Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Newcomer Forum _ Questions About Flight Door

Posted by: REDSHIFT Nov 30 2009, 03:08 PM

Hi I just joined, as you can see. rolleyes.gif I got hooked on your forum in the middle of the night, while reading about the FDR and Flight 77 Flight Deck Doors not being open. I understand the part about this FDR not being for the actual flight. I got a few knit-picker debunkers, that have me going around in circles about stuff. I asked them to read your whole thread first, before commenting. This one has me stumped. You know more about it than I do, can anyone here explain it to me, so that I can give the poster a snappy comeback? handsdown.gif
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

QUOTE
Quote:
Yes, the FLT DECK DOOR value was CLOSED for the entire flight. You got me. Oh wait, the same parameter is the same for ALL recorded 12 flights. The pilots never got anything to eat or left the flight deck to go to the bathroom, not even on the long LA - DC flights. As a matter of fact, the door is NEVER recorded OPEN for any point ever when the FDR is recording. Very strange. The pilots must have worn those astronaut diapers.

Thoughts and advice: There are 42 HOURS of flight data in Warren RO. It is wise to check your observations for the last minutes or flight against the other 41 hours of recorded data. I don't know why the value is CLOSED for the entire 42 hours (that is one for the pilot folks to hash out), but if the parameter never changes and reason dictates that it should at some point, then I can conclude one of two things. The parameter was not being recorded and a default value was being stored, or the parameter being recorded is not what some think it is.

and after my reply, I got this:
QUOTE
The Flight Deck door parameter is also listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" on page 13 of the FDR report:

http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf

I'll see if I can track down the file 911files was working from.

The poster pulled it from another site, and only posted a thread link, instead of where this information really came from. I questioned their motive. I am a truth seeker. NOT A DEBUNKER or a TROLL. I just have to deal with them.
Lots of the other members, found this forum very interesting, and thanked me.
If you want to check out the thread, so that I can prove my honest intentions, read it here.
http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82720&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
We're all on the same side.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 03:37 PM

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you for asking these questions in a new thread as now others (and me smile.gif) will have a link to send to those who ask.

Your above questions were already covered, but I will consolidate them here along with many other common arguments against our work.

QUOTE
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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779381


QUOTE
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?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779386


QUOTE
Unfortunately, [we] have no way to verify the other 11 flights in [the] data. However, the last flight does verify with our data.

I spoke with Ralph Kolstad (American 757 Capt) and Rusty (United 757 Capt), they verified and confirmed my article before i published it.

Also, it is not unusual to keep the cockpit door closed during flight. I have gone on many 4-5 hour flights never leaving the cockpit. I've even done many trips single and twin engine prop from NY to Florida, Memphis... etc, 8-10 hours of flying, with one pee break at midway point when stopping for gas. I know many pilots who go hours without leaving their seat.

Many pilots dont like to leave the flight deck. Its called "The Walk Of Shame" for a reason...lol


Also keep in mind, some of the previous flight locations if i recall were LA-ORD-MIA-IAD, These are relatively short legs. 2-3 hours. Hit the bathroom before boarding, bring your lunch (which most pilots do to save some cash and eat more healthy than airline food), and you never need to leave your seat. There is also plenty of room to stretch on a 757 Flight Deck.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779433


QUOTE
You are correct about the short flights. The longest section of FDR data for all flights (engines on to engines off) is only 4 hours and 34 minutes. If the pilots never left the flight deck during the previous 11 flights, then it would appear to me that either:
(1) The flight deck door was never opened while the engines were running.
(2) The flight deck door open/closed state was not sensed and recorded correctly. e.g. The door sensor reports closed when the door is actually open.
(3) The flight deck door was opened, but for less than 4 seconds each time.

I am open to suggestions.

I have only just started reading through the thread you included a link to.

Warren.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779484


QUOTE
If your data is correct for the previous 11 flights....

1 is certainly possible as discussed...

I can see 3 apply to the previous 11 flights as a pilot could have walked through the door in less than 4 seconds and the FDR missed the poll?

But for the "Hijackers" to storm the cockpit and then remove the pilots in less than 4 seconds, twice? Highly unlikely.

Number 2 i dont see as possible as the sensor is routed through the EICAS which is a crew alert system on the same display unit (tv screen for the layman) as the engine gauges. If the door sensor failed, the pilots would have known about it. I think its also a "no-go" item, which means the plane would be grounded until the switch was fixed by maintenance. Which is probably a quick fix and not much of a delay. Probably can be done with passengers on board.

Also, Capt Kolstad confirmed the door sensors were installed prior to 9/11. Therefore, the FDR was polling the door sensor on American Airlines 757's, hence the reason it is listed in the data and showing a door state.

Rusty (United Capt) wasnt sure if there was a cockpit door sensor on his aircraft. Which corresponds with the fact that UA93 data doesnt show a parameter for FLT DECK DOOR. But he did say they had a switch to open the door. But was located in a different area of the cockpit than on American 757's.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10779488

Hope this helps.

Posted by: REDSHIFT Nov 30 2009, 04:24 PM

Thanks Rob. You've built a great site. This is one place that I'm totally lost, being a blonde, and all. (No offense to the gorgeous lady from the Netherlands). It's spelled out. I've been onboard with the Truth Movement from Day One. Maybe it's because I'm one of those "chemtails-are-being-sprayed-by-TPTB" believers. I'm sure they'll be giving me a red pill, when the great roundup comes along. tongue.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 04:40 PM

I just checked that forum RED. Thanks for the kind words. smile.gif

Here's more common arguments addressed.

QUOTE
Another theory that some may use is that Hani [the reported "Hijacker Pilot"] 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: Boomer Nov 30 2009, 05:17 PM

So far no one has described the actual contact mechanism on the door. Is it two contacts common in burglar alarm systems, is it photo, UHF, or button in the door frame? Could it be a contact stuck mechanically closed?
As regards the telephone call from Olsen. Could she have been equipped with a satellite phone that enabled the call?
The man who called his mother and gave his full name. A business man or salesman is so used to identifying himself that it was just natural for him to give his full name. I have given my full name to my wife in the past.
This post is an honest warning that sometimes evidence is planted to get the opposition rallied, only to produce evidence and explanations supporting their story. If you can prove the opposition is wrong on one item, you can libel them on the rest and get away with it.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 05:26 PM

Welcome to the forum Boomer,

Hopefully this will help to answer your question on the Flight Deck Door.

QUOTE
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.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779528

As for the alleged phone calls from the flight, please use our extremely effective search function.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=Search&mode=adv&f=0

Please keep this thread on topic. Thank you.

Posted by: JFK Nov 30 2009, 05:43 PM

QUOTE (Boomer @ Nov 30 2009, 04:17 PM) *
So far no one has described the actual contact mechanism on the door. Is it two contacts common in burglar alarm systems, is it photo, UHF, or button in the door frame? Could it be a contact stuck mechanically closed?


My manual says proximity switch... I am guessing inductive.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 06:01 PM

Thank you for that JFK! We been waiting on a reply for that information. But I didn't want to say anything till we had confirmation.

This means the door would have shown open if even kicked in as there is nothing mechanical to break or "jam" in a Proxy Switch.

I had a feeling it was a proxy. On the aircraft i fly, Gear, Emergency Exits, all doors, all on proxy switches to prevent common failures as experienced in mechanical switches. I figured the 757 wouldnt be any different.

Thanks again JFK..

Good to see you back too.. smile.gif

Posted by: JFK Nov 30 2009, 06:23 PM

YW Rob.

Just to add....

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 30 2009, 06:30 PM

JFK,

I have a feeling Turbofan is going to be smothering you for documents. :-)

Thanks again my friend....

Posted by: Turbofan Nov 30 2009, 07:05 PM

Wow, this is GOLD, Truly gold! This configuration is fool proof and knocks out any of the excuses the
GL's make about "jammed switch", "faulty switch", etc.

In the event a proximity switch fails, it will show OPEN, or a LOGIC 1!!!!

If the switch is defective it cannot complete the circuit either.


Even if the door is slightly open (not completely shut), it will show open. This is because the circuit is ONLY complete when the door is tight against the jamb.


On top of this, the wiring to the breaker panel and pilot controls would have made it SIMPLE to interface
with the FDR wiring. In other words, the retrofit to install the door switch would not require extensive
plumbing, wiring, backbending to get a voltage signal from the circuit to the FDR port input.

JFK, if I may I'd like to contact you further about this circuit and diagrams.

Thanks!
Tino

Posted by: JFK Nov 30 2009, 07:15 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 30 2009, 06:05 PM) *
JFK, if I may I'd like to contact you further about this circuit and diagrams.

Thanks!
Tino


Sure Tino, do it by PM here as I do not have my email accounts set up yet after this last bout with virut.

Posted by: tezzajw Nov 30 2009, 07:38 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 1 2009, 10:05 AM) *
Wow, this is GOLD, Truly gold! This configuration is fool proof and knocks out any of the excuses the
GL's make about "jammed switch", "faulty switch", etc.

Get cracking, turbo!

You know how excited the GLs get when they read your replies.

Give them more reason to keep on bumping the threads for everyone's attention.

Posted by: Turbofan Nov 30 2009, 07:57 PM

I'm working on it already. Going to get more info from JFK and write-up a step-by-step breakdown
of how this circuit works and WHY it would not matter if the door was kicked down, or the switch failed.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 03:05 AM

Thanks JFK,

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 5 2009, 09:43 PM) *
My manual says proximity switch... I am guessing inductive.
Is that a Boeing 757 manual that you took your images from?

If so, does it have a date on it?

Unfortunately, I could not view the attached images in your posts #7 and #9. I get an error "Sorry, but you do not have permission to use this feature. If you are not logged in, you may do so using the form below if available." even though I am logged in.

Warren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 06:50 AM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 1 2009, 02:05 AM) *
I get an error "Sorry, but you do not have permission to use this feature. If you are not logged in, you may do so using the form below if available." even though I am logged in.

Warren.


Fixed. Sorry about that.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 10:50 AM

Ok, I see this popping up a lot around the net so let me address it now.

Claim - P4T are not using the proper Data Frame Layout when showing the port location in his diagram. They are using 757-3, they should be using 757-2 which doesn't show a FLT DECK DOOR parameter. AA77 was a 757-2 airplane.

A- Those who make this claim are confusing the Data Frame Layout (DFL) number with Aircraft Type. 757-3b is the proper Data Frame Layout required for N644AA as listed here in the NTSB pdf for N644AA.

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf
(bottom of page 2)

United 93 was also a 757-200 aircraft, but used 757-4 Data Frame Layout.
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/UAL93FDR.pdf
(also bottom of page 2)

DFL 757-3b (AA77, a 757-200) has the FLT DECK DOOR parameter which is why you see it listed under the parameters in the NTSB pdf and recorded in the data.

DFL 757-4 (UA93, a 757-200) does not list a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, which is why it is not listed in the NTSB pdf nor recorded.

Data Frame Layout (DFL) number does not correspond to specific aircraft type and are not interchangeable. The -2, -3b, -4 suffix are just revision numbers of the generic Data Frame Layout from Boeing. -3b is a specific revision for American Airlines and then was modified and custom made by American Airlines into 757-3b_1.txt specifically tailored for their 757-200 aircraft and needs specific to American Airlines. 757-4 is a revision number made for United Airlines specifically for their 757-200 Aircraft. United Airlines then custom made their own DFL from the generic Boeing 757-4 DFL into 757UALmap.xls, specifically tailor made for their 757-200 aircraft.

People who make the argument that the 757-2 DFL belongs to a 757-200 series aircraft are using a leap in logic just because they see a 2 after each number designation. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Using the same logic, DFL 757-4 should belong to a 757-400 aircraft... but such an aircraft does not exist. DFL 757-4 was made for United Airlines 757-200 series aircraft.

Posted by: JFK Dec 1 2009, 11:05 AM

Just in case there is any question about my manual, the cover page ( airline info blocked out by me )

Posted by: Turbofan Dec 1 2009, 11:33 AM

What do you expect from people who make excuses without having CURRENT, AUTHORIZED, DOCUMENTATION! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 1 2009, 01:46 PM

Nice one, JFK. I got the same manual and I think we got it from the same place. A certain poster from Letsroll wink.gif

Posted by: JFK Dec 1 2009, 02:51 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 12:46 PM) *
Nice one, JFK. I got the same manual and I think we got it from the same place. A certain poster from Letsroll wink.gif


Mine came from an A&P mechanic in Argentina. ( not related to Letsroll ) wink.gif

Did you also get the accompanying System Schematic Manual ?

Posted by: wstutt Dec 1 2009, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2009, 02:50 PM) *
<snip>
United 93 was also a 757-200 aircraft, but used 757-4 Data Frame Layout.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf
(also bottom of page 2)

DFL 757-3b (AA77) has the FLT DECK DOOR parameter which is why you see it listed under the parameters in the NTSB pdf and recorded in the data.

DFL 757-4 (UA93) does not list a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, which is why it is not listed in the NTSB pdf nor recorded.
Hi Rob,

In the case of UAL93, the bottom of page 2 of the NTSB pdf says "United Airlines provided their custom data frame which is based on Boeing's 757-4 data frame, Attachment IV: 757UALmap.xls", so it would appear possible to me for the custom data frame layout for UAL93 to contain the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. I wouldn't want to get anyone's hopes up too much though.

We could ask for that attachment from the NTSB like I did for AAL77, however mine took 3 months to come through. I've got exact details of the request I made http://warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/index.html.

Warren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 1 2009, 10:18 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 1 2009, 05:53 PM) *
Hi Rob,

In the case of UAL93, the bottom of page 2 of the NTSB pdf says "United Airlines provided their custom data frame which is based on Boeing's 757-4 data frame, Attachment IV: 757UALmap.xls", so it would appear possible to me for the custom data frame layout for UAL93 to contain the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. I wouldn't want to get anyone's hopes up too much though.

We could ask for that attachment from the NTSB like I did for AAL77, however mine took 3 months to come through. I've got exact details of the request I made http://warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/index.html.

Warren.


I looked through 757-4 in http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/NotesOnParameters.html, it doesnt have FLT DECK DOOR. Unless I missed it. I looked twice. Let me know if you find it.

Considering the NTSB doesnt list FLT DECK DOOR as a parameter for UA93, its safe to say its not recorded for UA93 nor in the custom DFL.

But, this wasnt the purpose of the post. The purpose was to clear up those confusing the DFL number for aircraft type.

Posted by: solequinox Dec 1 2009, 11:48 PM

So help me understand how this sensor works. I have looked at the diagrams but my understanding of electrical mechanisms is very limited.

My understanding is that there is a constant electrical connection when the door is closed and it can measure that every few seconds so that it knows the door is closed. If the connection is broken, by the door opening or by it being broken in some way, then it is assumed that the door is open because that electrical connection is no longer there?

Is it possible that the wire/fuse/relay or something from the sensor to the FDAU or FDR was grounded which made the device think that there was a constant connection and therefore the door was closed the entire time, or that the sensor was not installed and the FDR was recording a default value?

or

Can we prove that N644AA had the sensor installed? It's obvious that the FDR was capable of recording this input and that the aircraft had been upgraded in general for these capabilities, but I can't find anything specific about the sensor, just the FDR and data frame layout.


Just for some background, this is what I've researched so far:

I have looked at the http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N644AA but I can't find anything specific about the airplane being upgraded.

I've seen the http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/s01txt.html that made the airplanes upgrade their FDR systems, but I can't find anything specific about necessitating the sensor, just the FDR system.

I've looked at the http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d293fefcf170c28098e0bf8de897f5bf&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.1.5.6.3.17&idno=14 which lists the 91 data parameters which are required to be recorded, but I can't find anything that specifically points to FLT_DECK_DOOR. Does anyone have any insight on this?

I've also looked at the http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/CDFB8415D43E695786256DAC0061EC73?OpenDocument just out of curiosity. It says that for each FDR the manufactorer has to submit detailed wiring, installation, and equipment guidelines, limitations, and schematics to the FAA. I wonder if this stuff would be useful and if it is available through FOIA?

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 12:35 AM

QUOTE (solequinox @ Dec 1 2009, 10:48 PM) *
So help me understand how this sensor works. I have looked at the diagrams but my understanding of electrical mechanisms is very limited.

My understanding is that there is a constant electrical connection when the door is closed and it can measure that every few seconds so that it knows the door is closed. If the connection is broken, by the door opening or by it being broken in some way, then it is assumed that the door is open because that electrical connection is no longer there?
<snip >


It would have been either an inductive or capacitive proximity switch... My guess is inductive.

QUOTE
Capacitive proximity switches sense distance to objects by detecting changes in capacitance around it. A radio-frequency oscillator is connected to a metal plate. When the plate nears an object, the radio frequency changes, and the frequency detector sends a signal telling the switch to open or close. These proximity switches have the disadvantage of being more sensitive to objects that conduct electricity than to objects that do not.

Inductive proximity switches sense distance to objects by generating magnetic fields. They are similar in principle to metal detectors. A coil of wire is charged with electrical current, and an electronic circuit measures this current. If a metallic part gets close enough to the coil, the current will increase and the proximity switch will open or close accordingly. The chief disadvantage of inductive proximity switches is that they can only detect metallic objects.


If you want to see one, look at the side door behind the cab on a regular Waste Management garbage truck.
( about 3/4" diameter, 2" long and wires coming out of one end )

It is a safety feature to prevent main ram movement should the door be open...
No contact, but a piece of metal ( usually a tab on the door ) is brought to within 3/16" of it so the truck can compact the trash.

I do know for a fact that if you "ground" it in an attempt to bypass it on a garbage truck as alexi_drago on the govt loyalist site suggests you will end up frying the $1600 computer which controls the hydraulics. ( I witnessed a manager firing a tech for doing just that in 1999. )

Posted by: Turbofan Dec 2 2009, 01:33 AM

QUOTE (solequinox @ Dec 1 2009, 10:48 PM) *
My understanding is that there is a constant electrical connection when the door is closed


It depends on which part of the diagram you are viewing. The proximity switch actually breaks the circuit when
the door is closed, and energizes a relay which supplies power to the lock solenoid.

QUOTE
and it can measure that every few seconds so that it knows the door is closed.


The FDAU polls the EICAS port 41 to read the value every 4 seconds; the signal voltage is present constantly whether the door is open,
or closed (1 = open, 0 = closed).

QUOTE
If the connection is broken, by the door opening or by it being broken in some way, then it is assumed that the door is open because that electrical connection is no longer there?


If the door is open, the proximity switch grounds the relay which supplies power to the lock solenoid and lighting systems. It also illuminates
the pilots' overhead indiactors. There are several circuits connected to the multi-pin relay.

QUOTE
Is it possible that the wire/fuse/relay or something from the sensor to the FDAU or FDR was grounded which made the device think that
there was a constant connection and therefore the door was closed the entire time, or that the sensor was not installed and the FDR was recording
a default value?


No, a broken switch or loss of power to the circuit causes the indicator lights to illuminate showing a "DOOR OPEN" condition. The FDAU also
receives a logic 1 (OPEN) state.

This is why it doesn't matter if the door is kicked, or the switch fails.


QUOTE
Can we prove that N644AA had the sensor installed? It's obvious that the FDR was capable of recording this input and that the aircraft had been upgraded in general for these capabilities, but I can't find anything specific about the sensor, just the FDR and data frame layout.


We are currently tracking down proprietary documentation to document this fact.

All evidence points to the switch being installed as already covered in the main thread, "Hijacking Impossible" which is within the LATEST NEWS
forum. Have a look there for more info.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 01:40 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 2 2009, 12:33 AM) *
No, a broken switch or loss of power to the circuit causes the indicator lights to illuminate showing a "DOOR OPEN" condition. The FDAU also
receives a logic 1 (OPEN) state.



Thank you Tino.

So for those laymen out there. The Door fails to the OPEN indication.

Meaning any failure of the switch will record an OPEN position.

This is logical with all indications I've ever seen on aircraft. They fail to the LEAST likely state alerting the pilots, mechanics, etc, to look at it.

In other words, you get a door open indication. You look at the door, its closed. You know readily, for a fact, the switch failed. Engineering 101.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 01:50 AM

I posted this in the Latest News Thread, but I think it should be cross posted here as well.... so that those reading are clear on our position regarding this find...

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: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 04:28 PM

QUOTE
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?


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779837

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 04:52 PM

Claim - If a parameter is not being used, it is grounded and therefore will record a 0.

I will use the "debunkers" own words to debunk the above claim.

"I concur with whoever on ATS was saying that wires are normally blanked off and left hanging when not used or connected. We never used to tie down stuff like this to ground and neither did the manufacturers." - funk de fino, Claims to be a former FDR Expert, J.REF Lackey and GL Cheerleader

"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." - apathoid, Claimed 757/767 Avionics Tech For Delta Airlines, J.REF Lackey, GL Extraordinaire

So, those who make the claim that the FLT DECK DOOR would be grounded if not being used and therefore record a 0, would have to take it up with the "duhbunkers" listed above.

As a pilot, I agree with the above duhbunkers on this point. You see open pins in the "rack" all the time when maintenance is working on the avionics.

Again, FLT DECK DOOR would have never been recorded nor listed in the data from the recorder if it was not being used.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 2 2009, 05:49 PM

Hi Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 7 2009, 02:18 AM) *
I looked through 757-4 in http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/NotesOnParameters.html, it doesnt have FLT DECK DOOR. Unless I missed it. I looked twice. Let me know if you find it.
I looked as well. Unfortunately I didn't find it either.

QUOTE
Considering the NTSB doesnt list FLT DECK DOOR as a parameter for UA93, its safe to say its not recorded for UA93 nor in the custom DFL.
That makes sense, I hadn't thought of that.

QUOTE
But, this wasnt the purpose of the post. The purpose was to clear up those confusing the DFL number for aircraft type.
Fair enough,

Warren.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 2 2009, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 7 2009, 05:33 AM) *
<snip>

The FDAU polls the EICAS port 41 to read the value every 4 seconds; the signal voltage is present constantly whether the door is open,
or closed (1 = open, 0 = closed).

<snip>
Do you have a source for the above information? I am interested in learning more about how the FDAU interfaces with the EICAS.

Warren.

Posted by: Turbofan Dec 2 2009, 06:05 PM

Yes Warren, I have a schematic which shows the EICAS connection. I will forward/post the diagram later this evening.

Basically, the EICAS module connects to the FDAU at port 41. Door switches like Cargo Doors, Passenger Access Doors, etc.
feed their values directly into the EICAS.

From there, the data values are multiplexed to the FDAU for processing.

So even though a parameter may be disconnected PRE- EICAS, the FDAU port and operating circuity never has floating pins.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 2 2009, 06:10 PM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 5 2009, 10:23 PM) *
YW Rob.

Just to add....
Thanks JFK for your diagrams, (also thanks Rob, that I can now view them)

Do you have any wiring diagrams showing how the door sensor circuitry is connected to the EICAS?

Perhaps the label MD & T 33-16-00 is connected to the EICAS. In which case it could show that the EICAS has to receive a door sensor signal for the FLIGHT DECK DOOR RELEASE light to work.

Thanks,
Warren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 06:14 PM

Keep in mind folks (and in the interest of transparency)

Although JFK already provided the cover page which explains this, I will make it more clear.

The aircraft maintenance (MX) manual we are using currently for research is of a 757-200SF. This manual is NOT from American Airlines and obviously a different model of aircraft. We are using it for basic reference at this point in time until we may be able to obtain an American Airlines MX manual. The only manual we can use for definitive proof, is the American Airlines Manual for this model aircraft. A 757-223. We can't even use a United Airlines 757-223 manual because, as we know, UA93 didnt record the Cockpit door.

These manuals are confidential and proprietary as pointed out in JFK's cover page. So it's not like we can just pick one up at the local bookstore or an airline gift shop.

The most important thing to remember is that the data shows CLOSED for the door. The NTSB/FBI do have these manuals and if not, access to them. They need to explain this alarming conflicting evidence (and yes, it is evidence), with the govt story.

All else is speculation and theory.

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 06:21 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 05:14 PM) *
Keep in mind folks (and in the interest of transparency)

Although JFK already provided the cover page which explaining this, I will make it more clear.

The aircraft maintenance (MX) manual we are using currently for research is of a 757-200SF which is NOT from American Airlines and obviously a different model of aircraft. We are using it for basic reference at this point in time until we may be able to obtain an American Airlines MX ,manual.

These manuals are confidential and proprietary as pointed out in JFK's cover page. So it's not like we can just pick one up at the local bookstore or an airline gift shop.

The most important thing to remember is that the data shows CLOSED for the door. The NTSB/FBI do have these manuals and if not, access to them. They need to explain this alarming conflicting evidence (and yes, it is evidence), with the govt story.

All else is speculation and theory.


To add to the above, please use discression when posting pages from this manual as certain information contained within could aid any potential terrorists.

Secrets do have their place in this world.

Posted by: Turbofan Dec 2 2009, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 2 2009, 05:10 PM) *
Thanks JFK for your diagrams, (also thanks Rob, that I can now view them)

Do you have any wiring diagrams showing how the door sensor circuitry is connected to the EICAS?

Perhaps the label MD & T 33-16-00 is connected to the EICAS. In which case it could show that the EICAS has to receive a door sensor signal for the FLIGHT DECK DOOR RELEASE light to work.

Thanks,
Warren.


Hi Warren, I'm currently going over this possibility with a few avionics techs. We would need to decode any EICAS messages stored in the FDR
(if any) to know how the unit responded to door opening, closing, etc.

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 07:10 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 2 2009, 05:10 PM) *
Thanks JFK for your diagrams, (also thanks Rob, that I can now view them)

Do you have any wiring diagrams showing how the door sensor circuitry is connected to the EICAS?

Perhaps the label MD & T 33-16-00 is connected to the EICAS. In which case it could show that the EICAS has to receive a door sensor signal for the FLIGHT DECK DOOR RELEASE light to work.

Thanks,
Warren.


You are welcome Warren, I will have to look and see what detail it goes into, and whether that page is suitable for posting if it exists.

Sorry for the delay, but I was finishing up a project. ( 911 pager messages in .CSV format )

Posted by: Jupiter Dec 2 2009, 07:13 PM

QUOTE
The only manual we can use for definitive proof, is the American Airlines Manual for this model aircraft. A 757-223


Yes but as I said in another topic, this model has been upgrated with a new FDR which lists many parameters, so also require new installation, like the Flight deck door electric installation, that you probably could not find in a 757-223 manual :

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.



@ JFK : this :

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5027/fcdps4.png

is dated april 2006, which is a problem in our concern.




About the 4 seconds recording, do someone 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 ? I know 4 seconds is not enough to enter and struggle, but the more accurate we are, better it is. So if someone knows if it would be recorder even if you open or close the door within 4 seconds...

I mean, will the parameter "open" be recorded even you leave the door open less than 4 seconds ?





Another point :

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: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 2 2009, 06:13 PM) *
Yes but as I said in another topic, this model has been upgrated with a new FDR which lists many parameters, so also require new installation, like the Flight deck door electric installation, that you probably could not find in a 757-223 manual :



Manuals get updated as the aircraft goes through changes.

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 07:45 PM

@ Jupiter, I have looked throught that section of the manual and every schematic is dated the same, however the "effective pages" section which lists changes to the diagrams shows no changes whatsoever to that page.

Also I do not appreciate your ripping that page and hosting it elsewhere.

@ Warren, Is this OK as far as the interface ?

( sorry about the crop, but as Jupiter has demonstrated it is neccessary. )

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 07:50 PM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 2 2009, 06:45 PM) *
@ Warren, Is this OK as far as the interface ?

( sorry about the crop, but as Jupiter has demonstrated it is neccessary. )



So it appears the 757-200SF doesnt have an EICAS Crew Alert for the FLT DECK DOOR. This makes sense as a 757-200SF is a Freighter. lol

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 06:50 PM) *
So it appears the 757-200SF doesnt have an EICAS Crew Alert for the FLT DECK DOOR. This makes sense as a 757-200SF is a Freighter. lol


Actually it does have a warning light, 52-71-01...

Ever try untangeling spagetti so you can post the relevant portion ?
Well, here is my attempt.

And Jupiter, this page is the addition to the manual made in April of 2006 denotated by the "A" at "page 101.1A".

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 08:38 PM

A Warning light and an EICAS alert are two different things.

EICAS Alert, you will get audible dings in the cockpit along with a Master Caution (or Warning) light blinking at you in the face.

Although you can silence the alert and warning light, I assume they dont want this on a Freighter as the door is probably open for most of the flight if not the whole time... if they even have the door installed. Although the manual suggests one is installed on this aircraft.

Posted by: solequinox Dec 2 2009, 08:50 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 2 2009, 05:13 PM) *
@ JFK : this :

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5027/fcdps4.png

is dated april 2006, which is a problem in our concern.


The pages for the manual all have different dates. The cover says the original release date is 2000, but the installation pages to install the actual proximity switch and doorjamb are listed as June 1990. Were they installing these cabin door proximity switches on these types of planes as early as 1990?

This manual is for the 757-200SF which is a converted 757-200 for cargo use? Doesn't it make sense that there would be more concern about a proper functioning cabin door sensor and FDR system capable of accurately recording it on passenger jets as opposed to cargo jets?

It seems to me at this point that it is highly likely that there was a door sensor installed on Flight 77, although some more documentation would be nice. I would like to look into the various components of the FDR recording system and how they interact with each other and the door sensor. If anyone has this technical information please share.

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 07:38 PM) *
A Warning light and an EICAS alert are two different things.

EICAS Alert, you will get audible dings in the cockpit along with a Master Caution (or Warning) light blinking at you in the face.

Although you can silence the alert and warning light, I assume they dont want this on a Freighter as the door is probably open for most of the flight if not the whole time... if they even have the door installed. Although the manual suggests one is installed on this aircraft.


This manual covers a fleet of 36 aircraft. FM_025, page 63.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 2 2009, 07:58 PM) *
This manual covers a fleet of 36 aircraft. FM_025, page 63.


Yeah, what I meant by "this aircraft", I meant the 757-200SF in that particular Airline fleet. Not a specific tail number.

smile.gif

Posted by: JFK Dec 2 2009, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (solequinox @ Dec 2 2009, 07:50 PM) *
The pages for the manual all have different dates. The cover says the original release date is 2000, but the installation pages to install the actual proximity switch and doorjamb are listed as June 1990. Were they installing these cabin door proximity switches on these types of planes as early as 1990?


If 737's are used as an example, then yes that may be assumed as they also use proxy switches...
My 747 manual dated 1990 says those used plunger switches.

QUOTE (solequinox @ Dec 2 2009, 07:50 PM) *
This manual is for the 757-200SF which is a converted 757-200 for cargo use? Doesn't it make sense that there would be more concern about a proper functioning cabin door sensor and FDR system capable of accurately recording it on passenger jets as opposed to cargo jets?

Correct. Yes I think that is a valid assumption... But remember they were converted from passenger jets.
I personally don't think they would waste the labor to strip the proxy switches.

QUOTE (solequinox @ Dec 2 2009, 07:50 PM) *
It seems to me at this point that it is highly likely that there was a door sensor installed on Flight 77, although some more documentation would be nice. I would like to look into the various components of the FDR recording system and how they interact with each other and the door sensor. If anyone has this technical information please share.


I agree a "snapshot" of the evolving manual dated pre 9/11 would be nice, however I do not forsee anyone aquireing one...

We also need to be very careful as these manuals do contain information which potential future terrorists could use to their advantage so I would not reccommend "sharing freely".

Benign portions relating to this topic IMO are OK, but there is much other info mixed in on each page.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 2 2009, 10:00 PM

QUOTE
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 here.

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.


click link for downloads.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18405&view=findpost&p=10779880

Posted by: albertchampion Dec 2 2009, 10:58 PM

the best site. love the desire to discover the truth.

applause. and take a bow.

Posted by: JFK Dec 3 2009, 10:42 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 30 2009, 06:05 PM) *
JFK, if I may I'd like to contact you further about this circuit and diagrams.

Thanks!
Tino


Nope, not any more.

From now on any and all propriatary documents I possess will remain as such thanks to your actions.

Great work Tino.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 3 2009, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 7 2009, 11:45 PM) *
<snip>
@ Warren, Is this OK as far as the interface ?

( sorry about the crop, but as Jupiter has demonstrated it is neccessary. )
Sorry JFK, what are you referring to? Do you mean the 4 images you previously posted?

Warren.

Posted by: JFK Dec 3 2009, 08:04 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 3 2009, 06:56 PM) *
Sorry JFK, what are you referring to? Do you mean the 4 images you previously posted?

Warren.


Actually 6 since I did crop out the irrelevant portions of the full page of the last one ( I thought ) you saw all the way back to the proxy switch...

But it does not matter. Several members here have proven to me that they can not be trusted so there will be no more posts like that from me sadly.

Posted by: REDSHIFT Dec 4 2009, 12:45 AM

Ok guys, do 757's usually have their own separate heads in the flight decks? Inquiring minds want to know. Someone is trying to tell me that they are right outside the flight deck door. I don't fly. I don't know. blink.gif

Posted by: JFK Dec 4 2009, 01:01 AM

QUOTE (REDSHIFT @ Dec 3 2009, 11:45 PM) *
Ok guys, do 757's usually have their own separate heads in the flight decks? Inquiring minds want to know. Someone is trying to tell me that they are right outside the flight deck door. I don't fly. I don't know. blink.gif


As I said in the other thread, when the flight deck door is fully open ( Opens away from the flight deck and towards the passenger cabin ) the forward lav door is behind the flight deck door.

In other words if the pilot wants to pee, he has to open the flight deck door, walk through, and close the flight deck door to gain access to the lav door.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 4 2009, 04:34 PM

Hi JFK,

QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 9 2009, 12:04 AM) *
Actually 6 since I did crop out the irrelevant portions of the full page of the last one ( I thought ) you saw all the way back to the proxy switch...

But it does not matter. Several members here have proven to me that they can not be trusted so there will be no more posts like that from me sadly.
That's unfortunate, I didn't see the last two. I see the attachments for the first 4 I saw have now been deleted.

Warren.

Posted by: JFK Dec 4 2009, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 4 2009, 03:34 PM) *
Hi JFK,

That's unfortunate, I didn't see the last two. I see the attachments for the first 4 I saw have now been deleted.

Warren.


Nevermind, My screw up.

Posted by: REDSHIFT Dec 10 2009, 07:24 PM

Paging ROB! I've got some overwhelming information that was just posted over a FCN today. It's on my thread http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82720&start=120&sid=20dc186802ca1a0d664311a858f6f739
on page 9 Poster: Fawn
She's pasted numerous topics from 9/11. too many for me to find out if they are all new to this forum. I already posted the part about two flights landing in cleveland in the Flight 93 section of this forum. The other interseting part was about the guys in Ft. Collins CO. doing secret work on the Sky Warrior just prior to 9/11.
It starts out with:

QUOTE
SECRET GLOBAL HAWK REFIT FOR SKY WARRIOR!, as 911 Penta.hit? Secret 911 Grand Jury in NY!
author: click go the pieces!

I'll go do a search to see if your guys have covered it yet.
I watched Jesse Ventura last night, and he interviewed one of the guys who found a black box at WTC, a friend of his worked for American Airlines, is in fear for her life, so she wouldn't do an interview. She stated that she had been in contact with Flight 93, and said that the hijackers were already in the cockpit, before the pilots got there, and they spoke English. I never heard that one, either.
I still don't think that 93 went down in Shanksville, if it did have 200 onboard that were unlaoded at Cleveland, it's place was taken by something else. The black box would have shown it landing at Cleveland, too.

Posted by: wstutt Dec 12 2009, 05:39 AM

QUOTE (REDSHIFT @ Dec 16 2009, 12:24 AM) *
<snip>
I still don't think that 93 went down in Shanksville, if it did have 200 onboard that were unlaoded at Cleveland, it's place was taken by something else. The black box would have shown it landing at Cleveland, too.
The http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10830 doesn't show the aircraft landing at Cleveland.

Warren.

Posted by: AirmanDave Jan 10 2010, 04:09 AM

So far in my experience, if something fails a light comes on. If the Flight Deck Door microswitch/proximity switch (I dont care what it is) fails (aka loss of power), an annunciator will illuminate (Door Ajar/Flight Deck/whatever). It's the basis of the dark cockpit concept! If you have a door annunciator, if the door is open, or the switch has failed, the door annunciator will illuminate! I assume the same information is being sent to the FDR of course.

Posted by: wstutt Jan 10 2010, 07:57 PM

Hi AirmanDave,

QUOTE (AirmanDave @ Jan 15 2010, 08:09 AM) *
So far in my experience, if something fails a light comes on. If the Flight Deck Door microswitch/proximity switch (I dont care what it is) fails (aka loss of power), an annunciator will illuminate (Door Ajar/Flight Deck/whatever). It's the basis of the dark cockpit concept! If you have a door annunciator, if the door is open, or the switch has failed, the door annunciator will illuminate! I assume the same information is being sent to the FDR of course.
Unfortunately there does not appear to be an indication recorded in the FDR as to whether the door switch has failed.

Warren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 10 2010, 08:56 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 30 2009, 06:05 PM) *
Wow, this is GOLD, Truly gold! This configuration is fool proof and knocks out any of the excuses the
GL's make about "jammed switch", "faulty switch", etc.

In the event a proximity switch fails, it will show OPEN, or a LOGIC 1!!!!

If the switch is defective it cannot complete the circuit either.


Even if the door is slightly open (not completely shut), it will show open. This is because the circuit is ONLY complete when the door is tight against the jamb.


On top of this, the wiring to the breaker panel and pilot controls would have made it SIMPLE to interface
with the FDR wiring. In other words, the retrofit to install the door switch would not require extensive
plumbing, wiring, backbending to get a voltage signal from the circuit to the FDR port input.

JFK, if I may I'd like to contact you further about this circuit and diagrams.

Thanks!
Tino

Posted by: wstutt Jan 11 2010, 03:07 PM

QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 15 2010, 11:57 PM) *
Hi AirmanDave,

QUOTE (AirmanDave @ Jan 15 2010, 08:09 AM) *

So far in my experience, if something fails a light comes on. If the Flight Deck Door microswitch/proximity switch (I dont care what it is) fails (aka loss of power), an annunciator will illuminate (Door Ajar/Flight Deck/whatever). It's the basis of the dark cockpit concept! If you have a door annunciator, if the door is open, or the switch has failed, the door annunciator will illuminate! I assume the same information is being sent to the FDR of course.

Unfortunately there does not appear to be an indication recorded in the FDR as to whether the door switch has failed.

Warren.
Sorry Rob and AirmanDave,

I meant that there did not appear to be a separate indication recorded in the FDR other than the FLT DECK DOOR parameter i.e. some sort of separate "flight deck door sensor failed" parameter. After reading AirmanDave's question again, I see a possible "flight deck door sensor failed" parameter is probably not what he meant.

Warren.

Posted by: mrmitosis Feb 12 2010, 10:38 PM

Hello, folks.

Very much a newbie to this forum, thread, topic. No relevant qualifications to declare, unfortunately, although my father has recently retired after 30 years service as an air traffic controller (Tullamarine and Essendon airports, Melbourne) and amateur pilot. I'm guessing that won't get me much more than a high 5 blink.gif

But before I go any further, let me say congratulations and thanks to everyone for all your hard work.

I've been following this discussion with interest over the last day or two, and have been able to digest most of it, apart from some of the more esoteric technical issues. I understand enough, at least, to be convinced that the flight deck door on a 757 should have been equipped with a sensor, and that the FDR data in this case revealed fairly unequivocally that the door did remain closed for the flight's duration.

This is, of course, if we may assume that the FDR in question was in fact recovered from the Pentagon plane wreckage - which, of course, we cannot.

I want to emphasise that I have read the 23 pages on the original thread, and I am not expecting Rob or anybody else to repeat themselves in terms of whether or not a properly functioning sensor was installed on flight 77.

In spite of this, I hope it is not frowned upon for me to come here seeking support from anyone qualified to help me dispell the claims of a debunker who is making some fairly bold but confident statements on a Youtube bru-ha-ha. I can appreciate that most P4Ts are reluctant to enter the sleazy YT domain, but nonetheless I feel that it is a critically important battlefield for the truth movement, so here I am.

The link, if anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

In response to my arguments along the lines that AA77 could not have been hijacked....should I name him?....yes, Ill name him: Merlin5x5 said this (over the course of two separate posts):

"The Flight Deck Door sensor is a red herring, to make you look foolish. No Boeing aircraft has ever been fitted with a flight deck door sensor, globally.

Where is the sensor, or the wire for it?"

and then:

"...you are simply LYING about a flight deck door sensor. IF you have a commercial pilot who differs, post him.

The FAA has standards called FARs, Flight Aviation Regs. You can search thru them, they are online. Find one referring to the door sensor.

It's just not there. Boeing doors and doorframes are plastiboard, with sliding locks. Haven't you ever been on a plane?"

(I figure that this FAR business is a red herring in itself, so I haven't bothered to chase up that reference.)

Now, personally, I don't keep spare aeroplane parts lying around my house, so I was hoping - in the spirit of the title of this thread - someone might be able to advise the best way for a newbie to definitively put this clown in his place. After all, he did challenge me to find a commercial pilot who was prepared to dispute his claims. I feel a bit like a pathetic kid being picked on in the schoolyard, running up to his older brother for help, but.....perhaps a short quote from someone would do the trick....? whistle.gif

Anybody? salute.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 12 2010, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 12 2010, 09:38 PM) *
The FAA has standards called FARs, Flight Aviation Regs. You can search thru them, they are online. Find one referring to the door sensor.

It's just not there. Boeing doors and doorframes are plastiboard, with sliding locks. Haven't you ever been on a plane?"


The Regs required only 18 parameter groups to be recorded on the FDR in 2001.

American Airlines has 1100 parameters specified in their custom made data frame layout. Flight Deck Door is one of them.. See Attached.

Clearly Merlin doesnt understand the Regs are a MINIMUM requirement and that the airlines record many more parameters on their aircraft.

I've gone back and forth with Merlin5x5 on some of my YT videos. The guy is a complete idiot, knows hardly anything about aircraft... and blindly accepts anything the govt tells him. This is why he refuses to sign up here for debate.

Hope this helps...

 757_3b_1.TXT ( 640.98K ) : 11
 

Posted by: mrmitosis Feb 13 2010, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 12 2010, 10:27 PM) *
The Regs required only 18 parameter groups to be recorded on the FDR in 2001.

American Airlines has 1100 parameters specified in their custom made data frame layout. Flight Deck Door is one of them.. See Attached.

Clearly Merlin doesnt understand the Regs are a MINIMUM requirement and that the airlines record many more parameters on their aircraft.

I've gone back and forth with Merlin5x5 on some of my YT videos. The guy is a complete idiot, knows hardly anything about aircraft... and blindly accepts anything the govt tells him. This is why he refuses to sign up here for debate.

Hope this helps...


Yes, it was obvious (even to me) that his point about regulations proved nothing about American Airlines' own policy regarding parameter groups - it is merely a minimum requirement as stipulated by the FAR.

However I disagree that Merlin doesn't understand this - I think he does, and is simply trying to steer me off course thumbdown.gif

FYI, this is his version of events:

"I was a MEMBER of Pilots for Truth, before they kicked me out, for asking pilots questions.

Did you know Pilots for 9/11 truth ORIGINALLY had the impact on the SOUTH side of the Pentagon?

Apparently, the "pilots" there have NEVER looked at a map, or actually flown an aircraft. They didn't know how to turn an aircraft, or apply brakes on an aircraft.

I am a pilot, and I find brakes kinda useful.

SO, I looked them up, they are based in a one bedroom apt, down by the river, in Tennessee"

Looks like you've been busted, guys laughing1.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 13 2010, 10:03 PM

laughing1.gif

Merlin was a member? Really? Thats news to me.... where exactly was he listed on our core member list? Under what name?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Does he think all of the above individuals are living in a 1 bedroom apt "down by the river" in TN?

Does he think the above Core members "never flew an airplane" or "looked at a map"?

Why does Merlin make claims which can easily be proven a lie? Tell Merlin to put down the crack-pipe...

With that said, yes, the address registered under our domain name (pilotsfor911truth.org) is in TN which is a One bedroom apt mostly filled with computers, files and research. The apt is right up the road from Mc Ghee Tyson Airport/Air National Guard Base (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KTYS). Its a gorgeous area by the way... very affordable too. I guess Merlin thinks we have the resources to rent office space in a high rise on 5th Ave NYC with Hangar space at Teterboro housing our Gulfstream to fly members around the world giving presentations? Hopefully one day... but for now, our money is better spent furthering our operations and research... You should ask him to try knocking on the door. Even better if he tries to break in... wink.gif

Many of these people who blindly follow whatever the govt tells them claim we are paranoid conspiracy freaks. Yet we are the people who use real names and real addresses. Go figure...

Posted by: Jupiter Apr 24 2010, 08:48 PM

Hi Rob,

Debunkers nuts say it's impossible that the door staid closed for all the 12 flights.

Of course you have shown that comparator.csv indicates that the sensor was OK, but This here is something interesting I found in The Commission Report :

" We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit; FAA rules required that the doors remain closed and locked during the flight. [Flight attendant Betty] Ong speculated that they had ―jammed their way‖ in. Perhaps the terrorists stabbed the flight attendants to get a cockpit key, to force one of them to open the cockpit door, or to lure the captain or first officer out of the cockpit. "

Posted by: Sanders Apr 24 2010, 10:12 PM

The commissioners were just speculating.

I don't know what you mean by "all 12 flights" - what 12 flights? The FDR P4T received details the 90 flight of AA77 on the morning of 9/11 only. The cabin door sensor records the status of that door (open or closed) beginning with the start of the engines for that flight only.

Posted by: Jupiter Apr 25 2010, 06:33 AM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 24 2010, 09:12 PM) *
The commissioners were just speculating.

I don't know what you mean by "all 12 flights" - what 12 flights? The FDR P4T received details the 90 flight of AA77 on the morning of 9/11 only. The cabin door sensor records the status of that door (open or closed) beginning with the start of the engines for that flight only.


By the 12 flights, I mean that The FDR recorded the 11 previous flights of " N644AA " or "N5BPAA " which also show "door = closed".

So the problem was that the door had never been opened during any of the previous flights, but The Commission says it seems normal because that door is supposed to be close, so this is a strong argument against the debunker community who say that such a door would have been opened at least once during a 4h flight.

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 25 2010, 10:15 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Apr 25 2010, 06:33 AM) *
By the 12 flights, I mean that The FDR recorded the 11 previous flights of " N644AA " or "N5BPAA " which also show "door = closed".


The above data is not confirmed by anyone. Only the last flight is confirmed.

Posted by: Jupiter Apr 25 2010, 12:51 PM

"sync lost" indicates the engines' switch off.

So you have 12 "sync lost" in the WarrenStutt's complete file, I presume you have 12 flights, with none of them exceeding 4h30.

Good luck for your great work Rob & P4T ! I hope Stutt will discover new problematic data, but the door never opened is such a hard evidence of the big lie that it's incredible that none of the american medias points to this proof of the Pentagon deception !

Posted by: Uneeque Sep 29 2012, 02:51 PM

It's been long time since the last post on this so I hope this is not tired overkill but I have two questions I have not seen answered.

1. Why can't the same model for 77 be cross referenced with in service planes? This may not prove it 100% but it would help. Rob did a solid job in post 17 of the most popular response from OCTAs by pointing out if they want to claim the door parameter was not included, they need to do better than a complete comprehension failure on the data parameters in relation to specific models. Knowing 77 had that in use means they need to prove it was malfunctioning.

2. Purpose? It seems to me the sensor is to serve as an independent "witness" in the event of a crash so exactly what would it be monitoring? Door position itself or unauthorized door position? If the purpose was to record an unauthorized open position then it would not record an "open" position if it was authorized. It would only record the door being open when it wasn't supposed to be. If it simply recorded all open/closed positions it would be useless for a crash investigation. This would explain why the previous flights had the door recorded as "closed" because there were no unauthorized openings. Including on its last flight.

I've also seen discrepancies about the recording loop timeline. Is it 42 or 25 hours?

If these have all been addressed then forgive my blind eyes but I have looked here and several other sources.

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 30 2012, 12:34 AM

QUOTE (Uneeque @ Sep 29 2012, 02:51 PM) *
It's been long time since the last post on this so I hope this is not tired overkill but I have two questions I have not seen answered.


Welcome to the forum. I'll be happy to help....

QUOTE
1. Why can't the same model for 77 be cross referenced with in service planes?


It can be... and in fact we tried. We tried to get the MX manual for the specific types during the time this article went viral. Of course, we then hit nothing but brick walls. We need subpoena power to obtain such information from a corporation (in this case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMR_Corporation). Remember, this information does not fall under the FOIA as it is not govt affiliated.

With that said, obviously some aircraft do record the Flight Deck Door status (open or closed). Why else would such a parameter be included in a Data Frame Layout, specifically tailored by American Airlines for their fleet, as pointed out in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18428&view=findpost&p=10779737?

QUOTE
2. Purpose?


The purpose is simple... to be able to determine when the Flight Deck Door was open or closed. FDR's are not exclusively used for accident investigation after a crash, the data dump is more often used for crew discipline when incidents happen.

For example, A Capt is accused of getting a blow job and busts altitude, heading, waypoint.. what-have-you... The FO is in the lav.... A witness/passenger comes forward and testifies that a FA went into the cockpit during that time. The Capt denies it. The FDR data is pulled and the door will either show open corroborating the witness... or closed, corroborating the Capt.

QUOTE
I've also seen discrepancies about the recording loop timeline. Is it 42 or 25 hours?


This confusion stems from a person who claims to have decoded more data than the NTSB yet also admits he doesn't have any experience in Flight Data Recorders or aircraft investigation...

Click here for details...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10798304

No one has been able to verify the claims made by the person linked in the above... not even the NTSB.

Bottom line, there is no evidence showing the flight deck door open in order for a 'hijack' to occur. In fact, data provided by the NTSB shows the flight deck door closed.

Those who make excuse for the above rely on some guy who claims to have decoded more data than the NTSB, yet also admits he has no experience whatsoever in FDR investigation, combined with the fact that they cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that the Flight Deck Door was open for a "hijack".

Remember, the burden of proof is on those who make the claims which have changed domestic and foreign policy based on such claims that 19 "hijackers" caused such destruction. So far, not only have they failed to provide evidence, but the data they have provided contradicts their claims.


Hope this helps...

Posted by: Uneeque Sep 30 2012, 12:42 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 30 2012, 12:34 AM) *
Welcome to the forum. I'll be happy to help....



It can be... and in fact we tried. We tried to get the MX manual for the specific types during the time this article went viral. Of course, we then hit nothing but brick walls. We need subpoena power to obtain such information from a corporation (in this case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMR_Corporation). Remember, this information does not fall under the FOIA as it is not govt affiliated.

With that said, obviously some aircraft do record the Flight Deck Door status (open or closed). Why else would such a parameter be included in a Data Frame Layout, specifically tailored by American Airlines for their fleet, as pointed out in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18428&view=findpost&p=10779737?



The purpose is simple... to be able to determine when the Flight Deck Door was open or closed. FDR's are not exclusively used for accident investigation after a crash, the data dump is more often used for crew discipline when incidents happen.

For example, A Capt is accused of getting a blow job and busts altitude, heading, waypoint.. what-have-you... The FO is in the lav.... A witness/passenger comes forward and testifies that a FA went into the cockpit during that time. The Capt denies it. The FDR data is pulled and the door will either show open corroborating the witness... or closed, corroborating the Capt.



This confusion stems from a person who claims to have decoded more data than the NTSB yet also admits he doesn't have any experience in Flight Data Recorders or aircraft investigation...

Click here for details...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10798304

No one has been able to verify the claims made by the person linked in the above... not even the NTSB.

Bottom line, there is no evidence showing the flight deck door open in order for a 'hijack' to occur. In fact, data provided by the NTSB shows the flight deck door closed.

Those who make excuse for the above rely on some guy who claims to have decoded more data than the NTSB, yet also admits he has no experience whatsoever in FDR investigation, combined with the fact that they cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that the Flight Deck Door was open for a "hijack".

Remember, the burden of proof is on those who make the claims which have changed domestic and foreign policy based on such claims that 19 "hijackers" caused such destruction. So far, not only have they failed to provide evidence, but the data they have provided contradicts their claims.


Hope this helps...


Thanks as that cleared most of it up. I do understand the FDR serves purposes exceeding crash investigations. I focused in on the door because independent evidence is the most compelling for this or any other crime.

I have had discussions with people who conceded the door remained closed then proceeded with demanding an explanation for what happened with the plane. Did it hit the Pentagon? If not, where did it go? We have a responsibility to provide feasible answers if we hope to motivate interest to the point of a FOIA explosion resulting in another investigation.

I've studied 77 far more than the other flights but clearly do not know as much as others. One of the most intriguing aspects is the absence of any independent evidence for any communication between 77 and the rest of the world after 8:54 am.

Whenever I have asked OCTAs how 77 could have traveled such a distance undetected they would usually say it was because the xponder was turned off. I asked them to keep that a tight secret lest stealth technology be revealed as a useless hoax and that any enemy that wants to attack us can simply take any plane and turn it into a stealth by switching off the xponder.

Posted by: Uneeque Sep 30 2012, 12:46 PM

Okay.....this is funny...my member number is my atm code, which was randomly generated by the bank. I have a habit of looking at details.

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 30 2012, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (Uneeque @ Sep 30 2012, 12:42 PM) *
I have had discussions with people who conceded the door remained closed then proceeded with demanding an explanation for what happened with the plane. Did it hit the Pentagon? If not, where did it go?


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7591&view=findpost&p=9458664

Posted by: Uneeque Sep 30 2012, 03:25 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 30 2012, 02:14 PM) *
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7591&view=findpost&p=9458664


Thanks and I responded in that thread.

Regarding the door, it is pretty obvious the evidence proves it was closed leaving it hard to believe a traditional hijack occurred.

Posted by: freestar May 19 2013, 05:16 PM

QUOTE (Uneeque @ Sep 30 2012, 02:25 PM) *
Thanks and I responded in that thread.

Regarding the door, it is pretty obvious the evidence proves it was closed leaving it hard to believe a traditional hijack occurred.



Can anyone explain to me how strong was the door and door frame and lock on a cockpit 757 door on flight 77, and how difficult was it to kick one in.
Can one hard kick force it open to give a person only armed with a box cutter the element of surprise to kill or injure the pilots?
According to Barbara Olsens phone call reports I have read the pilots were forced to the back of the plane, but I have also read that an experienced commercial pilot would never give up flight control of the plane and would have to be severely injured or killed in the cockpit for the high jacker to take control of the plane from them.
Did the Barbara Olsen story have the pilots forced to walk to the back of the plane with the rest of the crew by box cutter wielding Arabs and not have put up a life and death fight in the cockpit?

Can the door be forced open that quickly that both pilots could not have taken any evasive maneuver with the plane controls to cause the standing high jacker to be injured? I have read that the pilots best weapon is the plane itself in a drastic maneuver to injure an assailant not strapped in.

Does the FDR show any drastic changes in the flight path showing a struggle at the controls?

Did the White House issue order just before 911 not allowing pilots to be armed in the cockpit to add to the illusion of the pilots appearing defenseless?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)