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: 14
98
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


How about f93, does the door also appear to be shut the entire time? It's surprising that they wouldn't have crossed checked the data with f93, if they didn't that is.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


United Airlines' airplane operating as "UAL 93" on 11 Septembere, 2001, did not have the optional FLT DK DOOR monitoring function in the FDR.

Appears that American Airlines' airplane operating as "AAL 77" on the same day did not have the component hooked up, despite the breathless (and, it appears, somewhat desperate) hopes and lay to the claims, as perpetrated by a certain other website which now has demonstrated exactly why the majority of us find them to be foolish beyond measure.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That knife cuts both ways weedwhacker. Post your source to how you know neither door remained shut. Thanks in advance, infinityoreilly.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


United Airlines' airplane operating as "UAL 93" on 11 Septembere, 2001, did not have the optional FLT DK DOOR monitoring function in the FDR.

Appears that American Airlines' airplane operating as "AAL 77" on the same day did not have the component hooked up, despite the breathless (and, it appears, somewhat desperate) hopes and lay to the claims, as perpetrated by a certain other website which now has demonstrated exactly why the majority of us find them to be foolish beyond measure.


Are we just supposed to take your word for this? Is there a reason you are quick to criticize but slow to produce proof?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


K J....the discussion as to UAL 93 is elsewhere in this very thread...if I had the time I could search it for you, but I have more important things to do right now.

All of this has been covered, extensively, and a thorough read will show this.

(disclaimer: it MIGHT be on another AAL 77-related thread...I just know it's somewhere, already mentioned on ATS)



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'm surprised this point hasn't been brought up yet: maybe it has and I missed it.
What if the door did not open because the flight was being controlled remotely, and there was nobody there to open it?

I don't really believe this is the case, but kind of surprised no one brought it up yet, considering all of the speculations I have seen about substitute remotely controlled planes...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This is a link to the pdf file, as Turbofan says it could well have been grounded and not operative, the door is listed as not working or uncomfirmed, I suppose the latter means that parameter could be available in a updated box of tricks, but not known if connected or grounded. Surely someone, somewhere would know if ALL the work was done.

www.ntsb.gov...



[edit on 3-12-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by superleadoverdrive
 


Problem there, super is: Not going to happen on a Boeing 757. "Remote control", that is. That is something that crops up on conspiracy sites, promoted by people who don't know any better, or saw it in a Hollywood movie.

Here's where you can see the lack of logic --- some would like to claim there really was NO airplane, because, they say, it was "impossible to perform" such a "complex maneuver" as a descending turn. (That is ludicrous from the get-go, BTW)

However, those same people think it's no problem to imagine "remote control", which, of course, would have to be done by a human, IF it were possible to do so on the B-757 (it is not impossible, of course...just the most extremely unlikely concept ever floated...and would have been impossible to hide, when you realize the compexity involved and the number of people that would have to be employed in the conversion process).

SO...the "impossibly complex" maneuver they're always waving their hands about?? Incredibly more "difficult" IF it were being remotely controlled. And, no, the autopilot would not be able to be programmed to act as seen...too many variables for the way the system is designed. AND, the A/P will not bank any more than 30 degrees left or right...it will not exceed maximum airspeeds...all of that has to be done by a human, and in the this case, a suicidal terrorist.
_________________________________________________________

edit to bring it back to the 'Door'....the other recorded flights previous showed the same parameters. This indicates that the function simply was NOT hooked up at all. It read a default value.

BTW....a typical flight scenario has the cockpit door open during the pushback and engine start procedure. The FDR will begin to operate once full normal electrics are operating on the left side (a variety of different buses, but all related to electrical sources being provided by engines).

Our rule is supposed to be --- no taxiing away on gate departure until door is 'C'___' and LCKD'. But....sometimes you go anyway, whilst waiting for the flight attendants to bring the count up...and in any event, on previous flights that were coast-to-coast, the door would have opened routinely for bathroom breaks, and food and beverages.

I'm afraid that there is a small contingent of firm deniers who like to ignore the reality in favor of their "pet" theories...they've dug in so deep it's the only way to attempt to save face.



[edit on 3 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Although I cannot agree with your entire post as I believe there was a flyover, you make some good
points about A/P and the data recorder during start up and taking in
data while flight controls are tested pre-taxi.

Limiting theories through proper channels, and operations/physics is
a good way to narrow down the truth.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thanks



Also...was looking at the NTSB parameters link again, just repeated above.

I noted that the FLT DECK DOOR would report (if such capability were enabled) to the EICAS port.

I can't recall ever seeing the FLT DECK DOOR UNLCKD message on EICAS prior to the door re-designs post 9/11 (actually, some years afterwards).

When you review crrent potos and designs, you see them after the security retro-fit.

Here's a United from 2002, August...before the new doors had been installed. Note the area of the over. panel, forward right side, where the door latch release button is:

www.airliners.net...

In the old days, it was a square pushbutton, two postions. IN to release the latch, OUT to lock. Amber light built into the square button.

NOW, as you look at pictures, you will see a new design, new terminology. AND, it varies between different airlines.

Here's some anecdotal info, pre-9/11. There were plenty of occasions when the B-757 door latch was left in the unlocked command, at the start of the takeoff roll. Since the door opens aftward, it would often bang open from the acceleration.

So, this is another indication that there was no EICAS message then, because if so it would have been caught on the BEFORE TAKEOFF checklist flow, when the 'Recall' button is pressed, to verify the EICAS alerts are all clear.

Some have said the door button was on the center pedestal...that is the case on the B-737.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 
Hi Turbo, I am of the same mind as you regarding Weed's replies, it's the reality creeping in. We're in the realm of circumstantial "evidence" and it seems that there is no comment from the FAA or the NTSB...I presume they go "legal" in these circumstances. But, are there not other issues with this FDR, the flight path versus witnesses on the ground, that's reality creeping in too. It's okay for Weed to give us all the technical stuff and to throw in little words like,"mandatory" and "optional" then give us a reality reason why a door would most likely be open during recording times, (a glimpse of skirt, coffee etc) but not okay for Weed to talk about witnesses on the ground who saw a different flightpath of the 'plane, or why the only glimpse you see of the 'plane on video shows it to be at, or as near as can be, ground level, and in level flight?? Weed just does not discuss things like that, and they need to be discussed in some way.





[edit on 3-12-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
First off, there was no commercial airliner impacting with the Pentagon because there was no physical evidence of a large commercial airliner. Arguing whether or not the cockpit door to Flight 77 was ever opened or not has no relation to the fact that no commercial airliner impacted with the Pentagon.

Secondly, with regards to remote control, according to Boeing's website, it states the 757-200 contains the following system:

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."

www.boeing.com...

Why remote control an aircraft when you can pre-program it to guide and control itself automatically? Is it safe to assume these allegedly hijacked aircraft were pre-programmed using the FMCS to fly to their original final West Coast destinations cross country? If so, how did the hijackers override this programming and take control of the airliners manually when they were never trained to fly such an aircraft?

If the FMCS was not used to pre-program the aircraft to fly to their final destination, why wasn't it used? How did these hijackers with no flying, nor any navigational skill, take over such a modern aircraft and make such a perfect change in course enabling the aircraft to hit their target?

Perfect flying skills and perfect navigational skills from some guys who could not keep a Cessna in the air? Yeah, right! Sorry, but the more you think about the official story, the more absurd it becomes.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


K J....the discussion as to UAL 93 is elsewhere in this very thread...if I had the time I could search it for you, but I have more important things to do right now.

All of this has been covered, extensively, and a thorough read will show this.

(disclaimer: it MIGHT be on another AAL 77-related thread...I just know it's somewhere, already mentioned on ATS)



I am very sorry that you are having so much trouble following along here.

First of all, I could care less about flight 93. I was not asking anything about flight 93. I would ask you to back up that claim if I were interested in that right now but I am not. I am interested in flight 77. I have read this and other threads and all I have seen is that this sensor was indeed hooked up and the parameters being measured on AA77. You claim it was not.

Either back it up or just admit that you simply expect people to just take your word for it because you really cannot back it up.

PLEASE PLEASE OH PLEASE EXPLAIN to me just how you state you have more important things to do than to answer me...IN YOUR ANSWER TO ME. Apparently you had plenty of time to reply. Now use that time to try reading.

Can you show me where it has been proven that this sensor was not hooked up on AA77?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 
Hi sphinx,
While not in total disagreement with you, does AMCS not require a landing destination like a known Airport from a database, and possibly an inbuilt area refusal against an imputed command? Maybe in older systems it would use a beacon, and in newer systems GPS or both?...this is where we need Weed to help answer things.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
At the risk of being flamed for both contrary data and anecdotal data, I will state that, in my experience, because I was and am somewhat of a tech geek, I usually interrogated the avionics maint guys to learn more.

On a few (emphasis few) occasions, I asked about how some EICAS anomalies were fixed, and was told, "We can edit the EICAS software to ignore some of the binary microswitch issues".

Now, that being said, I am still on the fence. Pre 9-11, WW is correct, we often took lav breaks and opened the door because it was a somewhat minor issue. However, traditional hijacking was still on everyones mind, so you only did what you had to do and, at least at my airline, we still had cockpit door open procedures that were somewhat secure.

Do we have a Boeing engineer on here?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I read on another forum that there was a bathroom that the pilots could access from the cockpit without opening the FLT_DECK_DOOR. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Regarding the other post about the pilot's skills and the potential for a remote controlled plane. According to the NTSB the hijackers made use of the AUTOPILOT system at various points throughout the flight back to Washington DC. I am not sure how complicated these autopilot systems are, but this evidence might support a theory about remote control or that the pilot had the skill necessary to pull this off.

Autopilot Study Flight 77 and 93



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

K J....the discussion as to UAL 93 is elsewhere in this very thread...if I had the time I could search it for you, but I have more important things to do right now.


PLEASE PLEASE OH PLEASE EXPLAIN to me just how you state you have more important things to do than to answer me...IN YOUR ANSWER TO ME. Apparently you had plenty of time to reply. Now use that time to try reading.

Can you show me where it has been proven that this sensor was not hooked up on AA77?


Is that reply productive or necessary? You seem to have plenty of time to type a reply to weedwhacker - maybe YOU should use that time to try reading? Maybe you'd find the answer to your questions, which weedwhacker suggests have already been provided. Maybe try the search function?

Rew



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mikelee
 


It`s reserved,not assigned, if it was assigned it would have the new aircraft information not just the person who reserved it. As for the number itself as far as I know any N number can be assigned to any aircraft. ALL commercial aircraft are "Transport" because that`s what they are.


Thank you! Very helpful. Star to ya.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by solequinox
 



I read on another forum that there was a bathroom that the pilots could access from the cockpit without opening the FLT_DECK_DOOR. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


Yes, I can confirm that NO, there is no separate lavatory accessible from the cockpit on either AAL 77, nor UAL 93. (Nor the other two, for that matter.

Even our B-777s, even though they have bunkbeds (two...kinda Pullman style) are outside the cockpit, as is the FWD Lav. Other options, other airlines for crew rest areas? Some can be placed in the "attic" over., or as in the case seen with the Air France A340 crash, in a specially designed module that resembles a cargo/luggage container (LD3) that is placed below, and accessible by specific hatch...again, from outside the cockpit.

Also, glad you linked the UAL 93 and AAL 77 autopilot study, from NTSB. It thoroughly shows that there was NO "remote control" going on...it also shows that on one airplane, the terrorist knew to use Flight Level Change (FL CH) after re-setting a target altitude in the ALT window. Very easy to do, turn the ALT knob, then push the FL CH button...IF A/P is engaged (push a button) then airplane will respond.

On the other (I have to look again, forget which did what) shows the use of Vertical Speed instead. A thumb-wheel mounted on the MCP. It WILL allow the airplane to depart a previous altitude, despite what's in the ALT window. IOW, it is important for pilots using VERT SPD to always reset their desired altitde for capture and level off...that is, for normal operations.
__________________________________________________________

OK, back after a peek at the NTSB study again...you can see in Figs 1 and 2, the horizontal line labeled 'VERT MODE' that it was AAL 77's terrorist who used 'FL CH' and the UAL 93 terrorist who used VERT SPD.

A thorough look at AAL 77's data, from that report, and comparisons to the ATC recordings, and the timeline of the takeovers shows how it all holds together.

In any case, these actions had to be accomplished by someone at the controls. NOT by RC.






[edit on 4 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
First off, there was no commercial airliner impacting with the Pentagon because there was no physical evidence of a large commercial airliner. Arguing whether or not the cockpit door to Flight 77 was ever opened or not has no relation to the fact that no commercial airliner impacted with the Pentagon.


complete lie. Evidence supported by the testimonies of the clean up crews, evidence provided by photographs, physical evidence collected. Evidence by witnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon, and DNA found outside and within the impact area proves that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

The cockpit door is just another red herring that the Captain Bob, wants to throw out there, which supports of course nothing that he claims



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join