9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible, FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT Rating Options

[painter]

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?

[rob balsamo]

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.

[mvb]

850 views same time (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=853d4ru.jpg

This is great news (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

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

This post has been edited by mvb: Nov 27 2009, 07:56 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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.p...t=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.

This post has been edited by painter: Nov 27 2009, 08:52 PM

[rob balsamo]

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.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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 this thread 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.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 27 2009, 08:36 PM

[Raptor911]

>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-.

[onesliceshort]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
Ah man, I´m getting a beer!

Cheers big ears!

[rob balsamo]

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.....

[KP50]

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.

[bobcat46]

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?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[tinynate]

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

This post has been edited by tinynate: Nov 27 2009, 11:01 PM

[rob balsamo]

love to hear Rob's explanation, or anyone elses

thanks
Nate

From page one...

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.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[GroundPounder]

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

[DonM]

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

[Sanders]

WOWOWOWOWOW !!!!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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.

[aerohead]

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. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Nov 28 2009, 04:41 AM

[Guest_Turbofan_*]

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

(IMG:http://procision-auto.com/911/911_flight_deck_door1.jpg)

(IMG:http://procision-auto.com/911/911_flight_deck_door2.jpg)

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

(IMG:http://procision-auto.com/911/911_spare.jpg)

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)

(IMG:http://procision-auto.com/911/911_binary0.jpg)

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).

[SlackerSlayer]

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.

[tit2]

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.

This post has been edited by tit2: Nov 28 2009, 06:22 AM