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  « < 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
 
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 20 2009, 02:52 PM
Post #441





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 20 2009, 02:56 PM) *
Hi Rob,

So it is pointless discussing the contents of the FDR file?

Warren.


Wow.

Your disingenuous colors are showing through.

Seriously Stutt what is it that you don't get here?

If you had taken an objective look at the eyewitness evidence, the beyond dubious aeronautic accounts of the south WTC tower impact, and the full picture of 9/11 including all the blatantly obvious evidence for controlled demolition you would understand that we already have proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

So we therefore MUST look at ALL govt controlled and provided data from a skeptical point of view.

That means you don't assume the 2006 released NTSB data that they CLAIM came from "Flight 77" really came from "Flight 77".

To do so would defy all rules of critical thinking, skepticism, basic logic, and common sense.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has correctly never stated that the data proves where the plane really flew.

What we CAN do is look at this data that they provided and see if it adds up with THEIR story.

Guess what? It doesn't.

Agreed or no?

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 20 2009, 02:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 20 2009, 05:46 PM
Post #442





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



Hi Craig,

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 25 2009, 07:52 PM) *
<snip>

What we CAN do is look at this data that they provided and see if it adds up with THEIR story.

Guess what? It doesn't.

Agreed or no?
If we are only considering the flight deck door, at this time I do not agree that this data that they provided is necessarily in conflict with their story as I said earlier in this thread here for these reasons.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 20 2009, 06:32 PM
Post #443





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 20 2009, 10:46 PM) *
Hi Craig,

If we are only considering the flight deck door


No that is not the context of my question.

Don't continue to be disingenuous.

Either you are looking at this data from a skeptical point of view or you are not.

If you assume the data really came from the black box of tail #N644AA you are clearly not.

Now want to try to answer the question again within the context that it was asked?

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 20 2009, 06:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 20 2009, 08:09 PM
Post #444





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 16-October 06
Member No.: 88



From the point of view of someone not a pilot but understanding data recording from looking at the data and making sense of it has to be understood exactly what was being recorded.
If it turns out that state of cockpit door was not recorded on AA77 then that data bit does not prove anything one way or another unless it can be showed the bit in question should be constant 1 or vary due to other input.
If it was recording state of cockpit door then it proves that either door was never opened so impossible hijack OR something fishy is up with data and either way something is not right and can be used as definite proof.
That is true from anyone point of view if they believe in AA77 or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 29 2009, 12:28 AM
Post #445



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 20 2009, 04:46 PM) *
Hi Craig,

If we are only considering the flight deck door, at this time I do not agree that this data that they provided is necessarily in conflict with their story as I said earlier in this thread here for these reasons.

Warren.


Warren, you must be reading different data than I am.

The data shows 0. 0 = CLOSED as you correctly decoded in your data and as stated in the Data Frame Layout.

Again, if you can show me an aeronautical document which states 0 recorded under a parameter means anything else than as stated in the data frame layout for that parameter, please show it. So far, no one has been able to prove the door was open for a hijack nor provide a Data Frame Layout which defines 0 value as "not recorded" or "default".

If you cannot provide such a document stating a different state for 0 other than CLOSED, the only conclusion is that the data provided by the NTSB is in DIRECT conflict with the govt story once again. A Flight Deck Door CLOSED condition makes a hijack impossible. This is straight forward and undisputed.

Again, the DFL defines 0 = CLOSED, 1 = OPEN.

The DFL does NOT define 0 = CLOSED/DEFAULT/NOT RECORDED, 1 = OPEN.

All else is theory until proven otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 29 2009, 04:34 AM
Post #446





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



Hi Rob,

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 3 2010, 05:28 AM) *
Warren, you must be reading different data than I am.

The data shows 0. 0 = CLOSED as you correctly decoded in your data and as stated in the Data Frame Layout.

Again, if you can show me an aeronautical document which states 0 recorded under a parameter means anything else than as stated in the data frame layout for that parameter, please show it. So far, no one has been able to prove the door was open for a hijack nor provide a Data Frame Layout which defines 0 value as "not recorded" or "default".

If you cannot provide such a document stating a different state for 0 other than CLOSED, the only conclusion is that the data provided by the NTSB is in DIRECT conflict with the govt story once again. A Flight Deck Door CLOSED condition makes a hijack impossible. This is straight forward and undisputed.

Again, the DFL defines 0 = CLOSED, 1 = OPEN.

The DFL does NOT define 0 = CLOSED/DEFAULT/NOT RECORDED, 1 = OPEN.

All else is theory until proven otherwise.
Equally, the DFL does not define 0 = CLOSED, 1 = OPEN/DEFAULT/NOT RECORDED.

What is the default if the EICAS is not receiving the door open state? I haven't seen sufficient documentation to prove it is 0 or 1. Until we do, I don't think we can prove this either way.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 29 2009, 04:55 AM
Post #447



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 29 2009, 03:34 AM) *
Hi Rob,

Equally, the DFL does not define 0 = CLOSED, 1 = OPEN/DEFAULT/NOT RECORDED.

What is the default if the EICAS is not receiving the door open state? I haven't seen sufficient documentation to prove it is 0 or 1. Until we do, I don't think we can prove this either way.

Warren.


Agreed. This is why i stated since page one of this thread (and ever since we got the data in 2006) that this data does not prove anything nor can we confirm or deny the validity of this data. Those who argue against our article claim that we are showing this data as "proof". That is a classic strawman as we have repeatedly stated it is NOT proof of anything.

However, my experience in aviation is that information is well defined, for everything. I have never seen an instance in aviation where data/information being given is part of guess work. The Data Frame Layout is specific and defines the codes for all parameters. Hence the reason for the article and the appropriate title. As stated repeatedly, the only people who can explain this data is the NTSB or FBI.

Also, one of the GL's brought up a good point that when such a parameter is not used, and if its still being recorded for some reason, it makes sense to make the default value the least likely state, which would be 1. If the data showed all 1's, a tech reading the data can immediately determine the data is not valid as no aircraft in passenger service would have the door open, all the time, for all flights.

Some people make excuses for this data, offer strawman arguments and cloud the issue. I booted one guy out of the organization due to it. However, we gained roughly 70 more core member applicants due to this article and they are still coming in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mbabacek
post Jan 4 2010, 05:58 AM
Post #448





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 30-December 09
Member No.: 4,823



[
Dear Sirs,
I am writing a book on 9/11. On OpEdNews I found your information that
American Airlines Flight 77 was not possibly hjacked because the Flight Deck
Door was never opened in flight. Though, in the article I did not find
sufficient evidence proving that this statement is true. Could you let me
know how the "independent researcher" from Australia got hold of the data
proving this fact? As well I would like to ask you what data did you obtain
which cross check with the data of the independent researcher - was it
through Freedom of Information Act or did you receive the data from the
American Airlines?
Mojmir Babacek

quote name='rob balsamo' date='Nov 27 2009, 12:55 PM' post='10779354']
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

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

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

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

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

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

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

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

[3] Right click and save target as here to download csv file with "FLT DECK DOOR" parameter.
[/quote]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jan 4 2010, 07:26 AM
Post #449





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (mbabacek @ Jan 4 2010, 04:58 AM) *
[
Dear Sirs,
I am writing a book on 9/11. On OpEdNews I found your information that
American Airlines Flight 77 was not possibly hjacked because the Flight Deck
Door was never opened in flight. Though, in the article I did not find
sufficient evidence proving that this statement is true. Could you let me
know how the "independent researcher" from Australia got hold of the data
proving this fact? As well I would like to ask you what data did you obtain
which cross check with the data of the independent researcher - was it
through Freedom of Information Act or did you receive the data from the
American Airlines?
Mojmir Babacek


In case you did not know, this "independent researcher" has a name.

It is Warren Stutt.

Here is his website which details his work the past several years - http://warrenstutt.com/

All your questions are answered there, and unlike the government, Warren has given his source code up for scrutiny, which may also be found on his website.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tempest2s
post Feb 12 2010, 07:45 AM
Post #450





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: 25-June 09
From: USA
Member No.: 4,426



Here are some more of those claims I've found coming from the defenders of the OGS:

Claim-
There are a lot of optional parameters that dont have to be recorded. The airline gets to decide what they want monitored beyond the regulations.

Claim-
They dont even have a parameter for the flight door. The FDR was probably recording a open/closed circuit.

Can anyone here address this claims? It sounds like a bunch of ...well, you know what, I need to know if there is any truth in those claims, although, I'm sure the second claim is false if I've read Rob's info correctly.
Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 12 2010, 05:46 PM
Post #451



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (tempest2s @ Feb 12 2010, 06:45 AM) *
Here are some more of those claims I've found coming from the defenders of the OGS:

Claim-
There are a lot of optional parameters that dont have to be recorded. The airline gets to decide what they want monitored beyond the regulations.

Claim-
They dont even have a parameter for the flight door. The FDR was probably recording a open/closed circuit.

Can anyone here address this claims? It sounds like a bunch of ...well, you know what, I need to know if there is any truth in those claims, although, I'm sure the second claim is false if I've read Rob's info correctly.
Thanks


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10779630
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
izzysykopth
post Jul 19 2010, 10:02 PM
Post #452





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 20-June 10
Member No.: 5,105



Is it so hard to see that the perps took a page from Northwoods and used SIMULATED hijackings?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nanothermite
post Aug 19 2010, 04:34 PM
Post #453





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 7-August 10
From: Europe
Member No.: 5,195



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 09:33 PM) *
Just saw this edit. Sorry i missed it painter...

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

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

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

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


Nice find! As far as the 4 second 'window', as no one would be able to know when that window opened and closed [which moment it was recording every 4 seconds] statistically [if my statistics neurons are still working - very dusty!] they'd have less than that - averaging only 50% chance not to be detected IF they only had door open 2 seconds!...and half that with every time the door would have to be opened...or is that multiplicative - and even less?!....anyway, impossible once - totally impossible [like most things the official version would have us 'believe' that day] if door opened more than once - which it would HAVE to have been!......another big nail in the coffin of the official version...don't hold your breath for the mainstream [corporate] media to say peep about it.....

This post has been edited by nanothermite: Aug 19 2010, 04:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Aug 19 2010, 04:59 PM
Post #454





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Schrodinger's hijackers, quite the concept.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matth
post Dec 22 2010, 12:41 PM
Post #455





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,736



QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Nov 29 2009, 08:53 AM) *
lipsmalloy: Thanks for your comeback. I can't seem to find a credible witness to confirm that they have had a cell phone work while flying, either. I have only taken two commercial flights since 9/11 and they were before my questioning the cell phone question. You better believe that the next time I do fly, I will have my cell on the whole way, looking at the bars. If I do see bars, I'll try to connect a call.

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

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

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


This is one thing I've never fully understood. There were supposed cellphone calls made. Has there been any release of records from the cell phone companies?

E.G. We should be able to see what tower they were on.. and perhaps even a triangulation to the approximate location of the phone when the call was made. If nothing else the 9-1-1 centers should have this information (sector ID/tower ID if not a better triangulation).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lwj01998
post Jan 12 2011, 02:21 PM
Post #456





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 29-February 08
Member No.: 2,800



I don't know that much about the dynamics of flight, but I was just wondering if such a trajectory would have even been possible without a human in the pilot seat.
I doubt this would have been possible even with a computerized guidance system in place precisely like a guided bomb would use? handsdown.gif

This post has been edited by lwj01998: Jan 12 2011, 02:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eric
post Feb 5 2011, 04:14 AM
Post #457





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 3-October 10
Member No.: 5,333



QUOTE (keroseneaddict @ Nov 29 2009, 09:48 AM) *
Outstanding work!!!!! After carefully reviewing the data file, I have forwarded this to my Congressional "representatives" (lower case intentional)

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

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

Edit to correct spelling only......


As a telecommunications technician, I agree with you!!! People don't understand about antenna downtilt. Cell towers are designed to work from the ground, not the air. Airphone communications use UHF/VHF (400 Mhz), just like aircraft (107-136Mhz.), not microwave like your cell phone (850/1800/1900 Mhz).

I have been saying all along that there is no way people in the air could communicate with the ground with a cell phone. I won't say it is impossible, but highly unlikely. If you doubt me, look up how cell service works on the internet, it may explain a lot to the un-informed.

This was one of the many items that started me to question what I was being told. Cell antennas, if they're 2,000 feet above ground or 100 feet above ground, all have some type of downtilt to provide coverage to the area that needs to be covered. FROM THE GROUND, NOT THE AIR!!!

The FCC made it illegal to use cell phones from the air because it would connect to many cell towers at the same time, which is why they require downtilt when you install a cell site. Downtilt is the direction the antenna radiates. If the radiation of the antenna is pointing at the ground, you have a hard time connecting to the site from the air.

Sorry, for my rant. But I'm always bent when they say anything about the conversations from the air on cell phones. Yes, I do believe that there was a connection for 0 seconds, but that is all and it may have been a fluke at that. I live in the most cellular active place in the world and I can't connect to a tower or make a call from above 1,000 feet. I know, I have tried, MANY TIMES!!!

Thanks for the post, it sends my point home!!!

Eric
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eric
post Feb 5 2011, 07:03 AM
Post #458





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 3-October 10
Member No.: 5,333



QUOTE (lipsmalloy @ Nov 29 2009, 11:08 AM) *
Bobcat, every single time I fly, I test my cell. Doesn't work. I've flown from LA to NY and DC several times, flying over areas the 911 planes flew. Consider also, back in 2001, cell phones were not as advanced, not even Blackberrys, and there were fewer cell towers than now. The best I've managed is two bars for about 30 secs. at low altitude (maybe 2500 feet) - not even enough time to complete a call.

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


As far as the GPS not working, try leaving it on in your carry-on that is in the overhead bin. I fly from SE Asia all the time and it never worked but intermittently by keeping it on my person or next to the window. However, while it was in the overhead, securely in my luggage, it tracked the entire flight from takeoff to landing. Just leave it on in your carry-on in the overhead and forget about it, my record in a 747 at 37,240 feet, my ground speed was 730 Mph. This was flying from east to west over the pond and over the top of typhoon Ondoy/Ketsana. GPS needs access to the top of the aircraft and has trouble on the sides and floor. I have a Garmin Etrex Legend HCx and have no trouble with GPS on-board an aircraft. As far as cell service, see my other post on cellular antenna downtilt and how the antennas are pointed at the ground and not in the air. I agree with you, there is no chance of any lengthy conversation while on an aircraft at altitude!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
evanlong
post Sep 27 2011, 10:24 AM
Post #459





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 52
Joined: 3-October 08
Member No.: 3,918



This is very interesting. I'm inclined to think that the door either never opened or that the data is fake and planted, a prop. If the door ever did open, the odds of it being recorded are very high, since opening a door, walking through it and shutting it behind you probably would take around two and a half to three seconds minimum, as mentioned above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SeniorTrend
post Nov 16 2011, 05:01 PM
Post #460





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 15-September 11
Member No.: 6,275



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

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



Such a tangled web they weave... when they practice to decieve!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 21 22 23 24 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th January 2020 - 02:09 PM