IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

24 Pages V  « < 20 21 22 23 24 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible, FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

Rating 5 V
 
jensdarup
post Dec 12 2009, 06:22 AM
Post #421





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 10-September 09
Member No.: 4,610



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 12 2009, 11:10 AM) *
As far as time goes, although I couldn't get sensible values for GPS HOURS, GPS MINUTES and GPS SECONDS, I did get sensible values for GMT HOURS, GMT MINUTES and GMT SECONDS, so we do have values for the time from the FDR file.

Warren.

That means GPS HOURS MINUTES SECONDS are recorded automatically. Does that mean GMT HOURS MINUTES SECONDS are values to be put in manually or are they simply accounted from the GPS values?
Jens
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Dec 12 2009, 06:32 AM
Post #422





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 10-September 09
Member No.: 4,610



Another question for me is whether GPS has been used at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 12 2009, 09:03 AM
Post #423





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi Jens,

QUOTE (jensdarup @ Dec 17 2009, 11:22 AM) *
That means GPS HOURS MINUTES SECONDS are recorded automatically. Does that mean GMT HOURS MINUTES SECONDS are values to be put in manually or are they simply accounted from the GPS values?
Jens
It doesn't look like GPS HOURS, MINUTES and SECONDS are being recorded correctly so I doubt whether GMT HOURS, MINUTES and SECONDS are being updated from GPS. As far as I know, the aircraft did not use GPS. If the GPS HOURS, MINUTES and SECONDS parameters were being recorded correctly, then that would be evidence that the aircraft did have GPS. The only indication I have seen that the aircraft did have GPS is that the GPS parameter shows OPER.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 12 2009, 09:34 AM
Post #424





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 14 2009, 04:14 AM) *
I would like to see the decompressed 12 bit words Warren, If it isn't too much trouble. smile.gif
I now have a decompressor and output file of decompressed 12 bit words on my web site. Read about it here.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Dec 12 2009, 10:07 AM
Post #425





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 10-September 09
Member No.: 4,610



As I searched GPS isn't used i civilian flights why is GPS parameter set as OPER?

Jens
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 12 2009, 07:05 PM
Post #426





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi Jens,

QUOTE (jensdarup @ Dec 17 2009, 03:07 PM) *
As I searched GPS isn't used i civilian flights why is GPS parameter set as OPER?

Jens
I suspect that the GPS parameter was recorded as OPER incorrectly i.e. there was no operational GPS. I added the GPS HOURS, MINUTES and SECONDS parameters to the decoder to get confirmation that there really was an operational GPS, but those parameters did not have sensible values as discussed.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 13 2009, 10:19 AM
Post #427





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi solequinox,

QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 11 2009, 10:20 AM) *
QUOTE (solequinox @ Dec 9 2009, 02:59 AM) *

My understanding of these electrical systems is very limited, but I do have a background in IT. I'm not sure whether this info is relevant or meaningful but in the interest of general curiosity and sharing...

I noticed when reading through some of the documentation that both AUTOPILOT and AUTOTHROTTLE were used after Flight 77 was supposedly hijacked.

AA77 & UA93 Autopilot Information

Looking at the information about the data frame packets from the D226A101-3G.pdf document, it shows AUTOTHROTTLE on the same port(?) or whatever as the FLT_DECK_DOOR. They are actually right next to each other on the list, and seem to share the same space with fields like the cargo door and fire ext. This is where I get lost on some of this technical info, but common sense would propose the following question:

If AUTOTHROTTLE was a parameter that the NTSB confirmed as valid, and FLT_DECK_DOOR is essentially being reported from the same location, (port? piece of equipment?) would it be possible for the AUTOTHROTTLE data to be valid and the FLT_DECK_DOOR not to be?

EDIT to add: AUTOTHROTTLE DISC is on the same port and subframe as FLT_DECK_DOOR. It is included in the CSV that the NTSB gave warrenstutt.com as a verified and plotted parameter.

I may be way off here, but if someone with a technical understanding of this reporting system could explain why that is or is not relevant I would be grateful.

<snip>
The idea of checking out parameters in the same port occurred to me as well. So I am going to add all the single bit parameters that share the same port number, label and SID 9-10 as the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. I haven't looked at the ARINC 429 protocol specification, however I would have thought that the EICAS sends all the single bit parameters that share the same port number, label and SID 9-10 as the FLT DECK DOOR parameter together to the FDR. I may add more parameters as well from that port to see what the minimum revision of parameters is that the EICAS is sending to the FDR.

Warren.
My program and the NTSB CSV files show AUTOTHROTTLE DISC and GEAR DOORS SYS 1 parameters changing during the final flight, so since these parameters share the same port number, label and SID 9-10 as the FLT DECK DOOR parameter, I would expect that the EICAS which is on that port would send updated values for all three parameters to the FDR at the same time. I have not read the ARINC 429 protocol specification to confirm this however.

It has been pointed out that the FLT DECK DOOR parameter is listed as being in revision A2, however my program and the NTSB CSV files show the LDG GEAR LEVER parameter which is on the same port, changing as expected and that parameter is in the later revision B. This leads me to believe that the EICAS and FDR were capable of sending and receiving parameters that are in revision B or earlier which includes FLT DECK DOOR.

The above reasoning leaves me fairly confident that the state of the flight deck door as known by the EICAS was being recorded by the FDR, however I have not yet seen circuits or other information that leads me to being certain that the flight deck door state was being received by the EICAS, so at this time I am not certain one way or the other whether or not the flight deck door state was being correctly recorded by the FDR.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 16 2009, 06:49 PM
Post #428



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Rock Creek Free Press picked up the story as well....

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 16 2009, 06:58 PM
Post #429



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 13 2009, 09:19 AM) *
The above reasoning leaves me fairly confident that the state of the flight deck door as known by the EICAS was being recorded by the FDR, however I have not yet seen circuits or other information that leads me to being certain that the flight deck door state was being received by the EICAS, so at this time I am not certain one way or the other whether or not the flight deck door state was being correctly recorded by the FDR.

Warren.


I completely agree. However, even if we obtain the Maintenance Manual from American, we must first determine the data is from an American Airlines aircraft, N644AA. This is why i have repeatedly stated this data is not "proof" of anything.

The data shows the door closed, the NTSB claims the data is from N644AA (keyword = "claims"), this makes it impossible for a hijack to take place. This is cut and dry and undisputed (although many have attempted to make excuse, some even tried to get the story pulled/discredited through poor attempts at blackmail, most likely cointelpro). The NTSB/FBI are the only agencies who can explain such a growing mountain of conflicting information with the govt story based on the data they have provided.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 17 2009, 06:25 AM
Post #430





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 21 2009, 10:58 PM) *
QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 18 2009, 02:19 PM) *

The above reasoning leaves me fairly confident that the state of the flight deck door as known by the EICAS was being recorded by the FDR, however I have not yet seen circuits or other information that leads me to being certain that the flight deck door state was being received by the EICAS, so at this time I am not certain one way or the other whether or not the flight deck door state was being correctly recorded by the FDR.

Warren.


I completely agree. However, even if we obtain the Maintenance Manual from American, we must first determine the data is from an American Airlines aircraft, N644AA. This is why i have repeatedly stated this data is not "proof" of anything.

The data shows the door closed, the NTSB claims the data is from N644AA (keyword = "claims"), this makes it impossible for a hijack to take place. This is cut and dry and undisputed (although many have attempted to make excuse, some even tried to get the story pulled/discredited through poor attempts at blackmail, most likely cointelpro). The NTSB/FBI are the only agencies who can explain such a growing mountain of conflicting information with the govt story based on the data they have provided.
Perhaps, I should have preceded my post with "Presuming the FDR file we have was extracted from an FDR recording flights of N644AA, ...".

In my opinion, if we can't show that the flight deck door status was received by the EICAS on N644AA, then the FDR file could be from N644AA and the flight deck door could have been opened with the file showing it as closed.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Dec 17 2009, 09:29 AM
Post #431





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 10-September 09
Member No.: 4,610



In my opinion if we can't show the flight deck door status was received by EICAS on N644AA we can't assume FDR data were from N644AA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Dec 17 2009, 10:14 AM
Post #432



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (jensdarup @ Dec 21 2009, 07:29 AM) *
In my opinion if we can't show the flight deck door status was received by EICAS on N644AA we can't assume FDR data were from N644AA.


I'm not one of the pilots here, so forgive me if I'm being stupid, but do we really know if ANY of the FDR data really came from N644AA? I'm assuming that we are taking the NTSB's word for that, that that FDR data came from that plane ... and that's sort of the whole point. Not that any of these data are actually from that flight, but that the NTSB represents it as such.

We are really just looking for a true statement, such as, the data from such and such black box, released by the NTSB and represented by that government agency as being the FDR from flight AA77 #N644AA, shows the cabin door closed throughout the flight.

I'm not saying that that can be stated unequivocally, I assume that's what this whole thread is about ... what can be stated unequivocally.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Dec 17 2009, 10:54 AM
Post #433





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 10-September 09
Member No.: 4,610



QUOTE (Sanders @ Dec 17 2009, 03:14 PM) *
I'm not one of the pilots here, so forgive me if I'm being stupid, but do we really know if ANY of the FDR data really came from N644AA? I'm assuming that we are taking the NTSB's word for that, that that FDR data came from that plane ... and that's sort of the whole point. Not that any of these data are actually from that flight, but that the NTSB represents it as such.

We are really just looking for a true statement, such as, the data from such and such black box, released by the NTSB and represented by that government agency as being the FDR from flight AA77 #N644AA, shows the cabin door closed throughout the flight.

I'm not saying that that can be stated unequivocally, I assume that's what this whole thread is about ... what can be stated unequivocally.

Excuse my bad English please, but that is exactly what I meant. [Being only a student forum pilot and not one of those pilots here either]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 17 2009, 02:06 PM
Post #434



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 17 2009, 05:25 AM) *
In my opinion, if we can't show that the flight deck door status was received by the EICAS on N644AA, then the FDR file could be from N644AA and the flight deck door could have been opened with the file showing it as closed.

Warren.


Assuming one could be true just because the other cannot be proven false is a logical fallacy Warren. Personally, I expect a lot more proof than opinion and assumption as a cause when going off to war or setting domestic and foreign policy. How about you?

These are the facts:

1. The NTSB claims the data they are providing through the FOIA is from N644AA. This claim has not been proven - Fact.
2. The Data provided by the NTSB does not support the govt story in several instances and the list is growing - Fact and proven.
3. The NTSB Flight Path Study conclusions conflict with the data Warren has provided - Fact and Proven.
4. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on the growing mountain of conflicting information/data they provide. - Fact and Proven.
5. More forthcoming.

These are the claims which remain to be proven by those who make excuse for the govt story, in order for them to hold onto their impact theory.

1. Proof that the data provided came from N644AA.
2. Proof that the Flight Deck Door was open in flight for a hijack to take place.
3. The Pressure Altitude, required by the FAA, and confirmed by the NTSB, must be proven to be in error in excess of 120+ feet.
4. Proof of the object from which Radar altitude is measuring.
5. Proof a 757 can be precisely maneuvered at more than 110 knots over its max operating limit to hit a target with a 33' margin for error by a pilot who cannot control a 172 at 65 knots.
5. Proof that more than 13 independently corroborated and verified witnesses are mistaken all in the same manner.
6. Attempt to get the NTSB to amend their Flight Path Study and admit their possible error of not being able to decode a complete FDR data set, perhaps setting in motion a complete audit of every Flight Path Study and Final Report the NTSB has produced and drawn conclusions based on Flight Data. Amend regulation as necessary.
7. Proof/Positive ID that N644AA is responsible for the damage at the Pentagon.

These are just a few off the top of my head.

To date, there hasnt been one person who has made excuse for the govt story of 9/11, able to provide proof for any of their above claims/excuses. Most of these people are anonymous or cannot be verified. Most use libel or personally attack us as their debate style in an obvious unhealthy daily obsession with our work and organization. Most probably work for the Pentagon. Every single one of them refuses to debate civilly in a recorded venue using their real name.

These are the facts. They are undisputed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Dec 18 2009, 09:37 AM
Post #435



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Well stated thumbsup.gif

and Jensdarup, I wasn't countering what you said, I was picking up the ball and running with it.

Obviously we don't know everything about what happened that day, but the discoveries that have been made certainly warrant massive media attention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Dec 18 2009, 11:48 AM
Post #436





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 10-September 09
Member No.: 4,610



QUOTE (Sanders @ Dec 18 2009, 02:37 PM) *
Well stated thumbsup.gif

and Jensdarup, I wasn't countering what you said, I was picking up the ball and running with it.

Obviously we don't know everything about what happened that day, but the discoveries that have been made certainly warrant massive media attention.


Thank you Sir, my remarks originally were meant as antithesis to Warrens conclusion "In my opinion, if we can't show that the flight deck door status was received by the EICAS on N644AA, then the FDR file could be from N644AA and the flight deck door could have been opened with the file showing it as closed." But you are absolutely right about media attention and the necessity to formulate in a diplomatic manner painter had pointed out before in this thread. I should not shout things out every time they shot into my head. But as Mr. Balsamo multiple times made clear the consequences of those events to the world are such severe that I am fascinated by this topic especially being discussed in such a remarkable society as this one. Regards, Jens Darup
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 19 2009, 02:25 PM
Post #437





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 22 2009, 06:06 PM) *
QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 22 2009, 10:25 AM) *

In my opinion, if we can't show that the flight deck door status was received by the EICAS on N644AA, then the FDR file could be from N644AA and the flight deck door could have been opened with the file showing it as closed.

Warren.


Assuming one could be true just because the other cannot be proven false is a logical fallacy Warren. ...

<snip>
So the question of whether the flight deck door parameter was being recorded correctly or not is not relevant to whether the government story is true or not?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 19 2009, 02:54 PM
Post #438



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 19 2009, 01:25 PM) *
Hi Rob,



Assuming one could be true just because the other cannot be proven false is a logical fallacy Warren. ...

<snip>
So the question of whether the flight deck door parameter was being recorded correctly or not is not relevant to whether the government story is true or not?

Warren.


Sure it is, but again, you first have to prove all the points listed in order to prove if the FDD parameter "was being recorded correctly or not".

How can anyone draw a conclusion either way if you do not have positive ID from which the data was produced/recorded? Again, even if we get an American Airlines MX page dated prior to 9/11 for N644AA, it is moot until we prove the data came from N644AA. Some people think we can get such a page from the local Barnes and Noble or an airline gift shop. This is not the case and this is why we have never claimed to have "proof".

Bottom line, the data and information is provided by the NTSB, the Data itself shows 0 for FDD, the Data Frame Layout describes 1 for Open, 0 for Closed.

It doesnt describe 1 = open, 0 = closed or default.

If you can find me an aeronautical document which describes 0 as having any other meaning than as described in the Data Frame Layout for a particular parameter, please feel free to post it.

The data shows all 0's. This means Closed according to the Data Frame Layout provided by the NTSB. This is why you listed it as "Closed" in your output file. You didnt list it as Closed/Default/Not Working. You listed it as Closed because that is what a 0 denotes according to the Data Frame Layout. This is why it caught my attention while reviewing your output file, and why i skipped it 2 years ago when reviewing our RO2.

If closed, this makes a hijack impossible. Period.

The NTSB/FBI need to explain this alarming conflict with the govt story, as well as the growing mountain of conflicts listed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Dec 19 2009, 03:18 PM
Post #439





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 10-September 09
Member No.: 4,610



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 19 2009, 07:25 PM) *
Hi Rob,



Assuming one could be true just because the other cannot be proven false is a logical fallacy Warren. ...

<snip>
So the question of whether the flight deck door parameter was being recorded correctly or not is not relevant to whether the government story is true or not?

Warren.


Hi Warren, excuse me please when I am shooting into the thread again, but this discussion reminds me of Schrödingers Katze. The cat sitting in a [black] box could be alive or could be dead. That means the probability for open or closed would be 0.5 for each event. This seems to me a bit too indifferent for an official statement.

Jens

Edit to add: Stephen Hawkins should have said: "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat I reach for my gun"

This post has been edited by jensdarup: Dec 19 2009, 03:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 20 2009, 09:56 AM
Post #440





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Hi Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 24 2009, 07:54 PM) *
<snip>

How can anyone draw a conclusion either way if you do not have positive ID from which the data was produced/recorded? Again, even if we get an American Airlines MX page dated prior to 9/11 for N644AA, it is moot until we prove the data came from N644AA. ...

<snip>
So it is pointless discussing the contents of the FDR file?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 20 21 22 23 24 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th January 2020 - 04:10 PM