American Airlines 77 Cockpit Door - is that your final answer? YES, IT IS.

This thread is based SOLELY on the NTSB data alleged to have come from American Airlines flight 77 (aircraft N644AA on 9/11/01). I make this distinction because I don't feel there is adequate proof the data matches the TV Original Story. But, here's what the NTSB has on whether the door was OPEN or CLOSED.

The data was attained via a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request Number DCA01MA064 and is available here: Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder. Information about this FOIA can be verified here if you so choose.

It not a particularly easy step to ascertain and gain value from the flight data. The data comes in a series of binary values (00100101 for example) and must be put into a template to be understood as real world information. Ironically, and a major issue in the 9/11 truth v OS movement, is that the data did NOT precisely match the template provided by American Airlines or even Boeing's standard basic template; the data was eventually deciphered however. Again, this thread is focusing solely on the NTSB provided data, and not necessarily on the truth

Here's a little visual to make sure we understand the purpose of a TEMPLATE, and recognize that the existence of a template does not mean anything unless there is readable data to go along with it.


Knowing about the template will alleviate a lot of the issues concerning the cockpit door being open or closed inflight, here's why... the template used to translate the data seems to show the door is open! Take a look... but remember this is ONLY a template.


There has been a lot of speculation that the door remain CLOSED the whole flight. This may show in the plots of the data (second half of NTSB data link above) but I didn't see it (because it's real pain to read and see), and here's why it doesn't matter...

The NTSB data is separated into two sections: "Parameters Plotted" and "Parameters Not Working or Unconfirmed"
There were around 300 parameters plotted, listed in the first portion of the NTSB data. All the rest are filed under not working or unconfirmed.

An example of a plotted parameter (one which was working and measured) is like this:
EICAS L/R-A-1 GEAR DOWN SYS 1 - L
meaning the landing gear status was checked and plotted

An example of a parameter that was no checked or working, or available on this particular aircraft is:
HUD-1 AIII MODE HUD
meaning the HUD or Heads Up Display was not used for this aircraft


Now, to the FINAL ANSWER....

Listed in the first portion of the NTSB data where the roughly 300 items were verified and checked, the FLT_D_DR was NOT plotted. and what does that mean? It means that for whatever reason the data for whether the door was OPEN or CLOSED during this flight was either not measured or the hardware was not connected.

The door may or may not have been opened - the data was never recorded. Can we prove from the NTSB flight data that the door remained closed the whole flight? No, we can't.

3 "secret messages" but no comments eh?

I know it's an old idea that the truthers don't care much about any longer (because there are so many more valid obvious facts) and the OSers probably don't like that I said the word "truth" in there haha

reply to post by Thermo Klein


This was known last year - funny how the so called "Pilots for Truth" website claims that the flight deck door remained closed the entire flight, but that website is well known for their lies like this one!

Hey cool story bro, simple fact of the matter is people believe what they want to believe. Sorry but you nor I can change that! Ive been on this site for a few years and everyday all I see is people bickering back and forth about what did or didnt happen. None of this bickering is changing or helping anything, nothing lost will be brought back. We will never and I repeat never know what happened that day unless we went back and watched EVERYTHING unfold with our own eyes.

SO WHATS THE POINT?

reply to post by Naptown317


I think things change all the time, new info, more people searching for the truth, better science...

but if you believe that what are you doing in the 9/11 forum?

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Same thing we all have been doing for the last how many years now? Reading, writing, laughing, crying, looking, listening, so basically NOTHING.

I think you can compare the 911 section to the Charlie Sheen saga.

We all love a good train wreck!

reply to post by Thermo Klein


So let me get this right, the records obtained did not give information either way that the cockpit door was open or closed because it was not recorded. Hope that is the gist of it. And your right, there are better aspects that prove the OS to the flawed. Great research and excellently explained.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


But you (or at least the data) cannot prove that the door was open either. Works both ways. Nothing here to prove either side is either correct or incorrect in their assertions.

Are such sloppy recordings of flight data common or is it another event unique to 911?

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

But you (or at least the data) cannot prove that the door was open either. Works both ways. Nothing here to prove either side is either correct or incorrect in their assertions.

If this is how you approach evidence then I can see why you have some way out views. Most analytical individuals, when faced with facts like these, make an assumption based on what's most likely. And in this case all other evidence points to hijackers entering the cockpit. And once you learn that cockpit door sensors were often left unconnected then there's no great mystery here. You can't just say nothing is proved either way when the balance of evidence leans overwhelmingly in one direction.

Also, you have to realise that there aren't two equal sides here. Your view - assuming it is conspiracist in nature - is the one that requires the extraordinary proof.

reply to post by Cassius666


Very common.

Most FDRs can record far more than the manufacturers care to hook up.

The FAA doesn’t (didn’t) require such small events to be recorded.

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

But you (or at least the data) cannot prove that the door was open either. Works both ways. Nothing here to prove either side is either correct or incorrect in their assertions.

Not quite true... we can prove that the argument "that the door was in a certain position" is an invalid argument. Since one of the sides says the data shows the door stayed closed, that side is now debunked (not because we know it stayed closed, but because it wasn't measured, so we can't assume).

This thread and it's point (non-point) is precisely why those who promote and encourage Conspiracy Theory for $$, notoriety, anti-Government vendetta or for whatever reason it's done is so successful for their purpose, however perverted it might be. It's easy for the gullible to be sucked in to the doubts and questions that are asked. As those people get sucked in to the by the perpetrators of this stuff the answer that it was a conspiracy becomes more and more obvious.

The reason people get sucked into this crap is because they don't have the knowledge and experience to understand what it means or how to interpret it. People who deal with these issues understand them quite well and understand how and why they exist. As a result, the obvious answer to the question presented is not so obvious to those without the experience and knowledge of dealing with the issues presented.

Aircraft accidents generate interest mostly to those who have a relative or close friend involved, otherwise they are just tragedies to which most pay little attention.. In that 9/11 was so horrendous many folks have become interested and have tried to examine and understand the issues involved.

This gets to the crux of the issue in this example. The FDR manufacturers like all manufacturers are cost conscious and produce a product for multiple Air Carriers and they also attempt to satisfy future regulatory requirements. It's a good cost reduction philosophy. This cockpit door issue is simply that. The parameter is there for those carriers who wanted it, but for those who didn't it was never hooked-up. The FAA didn't require it and I don't know of any carrier that did pre-9/11.

In this case the door showed closed for the ENTIRE approximately 25 flight hours recorded in the FDR. This was true even on intercontinental flights. Pilot never ate or drank anything or never took a pee break during those 25 hours of flight. They ate peanuts from their pocket, drank their own urine because they didn't go to the restroom during those 25 hours of flight time! Perhaps this is the reason there is now a cockpit bad odor detector parameter in the FDR.

The assume the door was closed for those 25 hours of flight is pure unadulterated stupidity.on the part of the gullible and un-knowledgeable.

Originally posted by Reheat
The assume the door was closed for those 25 hours of flight is pure unadulterated stupidity.on the part of the gullible and un-knowledgeable.

Did you even read this thread? or even the OP? No one's actually saying it was closed. A few people say that, which is sort of ignorant in my opinion; we are in total agreement, except I used NTSB flight data to prove my point instead of simply calling people stupid...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
The assume the door was closed for those 25 hours of flight is pure unadulterated stupidity.on the part of the gullible and un-knowledgeable.

we are in total agreement, except I used NTSB flight data to prove my point instead of simply calling people stupid...

Well, Good! if you don't know by now I prefer a more condensed solution to non-issues invented by lunatics to deceive the paranoid gullible who permeate certain environs of the Interwebz. It saves time and bandwidth to just call them stupid. It's much shorter and to the point. The truth hurts doesn't it. Did you find it yet?

ETA: Oh, I almost forgot. How rude of me. Did you write that letter to your Congresscritter yet? If not, I suggest you tell him or her "it's OK for one more day, but since I'm on the trail for the truth I'll find those guilty Gobmint bastages who perpetuated 9/11 even if it takes me another 9 years."

Originally posted by Reheat
ETA: Oh, I almost forgot. How rude of me. Did you write that letter to your Congresscritter yet? If not, I suggest you tell him or her "it's OK for one more day, but since I'm on the trail for the truth I'll find those guilty Gobmint bastages who perpetuated 9/11 even if it takes me another 9 years."

edit on 8-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

right, I'll tell 'em there are a few crazy people who still believe the OS but facts and Psychology don't help... I might get banned if I mention the third thing to try

see ya on the next thread!

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
see ya on the next thread!

Maybe.

It might be a day or two as a frequent break from this place helps to maintain sanity.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
No one's actually saying it was closed.

Except on the "Pilots for truth" site!

But we all know conspiracy theorists like them are actually not interested in the truth

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Not quite true... we can prove that the argument "that the door was in a certain position" is an invalid argument. Since one of the sides says the data shows the door stayed closed, that side is now debunked (not because we know it stayed closed, but because it wasn't measured, so we can't assume).

Completely true I'm afraid. Whether you claim the door stayed closed or was open, it is still an unknown. Therefore if one side of the argument is invalid as you say, so is the other. Nothing has been debunked here as nothing has been either proven or disproven. In order to debunk the claim that the door was closed, you would need to prove the door had been opened and sorry, but that has not happened. Both arguments are still as plausible untill such a time as either is proven to be true with hard data.