *
When I looked at the pictures, I thought it must have been a cruise missile.


Roger that, Jensdarup! That's from the reflexive appearance of the outside view.
Then there is the inside "markup?" of the interior damage, which shows, by way of marking the column/supports damaged, apparently by the path of travel of the craft.

Okay, that seems to show that the craft, somehow passed through the small hole it made in the outer wall. Then, once inside, it's wings began damaging columns far enough apart, to give the impression of the aircrafts wingspread. At least that's the impression I get. They wanted to put to rest that the aircraft was not something of a suspiciously smaller size. So, some brilliant person, decided that the damage path could be used to settle the issue. Forgetting that to get the wings spread that wide, after the craft passed through the small entrance hole, the wings would have to have folded back against the fuselage, then spread wide again, once the entire aircraft was fully inside the building.

Unfortunately, this method, also makes it appear that the aircraft was intact inside the building, and had not vaporized on impact as required. laugh.gif
The damage path inside the building, also does another thing, it establishes the deceleration rate somewhat. Such that it appears that a solid, intact and disintegrating aircraft, finally came to rest, before much of the disorganized ball of debris, could fully exit the building through the 'C' ring wall. But the shape of that hole in 'C' ring wall, seems to show that the debris that made it, still retained a fair degree of its integrity. Yet the hole is shown empty?!?
How does this come to be? Is the picture taken long after the debris of the aircraft is removed and the area cleaned? If so, how long did that take?

Why are there no pictures/vids of the cranes and flatbeds being loaded to cart away the debris? The work sites visibility lines, would certainly not facilitate securing the view of the work from passersby, unless the roadways were closed to all traffic for a fair degree of time. How does one supress "looky-loos" from taking pictures from passing cars as people are wont to do? Why does the media not show the cranes removing the debris? Even the WTC site, closed as it was to much public recording, could not be secured against distant shots of the cranes and the work going on. Not to mention how all of same would go a long way towards bolstering the story being told. So, the question remains, why would they hide 'exculpatory' evidence they'd clearly have good reason to want released?

Maybe there are answers that I'm simply unaware of, is all my questions are borne of, but usually in such cases, people rush in to correct by pointing to the info that I have missed. That hasn't happened with this as of yet.

Posted by: nitatutt Nov 30 2009, 03:34 AM

QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Nov 27 2009, 11:53 AM) *
The phone call where the guy called his mother and said his full name to identify himself was always very strange to me and others. I can't imagine calling my mother and saying, "Hello, Mom, this is Bob ****" No one would ever talk to their mother like that, giving their last name, even in an emergency.

I do believe that the phone calls were made to the relatives and operator, but not from the planes. Could it be that they were made under instructions from the real perps? The guy using his last name to his mother could have done that as a signal that something was not right, or, the perps screwed up the script.

Just too many things that do not fit the 9/11 Commission Report!!!


I've always thought the same - that the phone calls were contrived - made as instructed or coached - or even made under duress.
Perhaps before the passengers were transferred to another plane they were told "this is an exercise / war game, were from the government and need your help" ...

Some of the phone calls could have been voice morphing.

According to the CBC 911 Truther show Mark Bingham's mother, Alice Hoglan says her son often identified himself with his full name, it was "a game they played". It's troubling that the hidden hand that produces these made for TV movies are not even bothering to produce a believable "documentary".
I watched Mrs. Hoglan on an internet clip, In my opinion she is questionable.

The first time I watched Mrs. Beamer on TV, I could not get the impression that she was acting out of my psyche. The phone calls seem like psyche 101 manipulations that pull human emotions, the emotions that flow when one is traumatized - we are being played.

Beginning of Cee Cee Lyles message:

"I'm on a plane that's been hijacked"
"I'm on the plane"
"I'm calling from the plane"

The repetition of "the plane" leads me to surmise Mrs. Lyles was not on "the" plane.
The way she speaks in the message sounds like she is quickly reading a short script.

The "phone calls" have always bothered me, and I've also wondered if some of the victims speaking in those phone calls were trying desperately to hint or signal that things were not as they seemed.

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 30 2009, 04:19 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Nov 30 2009, 09:21 AM) *
Roger that, Jensdarup! That's from the reflexive appearance of the outside view.
Then there is the inside "markup?" of the interior damage, which shows, by way of marking the column/supports damaged, apparently by the path of travel of the craft.

Ahoy Obwon. A picture or a link to would be helpful for me. Best regards. jensdarup [MD]

Posted by: painter Nov 30 2009, 04:24 AM

HEY NEWBS! We're very glad you've joined our forum and are posting. However, please keep things on topic. This thread is not about missiles or cell phones -- it is about a very specific topic. There are threads about these other topics elsewhere in this vast forum. We've been talking about these things for years. I you want you can even start your own threads on these topics -- but lets not talk about these things in THIS thread. It is getting a lot of public attention, for one thing, and it should not be muddied with speculation about this and that. The subject of this thread is not speculative.

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 30 2009, 04:27 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 30 2009, 10:24 AM) *
HEY NEWBS! We're very glad you've joined our forum and are posting. However, please keep things on topic. This thread is not about missiles or cell phones -- it is about a very specific topic. There are threads about these other topics elsewhere in this vast forum. We've been talking about these things for years. I you want you can even start your own threads on these topics -- but lets not talk about these things in THIS thread. It is getting a lot of public attention, for one thing, and it should not be muddied with speculation about this and that. The subject of this thread is not speculative.

OK

Posted by: Obwon Nov 30 2009, 05:26 AM

QUOTE (jensdarup @ Nov 30 2009, 04:19 AM) *
Ahoy Obwon. A picture or a link to would be helpful for me. Best regards. jensdarup [MD]


Took a bit of doing but here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/damage.html

And here:
http://citizeninvestigationteam.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-does-it-matter-if-plane-flew-north.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+citizinvestigationteamblog+%28Citizen+Investigation+Team%29

We're wandering off topic on this thread, as usually happens <vbg> let me know if we start another thread.
Ob

Posted by: Obwon Nov 30 2009, 05:40 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 30 2009, 04:24 AM) *
HEY NEWBS! We're very glad you've joined our forum and are posting. However, please keep things on topic. This thread is not about missiles or cell phones -- it is about a very specific topic. There are threads about these other topics elsewhere in this vast forum. We've been talking about these things for years. I you want you can even start your own threads on these topics -- but lets not talk about these things in THIS thread. It is getting a lot of public attention, for one thing, and it should not be muddied with speculation about this and that. The subject of this thread is not speculative.


Quite right, glad to see you stay on top of the thread with a friendly reminder. What makes it hard to stay on topic is, while you have someones attention, you feel compelled to throw out your best examples of related material, then the wandering begins.

Anyway, back to the chase, I have a question. Usually with digital things 0 is the 'power off/down' condition, while 1 represents the power 'on/up' condition.

In constructing my little "truth table" I didn't notice this little seemingly backwards condition, because I was more focused on getting it right and doing the ascii graphic.

Is "door closed" really "0"? Since the circuit would be closed with the door closed, shouldn't current flowing give a "1"? Of course it's arbitrary, closing the door could break the circuit just as easily.
But it seems a little bit odd, so I'm questioning if I got it right or not.
TIA

Posted by: jensdarup Nov 30 2009, 05:47 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Nov 30 2009, 11:26 AM) *
Took a bit of doing but here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/damage.html

And here:
http://citizeninvestigationteam.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-does-it-matter-if-plane-flew-north.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+citizinvestigationteamblog+%28Citizen+Investigation+Team%29

We're wandering off topic on this thread, as usually happens <vbg> let me know if we start another thread.
Ob

OK lets change to 'Debate'

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 30 2009, 06:21 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 28 2009, 02:39 AM) *



These captures were taken from a Boeing 757 manual, document number:
D226A101-3, revision G.



Here's a bit more on this issue that the debunkers have posted over on Rigorous Intuition:


QUOTE
Latest forum news/discussion update, this time via DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x276220

posted by: rschop

--quote--
The FDR parameter for the FLT DECK DOOR was not active and recorded on this model B757. Flight 77 was a B757-2 with "N" numbers, " of N644AA" indicating that it was built in late 1991, when this model was manufactured at Boeing. On this model the FDR did not record the state of this parameter in the FDR data, even though they left room for it and recorded this data later in the newer B757-3.

There is no indication that this model had ever been upgraded to a B757-3

The last 42 hours on the FDR data shows in fact no record of this function becoming active, meaning the door switch parameter had never been recorded as open on any of these flights even though this data covered 12 separate flights, again confirming that this FDR parameter was inoperative on this model of B757-2.

--quote--
It has been suggested that since the B757-2 had a revision change to the FDR due to a FAA AD, this meant that the while the FLT DECK DOOR status had not been recorded before this change, this parameter was recorded after this FAA required revision.

This change was called out from FAA documentation but was also described in Boeing revision document D226A101-3 at http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id4067718242.html .

After researching the D226A101-3 document, I think I have found the necessary information to sort this all out.

IC&RD Revision history D226A101-3 shows revs for the B757-1 and B757-2 through revision C, and for B757-3 through revision D1, B757-3A through revision F and for B757-3B and B757-4 through revision G.

The Revision Letters A-G are also described and these list the changes to the prior versions of the DFDAU, the flight data recorder, B-E112.

I have gone through all of the data saved on these DFDAU units and clearly the FLT DECK DOOR status is saved for the B757-3 and above but it is not even recorded for B757-1 or B757-2.

I have also gone through all of the Revision Letters listed in D226A101-3 that were required by the FAA and the Boeing and supplier reviews and can find nothing calling out any change to the recording of the FLT DECK DOOR status for the B757-2 type aircraft.

It is clear that AA77 that was a B757-2 and this type of aircraft did not record the status of the FLT DECK DOOR and all of the updates per FAA requirements did not change this parameter.

So the claim that the AA 77 FLT DECK DOOR was never opened appears to be bogus because this parameter is never even recorded on B757-2 type aircraft and AA77.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=26059&highlight=


The problem I see with the charts Turbo posted is that the one above is clearly for a 757-3. dunno.gif

Posted by: Obwon Nov 30 2009, 07:10 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Nov 30 2009, 06:21 AM) *
Here's a bit more on this issue that the debunkers have posted over on Rigorous Intuition:




The problem I see with the charts Turbo posted is that the one above is clearly for a 757-3. dunno.gif


Guess that does it for this item, eh? Unless...
The Pilots entered the cockpit while the engines were off, never opened the cockpit doors again, until the engines were off again. It's possible but quite a stretch, it certainly would have to be an airline policy and a very notable one to boot.
Ob

Posted by: Jupiter Nov 30 2009, 08:10 AM

QUOTE
The FDR parameter for the FLT DECK DOOR was not active and recorded on this model B757. Flight 77 was a B757-2 with "N" numbers, " of N644AA" indicating that it was built in late 1991, when this model was manufactured at Boeing. On this model the FDR did not record the state of this parameter in the FDR data, even though they left room for it and recorded this data later in the newer B757-3.

There is no indication that this model had ever been upgraded to a B757-3


I've already made this point :

This claim is wrong because actually all the FDR system has been updated before 08/18/2001...

According to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...nly/s01txt.html

Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, without an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, with an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.

Airplanes manufactured after October 11, 1991, after August 18, 2000, and after August 18, 2002.

AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32.

The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80.

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...Numbertxt=644AA

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 30 2009, 08:15 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 30 2009, 08:10 AM) *
I've already made this point :

This claim is wrong because actually all the FDR system has been updated before 08/18/2001...

According to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...nly/s01txt.html

Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, without an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, with an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.

Airplanes manufactured after October 11, 1991, after August 18, 2000, and after August 18, 2002.

AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32.

The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80.

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...Numbertxt=644AA

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001

Thank you. I will pass that along.

Posted by: SwingDangler Nov 30 2009, 08:24 AM

Ok, I've debunked this no open door policy:

THE MEN WHO STARE AT DOORS

It is quite simply the willpower of a psychic radical Islamic coke snorting, prostitute buying, pork eatin' terrorist that stared at that door and caused it to open without the sensor going off. If you can kill a goat by staring at then by gosh you should be able to open a door without opening it. laughing1.gif

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 30 2009, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Nov 30 2009, 08:24 AM) *
Ok, I've debunked this no open door policy:

THE MEN WHO STARE AT DOORS

It is quite simply the willpower of a psychic radical Islamic coke snorting, prostitute buying, pork eatin' terrorist that stared at that door and caused it to open without the sensor going off. If you can kill a goat by staring at then by gosh you should be able to open a door without opening it. laughing1.gif

Who needs doors, when you can pass through walls? wink.gif

Posted by: Paul Nov 30 2009, 08:59 AM

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=160553&page=5

Looks like our detractors over at the govt loyalist site have already picked up on the news and one of them ny the name of parky67 is saying.

"and since it is now clear that the 1991 planes did not have sensors for cockpit doors, unless we see proof that one was later installed, so that the FDR could indeed record its status, we have a NON-STORY.

though, one final question from the devil's advocate in me:

are we sure that the status that is being recorded on the FDR, is the one that would be recorded if no sensor was in place to record the door's status? (though, the fact that the FDR records zero door openings for 40 hours of flight, makes it highly likely that this is indeed what happened here)

i think once this question is answered, I will be 100% convinced, that there is nothing to see here.

How do we counter theses peoples arguments, i hope we have the upper hand this time i hope that the cockpit door sensor was wired to
be picked up by the FDR as 0 closed and 1 for open?

And here is what the thier head A-Hole cowboy Mr Whackey Mackey has to say god how i hate him.

"Wow, that thread is up to 43 pages... and Cap'n Bob got outed for his impersonation of me by his own minion.

We've had our share of crazy, never-ending arguments over here, but I think this demonstrates that it's the people in the Truth Movement that cause it, not just this particular site. They elevate monomania and evangelism to a level of religious fervor even the terrorists would have to respect.

As for logical 0 or 1 being default when there's no sensor or no wire, it could be wired either way, but 0 would be the more plausible choice. This has nothing to do with the pulse logic itself, we're looking at the encoding. I see no reason whatsoever to believe the door was wired, was responding correctly, and never opened in the entire record of multiple flights -- the smart choice is simply that it wasn't wired at all or was otherwise unrecorded.

This is why "argument to anomaly" is crap. If you stare at anything hard enough, you'll come across something that doesn't make sense to you personally. But nobody cares that it doesn't make sense to you personally. This is just another form of shifting the burden of proof."

angry.gif angry.gif angry.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 30 2009, 09:02 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 30 2009, 02:10 PM) *
I've already made this point :

This claim is wrong because actually all the FDR system has been updated before 08/18/2001...

According to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...nly/s01txt.html

Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, without an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, with an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.

Airplanes manufactured after October 11, 1991, after August 18, 2000, and after August 18, 2002.

AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32.

The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80.

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...Numbertxt=644AA

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001


Hi Jupiter,
The link :

http://&quot;%20&lt;a%20href=&quot;http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...nly/s01txt.html&quot;&quot;%20target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...1txt.html&quot;&lt;/a&gt;</a>

is now showing ´error´. They have removed this info I believe.
Is there a copy of what was contained on that page?

I believe that ANY links which support the FDR cockpit door scenario
will become mysteriously ´404´ed.

Peace

OSS

PS Did anybody save the info?
Keep all links and proof on record.

Edit to add:

Maybe it has to do with volume of people searching the other link but
´We Can Not Process Your Request At This Time.´ keeps appearing.
Could be nothing.

Posted by: tit2 Nov 30 2009, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Nov 28 2009, 12:02 PM) *
Hi Jupiter,
The link :

http://&quot;%20&lt;a%20href=&quot;http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...nly/s01txt.html&quot;&quot;%20target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...1txt.html&quot;&lt;/a&gt;</a>

is now showing ´error´. They have removed this info I believe.
Is there a copy of what was contained on that page?

I believe that ANY links which support the FDR cockpit door scenario
will become mysteriously ´404´ed.

Peace

OSS

PS Did anybody save the info?
Keep all links and proof on record.

Edit to add:

Maybe it has to do with volume of people searching the other link but
´We Can Not Process Your Request At This Time.´ keeps appearing.
Could be nothing.


Link: "Flight Data Recorder Rule Change":

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/s01txt.html

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 09:22 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Nov 30 2009, 06:21 AM) *
Here's a bit more on this issue that the debunkers have posted over on Rigorous Intuition:




The problem I see with the charts Turbo posted is that the one above is clearly for a 757-3. dunno.gif



DYEW,

The guy debunked himself. Let's break this down.

QUOTE
I have gone through all of the data saved on these DFDAU units and clearly the FLT DECK DOOR status is saved for the B757-3 and above but it is not even recorded for B757-1 or B757-2.


It was recorded according to the data from Warrren and our decode of the raw file.

QUOTE
It is clear that AA77 that was a B757-2 and this type of aircraft did not record the status of the FLT DECK DOOR and all of the updates per FAA requirements did not change this parameter.


If it wasn't recorded, why is it in the decoded data produced by the RECORDER?

QUOTE
So the claim that the AA 77 FLT DECK DOOR was never opened appears to be bogus because this parameter is never even recorded on B757-2 type aircraft and AA77.


Our data provided by the NTSB shows it was recorded. The NTSB pdf's explain that it was recorded as a parameter and lists/provided the proper Data Frame Layout used to decode the data. 757-3b, which lists the FLT DECK DOOR.

DYEW, the above "duhbunker" hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Unless he wants to claim the data came from a 753 or that we fabricated the data to show the FLT DECK DOOR recording, his excuses are completely wrong.

For those who wish to use the excuse we fabricated the data, please visit ntsb.gov and fill out their FOIA request form to pick up your own directly from the NTSB.

Also guys, if you are going to post duhbunker crap here from anonymous individuals, please start a thread in the debate forum with such quotes. If it comes from a govt source or someone with a name, feel free to post it here and we'll address it. I'd prefer to keep this thread free of garbage from anonymous duhbunkers trying to find any excuse they can to hold onto their denial of the facts.

Mods, don't split out anything up to now. But if future duhbunker garbage is posted here, please split it out and move it to debate. Thanks.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 09:51 AM

QUOTE (Paul @ Nov 30 2009, 08:59 AM) *
http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=160553&page=5

Looks like our detractors over at the govt loyalist site have already picked up on the news and one of them ny the name of parky67 is saying.

"and since it is now clear that the 1991 planes did not have sensors for cockpit doors, unless we see proof that one was later installed, so that the FDR could indeed record its status, we have a NON-STORY.

though, one final question from the devil's advocate in me:

are we sure that the status that is being recorded on the FDR, is the one that would be recorded if no sensor was in place to record the door's status? (though, the fact that the FDR records zero door openings for 40 hours of flight, makes it highly likely that this is indeed what happened here)

i think once this question is answered, I will be 100% convinced, that there is nothing to see here.

How do we counter theses peoples arguments, i hope we have the upper hand this time i hope that the cockpit door sensor was wired to
be picked up by the FDR as 0 closed and 1 for open?


Hi Paul,

Please read this thread thoroughly as al lthose arguments are addressed here or linked to the AA77 forum thread where it is addressed.

To all reading, please make sure you read thoroughly. Although this is simple to understand (1 for Open, 0 For Closed), duhbunkers will be coming out of the woodwork to neutralize the argument by miuddying the waters, spin and clouding the issue as we expected. Don't just read duhbunker arguments and post them here without reading this thread thoroughly, and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239 thread in the AA77 forum. Once you have read both threads thoroughly, you will understand the arguments used by anonymous duhbunkers are nothing but garbage.

Thank you for your understanding.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 30 2009, 10:14 AM

QUOTE (Paul @ Nov 30 2009, 02:59 PM) *


Hi Paul,
These claims have been totally debunked.

QUOTE
"and since it is now clear that the 1991 planes did not have sensors for cockpit doors, unless we see proof that one was later installed, so that the FDR could indeed record its status, we have a NON-STORY.


That is a lie. Proven already on this thread by ´Jupiter´.
Cheers for the link ´Tit2¨

Claim totally debunked here. End of story:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...nly/s01txt.html

(Please copy this before it goes AWOL)

On the ´there was no sensor in place´ argument, or the ´40 hours of flight´
nonsense (the way it is presented in their argument) or the apparent DESPERATE
hope that the actual 1s and 0s are in fact´the other way round´ rolleyes.gif.....

THAT is a question that Rob Balsamo has already answered. Wstutt told us the answer to that one.
0 = CLOSED 1 = OPEN.

WStutt is reading the thread now if he wishes to refute this.

´40 hours flight´ is now being bandied about as if it were consecutive hours.
It was 40 hours data from TWELVE flights.
As has been pointed out elsewhere that does NOT mean 40 hours IN THE AIR.
Each flight takes on average 20 minutes AT LEAST to take off.
20 minutes AT LEAST to reach the assigned terminal on landing.

12 x 40 = 8 hours

That leaves 32 hours of flight / 12 = @ 2 hours 35 minutes airborne
So it is not as outlandish or extraordinary as this guy makes out.

Turbofan has covered the next point ad nauseum and these @holes know it.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779422

QUOTE
With electronic circuits (specifically digital signals), you
must NEVER leave a pin open. It must be referenced to VSS (signal high), or
Ground (signal low) at all times. It CANNOT remain floating or the input circuitry
will receive noise, and/or an undetermined value.

For this reason, the following circuit is the standard for switched logic circuits. There
may be variations, however the signal input line will ALWAYS sense Ground (logic 0),
or VSS (logic 1)




QUOTE
So what does this mean? Well, according to the documentation, the door
is closed when a logic zero is received at Port D14, word 251, bit 1, subframe 3.

If this parameter was NEVER recorded the documentation would not assign a port,
and/or a word/bit position.

If the door was left open, the value would read logic 1 (VSS) as shown on the
right side (Figure 2).

Parameters that are not recorded (IE: spares, or unused ports) are tied to ground
instead of VSS to reduce current draw and power consumption in a circuit.

Assigned parameters are never 'floating' and will either see a logic 1, or logic 0. In the
case of the Flight Deck Door, it was reading ground which means it was closed (logic 0).


QUOTE
angry.gif angry.gif angry.gif


I wouldn´t sweat these inexperienced keyboard cowboys who make up crap as
they go along, ignore the FACTS and claim they know more than
a body of professional pilots/aeronautical experts.
Yeah man they do my head in too lol.

Posted by: Rickysa Nov 30 2009, 10:43 AM

(In Jupiter's post on page 7, I should add)

The FAA, and Boeing links no longer work either....hmmmmmm

Posted by: 911analyzer Nov 30 2009, 11:30 AM

Wow, some great posts going down here. Just read every post in the thread.

Thanks Rob.

Stupid Questions from a non pilot:

Does the FDR only record when it is airborne, or does it also record during taxi/terminal entrance?

Or how about to be absolutely clear for any non pilots, can you please state for sure the start/stop points for FDR's?

The point I'm getting at is I want to be clear that pilot entry exits to/from cockpit at plane startup and after landings are never recorded, and that the lack of any door open status at all is correct?

While it was great to get that info on the FAA required updates, it would be nice to know that this door sensor was part of those required updates. I didn't see that mentioned specifically anywhere. While the update groups were mentioned, we need to know that this sensor was specifically included as a necessary recorded parameter required via FAA mandate. If not, then do we really have a case? Because then it becomes a question of whether the airline chose to record that parameter, and if not, then how they wired the circuit.

Funny thing is, who needs debunkers? Either the info stands up to the truth or it doesn't. I trust the truth is what we're (most of us) are after. You know who you are.

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 30 2009, 12:57 PM

Hi All!

I think Rob has hit the nail on the head iin his No. 138.

The GL claim is that the FDR was not rigged to record the Flight Deck Door Open/Closed and thus did not record it.

However, the FDR data indicates that it was rigged to record that item, and, in fact, did record it as "Closed". If you ask me that stops the argument right there without having to plumb the depths of whether it was required to be updated or in fact updated.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 01:09 PM

The FDR starts recording when the engines are started at the gate, and stop when the engines are shut down at arrival gate.

This has been covered a few times before and is also seen in the FDR data on thre very first line of recording (the engines are running).

The pilots were in their seats and the cockpit was secure when the FDR started to record.

Posted by: tit2 Nov 30 2009, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (Rickysa @ Nov 28 2009, 01:43 PM) *
(In Jupiter's post on page 7, I should add)

The FAA, and Boeing links no longer work either....hmmmmmm


Boeing link:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/s01txt.html

FAA link:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=644AA

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 30 2009, 01:41 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 10:40 PM) *
But the fact remains, the data shows the door as closed, the altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, Vertical speed too great for level off as seen in DoD 5 frames video, the list goes on. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on such blatant conflict with the govt story.


The bold part is very key for everyone to remember about PFT's work in analyzing the FDR data as well.

One point I want to ask about or make is this; if the other 11 flights don't show a door opening and closing during flight isn't this also indicative of falsified data? Either way, we have proof that the 9/11 flight required a door opening and closing.

I think in order for their story to work, they need to open the door and NOT bust it through. The story is that they got into the cockpit without allowing the pilots to alert ATC of a hijacking emergency. The story would require using a stewardess to gain access logically. If they tried busting the door down the pilots would sound the alarm after the first thud I would imagine.

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 30 2009, 02:34 PM

os i was in the post office today and shared this huge development and posed the question of how the plane could possibly been hijacked at all. one lady suggested that the hijackers were in the cockpit prior to engine ignition. doesn't seem plausible to me...anybody?

Posted by: guard Nov 30 2009, 02:39 PM

I'm not an expert on this and hope I don't sound stupid here but...
It would be very difficult to make synthetic data for a flight recorder. An immense undertaking to successfully falsify all flight parameters that are recorded and have the thing look real. The best way to falsify the flight recorder would be have all data be real data, except the time and identification data. Before the actual event, fly an identical plane on the planned route to the Pentagon, then take the recorded data and put flight 77 time and ID on it. It would not show the plane actually crashing, just flying very low over the Pentagon, as we in fact find on this flight record. They would overlook the fact that they should have opened the cabin door once in a while, and could gloss over the last few seconds of data that show the plane does not actually crash.
Next step is to look for an identical aircraft flying this pattern weeks or months before to record the data for later. This would require digging through a lot of flight control records, but it's possible.
Since weather affects flight parameters, there should be some discrepancy because there would be no way to predict what the weather would be on the actual day of the claimed flight.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 02:43 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 30 2009, 02:34 PM) *
os i was in the post office today and shared this huge development and posed the question of how the plane could possibly been hijacked at all. one lady suggested that the hijackers were in the cockpit prior to engine ignition. doesn't seem plausible to me...anybody?


This was covered. How would they "herd" the pilots to the back of the plane if the door was never open as explained in the article?

For those who wish to browse the common arguments, I have consolidated them all here.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18428&view=findpost&p=10779630

I will update it as more arise.

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 30 2009, 03:32 PM

that's not really where i was going with this. the narrative of events is based on suspect cell phone calls during flight. i'm going with the assumption the door is closed and remains so for the flight. prior to take-off the cockpit crew talks to tower etc, the flight attendants check seats and so on. something would be clearly amiss long before take-off if there were 'extra' people in the cockpit.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 03:39 PM

QUOTE
Another theory that some may use is that Hani was on the jumpseat and therefore the door never needed to be open. After 9/11, the cockpit jumpseat was closed to all offline commuters (pilots from other airlines who couldnt be verified) due to the fact govt officials thought the hijackers had access to the flight deck. Is the [Door] parameter the reason why they thought this? Because the door was never opened? If this were the case, you still have 2 pilots against one, and the problem of 'herding the pilots to the back of the plane'. The door had to be open either way, and for more than 4 seconds... if the govt story is to hold true.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779362

Posted by: bobcat46 Nov 30 2009, 05:12 PM

painter: Will do....you are right, I should have taken the cell phone thing to a new thread. Sorry bout dat!!

bobcat46

Posted by: Turbofan Nov 30 2009, 08:43 PM

Does anyone have screen shots of this information?

It seems all links have been "removed"! Hmmm... rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 30 2009, 08:10 AM) *
I've already made this point :

This claim is wrong because actually all the FDR system has been updated before 08/18/2001...

According to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...nly/s01txt.html

Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, without an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.
Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, with an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996.

Airplanes manufactured after October 11, 1991, after August 18, 2000, and after August 18, 2002.

AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32.

The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80.

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...Numbertxt=644AA

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001

Posted by: JFK Nov 30 2009, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (xxxxxx @ Nov 30 2009, 08:43 PM) *
Deleted by request from poster...


The first link was broken when Jupiter copy/pasted the link. ( truncated with "..." in the middle )

I probably have a copy of the second, but am not finding it at the moment.
The NTSB does not make it easy by using dynamic links to their .PDF files.

Edit to add - Try this for the second link :

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=644AA

Posted by: painter Nov 30 2009, 10:34 PM

I've split off the Neil Slade discussion which can now be found in the Debate Forum here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18431&hl=

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 30 2009, 11:48 PM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 1 2009, 02:58 AM) *
The first link was broken when Jupiter copy/pasted the link. ( truncated with "..." in the middle )

I probably have a copy of the second, but am not finding it at the moment.
The NTSB does not make it easy by using dynamic links to their .PDF files.

Edit to add - Try this for the second link :

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=644AA


Here´s the link to the first one kindly supplied by tit2(?).
Sorry if I got your nick wrong..

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/s01txt.html

Haven´t/couldn´t save a screen shot but I have it copied if that´s any good?

Peace.

Posted by: Rhyso Nov 30 2009, 11:57 PM

Hi All,

This thread is what has drawn me to this site, I have been debating the 9/11 subject for over 6 years now on the skydive website called dropzone.com

I linked this thread and the origonal post there, with ridicule form most I was replied with this seemingly educated comment;

QUOTE
You are not seeing the data; the actual data would be a lot of 1's and 0's organized into data frames. You are seeing the data as interpreted by a Boeing interpretation program. This program reports everything that could possibly be reported by any FDR in their fleet. If a data parameter is not used by the particular FDR it is reported as inactive.

The flight data recorder itself (which Boeing calls a DFDAU) is described by Boeing document D226A101-3 rev G. It specifies all the connections between the DFDAU and the aircraft, including things like flap handle position (analog input) and TCAS on/off switch (diigtal input.) It does not include a cockpit door indication. Thus, any interpreter program that expects a cockpit door indication, but is fed data from a DFDAU that does not support this sensor, will read inactive (closed.)

If you would like to read the spec for yourself, it's here:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/...ad/id4067718242.html

Check it out. No cockpit door sensor.

If you still don't believe me, take a look at the entire data stream. See if it ever says "door open" - including before takeoff. Indeed, the data stream I saw included the previous 12 flights. The data never indicated an open door, ever. I doubt one crew flew them all without ever eating or peeing.

FDR myth - busted.


I know the admin is getting tired of people asking the same questions and I have browsed the thread looking for an answer specific to the reply i just pasted above, i oppologise if i missed it but i would like someone to help me answer to the reply i just pasted.

I have no problem getting my head around engineering and physics subjects but when it comes to technical aircraft information, whooosh straight over my head.

I thank anyone in advance for their input, and I also thank everyone that has spent s much time and energy focusing on finding the truth and being open minded.

thanks again,

Rhys

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 12:09 AM

NTSB American Airlines Flight 77 FDR Report
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

NTSB 757-3b Data Frame Layout as specified in above pdf, and noted in D226A101-3 rev G, attached.

Both show FLT DECK DOOR parameter.

See here for common arguments regarding Parameters "not working or unconfirmed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18428&view=findpost&p=10779630

The Flight Data Recorder is referred to as an SSFDR. The Flight Data Acquisition Unit is referred to as a DFDAU.

The person you quoted is clueless Ryhso. Tell him he needs to do more study.

 757_3b_1.TXT ( 640.98K ) : 305
 

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Dec 1 2009, 12:10 AM

More than 53000 visitors at this point...

What comes to mind is the great shoe dodger himself- although that was a special moment in history, i think. PFT won't be able to match that even with a video of Donald Rumsfeld openly declaring that he was merely playing with his remote control Model aircraft while wearing his mothers underwear.

The closed cockpit-door is maybe not exactly a smoking gun:
That would be asking too much. At least for now.
It's more like the echo of a gunshot which is not supposed to have been fired in the first place.

So, many people come and look at this. Some maybe out of idle curiosity. Some because it makes them think: That's good so. Thinking has almost become a lost artform lately...

Look and see. Ask questions.
But keep in mind that Rob Balsamo and the Admins here are under a lot of pressure as it is.
There's not much of a point in adding to that pressure just for the heck of it.

Posted by: A. Syed Dec 1 2009, 01:49 AM

Wow, I'm blown away by the number of views this thread has received!

Posted by: Turbofan Dec 1 2009, 02:54 AM

I've taken screen shots of both links from FAA and Boeing to show the revision and certifcation history.

It would be a good idea for everyone to save copies to their hard drives in the event those pages get "lost".

This is huge news everyone. The FDR mods for FLT Deck were installed as per links, and the circuit uses a
proximity switch which rules out excuses for 'kicked down door', and 'faulty door switch'.

I will explain further with an indepth, simple break down with diagrams that non-techs can comprehend.

Congrats on the find P4T and members. G Bush & Co. have some 'splainin to do!

Posted by: joebeast Dec 1 2009, 05:05 AM

Gentlemen,

This is a message from France where people are getting more and more aware of the problems of 911 even if we still have a lot of very agressive debunkers within the french media. I've been labeled as a negationist after I went on multiple tv shows to expose the doubts we all have. (I'm a actor director well known in france)

I've met with Niels Harrit and Mc Kenney, Chiesa and other specialists, architects, and scientists.

I subjected the file to an independant plane crash expert who worked on the TWA800 explosion (another incredible "mishaps" from the US gov in 1996, probably hit by a missile during training...The files for this very sensitive accident where archived in...WTC7) http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html. He asked around and looked at the file and came back with a mixed answer.

From different pilots who flew on Boeing 757, none of them can confirm that the doors where monitored before 911. But most of them flew on international long courier flight on french companies, not american ones.

As you all know, proofs have to be undebunkable from aA to Z if we can take them into account and talk about it in the media.

The debunkers's first attack is that most of us are gathering informations from the web and that this info is been repeated and confirmed by the buzz before it's actually proven solid evidence. I don't want to be caught in that loop so i need to verify everything by myself and cross examin everything before I can stick my neck out.

If I go in the media and I claim that the doors of A77 where never opened, I have to be sure that a debunker who's more specialized than me cannot provide documents that confirms the opposite.

Understand that when we talk to the press, they are looking for every words, every numbers, claim, proof that we bring on the table to debunk it. For an audience, if we look like fools ONLY on one detail; then we loose all credibility. This is a very important aspect of the truth movement.

Even if the amount of evidences are getting stronger everyday, I try never to forget that we are looking for the truth, we cannot make it.

Right now, the information is been confirmed by some of your members and pilots, but we need a final article that will bring all the details into one understandable and accurate document with all the datas, and physical documents that will confirm your work and can be used as a reference.

We "civilians" need scientific articles that we can use to pass the message along without looking stupid in front of specialists.

Thank you for your incredible work with the web site and the films (i ordered all 7 of them, very "educational" wink.gif).

M

Posted by: tezzajw Dec 1 2009, 05:36 AM

QUOTE (joebeast @ Dec 1 2009, 08:05 PM) *
If I go in the media and I claim that the doors of A77 where never opened, I have to be sure that a debunker who's more specialized than me cannot provide documents that confirms the opposite.

You pretty much summarise it right there. Be careful of words and claims.

IF it can be determined that the sensors were working fine, they were wired up properly and installed, the FDR was functioning properly, etc... if all that checks out, then it's best to state that according to the FDR, the doors were always CLOSED.

Stating facts can't be disputed. Stating opinions can be disputed. None of us were on the flight deck that day. None of us knows what happened, which is why absolute facts are critical.

Of course, there's the big conditional IF everything can be shown to be functioning normally.

IF that case can be made, then it is up to the government and the official government story believers to defend their hijack story. There is no requirement for anyone to say that the doors were never opened, as that's not strictly a true statement. The doors could have been opened extremely briefly, without being sensed. The only requirment is to point to the perfectly functioning FDR, which shows that the doors were always CLOSED and then to ask them how the flight deck was breached.

Let them make up the stories for how the flight deck can be breached, with the FDR reading doors CLOSED. Don't offer any theories or opinion, just rely on the fact gained from the perfectly working FDR system. After all, they have the burden to prove the hijack and it will be a lot harder for them to explain it, with a perfectly functioning FDR system showing the door CLOSED. Maybe MacGyver and Michael Weston (Burn Notice) were helping the hijackers - who knows - let them think up their own reasons and excuses for how it was done with the FDR showing the door CLOSED.

You can see the scramble on some government loyalist forums as they are already inventing ways to breach a flight deck with the FDR showing a CLOSED door.



Of course, that's a long way off. Until it can be shown, absolutely 100%, that everything checks out, it's all speculative. While I don't mean to look like I am pouring cold water on the effort, it will need a lot more independent verification before the claim can be made as fact. It's a good feeling to have raised hopes, however it may be more than likely that there could be another explanation for the reading. At the very least, it may raise suspicions about some other parameters that may or may not have been recording properly. If part of the FDR data is somewhat suspect, then what other parts of the data may also be suspect?

People who jump the gun probably need to ride it out a little and see what happens, while others are certainly working behind the scenes to try and crack this latest puzzle.

That's my take on it.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 05:58 AM

Hi joebeast,

Welcome to the forum.

American Airlines shows that they record the door, United Airlines does not.

Recording the door is airline specfic. So asking pilots from other Airlines (inside or outside the USA) is moot.

If you intend to go on media and interview, stick to the facts.

The facts are

- the FDR shows too high to hit the pentagon
- Shows too great a descent for the virtually level flight path seen in the Pentagon Parking Cam video
- Shows the door closed for the Hijacked flight.
- The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment

also, we have one page press releases left margin of our home page which you can use. http://pilotsfor911truth.org

One page articles are linked from our front page for any type of argument out there presently.

If you would like to browse the common arguments, please see these two links.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18428

These are the facts. All else is theory and speculation with respect to the data until the NTSB or FBI explain their data and provide proof for their claims.

Keep in mind, this is a very complex topic, The winner of a debate on public television will only prove who has done more homework prior to the interview. Not who is right.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: joebeast Dec 1 2009, 05:59 AM

Thanks for you quick reply.

I would like to get in touch with the admin of this site for an in depth itw if possible.

Posted by: tezzajw Dec 1 2009, 06:09 AM

QUOTE (joebeast @ Dec 1 2009, 08:59 PM) *
As there was other 757's who crashed that day, can't we match datas from different black boxes to see if the door of every planes where monitored ?

You could, but it would be pointless.

Focus your attention entirely upon what the systems were recording on the alleged Flight AA77. Use the data that's been provided for that plane and pick it apart.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 06:19 AM

QUOTE (joebeast @ Dec 1 2009, 05:59 AM) *
Thanks for you quick reply.

I would like to get in touch with the admin of this site for an in depth itw if possible.



joe, email me at pilots(at)pilotsfor911truth.org and we'll chat.

Also, i edited my post above to add more information for you to use.

Rob

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 1 2009, 06:26 AM

Hi, been reading this topic with great interest but I agree caution must be used. I know of frustration by too many questions but I have some, sorry.

Does the switch on the door make light lit up for pilot and make light outside cockpit door dim to stop cockpit flooded by light? If there is a problem with switch not working it would be definite noticed by the crew if they open door and no usual lighting effect happens? Is it same switch for data recorder and can this rule out fault in switch because it would be fixed before next flight never mind 11 flights?

Good Luck.

Posted by: Turbofan Dec 1 2009, 06:46 AM

I am in the process of reseraching this at the moment. From what I know:

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 1 2009, 06:26 AM) *
Does the switch on the door make light lit up for pilot and make light outside cockpit door dim to stop cockpit flooded by light?


Yes, the relay seems to control the lighting at the Flight Deck Step and Pilot's panel indicators.

QUOTE
If there is a problem with switch not working it would be definite noticed by the crew if they open door and no usual lighting effect happens?


Yes, a fault would be noticed.

QUOTE
Is it same switch for data recorder and can this rule out fault in switch because it would be fixed before next flight never mind 11 flights?


I don't believe this is the same switch for the Flight Data Recorder. The documentation shows a link to the EICAS according to the port assignments.
We are still trying to determine where the signal is linked from the door circuit. In any case, a faulty switch shows an OPEN door, and the lights
would illuminate on the Pilot's control panel, and also the associated lamps for the step.

Once I receive confirmation on this, we will update the thread...so hang tight!

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 1 2009, 07:21 AM

I do not believe in faulty switch but unsure all failure modes will lead to "a faulty switch shows an OPEN door"

Posted by: Obwon Dec 1 2009, 07:27 AM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Nov 30 2009, 12:57 PM) *
Hi All!

I think Rob has hit the nail on the head iin his No. 138.

The GL claim is that the FDR was not rigged to record the Flight Deck Door Open/Closed and thus did not record it.

However, the FDR data indicates that it was rigged to record that item, and, in fact, did record it as "Closed". If you ask me that stops the argument right there without having to plumb the depths of whether it was required to be updated or in fact updated.


Seconded, they've established for me, satisfactorily that:
The parameter was installed!
There wouldn't be a data block reserved for it, without an operational sensor and/or without sufficient documentation, notes, cautions, warnings etc., to alert subsequent data users of any and all anomalies to be expected "for cause".
Things just aren't done that way in this realm.

Thus I can dismiss claims that this plane wasn't not recording the cockpit doors states.

I'm posting prematurely (my consideration) since I haven't yet read to the end of this thread.

The only question now remaining for me personally is: "40 hours of door closed readings."

Some of that has been answered by a post that reasonably explains that in the course of 12 flights that took place in this time frame, as much as 12 hours can be accounted for by taxiing from runway to gate or vice versa, by allowing 30 minutes per on average. I'll add to that, flight delays that might have occurred over that period. So someone might check that as well.

Also, it's been noted, pretty near the start, that the data recording does not start until the engines are started. If there are environmental protocols in place at the airports, engines might not be started and running, as one might assume they would ordinarily.

In any event, to the casual observer, it seems plausible that over several hours, whether in flight or not, an open state for the cockpit door is expected to be recorded. If not, then an explanation is required. So that's what I'll be looking for from here on.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 10:25 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Dec 1 2009, 01:27 PM) *
In any event, to the casual observer, it seems plausible that over several hours, whether in flight or not, an open state for the cockpit door is expected to be recorded. If not, then an explanation is required. So that's what I'll be looking for from here on.


They seem to like to meticulously dodge that part just as they have the fatally anomalous values for altitude and everything else in THEIR data.

Amazingly enough, alleged researcher http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18264 has been conspicuously silent about this as well even though I see him lurking the thread at this very moment.

Cat got your tongue Warren?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 10:35 AM

Boy he sure disappeared fast!

Posted by: JFK Dec 1 2009, 10:38 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 10:35 AM) *
Boy he sure disappeared fast!


Perhaps he is looking at the data ? dunno.gif

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 1 2009, 10:40 AM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 1 2009, 11:26 AM) *
Hi, been reading this topic with great interest but I agree caution must be used. I know of frustration by too many questions but I have some, sorry.

Does the switch on the door make light lit up for pilot and make light outside cockpit door dim to stop cockpit flooded by light? If there is a problem with switch not working it would be definite noticed by the crew if they open door and no usual lighting effect happens? Is it same switch for data recorder and can this rule out fault in switch because it would be fixed before next flight never mind 11 flights?

Good Luck.



Hi Jefferson,

Remember this about the FDR data:

QUOTE
The facts are

- the FDR shows too high to hit the pentagon
- Shows too great a descent for the virtually level flight path seen in the Pentagon Parking Cam video

- Shows the door closed for the Hijacked flight.
- The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment


The ones in bold should tell you that there is more than likely a serious problem with the doors showing closed.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 1 2009, 10:51 AM

"The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment"

Is that unusual?

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 3 2009, 07:08 PM) *
Flight 93 is also a different sample rate, word structure, etc. If I recall off the top, only 128 words per second
(which is half of Flight 77).

Not nearly as many parameters recorded for that flight. Don't let anyone make that parallel in a debate, it
is dead wrong.
Actually the FDR on UAL93 recorded 64 word subframes, so that is one quarter of the size of the 256 word subframes recorded by the FDR on AAL77.

Warren.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 1 2009, 11:09 AM

I seem to remember also the conversation (sry can´t find the link at the mo) between Rob and WStutt
where ROB was the one who brought the Flightdeck door anomaly in the FDR data to HIS attention.
Just in case anybody was under the illusion that Warren brought this info ´to light´.
There have been a number of quotes from ´detractors´ which genuinely interested individuals (both new
and old forum members here) have raised during this thread which have been debunked.
WStutt has been watching this thread EVERY day and failed to leave ONE post , that I am aware of, to
confirm that what is being spun as fact on other sites are lies or incorrect at best.
It´s your program that has stirred this hornet´s nest Warren. The least you can do is confirm or deny
what people are claiming.
If you are indeed in touch with core members here on a private level then I apologise.
If you are an ´unbiased´ sincere researcher, let a few people here ´pick your brains´
After seeing the link Craig gave I believe you´ve been hanging around ´the other site´ too long.
Keith Wheelhouse?? Looks like someone has been following Caustic Logic´s debunked threads.
Go over to CIT´s forums and look at some REAL research on eyewitness testimony.

Peace.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 1 2009, 11:10 AM

Hello!
LOL

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 11:17 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 4 2009, 02:01 AM) *
<snip>
Maybe WStutt could verify his claims as to the the other ´eleven´(?) flights?

WStutt?

Peace.
I've added an http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/AllSubframesFltDeckDoor.csv for all subframes (i.e. all the flights in the FDR) for the FLT DECK DOOR, PRES POSN, GMT, Words in Frame and Sync Lost parameters.

Let me know if you were wanting something else.

Warren.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 1 2009, 11:25 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 1 2009, 05:17 PM) *
I've added an http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/AllSubframesFltDeckDoor.csv for all subframes (i.e. all the flights in the FDR) for the FLT DECK DOOR, PRES POSN, GMT, Words in Frame and Sync Lost parameters.

Let me know if you were wanting something else.

Warren.


Thanks Warren.
Is there any way you can tell us (in laymans terms if possible) the LENGTH of time of
each flight recorded on this FDR?
I mean, were they all internal flights?

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 11:28 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 4 2009, 12:44 PM) *
Wstutt is looking at the thread now.
What´s Farmer talking about Wstutt, please?

<snip>
Perhaps you could join in whatever forum those quotes were taken from and ask him yourself.

Warren.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 1 2009, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 1 2009, 05:28 PM) *
Perhaps you could join in whatever forum those quotes were taken from and ask him yourself.

Warren.


Maybe because I wanted to hear from the horse´s mouth and not a proven disinfobot
and liar surrounded by hatemongers?

Edit to add:
Don´t worry, his claims were blown away within an hour by this post

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779507

Thanks anyway.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 11:42 AM

Ok all, lets lighten up on Warren.

I have no reason to believe he is anything but sincere and he has been a perfect gentleman on this forum. So please be civil towards him.

With that said, we have verified Warrens data for the last flight only, the alleged hijacking on Sept 11, it shows the door closed.

Some have made the claim that the rest of the data also shows the door closed for the entire time. We at P4T do not have the resources at this time to verify that additional data. But again, we did verify the last flight through our own decode. In the future, we may be able to verify the rest.

As we know, those who make excuse for the govt story will believe anything they're told if it supports their beliefs. None of them have verified the ADDITIONAL 40 hours of data. They just take it at face value because it MAY support their agenda.

Keep in mind, if the data all showed 1's, meaning door open, we can definitively say the data is erroneous, as there is no way the cockpit door would be open for 40 hours of passenger service at American Airlines. And if logic has any value, this would be the bit value recorded if the FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter wasn't hooked up to the system so when a tech reviews the data, he can readily admit its not valid.

But the fact is the data shows all 0's for the last flight and verified by P4T. This means the door was closed for that flight and the hijacking impossible BASED ON THE DATA. The NTSB/FBI are the only ones who are able to, and need to, explain this alarming conflict.

All else is speculation and theory.

Again, this data not PROOF of anything as I mentioned on page one of this thread where i stated "...we can not confirm or deny the authenticity of the data as provided by the NTSB". All we know for a FACT, is that the data being provided by the NTSB to the American public through the FOIA does NOT support the govt story, once again. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 11:42 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 5 2009, 03:14 PM) *
<snip>
On the ´there was no sensor in place´ argument, or the ´40 hours of flight´
nonsense (the way it is presented in their argument) or the apparent DESPERATE
hope that the actual 1s and 0s are in fact´the other way round´ rolleyes.gif.....

THAT is a question that Rob Balsamo has already answered. Wstutt told us the answer to that one.
0 = CLOSED 1 = OPEN.

WStutt is reading the thread now if he wishes to refute this.

<snip>
I agree with 0 = CLOSED, 1 = OPEN. http://warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/index.html agree on this.

Warren.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 1 2009, 11:49 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 1 2009, 05:42 PM) *
I agree with 0 = CLOSED, 1 = OPEN. http://warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/index.html agree on this.

Warren.


Thanks Warren.
That was just one of the quotes I was referring to that could have been cleared up in a sec.
Sorry if I came across as abrasive or that you may have thought there was a ´tone´ in my
earlier posts you are now answering.
I saw you watching the thread. That´s all.

Peace.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 6 2009, 04:25 PM) *
Thanks Warren.
Is there any way you can tell us (in laymans terms if possible) the LENGTH of time of
each flight recorded on this FDR?
I mean, were they all internal flights?
I've uploaded http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/FlightTimes.csv. Note these times will be from when the engines were turned on until they were turned off. They won't be accurate to the second, but they should be accurate to the nearest minute.

Obviously some of the times (as short as 16 seconds) are much too short to be actual flights. Perhaps Rob or someone else could comment on why the engines would be turned on and off without the aircraft leaving the airport.

The longest flight time is 4 hours and 34 minutes. I believe the FDR shows the aircraft as having never left the USA, but I have not checked through all the data. The work I did on my http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12616 indicated that all the flights in the FDR at least started in the USA.

Warren.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 12:39 PM

Thanks for finally chiming in Warren!

Would you please do us the courtesy of sharing your personal opinion regarding this discovery by Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

Do you agree that the data fatally contradicts the official assertion of a hijacking?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 12:39 PM) *
Thanks for finally chiming in Warren!

Would you please do us the courtesy of sharing your personal opinion regarding this discovery by Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

Do you agree that the data fatally contradicts the official assertion of a hijacking?



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779484

Posted by: Obwon Dec 1 2009, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 10:40 AM) *
Hi Jefferson,

Remember this about the FDR data:



The ones in bold should tell you that there is more than likely a serious problem with the doors showing closed.


Hahaha... I agree... But if we can't get a hijacker into the cockpit... Hey, wait... I've got it! He waylaid the pilot and stole his uniform then he... Then he??? Oh phooey, he didn't speakee de ingly well enough to fool anyone. Back to the drawing board. laughing1.gif

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 12:55 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 1 2009, 05:47 PM) *
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779484


I didn't see where he offered his opinion as to whether or not he agrees with you that the data fatally contradicts the official assertion of a hijacking.

Did I miss it?

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 12:58 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 6 2009, 04:49 PM) *
Thanks Warren.
That was just one of the quotes I was referring to that could have been cleared up in a sec.
Sorry if I came across as abrasive or that you may have thought there was a ´tone´ in my
earlier posts you are now answering.
I saw you watching the thread. That´s all.

Peace.
That's OK. I see others have noticed that I was reading this thread and not replying as well. I wanted to wait until I had read through the entire thread before replying.

Warren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 01:00 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 12:55 PM) *
I didn't see where he offered his opinion as to whether or not he agrees with you that the data fatally contradicts the official assertion of a hijacking.

Did I miss it?


Well, it clearly conflicts with the govt story, a 1 or 0 is pretty open and shut. A 1 needs to be in that data somewhere around 0850-0854. It's not. The question is why. Warren claims to be open to suggestions according to his post linked.

So, take it from there I suppose.

smile.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 01:03 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 1 2009, 12:58 PM) *
That's OK. I see others have noticed that I was reading this thread and not replying as well. I wanted to wait until I had read through the entire thread before replying.

Warren.


I'll expand on this. I have seen Warren signed on to the same thread for days, never making a post. Just sitting in there studying, learning.

It's a good quality to have. smile.gif

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 1 2009, 06:00 PM) *
Well, it clearly conflicts with the govt story, a 1 or 0 is pretty open and shut. A 1 needs to be in that data somewhere around 0850-0854. It's not. The question is why. Warren claims to be open to suggestions according to his post linked.

So, take it from there I suppose.

smile.gif


I have seen no indication that Warren is willing to take a position on anything at all including whether or not 9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.

If this cockpit door issue is as "clear" as you state then there should be no reason why Warren wouldn't make a statement publicly agreeing with you.

In fact the same goes for your debunk of the "4 feet" assertion that he is responsible for even though we got him to admit that his "intrigue" regarding your claim for altitude was what inspired him to do his own decode of the data to begin with!

Stutt said:

QUOTE (Stutt)
"I was intrigued enough by Pilots for 9/11 Truth's claim that AAL77 was too high to hit the light poles, based on the FDR data decoded by the NTSB to want to do my own decode of the FDR data."
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18264&view=findpost&p=10778400


So frankly I feel it is his responsiblity to make a public statement acknowledging that your claims regarding altitude checked out after his independent research.

How much time should he be allowed to "study" these issues? I'd say the time has already passed regarding the altitude issue and that it's about time regarding the cockpit door issue as well.

If he refuses to address this directly at all he is not being forthright and he is effectively allowing others to use his decode as a layer of disinformation without speaking out.

That is very serious.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 02:09 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 6 2009, 04:09 PM) *
I seem to remember also the conversation (sry can´t find the link at the mo) between Rob and WStutt
where ROB was the one who brought the Flightdeck door anomaly in the FDR data to HIS attention.
I believe you are referring to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779347.

Here's my story on how this came about.

I was looking through the data frame layout for a parameter when I noticed the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. I thought that it could be used to see when the hijacking took place, so I added it to the program, since I was already adding other parameters anyway. When I ran the program to check all the new parameters I had added for the final flight, I noticed that all the FLT DECK DOOR values were CLOSED, which I didn't expect. I then got the program to do a decode FLT DECK DOOR for all flights in the FDR and saw that all the values were CLOSED. I then thought that the parameter might not be recorded correctly and that I couldn't be certain one way or the other whether the door was actually closed throughout the entire final flight or not, so I didn't think much of it. On the other hand, the values were not such that it was clear that the parameter was not being recorded correctly (say like continually switching between open and closed for example) so I left it in the program, which I subsequently uploaded along with updated output files.

I list parameters http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/NotesOnParameters.html which I can see are clearly not being recorded correctly and that I removed from the program. If it is not clear to me, then I leave the parameters in.

Now that Rob has highlighted the importance of the FLT DECK DOOR parameter, I'll be doing some more work to hopefully bring some more light on this issue. I now see that he had thought about the importance of the FLT DECK DOOR parameter before I did, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779364.

QUOTE
<snip>
After seeing the link Craig gave I believe you´ve been hanging around ´the other site´ too long.
<snip>

Peace.
I gained valuable information that enabled me to write my decoder program both from this site and 'the other site' (J.R.E.F.). Information that Pilots for 9/11 Truth member UnderTow provided including but not limited to ReadOut2 were crucial as was a particular post on J.R.E.F. When I announced my program, I announced it on both sites and let both know that I would also be discussing it on each others sites. I intend to continue considering points raised by both sites.

Warren.

Posted by: Obwon Dec 1 2009, 02:10 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 12:39 PM) *
Thanks for finally chiming in Warren!

Would you please do us the courtesy of sharing your personal opinion regarding this discovery by Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

Do you agree that the data fatally contradicts the official assertion of a hijacking?


People have been convicted of capital crimes, using less data than we have here, against the official story. Yet, N.C.I.S. and C.S.I. still draw top tv ratings, go figure, eh? Yet we're still required to beat our heads against the wall, to come up with yet another peice of evidence to support our "claims" that the official story isn't accurate. Ha! Be that as it may. We don't lose our heads over it, we just keep going onward like the energizer bunny.

The more time we put in and the more we find to discuss, gives people something to get interested in, no matter how much of a "true believer" they are or were. That's a good thing. If it had not been for people continuing to try to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, this subject would have probably gone forgotten by all but a few.

Now the facts are piling up on our side of the ledger! We have the attack craft flying over the building. We have the attack craft, without a way to hit the light poles. We have a hijacker/pilot who could not have flown the aircraft. And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I direct your attention to the center ring of the Big Top where -- we have no way for the hijacker to get into the cockpit.

It's now veridical that the door was monitored and the monitor was operating. There are no cautions or notices to the contrary, as there would be if they were left, or in any other way, inoperative.

So that now, the "other side" has only the matter of "door never opens" to hang their hats on, and that's falling quickly. So we've got 42hrs 59mins 59 sec, of flights, for which we need some record of the door having been opened. Or a reasonable explanation of why this condition does not get recorded.

As for the engines being turned on and off, too quickly for a flight to have occurred, maintenance/checking is the easy answer. I'd be willing to bet that there much that could not be checked without the engines being started.

Another answer I can think of is that due to environmental concerns, leaving engines running, as they used to do in the 60's and 70's probably isn't done today. If they only start the engines after the passengers and luggage/cargo is aboard, then there's plenty of time to access the cockpit as needed, to store things away, such that, at least on short flights, there's hardly a reason to open the cockpit door.

Also, let's remember that there was some reason to be concerned about aircraft security, even if none had been hijacked in nearly 20 years. Remember the Genoa G-8? Where Bellisconi created an uproar in the Italian press, that was also reported here, when he decide to put anti-aircraft missiles on the rooftops of downtown Genoa, on account of threat warnings that terrorists might be trying to hijack commercial aircraft and crash them into the building housing the G-8 meeting. This was in July of 2001. Condolezza Rice may have had short term memory problems, when she said she couldn't imagine such. She attended that meeting with Bush. Oh my!

Ob

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 02:23 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 6 2009, 05:39 PM) *
Thanks for finally chiming in Warren!

Would you please do us the courtesy of sharing your personal opinion regarding this discovery by Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

Do you agree that the data fatally contradicts the official assertion of a hijacking?
Hi Craig,

I am not certain either way at this point. I will be doing more work that may make me settle more on one side of this debate or the other. I'll post the results here when I have them. There is still much I don't know about the details of how the combined door sensor, EICAS, DFAU and FDR system worked on AAL77.

Warren.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 02:35 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 1 2009, 08:23 PM) *
Hi Craig,

I am not certain either way at this point. I will be doing more work that may make me settle more on one side of this debate or the other. I'll post the results here when I have them. There is still much I don't know about the details of how the combined door sensor, EICAS, DFAU and FDR system worked on AAL77.

Warren.


Fair enough.

I am looking forward to hearing your conclusion.

However....regarding the other even more important matter of reported altitude that you have admitted inspired you to do you own decode in the first place:

Do you agree with the published conclusions by Pilots for 9/11 Truth that the last reported altitude is too high to hit the light poles?

Posted by: Jupiter Dec 1 2009, 03:11 PM

Bonjour mathieux kassovitz, j'ai pu lire tes messages et je te demande d'attendre que l'on fasse le point sur ça à Reopen. Ceci car je vais faire un article recensant tous les points discutés ici avec les documents officiels. J'ai déjà beaucoup d'éléments.

Si tu as l'interview de Rob, je pourrai la traduire afin de renforcer notre article.

Kikujitoh - Reopen911.info

Posted by: Jupiter Dec 1 2009, 03:26 PM

I've noticed in the NTSB PDF that the FDR model is a Fairchild Model FA-2100 FDR, you can find the same model here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

If someone wants to compare...

The official announce says this FDR record 25 hours : http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/docoutput.aspx?id=116

Not 40 ?

On that page, we can see that C-130 had their FDR replaced by FA-2100 FDR models before 2000. Keep in mind that a C-130 was seen above the Pentagone after the attack.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/atc/Industry-Scan_12913.html

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 1 2009, 04:18 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 1 2009, 09:26 PM) *
I've noticed in the NTSB PDF that the FDR model is a Fairchild Model FA-2100 FDR, you can find the same model here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

If someone wants to compare...

The official announce says this FDR record 25 hours : http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/docoutput.aspx?id=116

Not 40 ?

On that page, we can see that C-130 had their FDR replaced by FA-2100 FDR models before 2000. Keep in mind that a C-130 was seen above the Pentagone after the attack.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/atc/Industry-Scan_12913.html


Very interesting Jupiter thumbsup.gif

I noticed on the FDR rundown on its properties:

QUOTE
Expandable to 2 Hour Voice and 25 Hour Flight Data at 256 wps


So does the 2 hour expansion of the cockpit voice recorder affect the memory capabilities of the FDR
that it has to compress the data?
Sorry if it´s a dumb question but that´s what this line infers.

Cheers

Posted by: Jupiter Dec 1 2009, 04:39 PM

In addition of having the same FDR than the one we've got, a C-130 modif, which is the DC-130 can carry drones :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_DC-130

"DC-130 can launch, track and control the drones."

"The drones

DC-130 drone control aircraft carrying two BQM-34S Firebee target drones under its wing
The Q-2C Firebee target drone was modified for the recon mission and designated the BQM-34A or 147A. Its size was increased to provide greater range and payload. For the low altitude mission, the wing span was increased to 15 feet (4.6 m) and later to 27 feet (8.2 m), but was most successful with the original 13 foot (4.0 m) wingspan. Wing spans of 27 and 33 feet (8.2 and 10.1 m) were used for the high altitude aircraft. The original 1700 pounds-force (7.6 kN) of thrust was increased to 1920 lbf (8.5 kN) and later to 2800 lbf (12.5 kN) for the special high altitude, long range drones. Some models were even equipped with wing-mounted fuel tanks to extend their range.

Depending upon their mission, the equipment also included: HATRAC - a system for high altitude flights to detect intercept by either fighter aircraft or surface-to-air missiles and take evasive actions"

http://www.air-and-space.com/20040918%20Pt%20Mugu/DSC_3356%20BQM-34S%20DC-130A%20570497%20VX-30%20left%20side%20l.jpg

Keep in mind the CIT research + the fact that all the C-130 had their FDR changed by september 2000 with FA-2100 FDR :

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/atc/Industry-Scan_12913.html

Posted by: jensdarup Dec 1 2009, 04:47 PM

One question: Is there voice recording in the FDR too?

Posted by: Sanders Dec 1 2009, 04:58 PM

No, that's the CVR, the Cockpit Voice Recorder, if I'm not mistaken (I'm not an aviation professional like most around here). Both are commonly referred to as the Black Boxes, but the FDR records flight data from the aircraft, not voice and radio communications.

Posted by: tnemelckram Dec 1 2009, 05:14 PM

Hi All!

Without Warren's work, Rob probably would not have been able to find the very topic of this Thread. He has helped enormously. Never forget that.

Warren is not required to have an opinion. Calling on him to state one reminds me of of the "loyalty tests" and "oaths" and "litmus tests" that are common to totalitarian regimes and that sometimes creep into our politics as well.

EDIT TO ADD: What next auto de fe'?

Enough!

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 1 2009, 10:39 PM) *
In addition of having the same FDR than the one we've got, a C-130 modif, which is the DC-130 can carry drones :


Keep in mind the CIT research + the fact that all the C-130 had their FDR changed by september 2000 with FA-2100 FDR :


Yeah we considered that LONG before we ever began our investigation.

However video, eyewitnesses, and the pilot himself confirm the C-130 was not in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the attack.

There is no evidence they were willingly involved in the operation at all and there is even less evidence that they launched a drone or that ANY type of flying object hit the building at all.

There is only evidence for one flying object at the time of the attack and that has been proven to be a big plane that banked relatively slowly on the north side of the gas station and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building.

While we know that the alleged radar data released in 2007 by 84 RADES shows a fraudulent flight path for the C-130 I don't see how this could tie in to any updates to their FDR before the attack.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 05:23 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Dec 1 2009, 11:14 PM) *
Hi All!

Without Warren's work, Rob probably would not have been able to find the very topic of this Thread. He has helped enormously. Never forget that.

Warren is not required to have an opinion. Calling on him to state one reminds me of of the "loyalty tests" and "oaths" and "litmus tests" that are common to totalitarian regimes and that sometimes creep into our politics as well.

Enough!


No not enough.

He has admitted that the last recorded parameter for altitude being too high to hit the light poles as reported by P4T is what inspired him to perform his own decode in the first place.

His findings have provided a layer of disinformation that is currently being used to cast doubt on the credibility of P4T and this important claim that proves the data fraudulent.

It is therefore his responsiblity to set the record straight by publicly agreeing that his findings DO NOT contradict the findings of P4T.

If he does not his motives are very much in question and he has only served to muddy the waters and cast doubt on this organization whether or not he unwittingly aided the discovery of this cockpit door anomaly.

Posted by: Jupiter Dec 1 2009, 07:07 PM

Still very strange that parameter flight deck door is listed as not working or unconfirmed. Why could it be unfonfirmed ?

May be because here : http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/CDROM/757-3b_1.TXT

we can read number of test = 0.

I think it is the main problem.

In the PDF introduction you can read : the remaining parameters either were not recorded properly or were not confirmed to work properly. (l5 to l13)

Posted by: mvb Dec 1 2009, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 06:23 PM) *
His findings have provided a layer of disinformation that is currently being used to cast doubt on the credibility of P4T and this important claim that proves the data fraudulent.


I have to agree 100%.
The Flight Deck Door thingy is hyped very much.
Good you kept a objective mind.
The score has to be settled NOW

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 1 2009, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (mvb @ Dec 2 2009, 01:12 AM) *
I have to agree 100%.
The Flight Deck Door thingy is hyped very much.
Good you kept a objective mind.
The score has to be settled NOW


His personal conclusion regarding the door parameter is still pending.

It's the fact that the reported altitude is too high to hit the light poles that he has refused to come clean with while his spurious "4 feet" claim is currently being used to cast doubt on this important info while he has sat idly by without setting the record straight.

If he wants to retain credibility he needs to issue a statement here AND at j.r.e.f that his findings in this regard do NOT contradict the findings of P4T.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 1 2009, 07:07 PM) *
Still very strange that parameter flight deck door is listed as not working or unconfirmed. Why could it be unfonfirmed ?

May be because here : http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/CDROM/757-3b_1.TXT



"Another claim that could be made is that the NTSB lists this parameter as "not working or unconfirmed". They also list Radar Altitude the same - "not working or unconfirmed". Those who make excuse for the govt story cherry pick the newly decoded Radar Data for their impact theories but disregard confirmed Pressure altitude data which shows too high to hit the Pentagon. It is quite possible the NTSB listed "FLT DECK DOOR" as "unconfirmed" due to the fact they believe the door would and should have been opened during flight for the hijack to take place. Again, this goes back to the jumpseat issue and why the FAA ceased all offline commuters access to the jumpseat post-911.[Until verified and then CASS system]"


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18428&st=0

QUOTE
we can read number of test = 0.

I think it is the main problem.


"Number of Tests: 0" is listed for many parameters in 757-3b. including Pressure altitude.

"Number of Test: 0" does NOT mean the parameter wasnt recorded.

Posted by: Jupiter Dec 2 2009, 01:06 PM

@ Rob,

I think I've found why it's listed as not working or unconfirmed :

NTSB used a special program to extract the data which is RAPS (Recovery Analysis and Presentation System).

Another very usual one is flisafe : http://www.nestsoftware.com/products/FliSAFE.pdf

Here : http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evolution_of_Flight_Data_Analysis_Neil_Campbell.pdf

"An airline flight data analysis program (FDAP)31 involves the routine scanning of flight data (obtained from FDR’s or QAR’s) to detect flight operations events. They are typically set up with the cooperation of the relevant pilot association and are cooperative programs. Flight operations events can be chosen to coincide with the airline’s standard operating procedures."

For instance this report :

http://www.bfu-web.de/nn_226462/EN/Publications/Investigation_20Report/2006/Report__06__EX003__A310__RE-Munic,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Report_06_EX003_A310_RE-Munic.pdf

Lists only 4 parameters wheareas the FDR recordeded 136 parameters : (see page 2, bottom left)

And actually here : http://nestaerospace.com/news.php

You can Read :

"FliSAFE – Parameter Validation Tool provides the Capability of checking and reporting whether all mandatory parameters are correctly recorded within specified limits, resolution and accuracy , to be compliant with FAA/EASA/DGCA/IOSA or any other Civil Aviation Authority and requirement .

FliSAFE – Parameter Validation Tool is a very useful feature for Aircraft Maintenance Engineering/Flight Safety Department Personnel for automating the process of data validation which is otherwise hard to monitor manually FDR read outs to check whether mandatory parameters are correctly recorded or not."

It seems that before analysing the data with RAPS or flisafe, they need to validate it. They valid only the data they will use, here :

http://www.bfu-web.de/nn_226462/EN/Publications/Investigation_20Report/2006/Report__06__EX003__A310__RE-Munic,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Report_06_EX003_A310_RE-Munic.pdf

They used only four parameters, that we can see in the graphic in last page.

For flight 77, they used only the flight parameters (speed, location etc...) to produce the documents. So they did not validate or examintate they other data.

To finish, a must read about FDR : http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evolution_of_Flight_Data_Analysis_Neil_Campbell.pdf

Rob, do you know if you open the door withing the 4 seconds, it will be listed as "open" at the forth second, even if it's now close ?

Is the relay playing a role in that ? :

Posted by: gepay Dec 2 2009, 01:26 PM

Occams razor would say that AA77 was not the the Identified Flying Object claimed to hit the Pentagon as the facts of the black box data say it was never hijacked and flew over the Pentagon. Occams razor says Chic Burlingame flew the Boeing over the Pentagon. This leads to bizarre scenarios of the flight crew and the passengers being eliminated afterwards.
If somehow AA 77 did impact the PEntagon the cockpit door never being opened implies that it was under remote control or the more bizarre scenario where Chic Burlingame flew it. Not knowing the man but from reports of people who knew him, for him to have to done this he would have had to have been in a mind controlled fugue state. He probably had the skill to fly AA77 like a jet fighter. Remote control seems more likely. The pilots would have been dead or unconcious. There is evidence that this is what happened to the pilots of the planes that flew into the WTC.

Flight Attendant Betty Ong on AA Flight 11 heading towards New York - from the memory hole

BETTY ONG: Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I’m number 3 on Flight 11.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s . . . we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something.
MALE VOICE: Can you describe the person that you said—someone is what in business class?
BETTY ONG: I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.
BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is . . .
MALE VOICE: Okay, and do we . . .
BETTY ONG: and our number 5 -- our first class passengers are—galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can’t get into the cockpit; the door won’t open. Hello?

this implies to me that some kind of noxious gas was used to keep everybody away from the cockpit. My scenario for how the pilots were incapacitated is a smoke bomb is ignited in the cockpit the pilots reach for their auxillary air supply which has been altered to ...

Notice how Betty Ong did not mention any hijackers.

Yes I speculate as I am not one of the perps who are the only only ones who know exactly what happened on 911 and it sure wasn't the official fairy tale.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 01:48 PM

Jupiter,

There are 360 Validated parameters listed in the NTSB pdf. There are even more listed under "not working or unconfirmed".

Radar altitude is listed under "not working or unconfirmed". Radar altitude is being recorded, a "flight parameter", and showing a value (when adjusted) similar to the Validated Pressure altitude (when adjusted) until the end of data where the Validated Pressure altitude shows too high to hit the Pentagon.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 2 2009, 02:49 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 07:48 PM) *
Radar altitude is listed under "not working or unconfirmed". Radar altitude is being recorded, a "flight parameter", and showing a value (when adjusted) similar to the Validated Pressure altitude (when adjusted) until the end of data where the Validated Pressure altitude shows too high to hit the Pentagon.


Since Warren Stutt's "work" has resulted in a significant amount of internet doubt casting regarding this conclusion it's imperative that he speaks up and publicly backs you up on this notion both here AND at the govt loyalist forum.

Particularly since he has admitted that your conclusion regarding this is what inspired him to perform his own decode in the first place as a means to fact check you.

If he is honest he will publicly announce that his findings independently CONFIRM yours regarding this extremely important and fatal anomaly.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 01:48 PM) *
Jupiter,

There are 360 Validated parameters listed in the NTSB pdf. There are even more listed under "not working or unconfirmed".


I'll expand on the above a bit more.

I just did a more accurate count of the parameters.

There are 344 Validated Parameters.

There are 759 Parameters "Not working or Unconfirmed".

The Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB for N644AA lists 1110 Parameters.


"Database Editor Summary Report.
For database \\10.149.236.25\adi\fdv\db\757-3.db.
1110 parameters in report.
256 words per subframe in database.
Created Wed Oct 24 15:11:58 2001"


759 + 344 = 1103

There are 7 parameters not recorded.

FLT DECK DOOR is NOT one of them. It's recorded.

If someone would like to go through the mind numbing task of counting the parameters to cross check my work, please feel free and we'll make any corrections.

Here again is the NTSB PDF.
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

Also, some have claimed that a 0 is a "place holder" in the data if the parameter is not recorded. If thats the case, why are there parameters with blank cells in the data which are also supposed to record a 1 or 0 at the same rate as FLT DECK DOOR?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 2 2009, 04:24 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 08:24 PM) *
Also, some have claimed that a 0 is a "place holder" in the data if the parameter is not recorded. If thats the case, why are there parameters with blank cells in the data which are also supposed to record a 1 or 0 at the same rate as FLT DECK DOOR?


Great point.

Looks like the duhbunkers are scrambling pretty hard with this one.

Posted by: Jupiter Dec 2 2009, 05:33 PM

May be it could be a good idea to contact Fairchild, the company which made the FDR, to know what are exactly these "not working or unconfirmed parameters".

I still think it's because they did not need it for their simulation, that's why it's not certified. As suggest the documents I posted in my precedent post.

I am planning to do an article both is french and english with all the officials regs and precisions. I have to know exactly what are "unconfirmed parameters, if I find it, i'll tell you.

http://nestaerospace.com/FliSAFE-Readout.php#

+

http://nestaerospace.com/news.php

I'm sure here is the point : "FliSAFE – Parameter Validation Tool provides the Capability of checking and reporting whether all mandatory parameters are correctly recorded within specified limits, resolution and accuracy , to be compliant with FAA/EASA/DGCA/IOSA or any other Civil Aviation Authority and requirement .

FliSAFE – Parameter Validation Tool is a very useful feature for Aircraft Maintenance Engineering/Flight Safety Department Personnel for automating the process of data validation which is otherwise hard to monitor manually FDR read outs to check whether mandatory parameters are correctly recorded or not. Parameter Validation Reports: for checking and reporting whether all mandatory & other parameters are correctly recorded with in the operational range/limits, as per standard Regulations.
"

Actually, Flight Deck Door is not in that case, that's why there was no need to validate it.

Probably some parameters has to be validated, others like door sensors etc don't.

Posted by: tnemelckram Dec 2 2009, 06:57 PM

Hi Craig!

Oh goody, something new for us to arm-rassle over! Idealist versus pragmatist, I've lost count of which round it is!


1.

QUOTE
It's the fact that the reported altitude is too high to hit the light poles that he has refused to come clean with while his spurious "4 feet" claim is currently being used to cast doubt on this important info while he has sat idly by without setting the record straight.


From what I can see, all he has said on this or any other forum is that his decode revealed a radar altitude of 4 feet right at the end. That's a statement of fact. And it is a valid fact, not a "spurious claim". It looks to me like Rob and the other qualified people have accepted it as a fact, fielded that hot grounder adeptly and explained the matter convincingly, adding that it looks as much like a plane flying four feet over the building as it does one four feet above the lawn.

I don;'t think it's very important to ever set the record straight with the GL's. They are pissants while PFT and CIT have balls. Moreover, they are not our real opponent. The government is.


2.
QUOTE
If he wants to retain credibility he needs to issue a statement here AND at j.r.e.f that his findings in this regard do NOT contradict the findings of P4T.


I think PFT has already issued such a statement. All Warren said was RA 4 feet without going go on to say that this contradicted PFT. Thus there is no statement for him to correct. You are asking him to adopt an opinion or conclusion.

As to his credibility, he has said that he is a computer guy and has no aviation credentials. He does not appear (and probably does not feel) qualified to state whether or not his 4 for RA statement contradicts PFT. If you ask me, he'd lose credibility by going beyond his writ. That would be almost as bad as some lawyer sticking his nose into matters like structural engineering, aeronautics and forensic investigation of both and then spouting his two cent's worth on the subjects!

Moreover, I looked at the ATS Thread devoted to this and it appears that our friends on the other side of the argument also doubts his credibility, referring to him as "some guy from Australia" or the like and wondering what his qualifications are. No wonder, because his decode confirms what PFT has been saying about the pressure altitude and has revealed and supports the Flight Deck Door Claim.

The best thing for Warren is to refrain from opinions so the only issue is the credibility of his decodes, which will have greater credibility if he cannot be accused of having an agenda.


3.
QUOTE
Particularly since he has admitted that your conclusion regarding this is what inspired him to perform his own decode in the first place as a means to fact check you.


Thank god PFT is being fact checked! They gain authority every time they pass such a test. Bring it on! 911 is dead serious and demands the truth so all claims about it should be rigorously scrutinized, including ours.

A reasonable person would expect to encounter some inconvenient facts that have to be dealt with along the way. We have no right to expect all of the facts to line up for us. Someone here has a tag line saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but no one is entitled to his own facts.

Rob seems to be rather enjoying the process. He just asked Warren for another custom decode tailored to his specific inquiry. That will spare him from having to plow through a huge body of irrelevant, inconveniently formatted data. Warren is a great resource.

Finally, I fact checked PFT and CIT at length before adopting their conclusions. Trust, but verify.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 07:23 PM

"Also, some have claimed that a 0 is a "place holder" in the data if the parameter is not recorded. If thats the case, why are there parameters with blank cells in the data which are also supposed to record a 1 or 0 at the same rate as FLT DECK DOOR?"

Can check the blank parameter you are looking for is in same subframe as FLT DECK DOOR? even though same Hz could be another subframe.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 2 2009, 07:24 PM

tnemelckram,

Perhaps you are oblivious as to how disinfo works but I am not.

Stutt showed up out of nowhere admittedly inspired by the P4T's conclusion that the reported NTSB altitude was too high to hit the light poles and the building and came up with a new discovery that is being used to cast doubt on the conclusion of P4T regarding their claim that the NTSB reported altitude is too high hit the light poles and the building.

If Stutt is not forthright enough to set the record straight by publicly proclaiming that his independent analysis actually CONFIRMS the findings of Pilots for 9/11 Truth than his motive and intent will have been exposed. If he is honest he has no reason whatsoever to avoid doing so.

There also isn't a reason on earth why YOU should tell ME that I am out of line for demanding that he sets the record straight by publicly proclaiming the simple fact that his analysis regarding altitude CONFIRMS the findings of P4T.

If you are unable to see how his refusal to do so casts doubt on his motives than I can not help you nor is your opinion on this matter important to me.

Posted by: tnemelckram Dec 2 2009, 07:41 PM

Hi Craig!

QUOTE
Perhaps you are oblivious as to how disinfo works but I am not.


Nope, gotta license from the State of Pennsylvania to spread it legally.

EDIT TO ADD: If he's disinfo he could just make a false declaration to preserve his cover and we'd be no wiser than if he made a true declaration.

QUOTE
Stutt showed up out of nowhere . . . . and came up with a new discovery that is being used to cast doubt on the conclusion of P4T. . . . .


He's been a member since December 27, 2007 and has made 87 posts, averaging .12 per day, so he's a little more than trimonthly poster on average. But IIRC he has actually posted in about 5-6 spurts pretty evenly spaced since he joined.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 08:34 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 3 2009, 12:24 AM) *
tnemelckram,

Perhaps you are oblivious as to how disinfo works but I am not.

Stutt showed up out of nowhere admittedly inspired by the P4T's conclusion that the reported NTSB altitude was too high to hit the light poles and the building and came up with a new discovery that is being used to cast doubt on the conclusion of P4T regarding their claim that the NTSB reported altitude is too high hit the light poles and the building.

If Stutt is not forthright enough to set the record straight by publicly proclaiming that his independent analysis actually CONFIRMS the findings of Pilots for 9/11 Truth than his motive and intent will have been exposed. If he is honest he has no reason whatsoever to avoid doing so.

There also isn't a reason on earth why YOU should tell ME that I am out of line for demanding that he sets the record straight by publicly proclaiming the simple fact that his analysis regarding altitude CONFIRMS the findings of P4T.

If you are unable to see how his refusal to do so casts doubt on his motives than I can not help you nor is your opinion on this matter important to me.


I don't know for not posting long. A member for some time but never post until I see Warrens work when the topic is big. I am programmer too but Warren is good and grabbed my interest. Has he given false information?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 08:41 PM

Ok folks,

I think we may have squashed the GL arguments once and for all without even using the American Airline MX Manual.

Attached are 3 csv files. You can open them with Excel or Open Office (free on the net). They were copy/pasted from the RO2 decode we performed which you can find http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4574.

Reserved.csv are all the reserved parameters for future use on that aircraft if the Airline wants to hook them up to be recorded at a later date.

Reserved_Spares.csv are all the Reserved Spares.

Some of the above are being recorded as you can see the digits are changing. But some I'm sure are not. Therefore you see a 0. Being that it is under Reserved, clearly some were hooked up as a "nice-to-know" parameter and the heading was never changed in the DFDAU. Those where you see a 0 may be hooked up, or may be grounded which show a zero. But it doesnt matter as they are listed as Reserved.

The last file is the most important.

Comparator.csv shows the recording for the Capt and FO Comparator.

The comparator compares Capt instruments to FO instruments to make sure they are both reading equally, if they arent within a certain tolerance, you get an alert. This is a MASTER WARN. RED with high pitched Bells/Dings!

Note that the Comparator_Fail_FO have empty cells yet the others are recording a digit. The empty cells are due to perhaps a broken line between the sensor and the FDAU.

Conclusion - (Capt Comparator showing a fail notwithstanding as that looks like it may be another smoking gun)

1. If FLT_DECK_DOOR was reserved for future use and not hooked up to record any sensors, you would see it listed with the other reserved parameters as RSVD_FLT_DECK_DOOR

2. If the data was labeled RSVD_FLT_DECK_DOOR, our article would not exist as we would know its a Reserved parameter perhaps for future use and may not be a valid recording.

3. If the FLT_DECK_DOOR was not recording but intended to record sensors. You would see blank cells as you see in the above COMPARATOR_FAIL_FO.

The FLT_DECK_DOOR was recording to the FDR and it was closed. The NTSB/FBI need to explain how a closed door indication provided by their data enabled a hijack to take place on AA77.

Copy/paste this post everywhere a duhbunker is spinning, and then watch him twist in the wind. wink.gif

 Reserved.csv ( 118.76K ) : 321
 Reserve_Spare.csv ( 129.11K ) : 314
 Comparator.csv ( 41.27K ) : 330
 

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 08:47 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 08:34 PM) *
Has he given false information?


From what little I have looked at his source code, No.

I'd be much more suspicious had he created his program and not released the source code... Let alone the sources which led him to the calculations within that source code.

From where I sit Warren Stutt is in search of the truth wherever it leads him.

Perhaps Craig wants to push him towards the govt. loyalists with his continual harping for an answer when Warren is not ready to give one. dunno.gif

I DO know that that tactic did turn me off way back when the "low and level" flight across the Pentagon lawn being impossible was first proposed at LCF...

In the end I do agree with that being impossible regardless.... After much research into the topography there.

( mutters : Must be something in that California water )

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Dec 2 2009, 08:49 PM

This thread is about the closed cockpit-door; and i don't think that is in dispute.
Anything else does not belong here.
Would one of the Admins please move that discussion elsewhere ?

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 2 2009, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 3 2009, 01:47 AM) *
Perhaps Craig wants to push him towards the govt. loyalists with his continual harping for an answer when Warren is not ready to give one. dunno.gif

I DO know that that tactic did turn me off way back when the "low and level" flight across the Pentagon lawn being impossible was first proposed at LCF...


( mutters : Must be something in that California water )



Or perhaps Craig sees the big picture which you all seem to be failing to see.

All Craig is asking for is Warren to make his beliefs known so WE ALL know where he stands and what his intentions are for revealing the final seconds of this data.

I see Craig's point as very valid, while I find Warren's appearance and very careful playing of both sides increasingly suspicious.

You do know the GL's are running around using his work to promote the last reported altitude as 4' right? We simply do not want another Farmer incident. His op work became very obvious to all and still is. His mistake was trying to play a side, so we are extra guarded and whether anyone wants to admit or not, CIT is inextricably attached to PFT. Leaving our work to sometimes be conflated or mentioned in the same breath.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 09:12 PM

Rob Balsamo, in the comparator.csv file it is 4 values at the top

"COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O","COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT","COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O","COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT"

but there is only 3 values in each line.

,1,1,0
,1,1,0

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 09:18 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 09:12 PM) *
Rob Balsamo, in the comparator.csv file it is 4 values at the top

"COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O","COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT","COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O","COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT"

but there is only 3 values in each line.

,1,1,0
,1,1,0


Exactly, thats what happens when a parameter doesnt record when its supposed to. You get empty cells. Its probably due to a broken wire between the sensor and the recorder (to keep it simple).

FLT_DECK_DOOR has a value. It was recording the condition of the door.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 02:18 AM) *
Exactly, thats what happens when a parameter doesnt record when its supposed to. You get empty cells. Its probably due to a broken wire between the sensor and the recorder (to keep it simple).

FLT_DECK_DOOR has a value. It was recording the condition of the door.


I find odd.

If a bit is missed from a stream how can decoder know which bit? All frames must be consistent length and all bits are 0 or 1, can Warren explain please?

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 09:35 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Dec 2 2009, 08:58 PM) *
Or perhaps Craig sees the big picture which you all seem to be failing to see.

All Craig is asking for is Warren to make his beliefs known so WE ALL know where he stands and what his intentions are for revealing the final seconds of this data.

I see Craig's point as very valid, while I find Warren's appearance and very careful playing of both sides increasingly suspicious.

You do know the GL's are running around using his work to promote the last reported altitude as 4' right? We simply do not want another Farmer incident. His op work became very obvious to all and still is. His mistake was trying to play a side, so we are extra guarded and whether anyone wants to admit or not, CIT is inextricably attached to PFT. Leaving our work to sometimes be conflated or mentioned in the same breath.


And the location of that 4' altitude is ?
Does that not support that the FDR data is fake ?
Think about it.*

Did Farmer release the source code for the programs he wrote ?

( I'd still like to know exactly why his NORAD audio program takes up so damn much memory )

By persecuting Warren at a stage when he is not ready to commit either way, I do not think you are helping matters.

The exact same thing happened with Frank Greening years ago at Letsroll.

You have been to DC, talked with people, surveyed the lay of the land*, etc....
In your mind your conclusions are obvious.

Warren is still in the process of decoding an encrypted and complicated code and making sense of what it says... Regardless of what exactly that happens to be.

I guess to make a long story short ( I know, too late ) I am saying give him time.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 09:39 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 09:26 PM) *
I find odd.

If a bit is missed from a stream how can decoder know which bit? All frames must be consistent length and all bits are 0 or 1, can Warren explain please?



Yeah, thats what everyone is saying, but thats not what the data shows.

I asked Warren to upload these parameters to his next output file so we can compare.

But again, if FLT_DECK_DOOR was not in use, it would be listed as Reserved. This way an aircraft accident investigator when looking at it, he'll know it wasnt used instead of trying to guess if the door is closed or not working with a 0 value.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 02:39 AM) *
Yeah, thats what everyone is saying, but thats not what the data shows.

I asked Warren to upload these parameters to his next output file so we can compare.

But again, if FLT_DECK_DOOR was not in use, it would be listed as Reserved. This way an aircraft accident investigator when looking at it, he'll know it wasnt used instead of trying to guess if the door is closed or not working with a 0 value.


Thankyou but sorry,as a software engineer he is I would like Warren to explain to me.

I edit for Rob Balsamo. I mean no offence but the issue is more complicated than just parameters omitted. Warren will understand me.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 10:08 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 09:44 PM) *
Thankyou but sorry,as a software engineer he is I would like Warren to explain to me.

I edit for Rob Balsamo. I mean no offence but the issue is more complicated than just parameters omitted. Warren will understand me.


No offense taken and fair enough. But based on my experience, the only ones who can offer an explanation are the NTSB. Especially when Warren states this as his credentials.

"I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents. I do however have a BSc(Hons) degree in Computer Science as well as several years of commercial experience as a computer programmer.

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary."
http://www.warrenstutt.com/AboutMyFDRWork/index.html

Posted by: tezzajw Dec 2 2009, 10:17 PM

Ultimately, it wouldn't matter if Warren was an unemployed bum on the street, posting from an internet cafe with begged change to buy his time...

He's provided the source code for his program. This can be checked and verified.
He's provided the output from his program. This can be checked and verified.

He's also granted all of Rob's requests in a timely manner and in typical Aussie manner, didn't seem to whinge about doing it! Considering that he's not obliged to do a damned thing for anyone, everyone's lucky that he has taken this on in the first instance.

He's been able to do something that the NTSB failed to do - extract more data from the alleged FDR of the alleged Flight AA77. The money that the NTSB paid their IT department was a waste, given that Warren has appeared to clean up their mess.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 10:24 PM

Warren understands the data stream and knows what I am asking. As an example Rob Balsamo try to work out which of four parameters is omitted? And then why is it one of these and not another parameter from the frame completely. But I need Warren to explain to understand.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 10:45 PM

I explain my question for Warren.

The stream decompresses to 256 words or 256*12=3072 bits per sub frame with 4 subframes per frame.

the 4 parameters in the list

"COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O","COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT","COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O","COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT"

are 1 bit each from bits 1 and 2 of words 116 and 119 all from the same sub frame, how possible only 3 bits in the result?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 10:51 PM

Keep in mind, the Comparator_Fail_FO should be reading a 0, because the Comp_Enable_FO is showing a 1. Meaning the Comparator on the FO side is enable, its working, its NOT failed.

Capt side corresponds. It shows a failed condition.

This in itself is pretty major because i dont think you can defer either comparator and go flying. I think both have to be working for flight. We're looking into it.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 2 2009, 10:59 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 03:51 AM) *
Keep in mind, the Comparator_Fail_FO should be reading a 0, because the Comp_Enable_FO is showing a 1. Meaning the Comparator on the FO side is enable, its working, its NOT failed.

Capt side corresponds. It shows a failed condition.

This in itself is pretty major because i dont think you can defer either comparator and go flying. I think both have to be working for flight. We're looking into it.


Only Warren or anyone studied and understands his code can explain fully.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 11:19 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 10:59 PM) *
Only Warren or anyone studied and understands his code can explain fully.



Personally, I'd like the NTSB or FBI to explain it. Thats why we're doing this.

But i'll take what i can get for now. Warren will do.... smile.gif

Posted by: wstutt Dec 3 2009, 12:40 AM

QUOTE (Rhyso @ Dec 6 2009, 04:57 AM) *
Hi All,

This thread is what has drawn me to this site, I have been debating the 9/11 subject for over 6 years now on the skydive website called dropzone.com

I linked this thread and the origonal post there, with ridicule form most I was replied with this seemingly educated comment;

QUOTE

You are not seeing the data; the actual data would be a lot of 1's and 0's organized into data frames. You are seeing the data as interpreted by a Boeing interpretation program. This program reports everything that could possibly be reported by any FDR in their fleet. If a data parameter is not used by the particular FDR it is reported as inactive.

The flight data recorder itself (which Boeing calls a DFDAU) is described by Boeing document D226A101-3 rev G. It specifies all the connections between the DFDAU and the aircraft, including things like flap handle position (analog input) and TCAS on/off switch (diigtal input.) It does not include a cockpit door indication. Thus, any interpreter program that expects a cockpit door indication, but is fed data from a DFDAU that does not support this sensor, will read inactive (closed.)

If you would like to read the spec for yourself, it's here:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/...ad/id4067718242.html

Check it out. No cockpit door sensor.

If you still don't believe me, take a look at the entire data stream. See if it ever says "door open" - including before takeoff. Indeed, the data stream I saw included the previous 12 flights. The data never indicated an open door, ever. I doubt one crew flew them all without ever eating or peeing.

FDR myth - busted.


I know the admin is getting tired of people asking the same questions and I have browsed the thread looking for an answer specific to the reply i just pasted above, i oppologise if i missed it but i would like someone to help me answer to the reply i just pasted.

<snip>
Hi Rhys,

Like Rob, I disagree with the comment that you quoted above.

My reason is that many parameters are not listed in section 9 of the document (pages 15 to 21 of the PDF file) yet they appear in the NTSB CSV files, for example ENG EPR ACTUAL, FILTER 1 VIB and many others. These parameters like FLT DECK DOOR are read from digital ports. More than one (often many more) parameters are read from each digital port. FLAP HANDLE POSN is read from analogue port A18. FLT DECK DOOR is read from Digital Port D14. Parameters are listed by port in pages E1 to E65 of the document (pages 397 to 461 of the PDF file).

Warren.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 3 2009, 12:43 AM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 3 2009, 02:35 AM) *
By persecuting Warren at a stage when he is not ready to commit either way, I do not think you are helping matters.


Persecuting???

You have got to be kidding me.

I am simply asking him to publicly acknowledge a simple fact to help curtail a new layer of disinfo that exists because of HIS work.

His findings regarding altitude do NOT contradict the findings of P4T. He needs to acknowledge this.


QUOTE
Warren is still in the process of decoding an encrypted and complicated code and making sense of what it says... Regardless of what exactly that happens to be.


What??

He already did the decode! He presents it on his website.

Why are you making excuses for him or speaking for him at all?

He already KNOWS what the altitude shows and that his decode independently confirms what was reported by P4T about this critical value.

How long should he need to stare at the data to "make sense" of what is reported for pressure altitude?

There is not a reason on earth why he should refuse to publicly state that his findings concerning altitude CONFIRM the findings of P4T that it shows the plane too high to hit the light poles and the building.

To suggest he has to engage in all kinds of mysterious and complex further "encryption" BEFORE he can determine if P4T was correct about this single value is ridiculous.

You are making things up JFK.

You have no reason to butt in. My question is not for you. It is for Stutt and I have every right to ask it.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 3 2009, 12:47 AM

And just in case he forgot the question...

Warren Stutt,

You must be aware that people are referencing you to suggest that your findings contradict the statements by P4T that the last reported altitude in the NTSB data shows a value too high to hit the light poles and the building.

Are you willing to set the record straight here and at j.ref by publicly agreeing that your findings in the data concerning altitude CONFIRM the findings of P4T that it shows the plane too high to hit the light poles and the building?

Posted by: painter Dec 3 2009, 01:09 AM

Craig, Warren and all the rest of us have now read your question numerous times and I agree with some who feel it is off topic. This thread is about the FDR Flight Deck Door reading NOT about Mr Stutt himself. I understand your question's significance, you know I do, but repeating your question over and over again in this thread has become a distraction. If Warren wanted to answer your question as asked he would have done so already. Obviously he does not. Please refrain from further comment about it in this thread.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 3 2009, 01:17 AM

I don't care where it's asked but it needs to be asked and his refusal to answer is a problem.

Question moved here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18453

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 04:33 AM

It appears Tino Desideri/Turbofan has switch sides due to this latest article and is now bashing us (me personally) on ATS.

Here is an email sent to Tino regarding this fiasco if anyone has any questions.

Keep in mind, Tino attempted to delete his posts here. We dont delete posts. So he has been placed into the Guest category until he can perhaps cool down a bit. But instead it appears he wishes to make it worse on ATS.

QUOTE
Tino,

Aircraft Accident Investigators have to perform guess work on all the attached parameters to determine whether the parameter was hooked up to record, or if it was showing its true state, according to your theory.

Fire detection, Windshear, Cabin Doors, Cargo doors, Ground Proximity Warnings, Stick Shake... the list goes on... all the parameters you would need to look at in an aircraft accident, all guess work according to your theory... and the attached are just a fraction of the data. The W's only.

As for your posts that you now want deleted from our forum, are you telling me you didnt know the day you read my article that a zero can also mean a "place holder" as you now claim?

Are you also saying we should ignore this data and not hold the NTSB responsible for providing it showing a cockpit door indication closed?

Tino, we never claimed to have proof, nor have we claimed to have the data "confirmed". You claimed that, now you look like a fool so you're trying to save face.

The data conflicts with the govt story. We want to know why. You seem to want to make excuses for it.

Tino, you're gonna lose this one.

Its nice to see the GL's cuddling up to you though as you bash our work behind the enemy lines. Looks like you're gonna need some new friends after your rants on ATS Forum. Im sure Farmer will take you under his wing.

Enjoy your night.


So there you have it.

 NotUsed_Valid.csv ( 583.09K ) : 259
 

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 04:52 AM

And just as a reminder... (this was sent to Tino as well, several times, but he chose to ignore it)

QUOTE
....we have verified Warrens data for the last flight only, the alleged hijacking on Sept 11, it shows the door closed.

Some have made the claim that the rest of the data also shows the door closed for the entire time. We at P4T do not have the resources at this time to verify that additional data. But again, we did verify the last flight through our own decode. In the future, we may be able to verify the rest.

As we know, those who make excuse for the govt story will believe anything they're told if it supports their beliefs. None of them have verified the ADDITIONAL 40 hours of data. They just take it at face value because it MAY support their agenda.

Keep in mind, if the data all showed 1's, meaning door open, we can definitively say the data is erroneous, as there is no way the cockpit door would be open for 40 hours of passenger service at American Airlines. And if logic has any value, this would be the bit value recorded if the FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter wasn't hooked up to the system so when a tech reviews the data, he can readily admit its not valid.

But the fact is the data shows all 0's for the last flight and verified by P4T. This means the door was closed for that flight and the hijacking impossible BASED ON THE DATA. The NTSB/FBI are the only ones who are able to, and need to, explain this alarming conflict.

All else is speculation and theory.

Again, this data not PROOF of anything as I mentioned on page one of this thread where i stated "...http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779364". All we know for a FACT, is that the data being provided by the NTSB to the American public through the FOIA does NOT support the govt story, once again. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779753

With all that said. this data certainly is EVIDENCE. FDR data is used in a court of law all the time, and we are using it in the affidavit we signed for the Pentagon Survivor lawsuit brought by April Gallop. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html

Posted by: wstutt Dec 3 2009, 05:29 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 6 2009, 08:26 PM) *
I've noticed in the NTSB PDF that the FDR model is a Fairchild Model FA-2100 FDR, you can find the same model here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

If someone wants to compare...

The official announce says this FDR record 25 hours : http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/docoutput.aspx?id=116

Not 40 ?
<snip>
Hi Jupiter,

I see the document you linked to does say 25 hours, although I think they meant at least 25 hours as required by regulation.

Warren.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 3 2009, 05:35 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 6 2009, 09:18 PM) *
Very interesting Jupiter thumbsup.gif

I noticed on the FDR rundown on its properties:



So does the 2 hour expansion of the cockpit voice recorder affect the memory capabilities of the FDR
that it has to compress the data?
Sorry if it´s a dumb question but that´s what this line infers.

Cheers
The document that Jupiter linked to is for a version that contains a combined Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The NTSB reports states that the CVR in AAL77 was a separate unit. As far as I know, the version of the FA-2100 in AAL77 was an FDR only.

Warren.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 06:14 AM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 02:12 AM) *
Rob Balsamo, in the comparator.csv file it is 4 values at the top

"COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O","COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT","COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O","COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT"

but there is only 3 values in each line.

,1,1,0
,1,1,0


Hi Warren Stutt
Can you explain when reading bit 1 and bit 2 from word 116 of subframe 4 and bit 1 and bit 2 from word 119 of subframe 4 the software does not display all bits? Data MUST be present unless corrupt.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 06:47 AM

WAIT. What software used to generate 'comparator.csv' file?

If not Warren Stutts software Then what does his software output for the 4 parameters?

If it Warren Stutts software I still ask previous quiestion.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 3 2009, 07:15 AM

Hi Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 8 2009, 03:51 AM) *
Keep in mind, the Comparator_Fail_FO should be reading a 0, because the Comp_Enable_FO is showing a 1. Meaning the Comparator on the FO side is enable, its working, its NOT failed.

Capt side corresponds. It shows a failed condition.

This in itself is pretty major because i dont think you can defer either comparator and go flying. I think both have to be working for flight. We're looking into it.
Both the data frame layouts I received from the NTSB state that for both the COMPAR ENABLE F/O and COMPAR ENABLE CAPT parameters that 0 = ENABLE and 1 = DISABLE.

Since COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O is 1 (DISABLE) and COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT is 0 (ENABLE), this could explain why COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O is blank and COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT is not blank, respectively.

Both data frame layouts state that for the COMPARATOR FAIL CAPT parameter that 0 = NOT and 1 = FAIL. COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT is 1 (FAIL) as you said.

There are other columns in ReadOut2 that are blank however.

The columns in Readout2 that are blank are FTP, PRM, PPP, TIME, PATH, MENU, MYIP, DFDR, REMIP, UPLOAD, UPDFTP, OPTION, PROMPT, PPPNUM, QARFTP, PEERMRU, UPL_SRC, NETMASK, FTPPASS, STATION, PPPPASS, VERSION, PPPSNUM, PPPUSER, PPPDNUM, MACADDR, COMSPEC, MDM_INT, FTPUSER, FTPRADDR, FTPRUSER, FTPSADDR, FTPSPASS, MDM_PORT, MDM_RATE, FTPQUSER, FTPSUSER, RSYNCSRC, PPPSUSER, PPPSPASS, FTPQPASS, FTPQADDR, FTPRPASS, PPPDUSER, PPPDPASS, APiasmode, ReviewedBy, ALTradsign, CursorStart, InterpretedBy, CON_MODE_OPER, InvoiceNumber, IncidentDetails, SoftwareVersion, ACMS_S_W_P_N_CODE, COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O, A_P_T_E__FLAP_POSITION_2 and ACType.

My program already decodes ACMS S/W P/N CODE, I don't know why it would be blank in ReadOut2.

Warren.

ETA: I hope this answer's Jefferson's questions as well.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 07:28 AM

"ETA: I hope this answer's Jefferson's questions as wel"

Yes it is very possible thankyou Warren Stutt but for Rob Balsamo that does not mean that parameter like 'FLT DECK DOOR' can be blank. Unless there is 'FLT DECK DOOR ENABLE' bit in datastream and decoding software recognises which I do not think. Warren Stutt can verify these?

Posted by: wstutt Dec 3 2009, 07:46 AM

Hi Jefferson,

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 8 2009, 11:47 AM) *
WAIT. What software used to generate 'comparator.csv' file?
I believe Rob took the columns from another decode referred to as ReadOut2 organised by Pilots for 911 Truth member UnderTow. Unfortunately UnderTow's website that contained the decoded files appears to be no longer available. I do have copies of them however.

QUOTE
If not Warren Stutts software Then what does his software output for the 4 parameters?

<snip>
My program does not decode these parameters yet. I'll add them for you. Rob has already asked me for one of them.

Warren.

Posted by: Obwon Dec 3 2009, 07:51 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 08:41 PM) *
Ok folks,

I think we may have squashed the GL arguments once and for all without even using the American Airline MX Manual.

-----<snip>-----

Copy/paste this post everywhere a duhbunker is spinning, and then watch him twist in the wind. wink.gif


Hee, hee, hee... I did just that on usenet but with the other explanation, the one that covered the parameter being observed at all as per age/date of mandated installation. Notably they didn't come back with the objection that would have required this answer, but it's nice to know it's here if needed.

Instead they moved to the "never opened in 40 hours" objection. To which I've replied that it isn't 40 consecutive hours at all, but broken into 12 flights, of which only the last has been decoded. Hoping I'm right about that, just made a logical guess! Logical guesses have failed me before, but I make it this time, knowing that if it does, it's still of little consequence to the outcome of the debate. BUT, like a false move in a chess game, it may provoke a revealing answer, so it was a useful opportunity, so I just couldn't pass it up. laughing1.gif

Now, by email I get a notification that

"Jupiter" has posted a topic..."
"@ Rob,

"I think I've found why it's listed as not working or unconfirmed :

NTSB used a special program to extract the data which is RAPS (Recovery Analysis and Presentation System)."


Explaining that what to record is a cooperative exercise. (the link in the email takes me to the last page of this thread, I've still to see the message here, but I think it may be pages back).

In any event, that caused me to wonder if there were other pilots/flight crews, who had flown this aircraft? Or is it only flown by the flight crew who perished?
The reason being is, they might be able to explain any policy issues that might have kept the door closed for so long (if it indeed was so long) or made it appear that way.

Ah, here's what was said after the fdr working was settled:

">So with a pre-9/11 mind-set when pilots and cabin crew
>walked through the door at a whim, nobody in 42 hours of flight
>got a food tray or took a piss?"


Of course it's under 2 hours for this last flight, and that ignores the proposition that skyjackers are supposed to have had the aircraft for some time.

Obwon

Posted by: wstutt Dec 3 2009, 07:52 AM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 8 2009, 12:28 PM) *
"ETA: I hope this answer's Jefferson's questions as wel"

Yes it is very possible thankyou Warren Stutt but for Rob Balsamo that does not mean that parameter like 'FLT DECK DOOR' can be blank. Unless there is 'FLT DECK DOOR ENABLE' bit in datastream and decoding software recognises which I do not think. Warren Stutt can verify these?
Hi Jefferson,

There is no such FLT DECK DOOR ENABLE bit in the data as far as I know. If someone finds one, let me know!

Warren.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 07:58 AM

ok thankyou Warren Stutt. Sorry I believed the 'comparator.csv' file was your output. Your explaining is sound but I find it wrong that the decoder outputs binary value (not bitval outputs) but can leave other values blank because of it.

Posted by: Obwon Dec 3 2009, 08:05 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Dec 3 2009, 07:51 AM) *
<snip>
Obwon


Yes, now I see it... I'm writing with two situations in mind, of which only one can be true. But, until one situation "wins", I have to follow both equally, as if they were both true, until I reach the point where there is enough information to discard one.

So now I have two threads of thought:

1. The plane was skyjacked and hit the pentagon and the cockpit door was never indicated as being opened.
---and---
2. The plane was never skyjacked, never hit the pentagon because the cockpit door never opened.

Obviously there are more possibilities than that, but to enumerate all the variables I'm really juggling I'd need to write a book, lol.

Obwon

Posted by: Obwon Dec 3 2009, 08:55 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 2 2009, 01:06 PM) *
@ Rob,

I think I've found why it's listed as not working or unconfirmed :

NTSB used a special program to extract the data which is RAPS (Recovery Analysis and Presentation System).

Another very usual one is flisafe : http://www.nestsoftware.com/products/FliSAFE.pdf

Here : http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evolution_of_Flight_Data_Analysis_Neil_Campbell.pdf

"An airline flight data analysis program (FDAP)31 involves the routine scanning of flight data (obtained from FDR’s or QAR’s) to detect flight operations events. They are typically set up with the cooperation of the relevant pilot association and are cooperative programs. Flight operations events can be chosen to coincide with the airline’s standard operating procedures."

For instance this report :

http://www.bfu-web.de/nn_226462/EN/Publications/Investigation_20Report/2006/Report__06__EX003__A310__RE-Munic,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Report_06_EX003_A310_RE-Munic.pdf

Lists only 4 parameters wheareas the FDR recordeded 136 parameters : (see page 2, bottom left)

And actually here : http://nestaerospace.com/news.php

You can Read :

"FliSAFE – Parameter Validation Tool provides the Capability of checking and reporting whether all mandatory parameters are correctly recorded within specified limits, resolution and accuracy , to be compliant with FAA/EASA/DGCA/IOSA or any other Civil Aviation Authority and requirement .

FliSAFE – Parameter Validation Tool is a very useful feature for Aircraft Maintenance Engineering/Flight Safety Department Personnel for automating the process of data validation which is otherwise hard to monitor manually FDR read outs to check whether mandatory parameters are correctly recorded or not."

It seems that before analysing the data with RAPS or flisafe, they need to validate it. They valid only the data they will use, here :

http://www.bfu-web.de/nn_226462/EN/Publications/Investigation_20Report/2006/Report__06__EX003__A310__RE-Munic,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Report_06_EX003_A310_RE-Munic.pdf

They used only four parameters, that we can see in the graphic in last page.

For flight 77, they used only the flight parameters (speed, location etc...) to produce the documents. So they did not validate or examintate they other data.

To finish, a must read about FDR : http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evolution_of_Flight_Data_Analysis_Neil_Campbell.pdf

Rob, do you know if you open the door withing the 4 seconds, it will be listed as "open" at the forth second, even if it's now close ?

Is the relay playing a role in that ? :



Thanks Jupiter. Another question answered, the cockpit contains a toilet!
All the debunkers are left with now is coffee breaks and/or possible trysts with stewardi (pc demands we remain gender neutral) -- hahaha!

I also think I see the reason for closed being 0. If the door generates 2 inputs, and you try to capture that with only one binary bit available, then 2 is 0 or closed (really it'd be 10 binary, but the second bit is dropped/not there), and opened is "not 2" and "not 0" or 1(really binary 11 first bit dropped). The truth table I posted earlier holds, if the door is open, or if there's a fault, the door is open! Otherwise, if the door is closed AND the system is working, then the door is closed, and there is no way around this conclusion.

The cockpit toilet removes almost all non-optional door opens, save for the flight crew bleeding etc., I guess the best place to look is in the 4 hour flights.
Or maybe, just maybe in the under one minute engine start ups? Probably done to check something, most likely with no "unauthorized persons" on board, the door could safely be left open.

Will be waiting to hear.
Obwon

Posted by: JFK Dec 3 2009, 09:00 AM

QUOTE (Rhyso @ Nov 30 2009, 11:57 PM) *
Hi All,

This thread is what has drawn me to this site, I have been debating the 9/11 subject for over 6 years now on the skydive website called dropzone.com

I linked this thread and the origonal post there, with ridicule form most I was replied with this seemingly educated comment;



I know the admin is getting tired of people asking the same questions and I have browsed the thread looking for an answer specific to the reply i just pasted above, i oppologise if i missed it but i would like someone to help me answer to the reply i just pasted.

I have no problem getting my head around engineering and physics subjects but when it comes to technical aircraft information, whooosh straight over my head.

I thank anyone in advance for their input, and I also thank everyone that has spent s much time and energy focusing on finding the truth and being open minded.

thanks again,

Rhys


It would have been much more effective if you had used the preview button and checked your links before pressing submit. rolleyes.gif

You have accomplished absolutely nothing with your broken link.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 09:16 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 3 2009, 07:15 AM) *
Hi Rob,

Both the data frame layouts I received from the NTSB state that for both the COMPAR ENABLE F/O and COMPAR ENABLE CAPT parameters that 0 = ENABLE and 1 = DISABLE.


Edit: I took a closer look at this and broke it down step by step below.


QUOTE
Since COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O is 1 (DISABLE) and COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT is 0 (ENABLE), this could explain why COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O is blank and COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT is not blank, respectively.


Shouldnt the Comparator_fail_FO show at least a 1 or a 0? This is what the GL's have been saying, it CANNOT be blank according to them. Have you been able to decode the Comparator_fail_FO yet?

QUOTE
There are other columns in ReadOut2 that are blank however.

The columns in Readout2 that are blank are FTP, PRM, PPP, TIME, PATH, MENU, MYIP, DFDR, REMIP, UPLOAD, UPDFTP, OPTION, PROMPT, PPPNUM, QARFTP, PEERMRU, UPL_SRC, NETMASK, FTPPASS, STATION, PPPPASS, VERSION, PPPSNUM, PPPUSER, PPPDNUM, MACADDR, COMSPEC, MDM_INT, FTPUSER, FTPRADDR, FTPRUSER, FTPSADDR, FTPSPASS, MDM_PORT, MDM_RATE, FTPQUSER, FTPSUSER, RSYNCSRC, PPPSUSER, PPPSPASS, FTPQPASS, FTPQADDR, FTPRPASS, PPPDUSER, PPPDPASS, APiasmode, ReviewedBy, ALTradsign, CursorStart, InterpretedBy, CON_MODE_OPER, InvoiceNumber, IncidentDetails, SoftwareVersion, ACMS_S_W_P_N_CODE, COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O, A_P_T_E__FLAP_POSITION_2 and ACType.


None of the above that correspond with our RO2 are in the American Airlines Custom Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB except for COMPARATOR_FAIL_FO. If i missed one, let me know.

QUOTE
My program already decodes ACMS S/W P/N CODE, I don't know why it would be blank in ReadOut2.


I did a search for ACMS S/W P/N CODE in RO2 last night. The search did not find ACMS S/W P/N CODE in RO2.

Again, please let us know what you get for the COMPARATOR_FAIL_FO in your output file. If your above reply is any indication,

"Since COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O is 1 (DISABLE) and COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT is 0 (ENABLE), this could explain why COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O is blank and COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT is not blank, respectively."


....it appears you have already checked it and its also blank in your Decode. This is impossible according to the GL's. It has to have a value.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 09:21 AM

"Shouldnt the Comparator_fail_FO show at least a 1 or a 0? This is what the GL's have been saying, it CANNOT be blank according to them. Have you been able to decode the Comparator_fail_FO yet?"

It does have a 0 or 1 value but the decoding software will decide to not print it because of ENABLE bit. This was confusing me as well.

Posted by: Obwon Dec 3 2009, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (gepay @ Dec 2 2009, 01:26 PM) *
Occams razor would say that AA77 was not the the Identified Flying Object claimed to hit the Pentagon as the facts of the black box data say it was never hijacked and flew over the Pentagon. Occams razor says Chic Burlingame flew the Boeing over the Pentagon. This leads to bizarre scenarios of the flight crew and the passengers being eliminated afterwards.
If somehow AA 77 did impact the PEntagon the cockpit door never being opened implies that it was under remote control or the more bizarre scenario where Chic Burlingame flew it. Not knowing the man but from reports of people who knew him, for him to have to done this he would have had to have been in a mind controlled fugue state. He probably had the skill to fly AA77 like a jet fighter. Remote control seems more likely. The pilots would have been dead or unconcious. There is evidence that this is what happened to the pilots of the planes that flew into the WTC.

Flight Attendant Betty Ong on AA Flight 11 heading towards New York - from the memory hole

BETTY ONG: Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I’m number 3 on Flight 11.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s . . . we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something.
MALE VOICE: Can you describe the person that you said—someone is what in business class?
BETTY ONG: I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.
BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is . . .
MALE VOICE: Okay, and do we . . .
BETTY ONG: and our number 5 -- our first class passengers are—galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can’t get into the cockpit; the door won’t open. Hello?

this implies to me that some kind of noxious gas was used to keep everybody away from the cockpit. My scenario for how the pilots were incapacitated is a smoke bomb is ignited in the cockpit the pilots reach for their auxillary air supply which has been altered to ...

Notice how Betty Ong did not mention any hijackers.

Yes I speculate as I am not one of the perps who are the only only ones who know exactly what happened on 911 and it sure wasn't the official fairy tale.


If you constructed a truth table for the entire 9-11 mess, It would show that all four flights are interconnected since they are by the same group of perpetrators working from the same plan.

Crack one open and they all crack open. There have been many approaches taken towards this end, but none have proved as fruitful as this one under discussion.

Remote systems maybe, mind control never. Even hypnosis would provide the needed effects. So the only reasonable/ration possibility is everyone on the plane dead due to craft decompression. At 30,000 feet the temp is somewheres near -55f death due to hypothermia ensues in under a minute. The craft is now in the hands of the remote controllers. The communications from the planes are unverified as to point of origination. They could have come from anywheres. But they are necessary, because we must be made to believe a host of other things, if we are to reach the conclusions that the perps desire.

Obl could not have stopped the subsequent investigations that should have ensued, nor the preservation of evidence that those investigations required. Nor, would he as the mastermind of any such attack, have any reason to conceal his involvement. The only ones who would do that, are the people who could do that!

Obwon

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 09:59 AM

ok... lets take a closer look at this and break it down step by step.

From American Airlines Custom Data Frame Layout 757-3b-1.txt.

Name: COMPAR ENABLE CAPT
Bitval 0 Output: ENABLE
Bitval 1 Output: DISABLE

Shows a 0. Its enable.

Name: COMPARATOR FAIL CAPT
Bitval 0 Output: NOT
Bitval 1 Output: FAIL

Shows a 1. The fail is failed? Meaning the Capt side is enabled and not showing a fail.

Name: COMPAR ENABLE F/O
Bitval 0 Output: ENABLE
Bitval 1 Output: DISABLE

Shows a 1. Its disabled.


Name: COMPARATOR FAIL F/O
Bitval 0 Output: ENABLE
Bitval 1 Output: DISABLE

Is blank.

Ok, so its the FO side which is failed. This is what i get for being asses and elbows in all types of work at once.

The COMPARATOR FAIL_FO is not described the same as COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT, but Im assuming they have the same meaning. A failed fail means its a disabled fail. (hows that for a brain teaser for you laymen...lol).

The COMPARATOR_FAIL_FO should have a 0. Its blank.

This is impossible according to others.

To say that one is blank because the software doesnt decode it due to the fact the other has a value is pure speculation and conflicts with COMPAR_ENABLE decode. If such a theory held true,

"Since COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O is 1 (DISABLE) and COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT is 0 (ENABLE), this could explain why COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O is blank and COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT is not blank, respectively"

If such speculation were true, then COMPAR_ENABLE CAPT should be blank as well.

Posted by: tnemelckram Dec 3 2009, 10:08 AM

QUOTE
If you constructed a truth table for the entire 9-11 mess, It would show that all four flights are interconnected since they are by the same group of perpetrators working from the same plan.

Crack one open and they all crack open. There have been many approaches taken towards this end, but none have proved as fruitful as this one under discussion.


That's right. This is an absolute logical bedrock for any investigation of separate but related events. For me the nutcracker is the AE911T Gage video that proves (IMHO) a CD at WTC. AT least it should raise a substantial question for any reasonable person, which is also sufficient to crack the nut. After that, it follows that something is also wrong with AA77 and UA93.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 10:08 AM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 09:21 AM) *
"Shouldnt the Comparator_fail_FO show at least a 1 or a 0? This is what the GL's have been saying, it CANNOT be blank according to them. Have you been able to decode the Comparator_fail_FO yet?"

It does have a 0 or 1 value but the decoding software will decide to not print it because of ENABLE bit. This was confusing me as well.


Again, If the software doesnt decode a 0 value for ENABLE, then COMPAR_ENABLE_CAPT should be blank as well.

Along with every other parameter which has a 0 for "ENABLE". There are a lot and they are not blank.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 10:26 AM

The uncompressed sub frame is always 3072 bits long and can be nothing else.

A bit can only be 0 or 1.

COMPARATOR FAIL F/O is word 119 bit 1 => 118*12+1=1417th bit of the sub frame I think is right

COMPARATOR FAIL F/O is the 1417th bit out of a list of 3072 bits and can only be 0 or 1. Whether you see it or not in display this must be true.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 10:35 AM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 10:26 AM) *
The uncompressed sub frame is always 3072 bits long and can be nothing else.

A bit can only be 0 or 1.

COMPARATOR FAIL F/O is word 119 bit 1 => 118*12+1=1417th bit of the sub frame I think is right

COMPARATOR FAIL F/O is the 1417th bit out of a list of 3072 bits and can only be 0 or 1. Whether you see it or not in display this must be true.


I understand that. But that is not what the data shows.

Again, are you saying both our software used by an FDR Company for the decode, nor Warrens designed software, can see a 0 at Word 119 bit 1?

(although Warren hasnt made it clear yet if he has checked this parameter in his decode)

Also, there are many parameters listed in our RO2 in which the whole column is #ERROR (see attached sample). From what I understand, this is when the software cannot determine the decode. Shouldnt COMPARATOR_FAIL_FO show all #ERROR as shown in the attachment for the parameters which the software couldnt recognize?

 Parameter_Error1.csv ( 236.27K ) : 283
 

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 10:48 AM

I don't know about #ERROR. Warren Stutt should know.

If you have a string of 3072 bits each bit can only be 0 or 1

If you look a word 119 bit 1 you will only ever see a 0 or 1

The decoding software can read it but for some reason yhe software has been written so that it does not output the value.


A probem example:

I have an 8 bit data frame (not real)
bits 7 and 8 show left/right engines ok

what happens if bit 3 is not written when recording?

in that frame the engine ok bits become bits 6 and 7.... Uh oh how does decoding software know? and not use first bit of next frame to complete this frame and then start nex frame at bit 2?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 10:53 AM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 10:48 AM) *
The decoding software can read it but for some reason yhe software has been written so that it does not output the value.


Ok, so what you're saying is that the software written by Warren (as I find it hard to believe he hasnt checked this parameter yet, especially when he replied to it above saying "its blank" and giving his theory as to why...), and the software used by a top FDR company (we will keep this proprietary as the person who helped us will no doubt lose his job if we make it public, but Tino can verify as he used to work closely with Undertow on this issue), both separate and independent software cannot see a 0 at Word 119, bit 1.

Hmmm.. what are the odds of that?

This is why I want answers from the NTSB regarding FLT_DECK_DOOR.

Jefferson, do you think we should ignore this FLT_DECK_DOOR data?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 11:13 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 09:16 AM) *
None of the above that correspond with our RO2 are in the American Airlines Custom Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB except for COMPARATOR_FAIL_FO. If i missed one, let me know.


This is another parameter in our RO2 which is also in the American Airlines Custom Data Frame Layout, that is also blank/empty cells.

Uid: CON_MODE
Abbrev: CON_MODE
Name: CON MODE OPER
Bitval 0 Output: INOPER
Bitval 1 Output: OPER

See attached.

 CompFail_ConMode.csv ( 15.46K ) : 269
 

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 11:16 AM

'FLT DECK DOOR' is 1 bit parameter in bit 1 of word 251 of subframe 3. When decoder software looks at that position it can only ever see a 0 or 1 and nothing else(no matter if door true recorded or not. that is nature of digital data)

Since always 0 it is impossible to tell only from data without knowing how/if door was true recorded.

Recorder doesn't care what data is, it records it. Even if broken wire and random or fixed value appears.

Need to know that the door was wired to be recorded.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 11:23 AM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 11:16 AM) *
'FLT DECK DOOR' is 1 bit parameter in bit 1 of word 251 of subframe 3. When decoder software looks at that position it can only ever see a 0 or 1 and nothing else(no matter if door true recorded or not. that is nature of digital data)

Since always 0 it is impossible to tell only from data without knowing how/if door was true recorded.

Recorder doesn't care what data is, it records it. Even if broken wire and random or fixed value appears.

Need to know that the door was wired to be recorded.


Fair enough. So clearly you dont think it should be ignored, otherwise i suppose you wouldnt even be here.... smile.gif

Thanks for your honest replies Jefferson.

Marching onward...

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 3 2009, 11:36 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 3 2009, 11:35 AM) *
The document that Jupiter linked to is for a version that contains a combined Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The NTSB reports states that the CVR in AAL77 was a separate unit. As far as I know, the version of the FA-2100 in AAL77 was an FDR only.

Warren.


Sorry for interrupting the convo on the technical issues (this layman is staying waaay back lol) but
the whole saga around the FDR and CVR from flight 77 is a mish mash of different stories and
inconsistencies.
I had never really dug into the CVR before.

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091401_news_recorder.shtml

QUOTE
September 14, 2001 -- Dick Bridges, deputy manager for Arlington County, Va., said the voice recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was charred. But he said the FBI still was confident the data can be recovered from both devices." "Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into the building."



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

QUOTE
Feb. 25, 2002 --FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/archive/main311011.shtml

QUOTE
According to CBS News, preliminary information shows that the cockpit voice tape “appears to be blank or erased.”


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0203/S00030.htm

QUOTE
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2001 -- Searchers found the flight data and cockpit voice recorders about 4 a.m. today in the wreckage of the hijacked plane that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Defense Department officials said. The two "black boxes" will help investigators put together the puzzle of what happened during the doomed flight, said DoD spokesman Army Lt. Col. George H. Rhynedance. "The voice recorder will tell what was going on in the cockpit," he said. The data box, he said, will tell what was happening with the aircraft as it headed toward the Pentagon, such as its rate of turn. Information from the two boxes will help determine what actually happened during the flight, he said. The recorders were turned over the FBI. The recorders are now at the National Transportation Safety Board laboratory in Washington, where technicians are working to recover data on the recorders.


QUOTE
Authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman will later clarify that Burkhammer and Moravitz find an object initially believed to be one of the black boxes, but closer inspection reveals it to be just “a charred chunk of machinery.” Subsequently, FBI photographer Jennifer Hill finds the cockpit voice recorder in a stack of rubble while assisting searchers. Thirty minutes later, a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expert locates the flight data recorder in the same area. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 396-397 and 400-402] But Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer who helps coordinate the emergency response at the Pentagon, later claims he had “found the black box,” which, he says, he had “stepped on… by accident.” [GW Magazine, 3/2002; Popular Mechanics, 3/2005] Washington FBI agent Christopher Combs says, “Somebody almost threw [the black boxes] away because they didn’t know what they looked like.” [Disaster News Network, 10/30/2002]


Remember these quotes and stories, not only from the media but from the head of the FBI that conjures up the image that the CVR was badly damaged (though recognizable to various people in the Pentagon, including 2 firemen and an FBI photographer) and attempts were made to extract info.
Yet at the Massaoui trial..

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00010.html

This burnt, scrap of metal was presented as photographic evidence of said CVR



http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003BC0F-DDD0-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=2

QUOTE
September 2000 edition:

Nearly 100,000 flight recorders have been installed in commercial aircraft over the past four decades. The prices of the latest models generally range from $10,000 to $20,000. Their survival rate has greatly improved in recent years as the FAA has raised the certification requirements. Although older recorders using magnetic tape were susceptible to fire damage, no solid-state device has been destroyed in an accident to date.


http://www.sptimes.com/News/091501/Worldandnation/FBI_analyzing_voice__.shtml

QUOTE
A flight data recorder tracks an airplane’s flight movements for the last 25 hours, while the cockpit voice recorder contains radio transmissions and sounds from the cockpit for the last 30 minutes of its flight. Both are mounted in the tail of an aircraft and are encased in very strong materials like titanium. According to American Airlines and United Airlines, the black boxes aboard Flight 77 and the other hijacked planes were modern solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than older magnetic tape recorders. [Associated Press, 9/15/2001; BBC, 9/15/2001


ALL laws of physics and logic were broken on 9/11 at every event. There is a photo of the FDR recovered
from flight 93 sitting in the ground, virtually unscathed yet they would have us believe that the plane ´dug into´ the ground by 2/3rds (oh yeah, it was ´soft dirt´ rolleyes.gif)

I know that you are working with NTSB data supplied under the FOIA but that in no way means that
anything can be taken as ´read´. This is false data that has been messed up. And they have been
caught.
Reinforced by the NOC witnesses and almost every other witness within that basin of
land the morning of September 11. More to follow on this in a few days based on ongoing personal research.

As you were guys.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 11:39 AM

Important bit is last bit. Need to know that door was wired or otherwise the data can not be interpreted. My opinion only and maybe others disagree.

Long shot: Maybe other parameters could be used. Is there anything Pilot does when getting out seat and exiting flight deck that show up in data?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 3 2009, 11:36 AM) *
I know that you are working with NTSB data supplied under the FOIA but that in no way means that
anything can be taken as ´read´.


Exactly.

I tried to make it clear in the article (where it is said "According to the data...") and subsequent posts here which thousands of people read and i have repeated ad nausaum to those who ask or suggest otherwise, that the data in no way "proves" anything. We stated what the data shows. Thats it.

The data shows the door closed.

Now, according to some, the data in the FDR for any parameter showing all zero's, of which there are hundreds of parameters showing this, can either mean it's not working, or its valid. I'm not convinced of this as this is illogical with respect to flight safety to have hundreds of parameters where you have to perform virtual guess work.

Again, the NTSB lists this parameter as "not working or unconfirmed". But there are over 750 parameters listed under such a title and many are being recorded. GL's are cherry picking one parameter from this group, to support their impact theory.

As Jefferson said, there is no way to tell exactly what the door state was, until it's explained by the NTSB. Some prefer to hand waive it, we would like answers since it is more information provided by govt agencies which conflict with their story. That is the intent of the original article.

The only people who can provide a definitive explanation for this conflicting data, is the NTSB, as they provided it.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 12:01 PM

"Now, according to some, the data in the FDR for any parameter showing all zero's, of which there are hundreds of parameters showing this, can either mean it's not working, or its valid. I'm not convinced of this as this is illogical with respect to flight safety to have hundreds of parameters where you have to perform virtual guess work."

NTSB(?) will have access for original specification and updates made to individual aircraft and know for sure what parameters true record.

More illogical for an aircraft to have a custom/individual frame layout making setup, upgade and decoding hard. and data still got many constant 0s anyway

Posted by: Obwon Dec 3 2009, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Dec 3 2009, 10:08 AM) *
That's right. This is an absolute logical bedrock for any investigation of separate but related events. For me the nutcracker is the AE911T Gage video that proves (IMHO) a CD at WTC. AT least it should raise a substantial question for any reasonable person, which is also sufficient to crack the nut. After that, it follows that something is also wrong with AA77 and UA93.


There are many "nutcrackers" available for anyone to see, IF they are willing to look and not afraid of what it all might mean. Pity they can't look and suspend their beliefs as well as they do their disbeliefs. In any event, it will be different artifacts for different people, that capture their attention and convices them something is wrong. The number of artifacts, over the years has grown substantially in number, so there's more people joining the hunt.

Notice how the artifact of the craft flying over the building doesn't quite do it for as many as the flight deck door? That's because of it's simplicity. The door has either opened or it has not. It has been discovered that it had not, now all that remains is for it to be verified, that the data actually means just that.

We are at the stage where we know that the door was required to be monitored. We know that the craft had the equipment in place. so we can be pretty sure that the door was closed and if it was really recorded as closed, then we know the monitor system was working, since any fault would have given a 1. Now all we're waiting for, to cap it all off, is to discover why there was no change, why the door appears to have been closed and kept closed over what appears to be an insanely long period of time.

Answer that question, why the door remained closed, or show it recorded open at some eariier time, and the material we have becomes absolutely veridical proof that no skyjackers could have taken over the plane. It's the simplest approach to a very complex string of activities, that validates the questions of them all. We go from having to prove that it didn't happen that way, to anyone else having the burden of proving that it did. Someone knew that it would take lots of time to refute the official story, even if parts of it failed more quickly. There's a great unwillingness to think the unimaginably unthinkable, that someone on this side of the ocean would do anything like this for any reason. So people shy away from the evidence, fearing it will confront them with something they couldn't stand or handle. They don't think of the flip side, that such terrible people maybe getting away with something horrible.

Obwon

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 3 2009, 12:14 PM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 3 2009, 03:35 AM) *
And the location of that 4' altitude is ?
Does that not support that the FDR data is fake ?
Think about it.*

Did Farmer release the source code for the programs he wrote ?



I know where the 4' is. The problem is the scumbags at the govt loyalist site and elsewhere is they will run with his findings and simply omit that part. He could easily help remedy the problem by explaining how this is still problematic for the official story and why on his website.

I don't care about Warren's source code. I am not doubting the method for obtaining the data. I am doubting his intentions by releasing said data and his seemingly lack of a stance on the matter. In fact, he pretty much seems like he supports the official story.

Have you read his answer regarding PA?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 12:55 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 12:01 PM) *
More illogical for an aircraft to have a custom/individual frame layout making setup, upgade and decoding hard. and data still got many constant 0s anyway


American Airlines and United Airlines have custom Data Frame Layouts for their own fleet type. American is 757-3b_1.txt which is based on the Boeing 757-3b DFL, United is 757UALmap.xls which is based on the Boeing 757-4 Layout. The NTSB got their Data Frame Layout from American and United respectively, because they are custom made for the Airline. Its noted on the bottom of page 2 in both NTSB pdf FDR Reports.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

This is why I feel if FLT_DECK_DOOR was not used, the airline would have assigned the parameter to a RSVD Word and the custom Data Frame Layout would reflect it as such.

But we agree, only the NTSB (and perhaps the airline itself), can explain the data.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 01:08 PM

Sorry. I was meaning custom data frame for individual aircraft would be illogical.

Although I did not know about the airlines. Do they still both use the same model of recorder though?

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 01:08 PM) *
Sorry. I was meaning custom data frame for individual aircraft would be illogical.

Although I did not know about the airlines. Do they still both use the same model of recorder though?



No, N644AA used a Fairchild recorder. N591UA used an Allied Signal Recorder.

This is why the NTSB pdf shows FLT_DECK_DOOR for AA77, and its not listed in the NTSB pdf for UA93.

UA93 did not record the FLT_DECK_DOOR nor have a FDR/DFDAU capable of such.

Posted by: tnemelckram Dec 3 2009, 01:31 PM

Hi all!

On the question of whether the door would be opened during flight, it seems that input from some of our Flight Attendant members would be invaluable. They would know whether this happens at all, and if so, its frequency, and the circumstances under which it is usually done. But personal experience suggests that there would be no need for anyone to pass through the door.

According to the decoded data, the FDR recorded the plane flying three routes, during which the door was closed: Chicago(ORD)-Orlando(MCO); Chicago(ORD)-Los Angeles(LAX); and Los Angeles(LAX- Wachington (IAD).

I've flown nonstop from Pittsburgh(PIT) to LAX and SFO (4 3/4 hours), ORD (1 hour) and MCO (1 3/4 hours), and back again. It is significant that the return flight from LAX is 1/2 hour shorter (4 1/4 hours) because you have a tailwind from the prevailing jet streams, while PIT-MCO is roughly equal time both ways. IMHO the PIT-ORD time is a basis for estimating the duration of ORD-LAX and ORD-MCO both ways but it is not a straight line so you have to adjust by 15 minutes.

SO here goes: ORD-MCO and MCO-ORD - 2 hours.
ORD-LAX - 3 3/4 hours.
LAX-ORD - 3 1/4 hours.
LAX-IAD - 4 1/2 hours.

Here's some other personal experiences/factors:

1. I've flown all the flights (including the 4 3/4 hour one) without needing to take a whizz. That's always the last thing done before boarding. A dump is out of the question in public or closed quarters (takes up too much airspace and gives away too much information).

2. Now it's obviously ideal from safety standpoint to have both pilots in their seat all the time. My impression was that even before 911 the policy was to keep the FD Door closed and locked to discourage hijackers. Pilots are better able from experience to anticipate and adjust their body functions to meet this goal, as well as professionally motivated to try to meet the best performance standards. Add to that a personality type and/or espirit de corps that abhors showing that the one in command has ordinary weaknesses like having to pee or poop or just needing a break1. But if all that fails, it appears that there was a separate bathroom on the 757 Flight Deck (which makes sense in light of these safety factors).

3. It's true that on all these flights I need a drink, which is always booze that an FA hands to me in the seat. If a working pilot finds a way to admit to themselves that they too get thirsty, they are not going to ask for a tall one, so that leaves coffee, water and soft drinks. Hot coffee might require a FA to bring it through the door from the galley, but it's the worst of the three because is suggests tiredness and most likely to produce a need to pee. So I imagine that the coolers that I have seen pilots carry on board are full of their favorite bottled or canned drinks. After all, it's guaranteed to be cold, something you like, in a relatively spill-proof container instead of a glass with ice, and within your total and discrete control2. It also eliminates the need for a FA to bring the pilots drinks through the door. Plus, if there is a lavatory on the flight deck, why not a small refrigerator?

4. I have noticed that Plane Food is crap (maybe that's not true and I am just a food snob). I also go five hours without eating every day, which most people either do or are capable of doing without much distress. I usually pick at the food the FA hands to me in my confined seat because I paid for it but still prefer and wait for much better food on the ground. Given these circumstances, why would a pilot in his right mind ask a FA to bring some crap food through the door to eat while working in the seat, when better food can be had in a better atmosphere before and after the flight, made even better because (I think at least sometimes) the employer pays? In any case, bringing your own food in the cooler is still better, fer chrissakes!

5. I'm a reasonably fit but jumpy guy who likes window seats. On crowded PIT-West Coast flights I've been able to stay in my seat the whole time without walking around to stretch. It's easy to occupy your mind with carry on reading or looking out the window to guess where you are from what you see on the ground (really cool if you have a road atlas). Plus there's really no where to go and you disturb people by getting up. Pilots tend to be fit but calm people doing something that requires their full attention so I imagine it is even easier for them to remain seated. But that doesn't matter when the FD Door is closed, because there is a little more room there to walk around without anybody having to see.

6. Finally, the male and female members of the crew overnight at the same hotel and share the same ground facilities. From a male perspective, it seems that keeping the door closed during flight will not impair "opportunities" and "operations" in the area suggested. The male passengers back there are no competition anyway and in any event will be culled out upon landing. Like the food in 4 above, a better atmosphere awaits the crew. In the meantime, the best thing to do is lay some groundwork by being the best possible pilot (rumor has it the girls like that). For all the above reasons, it seems that this task is much easier if that goddamn door stays shut!

__________________
1. Sorry. But if any pilot denies this, I am going to check to see if he's a real pilot! My Confirmation Godfather is an Air Force Academy graduate who had no problem with letting me fly a dual control Cessna in the air because he knew God Was My Co-Pilot. It all adds up to what Rob said about the "Walk Of Shame".

2. If it has to be coffee, a thermos full offers the same advantages.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 01:41 PM

Looking at 77 PDF What I was saying with NTSB knowing specificaion and history is how they made list of 'Parameters Plotted' and 'Parameters not working or unconfirmed'

they did not make parameter 'not working or unconfirmed' because it did not appear to work through data results.

my opinion. they look at original specification of plane and upgrades to find out 'parameter not working or unconfirmed' to know what data to trust.

only my opinion. Do not really know enough about aircraft to say for sure

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 01:41 PM) *
Looking at 77 PDF What I was saying with NTSB knowing specificaion and history is how they made list of 'Parameters Plotted' and 'Parameters not working or unconfirmed'


Yes,

We have covered this numerous times in this thread and its also listed in our "Common Arguments" thread for this topic.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18428&view=findpost&p=10779630

The NTSB lists over 750 parameters as "not working or unconfirmed" for AA77.

Radar Altitude is one of them.

Those who make excuse for the govt story cherry pick this parameter to support their impact theory.

However, they completely disregard Pressure Altitude which is required by the FAA, is listed as a Validated parameter, and shows too high to hit the Pentagon in both our data, and Warren's data.

FYI, Radar Altitude is not required by the FAA for N644AA.

In other words, if those who make excuse for the govt story wish to use "not worknig or unconfirmed" as their excuse for FLT_DECK_DOOR, they also have to throw out their ace-in-the-hole Radar Altitude. What is left is Pressure Altitude showing too high to hit the Pentagon.

No matter how you slice it, the data does not support the govt story!

The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

And if we find out that a Comparator Fail is a "No-Go" item (grounds the airplane), as the FO side shows failed, that is another huge smoking gun.

So,to those lurkers, if you are a current American Airlines pilot or mechanic reading this, check your MEL and feel free to chime in.

We are attempting to get an MEL as well through our contacts.

Posted by: onesliceshort Dec 3 2009, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 05:50 PM) *
Exactly.

I tried to make it clear in the article (where it is said "According to the data...") and subsequent posts here which thousands of people read and i have repeated ad nausaum to those who ask or suggest otherwise, that the data in no way "proves" anything. We stated what the data shows. Thats it.

The data shows the door closed.

Now, according to some, the data in the FDR for any parameter showing all zero's, of which there are hundreds of parameters showing this, can either mean it's not working, or its valid. I'm not convinced of this as this is illogical with respect to flight safety to have hundreds of parameters where you have to perform virtual guess work.

Again, the NTSB lists this parameter as "not working or unconfirmed". But there are over 750 parameters listed under such a title and many are being recorded. GL's are cherry picking one parameter from this group, to support their impact theory.

As Jefferson said, there is no way to tell exactly what the door state was, until it's explained by the NTSB. Some prefer to hand waive it, we would like answers since it is more information provided by govt agencies which conflict with their story. That is the intent of the original article.

The only people who can provide a definitive explanation for this conflicting data, is the NTSB, as they provided it.


Is there no way a group of pilots who are entrusted with the lives of thousands of passengers
every week can lobby the NTSB for answers on these grounds alone?
To explain these parameters and reassure pilots and the PUBLIC that the standard FDRs
are actually working properly?
They can waive off demands all they want under the ´national security´ safety net as regards
Flight 77 within the grounds of an investigation into their data, but how do they circumvent
this request when it concerns the broader net of Public Safety.
Is there a legal avenue that can be taken? A public body who would force the NTSB to clear this up?
Anybody know?

Are there other FDR readings from previous crashes that have been released to compare
these parameters?

Can I just say two words to all here who are genuinely concerned , researchers, real pursuers
of the truth? Calm and solidarity.

Peace.
OSS.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 3 2009, 01:57 PM) *
Is there no way a group of pilots who are entrusted with the lives of thousands of passengers
every week can lobby the NTSB for answers on these grounds alone?



I'm working on it OSS...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

smile.gif

By the way, after this article release, we have had over 70+ new applicants to join our organization and be listed on the above link, and they are still ooming in.

Of course it will take time to verify them all as those who make excuse for the govt story like to play games and fill out our Join form. But this will no doubt be a record breaking update to our Core Member list when we are done verifying.

It will just take a bit of time to verify them all.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 02:07 PM

I don't know about altitude, I am mostly interested through software and data.

Is is possible AA only did recording callibration tests on required/seleted parameters? and so NTSB could not rely on non callibrated/tested parameters even though recorded? There would be callibration sheets available too.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 02:09 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 02:07 PM) *
I don't know about altitude, I am mostly interested through software and data.

Is is possible AA only did recording callibration tests on required/seleted parameters? and so NTSB could not rely on non callibrated/tested parameters even though recorded? There would be callibration sheets available too.



That would be speculation on my part and is better left to ask the NTSB or the Airline.

This is why we are here. To get the facts of 9/11.

The data does not support the govt story.

I want to know why. I'm not alone.

smile.gif

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 02:25 PM

Sorry for speculation. I was just thinkng why a parameter did appear to be recorded but is listed as 'not working or unconfirmed'

Can I ask an unrelated question for my own interest. Warren Stutt extracted data from the final set of frames that was not in NTSB data, is that right? was the full frame sync there to mark the start of the next full frame after what he extracted?

Posted by: solequinox Dec 3 2009, 02:30 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 3 2009, 12:57 PM) *
Are there other FDR readings from previous crashes that have been released to compare
these parameters?


I think this would be valuable information. How long are they required to keep these black boxes and were there any similar planes that crashed and would have the FDR available through FOIA so we could cross-compare this data with that of a similar plane? It may not be proof but it would offer much in the way of perspective.

I don't have the time to research right now but I came across this 757-23APF which crashed in 2002. I wonder about the possibility of obtaining the FDR from this flight and cross-checking the FLT_DECK_DOOR with the software we have available?

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/2002/2002-38.htm

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 02:36 PM

QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 3 2009, 02:25 PM) *
Sorry for speculation. I was just thinkng why a parameter did appear to be recorded but is listed as 'not working or unconfirmed'


No problem Jefferson. you are free to speculate on this forum all you want, and I am too, to a certain extent (people love to spin up my speculation, they still quote the one time i speculated publicly from more than 3 years ago before P4T was even born...lol.. weak attempts at character assassination of course).

Please read the NTSB pdf's thoroughly as they do clarify their position. "The remaining parameters were not recording properly, or they were unconfirmed to be recording properly" is stated on page 2.

What this means to me is that the FLT_DECK_DOOR was recorded and in use for AA77, according to the data.

They could not confirm it because obviously when they looked at it, it showed closed for entire flight, and should have been open for a hijack. So, why was it closed? Was the hijacker on the jumpseat? Is this parameter the exact reason why govt agencies thought hijackers were on the jumpseat and ceased all jumpseat access to offline pilots post-911?

Again, we covered this numerous times in this thread and in the Common Arguments" thread i linked above.

QUOTE
Can I ask an unrelated question for my own interest. Warren Stutt extracted data from the final set of frames that was not in NTSB data, is that right? was the full frame sync there to mark the start of the next full frame after what he extracted?


Ask Warren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 03:07 PM

Let me expand on this jumpseat issue.

In order to ride the cockpit jumpseat, you need to be in uniform.

There is no evidence any Hijacker was in a pilot uniform.

So, why did govt agencies close cockpit jumpseat access if no Hijacker is recorded on video in uniform and if the FLT_DECK_DOOR parameter was not in use therefore showing a "0" bit place holder?

Was the NTSB not able to confirm the FLT_DECK_DOOR parameter with Aircraft MX manuals and therefore come to the conclusion the door was not recording its true state?

In other words, what evidence does the govt have for closing the jumpseat access post-911?

The only evidence they have is the above FLT_DECK_DOOR parameter.

These are all the things I thought about prior to publishing my article.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 3 2009, 03:48 PM

For those reading this thread that may be confused in thread continuity. Turbofan requested his posts deleted. We have complied with his request.

Kepp in mind, it is against Pilots For 9/11 Truth policy and Mods/admins will not delete any post you feel you want to make. But if you change your mind down the road, we will consider deleting your posts if you feel strongly about it.

Edit to add: Tino requested his entire account be removed. We have deleted every one of his posts and his account.

Posted by: Jefferson Dec 3 2009, 04:01 PM

One way I am thinking is this.

The FDR records many parameters (required+non required)

It is installed in aircraft and setup to record at least required parameters and maybe more (but maybe not all required parameters depending on age/model? not sure about)

During service of FDR system callibation is made to check recorded values match true conditions, Must be done for at least required parameters. Other available parameters callibrated at airline descretion? again not sure about last

From experience in other area some recording/monitoring equipment need up to date callibration certificate for results to be valid.

I can imagine (speculation) that NTSB will have same policy, only parameters with up-to-date callibration certificates can be used with trust in investigations.

But if they look at a parameter that is valid with callibration certificate and it appears in error they will not move it to 'Parameters not working or unconfirmed' because the fact it is error could be important to investigation.


The reason I ask about Warren Stutts last frames is it might again be NTSB policy not to use any data at all from an incomplete frames because of uncertain where frame actually ends.

Posted by: solequinox Dec 3 2009, 09:59 PM

My understanding of these electrical systems is very limited, but I do have a background in IT. I'm not sure whether this info is relevant or meaningful but in the interest of general curiosity and sharing...

I noticed when reading through some of the documentation that both AUTOPILOT and AUTOTHROTTLE were used after Flight 77 was supposedly hijacked.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf

Looking at the information about the data frame packets from the D226A101-3G.pdf document, it shows AUTOTHROTTLE on the same port(?) or whatever as the FLT_DECK_DOOR. They are actually right next to each other on the list, and seem to share the same space with fields like the cargo door and fire ext. This is where I get lost on some of this technical info, but common sense would propose the following question:

If AUTOTHROTTLE was a parameter that the NTSB confirmed as valid, and FLT_DECK_DOOR is essentially being reported from the same location, (port? piece of equipment?) would it be possible for the AUTOTHROTTLE data to be valid and the FLT_DECK_DOOR not to be?

EDIT to add: AUTOTHROTTLE DISC is on the same port and subframe as FLT_DECK_DOOR. It is included in the CSV that the NTSB gave warrenstutt.com as a verified and plotted parameter.

I may be way off here, but if someone with a technical understanding of this reporting system could explain why that is or is not relevant I would be grateful.

On an unrelated note, I also read somewhere that there was a bathroom that the pilots could access without going through the FLT_DECK_DOOR? Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Thank you all,

Posted by: JFK Dec 3 2009, 10:59 PM

QUOTE (solequinox @ Dec 3 2009, 09:59 PM) *
On an unrelated note, I also read somewhere that there was a bathroom that the pilots could access without going through the FLT_DECK_DOOR? Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Thank you all,


That is a negative. When the flight deck door is fully open ( opens away from the flight deck towards the passenger compartment ) the forward lav door is behind the flight deck door.

Posted by: Lee51 Dec 4 2009, 04:12 AM

[quote name='rob balsamo' date='Nov 27 2009, 10:55 AM' post='10779354']
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

65,792 people have read this at the time of this post. Good Job! It really has gone viral!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)