It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 93
12
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I know this has been addressed from both sides but nothing definitive that I have seen so far. I am really confused by one thing. Does the FDR show that the door was never opened or just during that flight? I am a little concerned as to how the pilots, no matter who they were, got into the cockpit to begin with. I am sure this is a stupid question but I have seen too many answers to know which is supposed to be the real one. I mean the FDR has one set of data right? So is it supposed to be showing it was NEVER opened or just not on the flight?

The FDR data cover the most recent 40 hours or so,
over the course of 12 flights. The FLT DECK DOOR
parameter is recorded as a 0 throughout all flights.

There being no evidence of a data path from a door
sensor to the FDR, and the FLT DECK DOOR parameter
not being among the parameters whose recording was
required by the FAA, the most reasonable inference
is that the 0 values recorded for the FLT DECK DOOR
parameter have no connection to reality, and that
the same is true of PfT press releases.

Will




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michal

Originally posted by iSunTzu... The FDR shows 2.2 maximum G force and if you calculate the G force required using reality and physics you get about 1.7 Gs needed. And the last few seconds average out to 1.6 to 1.7 G. Real science beats Balsamo's waving hands make up numbers. Even the DNA proves p4t math is a complete failure.


does the flight path confirms the numbers given? I mean do the 1.7 Gs corresponds with the flight path recorded on the FDR ?

Yes. More specifically, the FDR shows an average
of 1.8g vertical acceleration (including gravity)
for the last two seconds. Calculations made before
Warren's new decode had led me to expect an average
of about 1.6g for the last four seconds, but those
calculations assumed level flight at the Pentagon.
The last four seconds recovered by Warren's new
decode of the FDR show that the aircraft never
quite levelled out.

For a graph showing consistency of the accelerations
recorded by the FDR with the altitudes recorded by
the FDR, see
www.ccs.neu.edu...


were the plane parts found near Pentagon ever officially identified as flight 77 parts?

I cannot improve on trebor451's answer to this.

Will



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cesura

were the plane parts found near Pentagon ever officially identified as flight 77 parts?

I cannot improve on trebor451's answer to this.Will


I think it was ISunTzu who answered the question in a most excellent manner.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michal
were the plane parts found near Pentagon ever officially identified as flight 77 parts?


When you parse your way through all the BS about the FDR, the answer is NO. The parts were never identified as belonging to AA77 but I am sure this is off topic.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Michal
were the plane parts found near Pentagon ever officially identified as flight 77 parts?


When you parse your way through all the BS about the FDR, the answer is NO. The parts were never identified as belonging to AA77 but I am sure this is off topic.


No one has refuted the FDR was recovered in the Pentagon due to 77 crashing on purpose at the hands of terrorists.

The FDR is a part of 77 and it is proof of 77’s impact. No one has refuted this with reality based evidence. The FDR has 40 hours of flight from 77 verified by truth groups who don’t want people to know it.

The last RADALT reading of 4 feet, how do you refute that? Or the final true track heading of 61.5 degrees? The airspeed matches the energy of the impact and resulting damage has never been refuted with science; on the contrary it has been proved to be true? The impact damage matching 61.5 degrees.

Fact; RADAR data shows Flight 77 (multiple RADAR sites simultaneously) with the FDR on board terminating at the Pentagon.

DNA evidence never refuted with evidence to the contrary, the serial numbers for people, for all but one passenger was found at the Pentagon with the FDR. Talk about overlapping evidence! RADAR, DNA, FDR all prove 77 impacted and no one has tried to refute these facts in a court, in the news, or anywhere that matters.

Real evidence has to be ignored to support the false claims of a “fly over” or other nonsense. What is your point? To willfully ignore the known evidence so you can entertain some fantasy? What about the FDR, what do you have on the FDR now that Warren decode the final seconds pilots for truth have had but failed to decode for years? Is the conspiracy why did the pilots for truth not decode the final seconds? Why do they not expand on the 40 hours of data in the FDR confirming the FDR is the FDR from 77?

If for some reason you need more proof of 77 impacting the Pentagon besides all the witnesses, the FDR, RADAR, and DNA; you need to ask yourself why you fail to acknowledge the evidence and why no one can refute it.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Eyewitness accounts in general

These are pretty much the least reliable forms of evidence. However, when you get 50 or 100 or 136 people saying pretty much the same thing, you have a reliable "preponderance of evidence".

At the same time, every investigator knows that there are going to be differences in the accounts. People will see things wrong. People will remember things wrong. When you interpret the evidence in a non-child-like manner, this is acceptable. It is expected.

You also combine the stories into a complete narrative. If 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, but only 104 of them actually saw the impact, then you have a compelling story that you can assemble from the various components.

If 26 people saw a big, silver commuter jet with an "AA" logo on the side approaching, but 39 just saw a large commuter jet, then those testimonies support each other. They do not contradict each other.

If some of them say it crashed at 9:35, others say at 9:38 and others say at 9:42, these are not conflicting. Given the errors in most people's watches & the misperception of time in an emergency, they are mutually supporting each other.

Finally, if 136 people saw the plane approach the pentagon, but 100 out of 106 people who were correctly positioned to see the impact said that "no, the plane did not hit the building. It overflew the building and flew away at low level. Some sort of missile came screaming in from the side and slammed into the Pentagon, just as the jet flew over", then I WILL toss out the testimony of those that saw it approach. As evidence of approach, but not impact.

However, when 136 people see the plane approach the Pentagon, 106 of them saw it hit the Pentagon, and zero say "it passed over & flew away", then I have ZERO hesitation to state that all 136 witnessed the entire event. If someone is getting childishly argumentative that "you can't count the people that only saw it approach, heard the explosion & saw the flame/smoe, they didn't see the REAL event", then those people deserve only derisive laughter in response.

Meanwhile, here's your list: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

And here's the summary. (Thanks Gravy.)

• 136 eyewitness accounts of AA77 approaching the Pentagon.

• 104 who saw the plane hit the building.

• 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

• 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

• 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

• 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

• 7 said it was a Boeing 757.

• 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

• 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

• 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

• 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

• 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

• 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

• 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

• 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

• 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

• 3 took photographs of the aftermath.

• Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

[End Part 1]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
[Part 2]

And of course,

• 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

• 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
__

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien watched it from a couple thousand feet of altitude right into the side of the Pentagon. And this guy knows more about duty, honor & respect (both giving and deserving) than any truther ever will.

www.youtube.com...
__

Alan Wallace
video.google.nl...#

But Mr. Wallace was running away, & had his back to it. So he didn't REALLY see it either. Perhaps it pulled up, turned on the Romulin cloaking device, and flew away, invisible to both radar & the 5000 people within a couple miles of the Pentagon.

Sure thing. Whatever you kids say...

Tom



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
When you parse your way through all the BS about the FDR, the answer is NO. The parts were never identified as belonging to AA77 but I am sure this is off topic.


And you know this how?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Something for the kids to think about...

From Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack
USAF Retired

Written to Killtown:

"I am certainly aware of people like yourself who believe that those of us who suffered on 9/11 must be part of some giant plot, either as dupes or plotters. I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, I held parts of that aircraft in my hands, covered with fuel and oil, and I helped with the triage area. I helped a guy with a headwound, aided ambulances coming in, and suffer to this day with ongoing nightmares on a very regular basis. When one has seen what I saw, and had to do what I had to do, the images, the smells, the sounds, resonate in your mind forever.

I do not object to your desire to dispute the facts of that day. While I feel you are hopelessly naive and silly, that is your right. But please know that your page on the Pentagon crash is deeply offensive to the survivors such as myself. Again, it's not that you argue. But your tone is one of mocking, of making light of the greatest suffering I ever saw in my 25 years of military service. Your fake "quotes," your quips, all mock the pain of those of us that were there, and served that day. I am very likely one of the people in some of your photographs, and I assure you our thoughts were not about the grass (a silly claim you make, by the way), but were deeply, intensely worried about the people hurt, the people left inside. I will never forget that day, and while I can forgive your foolishness in not understanding the facts, the science, the reality of that day, I find it much harder to forgive your willingness to laugh at those who were so terribly hurt that day. Such an attitude shows you to be a cruel and heartless person, in addition to silly one."


LT Col Hal Bidlack
USAF Retired
__

Please think of the implications of your accusations.

Tom



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Lillydale
When you parse your way through all the BS about the FDR, the answer is NO. The parts were never identified as belonging to AA77 but I am sure this is off topic.


And you know this how?


I would be happy to respond to this as well as the tripe underneath it but I have already had you OSers whine about me going off topic so....

HERE YOU GO If you really care about a response to this, then here it is.

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Lillydale
When you parse your way through all the BS about the FDR, the answer is NO. The parts were never identified as belonging to AA77 but I am sure this is off topic.


And you know this how?

I would be happy to respond to this as well as the tripe underneath it but I have already had you OSers whine about me going off topic so....


In other words you don't know. It is on topic in the sense that you are 'implying' that the decode is invalid because the ID of the plane that hit the Pentagon was not verified. Yes it was. As far as the individual parts of the plane, yes they were. If you took the time to read the Army Center of Military History interviews I spent a year collecting (currently offline for a few weeks), then you would know that. Every peice of debris from the Pentago was carefully sorted and recovered evidence (plane parts etc) identified by literally hundreds of military and law enforcement officers (including NCIS agents).

So please don't spread disinformation in this thread without something to back it up.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by 911files]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
is it not possible for them to have wired this sensor computer whatever into a smaller drone plane or is it too heavy/big?

data is one thing but explaining the un-uniformed people carrying by hand peices of a plane supposedly about the place as if it was tin foil, and no trucks carrying off a cockpit, people, engines, wings? wheels??

and if jet fuel did melt the towers frames why the hell isn't the entire building and the surrounding area of the pentagon burning in hellfire??!? [sarcasm, i've said my peice, I would have thought you people we're smarter than that.]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
In other words you don't know.


I offered you a nice link to follow to argue it there. I have been told that anything not NEW FDR DATA involved is off topic. If you actually care, go to that other thread. If you are just looking to be obnoxious, stay here and talk to someone else.


identified by literally hundreds of military and law enforcement officers (including NCIS agents)


The question was whether or not they were identified as being from AA77 not identified. Please follow my link and provide this evidence that any of it was ever identified as being from AA77 or stop spreading your disinformation

Again, off topic. I never said I did not know. I said it was off topic and offered you a link. If you do not have backup, then I see why you are not there offering proof. You are a word parser. That is a great way to win an argument when the facts are against you.

Basically, your argument that I am wrong is this 'I have a friend that says they know some stuff but I cannot get ahold of them now but you just wait, I have proof, I just need to go get it and that might take a while.' Cute try.

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
If for some reason you need more proof of 77 impacting the Pentagon besides all the witnesses, the FDR, RADAR, and DNA; you need to ask yourself why you fail to acknowledge the evidence and why no one can refute it.


So it took 8 years to decode the FDR and that is apparently still being debated. I know nothing of this radar but sure, ok I can concede that one. The DNA is a whole other issue. You think it was recovered there because you were told it was. Other than that you have nothing. So you have radar. Wow, would just radar win in court?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Basically, your argument that I am wrong is this 'I have a friend that says they know some stuff but I cannot get ahold of them now but you just wait, I have proof, I just need to go get it and that might take a while.' Cute try.

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]


No the agrument is that the evidence (CMH statements) has been online for years now and requires actual study and research, not internet forum sound-bites or youtube videos. CIT for example has cherry-picked them to death in the case of the ANC witnesses and ignored the rest that do not fit their 'promotion'.

The FDR and other parts of the plane were cataloged and identified by the FBI with the assistance of other law enforcement agencies, but those documents are being witheld at the moment due to pending cases (KSM coming to NYC for example). So to say they were not identified is simply a false statement. The FDR was identified and is in the custody of the FBI as evidence. Talk to KSM's lawyer's because they would be very happy to hear that the FBI did not do the proper identification of it.

No, I'm not going to a thread and get involved in fruitless 'no evidence' to support it thread. I am on ATS to discuss the FDR decode. I am only correcting the disinformation you presented in regards to the source's identification. When I get a new ISP (I had to dump Bell South DSL), they will be back up at AAL77.COM along with the volumes of other supporting radar and atc records that validate the identification of the plane independent of the FBI. But then again, most serious researchers have (and still are) already done their homework.

Now I'll be happy to entertain any questions/comments you may have in regards to the decode, but please dont pretend that I am the one leading you 'off topic'. Quite the contrary, you made the assertion that the FDR had not been identified. It has been. If you think it has not, then you need to alert KSM's lawyers because they would really like to be able to prove that. Until that happens, it is just your belief and not assertable fact.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Like I said, there is a thread for this topic now. Why do you refuse to go there instead? So you can call a mod to round me up whenever I get out of line? Identified and Identified as being from AA77 are two different things. I am still waiting for this proof it was ever identified as being from AA77.

No, I'm not going to a thread and get involved in fruitless 'no evidence' to support it thread. I am on ATS to discuss the FDR decode.
You are just bringing it back up again because you are hoping that you can spread your BS and then call my response off topic and have it removed. You will not go to that thread because you might have to produce proof. It is completely dishonest to claim you will not go there because you do not want to discuss it...AS YOU CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT. You will not get another response from me here about this. If you actually have some proof, come show it and shut my thread down before it even gets a whole page. Why not go to some "no proof" thread if you have all the proof? Wouldnt that be neat to just shut me up so quickly? Instead, you will respond to this, knowing I am not coming back and somehow consider that a victory. I will go wait in my thread for anyone with some proof. You stay here and talk about it and how you dont want to talk about it.

[edit on 12/20/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by KKinsane2009
 



It's not the weight of the recorder that makes this impossible; it would be
the specific type of sensor data which is present in the file that rules out a smaller 'drone' aircraft.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It did not take 8 years to decode the FDR. It was decoded in January 2002. The it was not Flight 77 was proved false on 911, and in January 2002 it was backed up as false with the first decode by the NTSB.

Then the pilots for truth who offer no theories said 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon. Kind of funny if not for those murdered on 911, but 77 was verified as crashed into the Pentagon on 11 Sept 2001. Anyway the pilots for truth also had the raw data so they used a stolen proprietary program from an aircraft vendor to decode the RAW data. It had more data except they were missing the last second the NTSB had. Pilots for truth who don't offer theories, offered the theory Flight 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon but the FDR decode they had was missing 4 to 6 seconds of data based on where the data stopped.

Then Warren was interested in the FDR. He wrote his own decoding program and decoded FIVE more second of data than the Pilots for truth who were sitting on the raw data for years. The final 5 seconds, 4 seconds compared to the NTSB data confirm the dynamics of Flight 77 and verify impact; gee the big clue was over 8 years ago when the FDR was found in the Pentagon along with the DNA of the Passengers.

If I thought the DNA was fake I would march on DC with the evidence and demand justice; but the people who start these rumors down want justice they are selling DVDs for 10 bucks, books and even Jesse the Body is selling soap with his TV show. The conspiracy on 911 is legal, it is selling fantasy; making the money. 911 truth is a scam to make money by a few on the backs of many who love fantasy conspiracy theories.

BTW the DNA was carefully monitored by many people so if you want to call the DNA fake you have a list of hundreds including NCIS, and Naval officers who were oversight due to the fact they lost their soldiers. How many liars are there in your version of 911? You better add me I was on active duty and I vouch for all the military at the Pentagon with my life, I doubt you will do the same for the lies about 911 like the parts are not 77. Do you doubt the oath we take as soldiers? It starts out like this… I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion… So who are the liars on 911, it is not the military. It is those spreading rumors the parts are not from 77.

In this thread it is the FDR, you have started your thread on the lie the parts are not 77. The people who say the parts are not identified with ignore evidence like the FDR and offer nothing to support their failed claims except it has to be proved. But they ignore and are immune to evidence like the FDR, RADAR, and DNA for starters. When it gets to witnesses their google search must be masked with some sort of reality shield keeping real evidence far from being found.

Warren’s decode seems to be reveal the data right up to hitting the trailer about 120 feet from impact.

The RADALT is accurate to 1 foot and it confirms Flight 77 is not too high but exactly where witnesses saw it on 911. The lamppost were seen knocked down by witnesses, they saw Flight 77 knock them down. Hard to miss a 124 foot wing span and a 159 foot long aircraft 20 to 30 feet above your car even when it is traveling 800 feet a second.

The FDR dovetails with RADAR data, witnesses and more.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It did not take 8 years to decode the FDR. It was decoded in January 2002. The it was not Flight 77 was proved false on 911, and in January 2002 it was backed up as false with the first decode by the NTSB.



This is just more NOT PROVING THE PARTS WERE ID'd as belonging to AA77. I got it. People can claim hundreds or scores of witnesses and that the plane parts were identified as belonging to AA77, NEVER BACK THEM UP and skate over it because it is off topic after-all. Thanks for clearing that up for me.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join