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  « < 9 10 11 12 13 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible, FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

Rating 5 V
 
Jupiter
post Dec 1 2009, 03:11 PM
Post #201





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



Bonjour mathieux kassovitz, j'ai pu lire tes messages et je te demande d'attendre que l'on fasse le point sur ça à Reopen. Ceci car je vais faire un article recensant tous les points discutés ici avec les documents officiels. J'ai déjà beaucoup d'éléments.

Si tu as l'interview de Rob, je pourrai la traduire afin de renforcer notre article.

Kikujitoh - Reopen911.info

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Dec 1 2009, 03:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Dec 1 2009, 03:26 PM
Post #202





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



I've noticed in the NTSB PDF that the FDR model is a Fairchild Model FA-2100 FDR, you can find the same model here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

If someone wants to compare...

The official announce says this FDR record 25 hours : http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/do...put.aspx?id=116

Not 40 ?

On that page, we can see that C-130 had their FDR replaced by FA-2100 FDR models before 2000. Keep in mind that a C-130 was seen above the Pentagone after the attack.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories...Scan_12913.html

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Dec 1 2009, 04:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 1 2009, 04:18 PM
Post #203



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 1 2009, 09:26 PM) *
I've noticed in the NTSB PDF that the FDR model is a Fairchild Model FA-2100 FDR, you can find the same model here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

If someone wants to compare...

The official announce says this FDR record 25 hours : http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/do...put.aspx?id=116

Not 40 ?

On that page, we can see that C-130 had their FDR replaced by FA-2100 FDR models before 2000. Keep in mind that a C-130 was seen above the Pentagone after the attack.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories...Scan_12913.html


Very interesting Jupiter thumbsup.gif

I noticed on the FDR rundown on its properties:

QUOTE
Expandable to 2 Hour Voice and 25 Hour Flight Data at 256 wps


So does the 2 hour expansion of the cockpit voice recorder affect the memory capabilities of the FDR
that it has to compress the data?
Sorry if it´s a dumb question but that´s what this line infers.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Dec 1 2009, 04:39 PM
Post #204





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



In addition of having the same FDR than the one we've got, a C-130 modif, which is the DC-130 can carry drones :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_DC-130

"DC-130 can launch, track and control the drones."

"The drones

DC-130 drone control aircraft carrying two BQM-34S Firebee target drones under its wing
The Q-2C Firebee target drone was modified for the recon mission and designated the BQM-34A or 147A. Its size was increased to provide greater range and payload. For the low altitude mission, the wing span was increased to 15 feet (4.6 m) and later to 27 feet (8.2 m), but was most successful with the original 13 foot (4.0 m) wingspan. Wing spans of 27 and 33 feet (8.2 and 10.1 m) were used for the high altitude aircraft. The original 1700 pounds-force (7.6 kN) of thrust was increased to 1920 lbf (8.5 kN) and later to 2800 lbf (12.5 kN) for the special high altitude, long range drones. Some models were even equipped with wing-mounted fuel tanks to extend their range.

Depending upon their mission, the equipment also included: HATRAC - a system for high altitude flights to detect intercept by either fighter aircraft or surface-to-air missiles and take evasive actions"

http://www.air-and-space.com/20040918%20Pt...%20side%20l.jpg

Keep in mind the CIT research + the fact that all the C-130 had their FDR changed by september 2000 with FA-2100 FDR :

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories...Scan_12913.html

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Dec 1 2009, 04:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jensdarup
post Dec 1 2009, 04:47 PM
Post #205





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



One question: Is there voice recording in the FDR too?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Dec 1 2009, 04:58 PM
Post #206



Group Icon

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



No, that's the CVR, the Cockpit Voice Recorder, if I'm not mistaken (I'm not an aviation professional like most around here). Both are commonly referred to as the Black Boxes, but the FDR records flight data from the aircraft, not voice and radio communications.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Dec 1 2009, 05:14 PM
Post #207





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



Hi All!

Without Warren's work, Rob probably would not have been able to find the very topic of this Thread. He has helped enormously. Never forget that.

Warren is not required to have an opinion. Calling on him to state one reminds me of of the "loyalty tests" and "oaths" and "litmus tests" that are common to totalitarian regimes and that sometimes creep into our politics as well.

EDIT TO ADD: What next auto de fe'?

Enough!

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Dec 1 2009, 05:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 1 2009, 05:15 PM
Post #208





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



QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 1 2009, 10:39 PM) *
In addition of having the same FDR than the one we've got, a C-130 modif, which is the DC-130 can carry drones :


Keep in mind the CIT research + the fact that all the C-130 had their FDR changed by september 2000 with FA-2100 FDR :


Yeah we considered that LONG before we ever began our investigation.

However video, eyewitnesses, and the pilot himself confirm the C-130 was not in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the attack.

There is no evidence they were willingly involved in the operation at all and there is even less evidence that they launched a drone or that ANY type of flying object hit the building at all.

There is only evidence for one flying object at the time of the attack and that has been proven to be a big plane that banked relatively slowly on the north side of the gas station and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building.

While we know that the alleged radar data released in 2007 by 84 RADES shows a fraudulent flight path for the C-130 I don't see how this could tie in to any updates to their FDR before the attack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 1 2009, 05:23 PM
Post #209





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



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Dec 1 2009, 11:14 PM) *
Hi All!

Without Warren's work, Rob probably would not have been able to find the very topic of this Thread. He has helped enormously. Never forget that.

Warren is not required to have an opinion. Calling on him to state one reminds me of of the "loyalty tests" and "oaths" and "litmus tests" that are common to totalitarian regimes and that sometimes creep into our politics as well.

Enough!


No not enough.

He has admitted that the last recorded parameter for altitude being too high to hit the light poles as reported by P4T is what inspired him to perform his own decode in the first place.

His findings have provided a layer of disinformation that is currently being used to cast doubt on the credibility of P4T and this important claim that proves the data fraudulent.

It is therefore his responsiblity to set the record straight by publicly agreeing that his findings DO NOT contradict the findings of P4T.

If he does not his motives are very much in question and he has only served to muddy the waters and cast doubt on this organization whether or not he unwittingly aided the discovery of this cockpit door anomaly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Dec 1 2009, 07:07 PM
Post #210





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



Still very strange that parameter flight deck door is listed as not working or unconfirmed. Why could it be unfonfirmed ?

May be because here : http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest...OM/757-3b_1.TXT

we can read number of test = 0.

I think it is the main problem.

In the PDF introduction you can read : the remaining parameters either were not recorded properly or were not confirmed to work properly. (l5 to l13)

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Dec 1 2009, 07:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mvb
post Dec 1 2009, 07:12 PM
Post #211





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 1 2009, 06:23 PM) *
His findings have provided a layer of disinformation that is currently being used to cast doubt on the credibility of P4T and this important claim that proves the data fraudulent.


I have to agree 100%.
The Flight Deck Door thingy is hyped very much.
Good you kept a objective mind.
The score has to be settled NOW
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 1 2009, 07:19 PM
Post #212





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



QUOTE (mvb @ Dec 2 2009, 01:12 AM) *
I have to agree 100%.
The Flight Deck Door thingy is hyped very much.
Good you kept a objective mind.
The score has to be settled NOW


His personal conclusion regarding the door parameter is still pending.

It's the fact that the reported altitude is too high to hit the light poles that he has refused to come clean with while his spurious "4 feet" claim is currently being used to cast doubt on this important info while he has sat idly by without setting the record straight.

If he wants to retain credibility he needs to issue a statement here AND at j.r.e.f that his findings in this regard do NOT contradict the findings of P4T.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 1 2009, 09:48 PM
Post #213



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Jupiter @ Dec 1 2009, 07:07 PM) *
Still very strange that parameter flight deck door is listed as not working or unconfirmed. Why could it be unfonfirmed ?

May be because here : http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest...OM/757-3b_1.TXT



"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.p...=18428&st=0

QUOTE
we can read number of test = 0.

I think it is the main problem.


"Number of Tests: 0" is listed for many parameters in 757-3b. including Pressure altitude.

"Number of Test: 0" does NOT mean the parameter wasnt recorded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Dec 2 2009, 01:06 PM
Post #214





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



@ Rob,

I think I've found why it's listed as not working or unconfirmed :

NTSB used a special program to extract the data which is RAPS (Recovery Analysis and Presentation System).

Another very usual one is flisafe : http://www.nestsoftware.com/products/FliSAFE.pdf

Here : http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evolution...il_Campbell.pdf

"An airline flight data analysis program (FDAP)31 involves the routine scanning of flight data (obtained from FDR’s or QAR’s) to detect flight operations events. They are typically set up with the cooperation of the relevant pilot association and are cooperative programs. Flight operations events can be chosen to coincide with the airline’s standard operating procedures."

For instance this report :

http://www.bfu-web.de/nn_226462/EN/Publica...10_RE-Munic.pdf

Lists only 4 parameters wheareas the FDR recordeded 136 parameters : (see page 2, bottom left)

And actually here : http://nestaerospace.com/news.php

You can Read :

"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."

It seems that before analysing the data with RAPS or flisafe, they need to validate it. They valid only the data they will use, here :

http://www.bfu-web.de/nn_226462/EN/Publica...10_RE-Munic.pdf

They used only four parameters, that we can see in the graphic in last page.

For flight 77, they used only the flight parameters (speed, location etc...) to produce the documents. So they did not validate or examintate they other data.

To finish, a must read about FDR : http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evolution...il_Campbell.pdf

Rob, do you 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 ?

Is the relay playing a role in that ? :

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Dec 2 2009, 01:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gepay
post Dec 2 2009, 01:26 PM
Post #215





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 18
Joined: 28-September 07
Member No.: 2,270



Occams razor would say that AA77 was not the the Identified Flying Object claimed to hit the Pentagon as the facts of the black box data say it was never hijacked and flew over the Pentagon. Occams razor says Chic Burlingame flew the Boeing over the Pentagon. This leads to bizarre scenarios of the flight crew and the passengers being eliminated afterwards.
If somehow AA 77 did impact the PEntagon the cockpit door never being opened implies that it was under remote control or the more bizarre scenario where Chic Burlingame flew it. Not knowing the man but from reports of people who knew him, for him to have to done this he would have had to have been in a mind controlled fugue state. He probably had the skill to fly AA77 like a jet fighter. Remote control seems more likely. The pilots would have been dead or unconcious. There is evidence that this is what happened to the pilots of the planes that flew into the WTC.

Flight Attendant Betty Ong on AA Flight 11 heading towards New York - from the memory hole

BETTY ONG: Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I’m number 3 on Flight 11.
MALE VOICE: Okay.
BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s . . . we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something.
MALE VOICE: Can you describe the person that you said—someone is what in business class?
BETTY ONG: I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.
BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is . . .
MALE VOICE: Okay, and do we . . .
BETTY ONG: and our number 5 -- our first class passengers are—galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can’t get into the cockpit; the door won’t open. Hello?

this implies to me that some kind of noxious gas was used to keep everybody away from the cockpit. My scenario for how the pilots were incapacitated is a smoke bomb is ignited in the cockpit the pilots reach for their auxillary air supply which has been altered to ...

Notice how Betty Ong did not mention any hijackers.

Yes I speculate as I am not one of the perps who are the only only ones who know exactly what happened on 911 and it sure wasn't the official fairy tale.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2009, 01:48 PM
Post #216



Group Icon

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



Jupiter,

There are 360 Validated parameters listed in the NTSB pdf. There are even more listed under "not working or unconfirmed".

Radar altitude is listed under "not working or unconfirmed". Radar altitude is being recorded, a "flight parameter", and showing a value (when adjusted) similar to the Validated Pressure altitude (when adjusted) until the end of data where the Validated Pressure altitude shows too high to hit the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 2 2009, 02:49 PM
Post #217





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 07:48 PM) *
Radar altitude is listed under "not working or unconfirmed". Radar altitude is being recorded, a "flight parameter", and showing a value (when adjusted) similar to the Validated Pressure altitude (when adjusted) until the end of data where the Validated Pressure altitude shows too high to hit the Pentagon.


Since Warren Stutt's "work" has resulted in a significant amount of internet doubt casting regarding this conclusion it's imperative that he speaks up and publicly backs you up on this notion both here AND at the govt loyalist forum.

Particularly since he has admitted that your conclusion regarding this is what inspired him to perform his own decode in the first place as a means to fact check you.

If he is honest he will publicly announce that his findings independently CONFIRM yours regarding this extremely important and fatal anomaly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2009, 03:24 PM
Post #218



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 01:48 PM) *
Jupiter,

There are 360 Validated parameters listed in the NTSB pdf. There are even more listed under "not working or unconfirmed".


I'll expand on the above a bit more.

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 2 2009, 04:24 PM
Post #219





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2009, 08:24 PM) *
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?


Great point.

Looks like the duhbunkers are scrambling pretty hard with this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post Dec 2 2009, 05:33 PM
Post #220





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



May be it could be a good idea to contact Fairchild, the company which made the FDR, to know what are exactly these "not working or unconfirmed parameters".

I still think it's because they did not need it for their simulation, that's why it's not certified. As suggest the documents I posted in my precedent post.

I am planning to do an article both is french and english with all the officials regs and precisions. I have to know exactly what are "unconfirmed parameters, if I find it, i'll tell you.

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.

This post has been edited by Jupiter: Dec 2 2009, 06:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 9 10 11 12 13 > » 
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: 12th December 2017 - 08:36 PM