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

[rob balsamo]

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

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

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

[rob balsamo]

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

He's editing his post significantly after replies?

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

[keroseneaddict]

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......

This post has been edited by keroseneaddict: Nov 28 2009, 09:52 PM

[Swordfish350]

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

This post has been edited by Swordfish350: Nov 28 2009, 09:55 PM

[onesliceshort]

mockingbird farmer is also claiming that :

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

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

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10779422

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

WStutt?

Peace.

[Jupiter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

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

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Nov 28 2009, 10:12 PM

[lipsmalloy]

tinynate:

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

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

bobcat46

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

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

[onesliceshort]

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

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

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

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

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

Flight 77 = N644AA 2460

Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991

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

N644AA = AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991

So N644AA has been updated before August 18, 2001

Excellent post Jupiter.
Thanks very much for the links and info (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

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

[Maha Mantra]

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

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

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

[onesliceshort]

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

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

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

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

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

The ´lightpole witnesses´ have been totally debunked here:

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

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

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

Well worth the watch.

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

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

1) a fraud

or

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

Either way. Inside job.

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

Peace.

[brian78046]

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


Claim - The bird strike which took out the Flight Data Recorder prior to impact also took out the door sensor 30 mins prior to impact
A. Not really a claim made by "duhbunkers" at this point in time, but give it a few days. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[brian78046]

Rob writes,

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


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

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

[penalt]

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

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

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

Hope this helps...

A question.

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

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

[rob balsamo]

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

Hi penalt,

Welcome to the forum...

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

The rest of the discussion can be found starting here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10779429

[Jupiter]

Excellent post Jupiter.
Thanks very much for the links and info (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

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

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

http://forum.reopen911.info/p213605-pilots...-la-cabine.html

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Nov 29 2009, 03:30 PM

[onesliceshort]

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

http://forum.reopen911.info/p213605-pilots...-la-cabine.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit to add:

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

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Nov 29 2009, 10:38 AM

[Guest_Turbofan_*]

A question.

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

Just to clarify:

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

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

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

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

[bobcat46]

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

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

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!!!

[rob balsamo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob

[Kesha]

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

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

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


I tried it last year on a flight GE - UK, using a normal car navi... plaese note the indicated speed, lower left corner (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

Navi over Dutch coast

Click on pic to enlarge...
...and as you can see, it even tried to "navigate". (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Kesha: Nov 29 2009, 01:13 PM