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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AMR???

Yeah, it's what most real pilots use for short hand when referring to American Airlines. Visit a real pilot forum sometime.

The rest of your post is clearly an attempt to flex your brain muscle perhaps to impress others on ATS. I'm not impressed, as most of it is wrong.

It's clear why you backed out of attempting to talk with Capt Kolstad. A real verified American Airlines Captain.

weedwhacker, have you figured out yet that the video you were watching regarding the PHX sim wasn't an interview with Kolstad and instead Capt Govatos?

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo I don't doubt the logic of the system. If I had the schematics of that particular system I could show you how and where the interlock would be cheated to show a constant logic low.

What I was saying is to claim this the smoking gun that will finally shed light I think is just an outrageous claim and a bit reaching.

I worked on high-powered transmitters where 6.5kv is flowing and we were able to cheat the interlock to make the system think it is getting a 'go' so we can work in the environment.

My main point was pre-9/11 I have been on many flights where the door was left open once at cruising altitude. I am pretty positive that this was against FAA and airline practices, so to defeat being caught, maintenance crews or pilots themselves understood how to make the system record a 'closed' state....pure speculation of course.....but highly doable

To avoid any further speculation on the interlock, or those making excuses
for the latest development, we are contacting a 757 mechanic and a couple of
pilots. One of which actually flew "AA77".

I still don't see the need to cheat the switch; if I pilot wanted to leave
the flight deck, the would just open the door and go. IT's not against
flight regulations.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by R_Mackey

Yeah, it's what most real pilots use for short hand when referring to American Airlines. Visit a real pilot forum sometime.

The rest of your post is clearly an attempt to flex your brain muscle perhaps to impress others on ATS. I'm not impressed, as most of it is wrong.

I have no need to respond to this childish attempt to impugn my character --- I think the member's post speaks for itself. I just repeat it for emphasis.

My only wish is that most reasonable, fully functioning adults, will see what I see....

Now, with that litle distraction behind us...the topic:

"No Hijack, Flight Deck Door Closed for Entire Flight" is the title of this thread...and, as has been thoroughly dicussed, is completely wrong.

Because: The SSFDR data for the flights preceding the AAL 77 (AMR is the NYSE code for the holding company that owns American Airlines...but, gee! The 'AMR' Corporation entails a LOT, LOT more than just the airline known as "American"...hmmmmm....) the other flights for that airframe, the one involved in the Pentagon crash on 9/11, show the SAME 'default' indication...i.e., 'COCKPIT DOOR CLOSED' for the entire time on ALL of those preceeding flights.

This seems to be strong, strong evidence that --- the value set for that datum was not registered, as has been pointed out repeatedly by others already. It would appear to be a 'default' value. I am not surprised, since it is such a minor piece of information in ANY accident investigation that I've ever heard of...

Let's put it another way...say you wish to investigate an accident, and you have the FDR and CVR, but no datum to indicate cockpit door 'open' or 'clsd'. So??? On the CVR, you can 'hear' the door open...you can, via the CAM (cockpit area mic) infer that after a sound similar to a cockpit door opeing, you hear the flight attendant speaking, that the flight attendant came in...simple logic. No need for a door indication detection on the FDR.

Also, in the CVR, will be the recordings of the interphone as well.

Typical scenario: "Ding" (a chime in the cockpit, with the associated light to indicate an interphone call. Varies by airplane, but it obvious with just a short lesson and familiarization...)

Answer the phone. The F/A has food/coffee/(or whatever) and wants to come in. Fine. The agreed-upon signal is exchanged (knock), (three knocks), (shave and a haircut, two bits), (or whatever 'code' you've agreed upon) and the door is opened, either (in the old days) by the Second Officer, who, of course, always checked through the peephole first...yeah, right...or, in modern pre-9/11 times, you know the voice of the F/A, he/she has communicated with you, you are a team, a "crew"....how difficult is this to understand???

Here's another thing to understand....a Boeing 757; Morning departure.

IAD-LAX....about five to six hours enroute. Pilot's contract WILL mandate a breakfast (crew meal). F/A will usually serve cockpit when finished with the passengers...hmmmm....the load was VERY light on AAL 77, wasn't it?

Typical routine for the F/As, after take-off? Cockpit signals passing 10,000 feet ('sterile' is 'off')...usually a good F/A will be setting up her/his galley, taking drink requests for the First Class pax, then checking with the 'pit for drinks...or not. Depends on whether the F/A likes the pilots, or not. OR...well, people are people. There are no set 'rules'....

Starting with a good comraderie, from the onset, helps a lot...what I always did, with my crews. Can't say it's the same in all workplaces --- and an airplane is really just a workplace, after all. I think all can relate to that concept.

Pilot/Flight Attendant animosity is about the same as the Doctor/Nurse relationship, sometimes.....unless good communication is established, and mutual respect earned.

Anyway, ther eis NO WAY the cockpit door would remain 'closed' for an entire flight, especially for a trans-con flight....and the airplane used as AAL 77 on 9/11 had flown other trans-con legs previously, with same SSFDR 'COCKPIT DOOR CLOSED' readings the entire time.

Obviously a non-issue in this debate.

reply to post by turbofan


turbo...a sane response!!!

Yes...to exit the cockpit (Flight Deck) you get up, out of your seat, turn around, and open the door by turning the knob. Ummm...it's not rocket science.

My point is, and always has been, for the benefit of those who are not, or were not in the airline industry...IF there was an emergency need, the Cabin Crew had access. (In fact, they always will...but, we won't talk about it openly now).

I didn't mention it before, thought it was obvious, but of course ALL pilots also possess a key (or, 'possessed', back then...it is moot now) to the cockpit doors.

Every mechanic had a key...in fact, if you (pilot) lost or forgot your key, you only had to go to a maintenance guy (if you were in the hub) to get one...back then, they were not well accounted for...I had three. Just in case...

But, again...keys are old news, and not pertinent today.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I have no need to respond to this childish attempt to impugn my character --- I think the member's post speaks for itself. I just repeat it for emphasis.

It is not childish, it is a question of your integrity and authority. You present yourself as someone who can answer questions because of his experience/education when every single thread I see you in...real pilots call you out all the time. I have seen so many test questions dodged by you and so many posts that correct yours. The best endorsement you got is one other person who claimed to be a pilot claiming you might possible be one but not likely. This is actually pertinent. For some reason OS pushers seem to think that their credibility does not mean anything.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

It is not childish, it is a question of your integrity and authority.

If Weed is wrong...show him he is wrong. You want to talk about integrity?? Rob Balsamo threatens to kill debunkers, lies on his website, begs for donations, sells coffee mugs & clocks, pimps his pathetic DVD's.... AND makes up fake names after a NASA scientist. Yeah, that Balsamo, such integrity.

Now, try to stay on topic.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

It is not childish, it is a question of your integrity and authority.

If Weed is wrong...show him he is wrong. You want to talk about integrity?? Rob Balsamo threatens to kill debunkers, lies on his website, begs for donations, sells coffee mugs & clocks, pimps his pathetic DVD's.... AND makes up fake names after a NASA scientist. Yeah, that Balsamo, such integrity.

Now, try to stay on topic.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by ImAPepper]

And yet Balsamo attracts all these people who can be verified.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

From what I understand, they are getting 20-30 new recruits per day with the record breaking amount of traffic generated from the OP article. I'd keep an eye on that linked list after they go through their verification process and next update.

(Core members have to be verified because many of the anonymous people who libel P4T, AE911T, Firefighters For 911 Truth.. .etc.. like to play fraudulent games with join applications)

Didn't you once claim the Truth Movement is dead?

ImAPepper/Capt Obvious/Throat Yogurt/Mr Herbert,

Your attempts at character assassination through unsourced spin and off topic rhetoric due to the fact you are unable to debate the topic, noted and expose your desperation. Keep up the good work.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Because: The SSFDR data for the flights preceding the AAL 77 (AMR is the NYSE code for the holding company that owns American Airlines...but, gee! The 'AMR' Corporation entails a LOT, LOT more than just the airline known as "American"...hmmmmm....) the other flights for that airframe, the one involved in the Pentagon crash on 9/11, show the SAME 'default' indication...i.e., 'COCKPIT DOOR CLOSED' for the entire time on ALL of those preceeding flights.

This seems to be strong, strong evidence that ---

all the previous flights weren't hijacked either.

i agree wholeheartedly.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

It is not childish, it is a question of your integrity and authority.

If Weed is wrong...show him he is wrong. You want to talk about integrity?? Rob Balsamo threatens to

LOL. You people crack me up.

You tell me that I am wrong for calling out WW because when it comes to credibility I am lacking because Rob Balsamo ........ does or says anything?

WW knows where he has been shown wrong by me and others already. If you want to pray at the alter of WW without requiring proof he is what he says he is, fine.

DO NOT try to question my integrity based on something someone else did or does!

You response to me is the usual weak, cowardly, and pointless type of deflection you OSers seem to think makes some sort of cogent point.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
And yet Balsamo attracts all these people who can be verified.

Still talking about yourself in the third party Rob?

Didn't you once claim the Truth Movement is dead?

Not me.

Your attempts at character assassination through unsourced spin and off topic rhetoric due to the fact you are unable to debate the topic, noted and expose your desperation. Keep up the good work!

HAHAHAHA... Pot meet kettle. What have you said about Farmer? Weed Wacker? Your name sake, Ryan Mackey? We ALL know what I posted above is 100% true. You just keep praying for your DVD sales to increase Cappy.

I am FAR from desperate. I have been reading this thread and the FDR thread. Balsamo (you) have been proven a fraud. No worries though, your claims of higher web traffic will result in some feeble minded dolts to use their mothers credit card to buy your junk. Hooray for you!







[edit on 29-11-2009 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
LOL. You people crack me up.

Thank you, I am here all week!

You tell me that I am wrong for calling out WW because when it comes to credibility I am lacking because Rob Balsamo ........ does or says anything?

No, I didn't say you were wrong. I asked that you show that Weed is wrong. I never said YOU were lacking anything. (unless you buy the snake oil from Balsamo, then it would be common sense)

WW knows where he has been shown wrong by me and others already. If you want to pray at the alter of WW without requiring proof he is what he says he is, fine.

I don't care who or what he claims to be. I asked you to point out what he got wrong in here. That's all.

DO NOT try to question my integrity based on something someone else did or does!

I didn't... did you take your Ritalin today?

You response to me is the usual weak, cowardly, and pointless type of deflection you OSers seem to think makes some sort of cogent point.

Hmmm, asking you too back up your claims is weak? cowardly? pointless? Yeah...you have consumed gallons of the Balsamo Kool Aid.

reply to post by 911files

Originally posted by 911files
Originally posted by impressme
”SCREAMING” that your opinion are true, for God sakes, show us some proof, that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Where is your proof? These are your assumptions nothing more.

Maybe this will help. Here is 42 hours worth of data for the FLT DECK DOOR. It is sampled once every 4 seconds. Have fun trying to find one case of the door being open.

FLT DECK DOOR Parameter - 12 flights

It is a csv file and should open in notepad, Excel and even in your browser.

What are you trying to tell me? I read the report and I agree with it, I think you need to check your reading comprehension.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by impressme]

However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?

Based on the official NTSB provided data and KNOWING that the plane was hijacked (per the OS) then it has to be concluded or at the very least, that there was a malfunction in the door mechanism causing it not to poll/register the door as being opened any number of times. Again, based on the OS AND going on the assumption that the plane was indeed hijacked, anything else or outside of this can only be speculation. Speculation without any proof is still just speculation. And speculation without any evidence to support it does not stand up anywhere.

And I believe that this is where this topic rests in spite of the good arguments either way. It boils down to what you want to believe or not believe. I know what I believe happened but until proof can be presented in a manner that supports what I suspect happened then what I believe amounts to speculation.

Originally posted by impressme
What are you trying to tell me? I read the report and I agree with it, I think you need to check your reading comprehension.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by impressme]

Nothing directed at you. People have been asking for the data, so I uploaded it for all 42 hours. Thought it might be helpful.

What needs to determined here is: (assuming that the plane was indeed hijacked) - Is there any way that the door could have been forced open, broken, smashed in a manner that would leave the door sensor intact and still registering a 'closed' state?

Since 9/11, theses doors have been reinforced and made very secure, however prior to that event, they may have been very flimsy.

Does anyone here have any engineering knowledge of the structure of these doors, the location of the sensor, the materials used to manufacture them or how they were hinged to the cabin?

(edited for spelling)

[edit on 29-11-2009 by charlyv]

reply to post by charlyv



Better yet, who makes the door sensor? Lets contact that company and ask them directly if it is possible for any type of failure within the system. Would it be vunerable to stress or impact from an assault on the door that would render to remain in a certain state.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by mikelee] added the word remain.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


That is a good question as well!. This needs some background. It could have been a magnetic type catch where the smashing of the door left the contact still attached to the magnetic switch housing. I will try and find out some info on that. Good point!

Originally posted by charlyv

Since 9/11, theses doors have been reinforced and made very secure, however prior to that event, they may have been very flimsy.

no "may have been" . THEY were flimsy. They were the same thickness as the lavatory doors. a good hard kick would have been enough to get the door to open forcibly

Here is some info that I found out for the status of switches polled in the diagnostics reported to diagnostic programs like pre-flight checks and switches open/closed state on critical equipment used in the military, which I would presume applies to most aircraft circuitry as well.

Instead of a CLOSED or NOTCLOSED signal, which is really a short or open state, sophisticated, pollable switch line leads are instead measured for a special resistance measurement pre-designed into the equipment to differentiate between a failed wire or switch showing CLOSED/OPEN , as in a short/infinite state respectively, but rather sensing a resistance in the line which translated into a CLOSED/OPEN state.

Thus, a reading of OPEN would be ~100k ohms, and a CLOSED state would be ~10k ohms (or something of that differential order). This determines if the circuit is operational or not, so that the break of a wire, or loss of switch mechanics can be diagnosed apart from the switch being physically open or closed, because there is no resistance, or infinite resistance present in the line test if there is a bad wire or switch.

With this line of thinking, the Flight Deck Door would show a 'FAILED' state, if there was a problem in the circuitry. It could only register OPEN or CLOSED if the diagnostic in the FDR was able to register the proper resistance to toggle those states.

This is another reason why the physics of this switch and it's attachment mechanisms to the door needs to be understood completely in case the door was broken into leaving the switch still in 'contact' with it's sensor.


edited for clarity

[edit on 29-11-2009 by charlyv]