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.

 

77 = No Hijack, Flight Deck Door Closed for Entire Flight

page: 11
98
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The info won't pull up on my work computer. Does the data show when the last time the door was open? Is it like a house alarm, when you go in and you have so much time to punch in. does it show that info?




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I tell you, I really don't think it matters what the FDR data shows we are wasting out time with this door issue. To me its become a stall tactic issue designed by the NTSB/Gov and nothing more. They knew this would cause an uproar and its taking attention away from other issues that lead directly to our quest for what really went on. The hijackers or someone obviously got in the damn cockpit so the door failed along with the sensor. I believe anything else is speculation either way.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by mikelee] spelling & wording

[edit on 29-11-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I really have to disagree with you here. The possibility of this event occuring in the same time frame as a door sensor malfunctioning is in the 6 sigma. These FDR readings , and the impeccable testing that they underwent to even get those machines on these aircraft are some of the most troubleshot devices that the FAA has ever had to deal with. They are still , in this day, vastly under the technology.

Just like a pilot in the dark, you have to trust the instruments. The statistics show they rarely ever fail without a fingerprint.

That said, everything has to be taken into consideration to effectively diagnose the root cause.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
reply to post by mikelee
 


I really have to disagree with you here. The possibility of this event occuring in the same time frame as a door sensor malfunctioning is in the 6 sigma. These FDR readings , and the impeccable testing that they underwent to even get those machines on these aircraft are some of the most troubleshot devices that the FAA has ever had to deal with. They are still , in this day, vastly under the technology.

Just like a pilot in the dark, you have to trust the instruments. The statistics show they rarely ever fail without a fingerprint.

That said, everything has to be taken into consideration to effectively diagnose the root cause.


Then maybe you can help Turbofan find the GMT date then.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 



Hey Charlyv,

I understand completely why you disagree. But my point is it is just a small issue that is only a small part of the bigger puzzle. It doesen't matter if the plane was hijacked, rigged with remote control device(s) or an insider was involved...the point is that the door HAD TO BE opened at some point. The data does not show that. So, it failed at some point. That should be a no brainer to determine regardless of which side you are on.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


That in itself relies on many external mechanisms that have nothing to do with the internal reliability of the FDR. These include reliance on being able to get a reading from an NTP provider, network interference and all sorts of problems that even simple everyday servers on the internet have in being able to synchronize with high tier clock synch. I would be happy to try, but the real solution to that perhaps would only be avaliable by analyzing a dump of the network connections it was using to get the synch.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Just to be clear, I really think that this plane was jacked, but I do not know how, and either does anyone else. Analysis can find the missing data if it exists. It is max forensic, and sometimes the smallest little clue can break it wide open. The point here is there needs to be a congruent path to that assessment, and I think we are all trying to provide ways to get there.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
reply to post by mikelee
 


Just to be clear, I really think that this plane was jacked, but I do not know how, and either does anyone else. Analysis can find the missing data if it exists. It is max forensic, and sometimes the smallest little clue can break it wide open. The point here is there needs to be a congruent path to that assessment, and I think we are all trying to provide ways to get there.


Agree 100% and with that I'm done posting on this thread. Take care!!



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Alfie, to say that "no one went through the cockpit in 42 hours" is misleading, as this was not one flight of 42 hours duration.


Let´s use a little common sense shall we?
1.- Prior to 9/11 not only was it NOT unusual to have cockpit doors opened for long periods during flight, and opened constantly. It wasn´t even an issue with most crews.
2.- You are saying that pilots are trained to hit the WC before flight.
Well, actually I would say this is not realy a training issue. More of a common sense thing.
3.- But I´ll have to point out that it is also common sense to hit the WC BEFORE DESCENT. A few minutes before starting your descent and approach is a RUTINE for many pilots. Because it is very stressing to start getting an urge to take a piss when you are in approach or just after landing and having a long taxi ahead of you.

So, what is misleading in reality is you saying that it would be "believable" that for 11 flights, at least one of them more than 4 hours long, no pilot left the cockpit, no meals were given to any pilot, no coffee, no juice, nothing was ever served to any pilot.
PREPOSTEROUS!!!





posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wholetruth
 


This conversation is fascinating, especially when we know that Flight 77 did not take off that day - it wasn't even scheduled!

The following information was discovered by Gerard Holmgren, and I saw it in place, before the statistics were doctored. Copies are available for those interested.

The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to

www.bts.gov...

and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number.
Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day.

For more detailed info, see [url]http://sites.google.com/site/humanevolution2008/clearing-out-1/interesting-links[/url



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Re: data recorder, it all depends on how it was programmed.
Normally, in a commercial PLC, the signal from a sensor will set a 'flag' in the program, a 1 or a 0. If the door was never closed in the first place, the flag will remain 0 (if it was only programmed to register CHANGES in condition, not the condition itself) Personally, i find that to be very shoddy programming, we can assume that the data recorder took note of the INITIAL condition of the door, i,e, open or closed.
I find it most unlikely that the terrorist opened the door & closed it again PRECISELY in between the 4 second polling cycle.
Bottom line=if the flag was at '0' the door was never opened.
I'm not an expert on data recorders, but i know how computers work, the question you could also ask is; was the data tampered with? it would be relatively easy to hack the system & change a 1 into a 0



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Sensors (especially magnetic ones) DO fail from time to time, they can also be fooled, if you happen to know where it is & had a large magnet handy. Impacts could damage the sensor, but not before it gave out a signal. More to the point; the evidence is that the door was never opened the entire flight, or even in the preceding ones, & from the comments from more experienced members, i find this highly unlikely. a pilot has to pee doesn't he?, he has to eat? If the recorder shows the door as never being opened, i find that highly suspect.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Savage Khan
I am highly suspicious of this website (pilotsfor911truth.com). The so called "breakthrough" information discussed is listed on the main page, just under a "black friday special" on their DVD. "now under $10 per DVD in our 7 Pack DVD Special!". I'm not denying truth, I'm just suspect of truth that has a $70 price tag on it.



Savage...I am more than 'highly suspicious' of the entire website "PilotsFor911Truth website." On the face of it they seem legit but just dare to question one of their premises and you'll recieve an instantaneous onslaught of warnings and ridicule by members and eventually the main administrator.
I just experienced the venomous attacks these guys are capable of as I was reading over their posts on this topic of the NTSB data report and noticed that a good many of the members (respondents) are either in on the conspiracy or they have been duped by the propaganda that this topic represents. As a member myself (although inactive since June 08), I joined in on the discussion and questioned them on it and they BANNED ME IMMEDIATELY !!! Ha Ha Ha I had to laugh. It was my first post after having been a member for about a year and a half. I had never before posted because I didn’t trust them; I would just watch them from a distance. But when I read their Bush/Cheney like responses I just had to post.

I suspect that they are - in the main - working for the government as disinfo agents and CIA or FBI shills.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 

De_Genova, Could you explain the reason behind your ban on 911pft website, i get regular emails keeping me updated but never posted cause i thought i wasn't experienced enough to comment,
But if this is true i will be keeping a sharper look on them to see any deliberate lies, thanks



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by foxhoundone
reply to post by de_Genova
 

De_Genova, Could you explain the reason behind your ban on 911pft website, i get regular emails keeping me updated but never posted cause i thought i wasn't experienced enough to comment,
But if this is true i will be keeping a sharper look on them to see any deliberate lies, thanks


For the sake of brevity here's my original post that resulted in the ban less than an hour later. I have the full thread if needed..........

Quote de_Genova...………… "I can't take any of this new information seriously because I am absolutely convinced that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. If the pilots and all other concerned members of this forum are saying that an airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon then you are all in denial. The government’s contention is that the so-called airliner disintegrated - a preposterous notion. In fact the government’s contention is that all four supposed airliners completely disappeared into the ground and into the rubble of the buildings. If this is so then how can there even be a black box to examine? It sounds very much like a dis-info ploy designed to confuse and divide. Trust none of it OK..............PD
PS....there were NO hijackers and there were NO commercial airliners............period !!! "

Soon after the admin responded......"de_genova, shape up my friend or i will be showing you the door very quick."

and soon after that - following several attacks on me the admin says: " “He's editing his post significantly after replies?
Ok... he's now on mod review.”

But the editing was merely a spell check and an added PS as a clarification......

PS.......I also wrote to the admin with a more succint and ctear explanation but their minds were made up.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
For those interested in this topic, what I consider to be even more damaging to the government story is the recent ifo released by Pilots for 911 Truth that the speeds for the 2 WTC aircraft, as alleged by the government per the DFDR data for those aircraft are higher than the structure could tolerate, as shown by the case of Egyp Air 990, which exceeded its structural speed and broke apart in flight when it exceeded 425 knots equivalent airspeed (equivalent to .99 mach) at 22,000 feet. The government has reported the speeds of the WTC aircraft at 510 knots for United 175 and 430 knots for American
Boing has set the maximum operating speed at 360 knots. At 425, they fall apart, if Egyptair is a good example.

It looks like the government better get out its "Hold on boys, the stories are coming apart checklist." Even Sully can't save this crashing turkey.

THere is much more to your this issue than you indicate in your post. The issue in the Egypt air breakup was likely a combination of exceeding the maximum Mach number and very possibly an over G condition. 0.99 mach is way over the maximum mach number for that aircraft. The airpalne may have had severe buffeting from the over Mach limit, and the plane may have well been pulling to much G as well. Most commercial airliners are only designed for a flight limit of 2 G, and though they will always be able to exceed that limit to some extent (based on gross weight and weight distribution), the plane may well have way exceeded 2 G and was also over it's structural limiting airspeed. In addition the structural limiting indicated or equivalent airspeed is not meant to mean the speed at which an aircraft will come apart in flight. I have flown a 25 year old B-52 with twice as many flight hours as it was designed for, at 100 knots over the sturctural limiting airspeed (390 indicated I believe). I was at low altitude (a few hundred feet over the ground) so my mach number was way below the limiting mach number for the B-52 (.88 was the limit I think). THere was absolutely no damage to the aircraft at 100 knots over the structural limit. I seriously doubt that a 757 would come apart from even a very serious overspeed at low altitude. Remember that airliners are designed to run for 100,000 hours and more. With metal fatique and other issues degrading the airframe over time the designers have to build in some serious excess sturctural integrity if they don't want planes falling apart as they get old. Also the structural limiting airspeed is often set somewhat arbitrarilly by the needs of the aircraft. In other words, the manufaturer won't bother to set the limit at a number that is way faster than the aircraft needs to go under normal opperations, even if the airframe can take it.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by captbilly
 


I think 'captbilly' just about covers it.

The "Pilots for Truth" Baloney is just so much reconstituted horse manure that is urgently presented to the adoring fan base (of whom few, very very few, are actual aviators) in desperate attempts to define their 'reson for being'. Quite sad, really.

But, keep buying them T-Shirts and DVDs, folks!!!

I have stopped looking at the PfT site long ago...saw enough misdirection, junk and downright incorrect 'things' posted, it turned my stomach. Not to mention, the overtly and unsubtle nature of the 'staff' over there...moderation on ATS is far, far more sensible. No one is perfect, of course, but there are glaring differences if one looks hard enough.....



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The claim that the AA 77 flight deck door was never opened appears to be bogus because this parameter is never even recorded on B757-2 type aircraft like Flight 77. There is no evidence that this parameter was ever among those listed by the FAA for update for this type of plane.

Instead of exposing a smoking gun, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have shot themselves in the foot.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
What if the cockpit was stormed whilst the aircraft was still on the ground, so the door would not have been opened in the air?

Would the plane be allowed to take off, could they have stopped them whilst still on the ground?

Because then the real conspiracy would be; why were the planes allowed to take off and cause so much devastation?

Nah too far fetched.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join