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  « < 10 11 12 13 14 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible, FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

Rating 5 V
 
tnemelckram
post Dec 2 2009, 07:57 PM
Post #221





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



Hi Craig!

Oh goody, something new for us to arm-rassle over! Idealist versus pragmatist, I've lost count of which round it is!


1.
QUOTE
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.


From what I can see, all he has said on this or any other forum is that his decode revealed a radar altitude of 4 feet right at the end. That's a statement of fact. And it is a valid fact, not a "spurious claim". It looks to me like Rob and the other qualified people have accepted it as a fact, fielded that hot grounder adeptly and explained the matter convincingly, adding that it looks as much like a plane flying four feet over the building as it does one four feet above the lawn.

I don;'t think it's very important to ever set the record straight with the GL's. They are pissants while PFT and CIT have balls. Moreover, they are not our real opponent. The government is.


2.
QUOTE
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.


I think PFT has already issued such a statement. All Warren said was RA 4 feet without going go on to say that this contradicted PFT. Thus there is no statement for him to correct. You are asking him to adopt an opinion or conclusion.

As to his credibility, he has said that he is a computer guy and has no aviation credentials. He does not appear (and probably does not feel) qualified to state whether or not his 4 for RA statement contradicts PFT. If you ask me, he'd lose credibility by going beyond his writ. That would be almost as bad as some lawyer sticking his nose into matters like structural engineering, aeronautics and forensic investigation of both and then spouting his two cent's worth on the subjects!

Moreover, I looked at the ATS Thread devoted to this and it appears that our friends on the other side of the argument also doubts his credibility, referring to him as "some guy from Australia" or the like and wondering what his qualifications are. No wonder, because his decode confirms what PFT has been saying about the pressure altitude and has revealed and supports the Flight Deck Door Claim.

The best thing for Warren is to refrain from opinions so the only issue is the credibility of his decodes, which will have greater credibility if he cannot be accused of having an agenda.


3.
QUOTE
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.


Thank god PFT is being fact checked! They gain authority every time they pass such a test. Bring it on! 911 is dead serious and demands the truth so all claims about it should be rigorously scrutinized, including ours.

A reasonable person would expect to encounter some inconvenient facts that have to be dealt with along the way. We have no right to expect all of the facts to line up for us. Someone here has a tag line saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but no one is entitled to his own facts.

Rob seems to be rather enjoying the process. He just asked Warren for another custom decode tailored to his specific inquiry. That will spare him from having to plow through a huge body of irrelevant, inconveniently formatted data. Warren is a great resource.

Finally, I fact checked PFT and CIT at length before adopting their conclusions. Trust, but verify.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 2 2009, 08:23 PM
Post #222





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



"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?"

Can check the blank parameter you are looking for is in same subframe as FLT DECK DOOR? even though same Hz could be another subframe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 2 2009, 08:24 PM
Post #223





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



tnemelckram,

Perhaps you are oblivious as to how disinfo works but I am not.

Stutt showed up out of nowhere admittedly inspired by the P4T's conclusion that the reported NTSB altitude was too high to hit the light poles and the building and came up with a new discovery that is being used to cast doubt on the conclusion of P4T regarding their claim that the NTSB reported altitude is too high hit the light poles and the building.

If Stutt is not forthright enough to set the record straight by publicly proclaiming that his independent analysis actually CONFIRMS the findings of Pilots for 9/11 Truth than his motive and intent will have been exposed. If he is honest he has no reason whatsoever to avoid doing so.

There also isn't a reason on earth why YOU should tell ME that I am out of line for demanding that he sets the record straight by publicly proclaiming the simple fact that his analysis regarding altitude CONFIRMS the findings of P4T.

If you are unable to see how his refusal to do so casts doubt on his motives than I can not help you nor is your opinion on this matter important to me.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 2 2009, 08:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Dec 2 2009, 08:41 PM
Post #224





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



Hi Craig!

QUOTE
Perhaps you are oblivious as to how disinfo works but I am not.


Nope, gotta license from the State of Pennsylvania to spread it legally.

EDIT TO ADD: If he's disinfo he could just make a false declaration to preserve his cover and we'd be no wiser than if he made a true declaration.

QUOTE
Stutt showed up out of nowhere . . . . and came up with a new discovery that is being used to cast doubt on the conclusion of P4T. . . . .


He's been a member since December 27, 2007 and has made 87 posts, averaging .12 per day, so he's a little more than trimonthly poster on average. But IIRC he has actually posted in about 5-6 spurts pretty evenly spaced since he joined.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Dec 2 2009, 08:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 2 2009, 09:34 PM
Post #225





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 3 2009, 12:24 AM) *
tnemelckram,

Perhaps you are oblivious as to how disinfo works but I am not.

Stutt showed up out of nowhere admittedly inspired by the P4T's conclusion that the reported NTSB altitude was too high to hit the light poles and the building and came up with a new discovery that is being used to cast doubt on the conclusion of P4T regarding their claim that the NTSB reported altitude is too high hit the light poles and the building.

If Stutt is not forthright enough to set the record straight by publicly proclaiming that his independent analysis actually CONFIRMS the findings of Pilots for 9/11 Truth than his motive and intent will have been exposed. If he is honest he has no reason whatsoever to avoid doing so.

There also isn't a reason on earth why YOU should tell ME that I am out of line for demanding that he sets the record straight by publicly proclaiming the simple fact that his analysis regarding altitude CONFIRMS the findings of P4T.

If you are unable to see how his refusal to do so casts doubt on his motives than I can not help you nor is your opinion on this matter important to me.


I don't know for not posting long. A member for some time but never post until I see Warrens work when the topic is big. I am programmer too but Warren is good and grabbed my interest. Has he given false information?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2009, 09:41 PM
Post #226



Group Icon

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



Ok folks,

I think we may have squashed the GL arguments once and for all without even using the American Airline MX Manual.

Attached are 3 csv files. You can open them with Excel or Open Office (free on the net). They were copy/pasted from the RO2 decode we performed which you can find here.

Reserved.csv are all the reserved parameters for future use on that aircraft if the Airline wants to hook them up to be recorded at a later date.

Reserved_Spares.csv are all the Reserved Spares.

Some of the above are being recorded as you can see the digits are changing. But some I'm sure are not. Therefore you see a 0. Being that it is under Reserved, clearly some were hooked up as a "nice-to-know" parameter and the heading was never changed in the DFDAU. Those where you see a 0 may be hooked up, or may be grounded which show a zero. But it doesnt matter as they are listed as Reserved.

The last file is the most important.

Comparator.csv shows the recording for the Capt and FO Comparator.

The comparator compares Capt instruments to FO instruments to make sure they are both reading equally, if they arent within a certain tolerance, you get an alert. This is a MASTER WARN. RED with high pitched Bells/Dings!

Note that the Comparator_Fail_FO have empty cells yet the others are recording a digit. The empty cells are due to perhaps a broken line between the sensor and the FDAU.

Conclusion - (Capt Comparator showing a fail notwithstanding as that looks like it may be another smoking gun)

1. If FLT_DECK_DOOR was reserved for future use and not hooked up to record any sensors, you would see it listed with the other reserved parameters as RSVD_FLT_DECK_DOOR

2. If the data was labeled RSVD_FLT_DECK_DOOR, our article would not exist as we would know its a Reserved parameter perhaps for future use and may not be a valid recording.

3. If the FLT_DECK_DOOR was not recording but intended to record sensors. You would see blank cells as you see in the above COMPARATOR_FAIL_FO.

The FLT_DECK_DOOR was recording to the FDR and it was closed. The NTSB/FBI need to explain how a closed door indication provided by their data enabled a hijack to take place on AA77.

Copy/paste this post everywhere a duhbunker is spinning, and then watch him twist in the wind. wink.gif
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Reserved.csv ( 118.76K ) Number of downloads: 321
Attached File  Reserve_Spare.csv ( 129.11K ) Number of downloads: 314
Attached File  Comparator.csv ( 41.27K ) Number of downloads: 330
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Dec 2 2009, 09:47 PM
Post #227





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



QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 08:34 PM) *
Has he given false information?


From what little I have looked at his source code, No.

I'd be much more suspicious had he created his program and not released the source code... Let alone the sources which led him to the calculations within that source code.

From where I sit Warren Stutt is in search of the truth wherever it leads him.

Perhaps Craig wants to push him towards the govt. loyalists with his continual harping for an answer when Warren is not ready to give one. dunno.gif

I DO know that that tactic did turn me off way back when the "low and level" flight across the Pentagon lawn being impossible was first proposed at LCF...

In the end I do agree with that being impossible regardless.... After much research into the topography there.

( mutters : Must be something in that California water )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Dec 2 2009, 09:49 PM
Post #228





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



This thread is about the closed cockpit-door; and i don't think that is in dispute.
Anything else does not belong here.
Would one of the Admins please move that discussion elsewhere ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Dec 2 2009, 09:58 PM
Post #229


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (JFK @ Dec 3 2009, 01:47 AM) *
Perhaps Craig wants to push him towards the govt. loyalists with his continual harping for an answer when Warren is not ready to give one. dunno.gif

I DO know that that tactic did turn me off way back when the "low and level" flight across the Pentagon lawn being impossible was first proposed at LCF...


( mutters : Must be something in that California water )



Or perhaps Craig sees the big picture which you all seem to be failing to see.

All Craig is asking for is Warren to make his beliefs known so WE ALL know where he stands and what his intentions are for revealing the final seconds of this data.

I see Craig's point as very valid, while I find Warren's appearance and very careful playing of both sides increasingly suspicious.

You do know the GL's are running around using his work to promote the last reported altitude as 4' right? We simply do not want another Farmer incident. His op work became very obvious to all and still is. His mistake was trying to play a side, so we are extra guarded and whether anyone wants to admit or not, CIT is inextricably attached to PFT. Leaving our work to sometimes be conflated or mentioned in the same breath.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 2 2009, 10:12 PM
Post #230





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



Rob Balsamo, in the comparator.csv file it is 4 values at the top

"COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O","COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT","COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O","COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT"

but there is only 3 values in each line.

,1,1,0
,1,1,0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2009, 10:18 PM
Post #231



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 09:12 PM) *
Rob Balsamo, in the comparator.csv file it is 4 values at the top

"COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O","COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT","COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O","COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT"

but there is only 3 values in each line.

,1,1,0
,1,1,0


Exactly, thats what happens when a parameter doesnt record when its supposed to. You get empty cells. Its probably due to a broken wire between the sensor and the recorder (to keep it simple).

FLT_DECK_DOOR has a value. It was recording the condition of the door.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 2 2009, 10:26 PM
Post #232





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 02:18 AM) *
Exactly, thats what happens when a parameter doesnt record when its supposed to. You get empty cells. Its probably due to a broken wire between the sensor and the recorder (to keep it simple).

FLT_DECK_DOOR has a value. It was recording the condition of the door.


I find odd.

If a bit is missed from a stream how can decoder know which bit? All frames must be consistent length and all bits are 0 or 1, can Warren explain please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Dec 2 2009, 10:35 PM
Post #233





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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Dec 2 2009, 08:58 PM) *
Or perhaps Craig sees the big picture which you all seem to be failing to see.

All Craig is asking for is Warren to make his beliefs known so WE ALL know where he stands and what his intentions are for revealing the final seconds of this data.

I see Craig's point as very valid, while I find Warren's appearance and very careful playing of both sides increasingly suspicious.

You do know the GL's are running around using his work to promote the last reported altitude as 4' right? We simply do not want another Farmer incident. His op work became very obvious to all and still is. His mistake was trying to play a side, so we are extra guarded and whether anyone wants to admit or not, CIT is inextricably attached to PFT. Leaving our work to sometimes be conflated or mentioned in the same breath.


And the location of that 4' altitude is ?
Does that not support that the FDR data is fake ?
Think about it.*

Did Farmer release the source code for the programs he wrote ?

( I'd still like to know exactly why his NORAD audio program takes up so damn much memory )

By persecuting Warren at a stage when he is not ready to commit either way, I do not think you are helping matters.

The exact same thing happened with Frank Greening years ago at Letsroll.

You have been to DC, talked with people, surveyed the lay of the land*, etc....
In your mind your conclusions are obvious.

Warren is still in the process of decoding an encrypted and complicated code and making sense of what it says... Regardless of what exactly that happens to be.

I guess to make a long story short ( I know, too late ) I am saying give him time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2009, 10:39 PM
Post #234



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 09:26 PM) *
I find odd.

If a bit is missed from a stream how can decoder know which bit? All frames must be consistent length and all bits are 0 or 1, can Warren explain please?



Yeah, thats what everyone is saying, but thats not what the data shows.

I asked Warren to upload these parameters to his next output file so we can compare.

But again, if FLT_DECK_DOOR was not in use, it would be listed as Reserved. This way an aircraft accident investigator when looking at it, he'll know it wasnt used instead of trying to guess if the door is closed or not working with a 0 value.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 2 2009, 10:44 PM
Post #235





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2009, 02:39 AM) *
Yeah, thats what everyone is saying, but thats not what the data shows.

I asked Warren to upload these parameters to his next output file so we can compare.

But again, if FLT_DECK_DOOR was not in use, it would be listed as Reserved. This way an aircraft accident investigator when looking at it, he'll know it wasnt used instead of trying to guess if the door is closed or not working with a 0 value.


Thankyou but sorry,as a software engineer he is I would like Warren to explain to me.

I edit for Rob Balsamo. I mean no offence but the issue is more complicated than just parameters omitted. Warren will understand me.

This post has been edited by Jefferson: Dec 2 2009, 11:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2009, 11:08 PM
Post #236



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Jefferson @ Dec 2 2009, 09:44 PM) *
Thankyou but sorry,as a software engineer he is I would like Warren to explain to me.

I edit for Rob Balsamo. I mean no offence but the issue is more complicated than just parameters omitted. Warren will understand me.


No offense taken and fair enough. But based on my experience, the only ones who can offer an explanation are the NTSB. Especially when Warren states this as his credentials.

"I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents. I do however have a BSc(Hons) degree in Computer Science as well as several years of commercial experience as a computer programmer.

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary."
http://www.warrenstutt.com/AboutMyFDRWork/index.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tezzajw
post Dec 2 2009, 11:17 PM
Post #237





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 23-March 09
Member No.: 4,213



Ultimately, it wouldn't matter if Warren was an unemployed bum on the street, posting from an internet cafe with begged change to buy his time...

He's provided the source code for his program. This can be checked and verified.
He's provided the output from his program. This can be checked and verified.

He's also granted all of Rob's requests in a timely manner and in typical Aussie manner, didn't seem to whinge about doing it! Considering that he's not obliged to do a damned thing for anyone, everyone's lucky that he has taken this on in the first instance.

He's been able to do something that the NTSB failed to do - extract more data from the alleged FDR of the alleged Flight AA77. The money that the NTSB paid their IT department was a waste, given that Warren has appeared to clean up their mess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 2 2009, 11:24 PM
Post #238





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



Warren understands the data stream and knows what I am asking. As an example Rob Balsamo try to work out which of four parameters is omitted? And then why is it one of these and not another parameter from the frame completely. But I need Warren to explain to understand.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jefferson
post Dec 2 2009, 11:45 PM
Post #239





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



I explain my question for Warren.

The stream decompresses to 256 words or 256*12=3072 bits per sub frame with 4 subframes per frame.

the 4 parameters in the list

"COMPARATOR_FAIL_F_O","COMPARATOR_FAIL_CAPT","COMPAR_ENABLE_F_O","COMPAR_ENABLE__CAPT"

are 1 bit each from bits 1 and 2 of words 116 and 119 all from the same sub frame, how possible only 3 bits in the result?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2009, 11:51 PM
Post #240



Group Icon

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



Keep in mind, the Comparator_Fail_FO should be reading a 0, because the Comp_Enable_FO is showing a 1. Meaning the Comparator on the FO side is enable, its working, its NOT failed.

Capt side corresponds. It shows a failed condition.

This in itself is pretty major because i dont think you can defer either comparator and go flying. I think both have to be working for flight. We're looking into it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 10 11 12 13 14 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st December 2021 - 10:52 AM