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

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

24 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible, FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

Rating 5 V
 
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Nov 29 2009, 12:00 PM
Post #101





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 27-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Nov 27 2009, 12:01 AM) *
I wouldnīt sweat Farmerīs claims Dom.



yea im not all he did was prove the plane wasn't hijacked on the previous 11 flights either as far as im concerned.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Nov 29 2009, 12:18 PM
Post #102





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi All!

Regarding diGenove:

It looks like his hero is the pseudonymous Robert diGenova, the Republican Fire-Breathing Former Federal Prosecutor who frequently appears as a "legal expert" on FOX news. Too him, everybody but himself is a criminal. He often appears with Greta Van Sustren and/or Ann Coulter when she is masquerading as a lawyer. Needless to say, the format is always A Circle-jerk With The Newsreader.

Editing Posts to cover your tracks is consistent with the behavior usually exhibited by this particular species of a s s h o l e. For a prosecutor, similar behavior is witholding or falsifying evidence.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Nov 29 2009, 12:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Nov 29 2009, 12:25 PM
Post #103





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



Perhaps a "truth table" would make it more clear.

Door Conditions:
O=open
C=closed
F=fault

Truth Table
_ O|C|F
O|1|1|1|
C|1|0|1|
F|1|1|1|

Since the door cannot be both opened and closed at the same time, these conditions are the equivalent of a fault and therefore yield a "no operation" condition, which devolves/falls back to the default condition which is 1.

As the table makes clearer, there is only one of nine possible conditions that yield a "closed door" condition and that condition requires that no fault be present as well. Anything else gives an "open door" condition or 1.

Thus, a closed door condition, not only tests the door, but the equipment as well. As long as you have a 0, you know that the door is closed AND the sensor/system is working.

Hope this is of some help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 29 2009, 01:29 PM
Post #104


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Thanks obwon and welcome to the forum!

Another way to think of it is an electrical circuit. As long as the circuit is intact (closed/grounded) it reads "0". Breaking the circuit yields a "1" (open/ungrounded).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Nov 29 2009, 01:32 PM
Post #105





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Nov 28 2009, 10:51 PM) *
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 ?


Frequently Asked Questions >> Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._real_time.html

Frequently Asked Questions >> How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa...ight_poles.html

More FAQ
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq.html

Minimum hypothetical wingspan for south side plane, There was no such second plane, however
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=621

Light pole on hwy goes unnoticed for years, planted poles wouldn't have been noticed
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=464

"The First Known Accomplice?" ft. Lloyde England the cab driver (video)
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/vi...accomplice.html

Lloyde England and his tax cab: The eye of the storm (video)
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/vi...ofthestorm.html

This post has been edited by Ligon: Nov 29 2009, 01:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Nov 29 2009, 02:26 PM
Post #106


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,035
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



just to add to Ligon's post, here is video of a (post-9/11) night-time driveby on washington blvd (next to the pentagon),
in the same direction as the cab driver:

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=518431

note that there are so many poles and so many lights, that a few of them being down or out of place would not draw much (if any) attention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 29 2009, 02:28 PM
Post #107


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Nov 29 2009, 09:18 AM) *
Editing Posts to cover your tracks is consistent with the behavior usually exhibited by this particular species of a s s h o l e. For a prosecutor, similar behavior is witholding or falsifying evidence.

tnemelckram, do you happen to know the legal parameters of "withholding or falsifying" information/evidence provided by a government agency? In this instance we have data from a government agency that contradicts the hijacking narrative -- what legal ramifications could this have? What would be the procedure for pursuing this legally?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Nov 29 2009, 02:29 PM
Post #108





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 29 2009, 01:29 PM) *
Thanks obwon and welcome to the forum!

Another way to think of it is an electrical circuit. As long as the circuit is intact (closed/grounded) it reads "0". Breaking the circuit yields a "1" (open/ungrounded).


Glad to be here, I've read and I feel at home, your welcome only adds to the good feelings, thanks.
I see that there are deep thinking processes going on here. I like that. While I don't have so many skills, I hope that what little I'm able to add will be of some use in the "effort". smile.gif

Now then, the way you present it is indeed the simplest way to think of it. Unfortunately that way also masks out features, that I'm sure the designers agonized over at some length. Here they had these three conditions to work with: Opened, Closed and Fault. Now the "puzzle" they were faced with, is exactly the reverse of what this thread and the studies decrypted.

"How do you ensure that one condition is absolutely irrefutably true?"

"Which condition is so precious that it's validity is best put beyond question?"

And finally "How do you accomplish it?"

Well, in assembly language, one has so much to do, with so few; (at least some time ago) so few instructions to do it. You had to think very clearly about, not just what an instruction did, but you also learned it was useful, to know and understand what it would not do.
This kind of problem solving became very complex when stringing instructions together. So, what instructions would not do, could be as useful as what they did, if only one clearly understood all the relationships. So they created the "truth table" to reveal the possible choices (or "gates") that 1's and 0's could open and close.

As you can see in my post, while there is merely on and off conditions, by their arrangement, they create 9 possibilities: Open, Closed and Fault. Quite a bit of work for such a simple set of factors, eh? But, as you can see from the truth table, there's quite a bit of work they can do that doesn't meet the eye easily. So that's the point that I'm making.

The engineers decided, that of the nine possibilities they had to work with, that "door closed" was the one they needed to preserve the validity of. In other words, if the system wasn't working, they assume that the door is open, in spite of whether or not it is. If the door is open, then, obviously access to the cockpit is available/possible. While if closed, it is not possible.

So the question is then: Why did they want to be sure, that if the cockpit door was closed, the system had to be --most reliably truthful -- working AND the door had to be closed? Obviously they could have constructed the truth table, such that the door had to be open and the system working. They decided against that. Why? Perhaps one of the pilots here can answer that for me? I'm glad that they did it that way, because the data that the door remained closed is now even more useful because it's veritical. If they'd done it the other way around, we'd still have to assume that the door was opened and that a hijacking could therefore ensue.

So there's something more important about the cockpit door being closed, that only a pilot would probably know about, because of their knowledge of aircraft operational routines etc., that wouldn't be at all obvious to the lay person.

In fact, I'm not even sure that the answer matters, but I do know that even the smallest details, the simplest facts, can yield big things if looked at closely and in their proper context. Maybe there's nothing there, or maybe there's something there that might be useful elsewheres.

Warm regards, will be waiting to hear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Nov 29 2009, 03:00 PM
Post #109





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (Ligon @ Nov 29 2009, 01:32 PM) *
Frequently Asked Questions >> Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe...<snip>


(hope I don't have to re-post the full quote?!?)

Anyway, I remember looking at the damage inside the Pentagon, before I was distracted away, and thinking: Gee, it looks like the whole plane flew inside the building -- from looking at the damage path -- with it's wings fully extended, almost all the way to a stop at the hole in C ring. But, I'm almost certain that cranes and flat bed trucks, needed to remove the debris, would have made great fare for news coverage. But I don't ever remember seeing any cranes and/or flatbed trucks carting the debris away. Yet the hole in C ring is empty, where I'd have thought it'd be plugged with a crashed plane that had come to a stop there, it seems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Nov 29 2009, 03:12 PM
Post #110





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 28-November 09
Member No.: 4,705



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 29 2009, 10:55 AM) *
Jupiter, let me personally thank you for taking the time to look up the appropriate regs.

Rob


Thank you Rob,

Are you planning to call AA to have confirmation ? Are you planning to write a news giving all the official regs proving that this particular plane was recording the flight deck door data ? If you are, please send me an email as soon as it is finished for me to translate it in french.

Turbofan, Thanks for your arguments.

If I can help you, just ask.

http://www.reopen911.info/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 29 2009, 03:22 PM
Post #111



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 03:12 PM) *
Thank you Rob,

Are you planning to call AA to have confirmation ? Are you planning to write a news giving all the official regs proving that this particular plane was recording the flight deck door data ? If you are, please send me an email as soon as it is finished for me to translate it in french.



Top of page 2....


The above article has been sent out to our full media contact list which includes hundreds of Mainstream and Alternative Media contacts, Airline Union Reps, NTSB, FBI and Congress. Of course, listing our names and credentials in full as you see linked above. You should also see the article on more news outlets in the coming days.


We have contacted American and the NTSB/FBI in the past regarding many other anomalies we have found as noted elsewhere on this forum and in our presentations. NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

Chris Christensen is the lead counsel for AMR. I have him recorded if it ever goes to trial. I will not get into the particulars in a public forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Nov 29 2009, 03:49 PM
Post #112





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 28-November 09
Member No.: 4,705



Thanks,

According to Reopen911.info, we would need the NTSB official checksum on that particular file to prove it's the real one. The CSV file is modified and press could argue that it's not the original one.

Let imagine that press demand the file from NTSB and that this file proves the door = open.

If the checksum has changed, you could prove that FBI or NTSB has also changed the file given to the press.

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Nov 29 2009, 03:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 29 2009, 03:53 PM
Post #113



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 03:49 PM) *
Thanks,

According to Reopen911.info, we would need the NTSB official checksum on that particular file to prove it's the real one. The CSV file is modified and press could argue that it's not the original one.

Let imagine that press demand the file from NTSB and that this file prove the door = open.

If the checksum has changed, you could prove that FBI or NTSB has also changed the file given to the press.



Click here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

Scroll down to Claim 4.

There are many people around the planet who have this data including those who make excuse for the govt story, who received it directly through the FOIA request form at ntsb.gov. Lets hope Govt agencies claim the data didnt come from them as it will make our job easier exposing their lies.... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Nov 29 2009, 04:08 PM
Post #114





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



QUOTE (Obwon @ Nov 29 2009, 09:00 PM) *
(hope I don't have to re-post the full quote?!?)

Anyway, I remember looking at the damage inside the Pentagon, before I was distracted away, and thinking: Gee, it looks like the whole plane flew inside the building


When I looked at the pictures, I thought it must have been a cruise missile.

This post has been edited by jensdarup: Nov 29 2009, 04:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Nov 29 2009, 04:46 PM
Post #115





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 28-November 09
Member No.: 4,705



I can see that when you have posted more than a certain number of messages, you can become "Extreme Pilot" like Rob, why the maximum is not "Hanjour pilot abilities", which are more than extreme ? biggrin.gif

Rob, be sure that you keep the original CD with the original file. As soon as the file is on the website, it is already modified. The checksum is not the same.

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Nov 29 2009, 05:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Nov 29 2009, 04:51 PM
Post #116





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



QUOTE (Jupiter @ Nov 29 2009, 10:46 PM) *
I can see that when you posted more than a certain number of messages, you can become "Extreme Pilot" like Rob, why the maximum is not "Hanjour pilot abilities", which are more than extreme ? biggrin.gif

Because Hani does not post here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mvb
post Nov 29 2009, 06:10 PM
Post #117





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 26-April 08
Member No.: 3,230



Btw.

A "Hijacker" who is about to "Sacrafice" himself does not care about a door
that is recording "Open/Closed" Status! biggrin.gif
And "if" there where "realy" "Hijackers" and they "realy" moved both Pilots out,
the door would be open longer then 4 secs 100% sure! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JOHNNYASIA
post Nov 29 2009, 06:34 PM
Post #118





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 29-November 09
Member No.: 4,717



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 27 2009, 11:55 AM) *
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT


Here's what some debunkers are saying:


"As for this silly claim, the FDR shows that the door had never been
opened in the 40 hours of flight data stored in it. This would
indicate that the most likely explanation was that the door sensor was
not in use on that version of aircraft.

This is written by someone that works on large-jet electronics. His
claim can be discusseed via the link, below.


"... the FAA mandates 70 [FDR data values] , I believe. 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. This one just happens to support Balsawood Bobs newest
snakeoil scheme. "


http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php...984#post5354984
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 29 2009, 06:53 PM
Post #119





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



A good job, Rob Balsamo!

Every little fact is a nail in their coffin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trimble
post Nov 29 2009, 07:15 PM
Post #120





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



QUOTE
"... the FAA mandates 70 [FDR data values] , I believe. 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. This one just happens to support Balsawood Bobs newest
snakeoil scheme. "


Such a hypothesis has already been answered earlier in this thread (#37 - Boeing manual extracts, #85 - Boeing FDR certification / upgrade dates). Try again.

This post has been edited by trimble: Nov 29 2009, 07:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
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: 13th December 2017 - 07:37 PM