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

Originally posted by Alfie1

A link to turbofan doesn't quite do it for me. Does it not give you any pause for thought that in 42 hrs recording the parameter only showed 0 ?

Are you being reasonable or are you in denial ?

Yes, it's strange that all recordings show 0, but that in itself is not evidence that the sensor was malfunctional. On an intuitional level it strongly suggests so, but there are different claims as to the regulations (habu71 states the door has to be closed, for example), and even if there is no such regulation, there is a 'very theoretical' possibility that the door actually was closed for 42 flights.

I might be somewhat in denial then, but I'd say it is just a bit too soon to tell. Most of all I was hoping to be reasonable - as you said 'no evidence' had been put forth, I gladly linked to the evidence I'd seen; but now I think you meant 'no proof' or 'nothing I consider evidence'. If so, could you tell me what's wrong with it (apart from being written by a particular person)? I apologise if it has been discussed before.

So, here´s a new theory:
AA77 was taken over by terrorists 11 flights before 9/11 posing as AA pilots.
Because the door was never opened right? So the terrorists stayed inside the cockpit and probably opened it just a few inches when they were in ground operations to receive paperwork, talk to a mechanic, pass him the logbook etc... When refreshed AA crews came to the door, they said, you got the wrong plane, go away, and those pilots went back to dispatch and were given new assignments. During those 11 flights AA dispatch and roster were scratching their heads trying to figure out who were the pilots on that plane, but didn´t figure what was going on in time to do something.
They never received food or drinks from the F/A´s, they got their´s during ground stops and also went to the bathroom, only at those times. One at a time while the other stayed inside the cockpit.
On 9/11 they crashed the plane at the Pentagon, after people had been fed fake television images of planes crashing into the WTC towers and those in NY were fooled with holograms of what looked like commercial airplanes too.
And the “secret space ray” was fired from the International Space Station to finish up the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7, this last one after receiving confirmation from Mr. Silverstein that he wanted the building pulled.
And of course the ones behind it all are Bush and Cheney.
Just thought I could share a “new” idea with you guys!!



[edit on 1-12-2009 by rush969]

The purpose of this post is to ask some questions to further clarify my own understanding of this information in the hopes of being able to explain it to other people. I am sorry if these questions have been sufficiently addressed already, but I have read many forums the last few days and have not been able to confirm some of this information.

I understand that the FDR was upgraded on Flight 77 to be able to record the FLT_D_DOOR (FLT_DECK_DOOR) value according to the new FDR law in 1997.

1997 FDR Law

I have also been able to find the new required data parameters for the FDR as a result of this law on the government’s Code of Federal Regulations website (an increase from roughly 17 to 91 parameters.)

Fed eral Code of Regulations

However, I am not able to link one of these 91 required data parameters to the actual FLT_DECK_DOOR field. I am assuming that this FLT_DECK_DOOR data field is part of one of these 91 data parameters that are required to be recorded? If so, does anyone know which one?

What this boils down to is this; can we confirm 100% that there was an actual sensor installed on that door? I know that the FDR was required in some way to be able to record values for the door sensor, and that the specific port it used to record the data was used to record other data that the NTSB validated as correct (so we know the FDR and the port were working,) but can we prove through actual documentation that there was an actual sensor on that door (either through the documented mechanical history of this particular plane or through federal regulations mentioned above)?

Also, can we confirm 100% that the sensor wire was not grounded and was therefore reporting 0 the whole time (or malfunctioning in some other way?) From some of the posts I’ve read on the technical side about the sensor, this seems like a plausible explanation (that the FDR was capable of recording FLT_DECK_DOOR but they didn’t want to go through the trouble of actually installing the sensor on the door so they just grounded the wire.) I know some posts have casually addressed this issue, but I am looking for more technical proof or evidence that can stand up to intense skepticism.

Thank you for reading this, and for those of you investigating and pouring all of your time and energy into this effort, you have my utmost respect and admiration regardless of what truly happened that day.

Originally posted by solequinox

Joined today. 2 post... both on the FDR threads. That's interesting.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by solequinox

Joined today. 2 post... both on the FDR threads. That's interesting.

How is your pointless post relevant to the thread?

Originally posted by tezzajw

How is your pointless post relevant to the thread?

How is your pointless response to my pointless post relevant to the thread?

reply to post by ImAPepper


I lol'd.


in response to this thread:

I want this to be true.

Originally posted by solequinox
What this boils down to is this; can we confirm 100% that there was an actual sensor installed on that door?

I think this is the key that needs to be answered... If the FDR was upgraded to be able to record new information, but a door sensor was never retrofit to the aircraft itself, of course the signal recorded would not vary.

Makes me wonder if there are other aircraft of the same make that FDR data could be compared with? Do ANY planes of this model record changing values for the Flight Deck Door status?

Rew

Originally posted by scraze

Originally posted by Alfie1

A link to turbofan doesn't quite do it for me. Does it not give you any pause for thought that in 42 hrs recording the parameter only showed 0 ?

Are you being reasonable or are you in denial ?

Yes, it's strange that all recordings show 0, but that in itself is not evidence that the sensor was malfunctional. On an intuitional level it strongly suggests so, but there are different claims as to the regulations (habu71 states the door has to be closed, for example), and even if there is no such regulation, there is a 'very theoretical' possibility that the door actually was closed for 42 flights.

I might be somewhat in denial then, but I'd say it is just a bit too soon to tell. Most of all I was hoping to be reasonable - as you said 'no evidence' had been put forth, I gladly linked to the evidence I'd seen; but now I think you meant 'no proof' or 'nothing I consider evidence'. If so, could you tell me what's wrong with it (apart from being written by a particular person)? I apologise if it has been discussed before.

scraze

Yours is a very civilised post and I apologise for not responding sooner.

I haven't been here very long but I have quickly adjusted to the idea that people tend to take extreme positions either side very quickly. It is refreshing to see someone who is clearly interested in establishing the truth.

I agree with you that this issue is not proved 100% either way. Hopefully it will be as the result of more technically competent minds than mine investigating it or even, perhaps, paperwork at American Airlines or Boeing.

From everything I have read I have taken on board the following:-

There was an FAA directive in 1997 requiring an increase in parameters to be recorded to the FDR. I have seen suggestions that this included the Flight Deck Door but that has not been substantiated and there seems to me to be general agreement now that the door was not included. If American Airlines decided to wire up N644AA (AA77) to record this parameter then it was on a voluntary basis.

There also seems to me to have been confusion over flight deck door monitors in general. In an exchange I had with Pf9/11t it became apparent that an aircraft may have a flight deck door sensor which alerted the flight crew by a display if the door had been left ajar. But that this is a completely seperate issue from having a sensor linked to the FDR.

I am doubtful that a sensor malfunction would have resulted in the data because, over 12 flights, I would have thought someone would have reported it to maintenance and got it fixed.

It seems to me that the choice is (a) N644AA was wired to collect the flight deck door parameter and the data is true or
(b) The aircraft was never wired to record the door data.

I personally go for (b) but maybe you will disagree.

The reasons I go for (b) are as follows:-

(i) I do believe AA77 was hi-jacked for many and various reasons and therefore the hi-jackers must have breached the flight deck.

(ii) No evidence has yet been produced that N644A was ever wired for the door parameter.

(iii) Pre 9/11 I think very few people would have regarded recording of the door's status to be of any importance and it seems unlikely to me that American Airlines would have included it voluntarily.

(iv) Perhaps most damning of all; it seems quite impossible to me that in 42 hours of operations the flight deck door was not opened once. My observation of flying pre 9/11, more carefree days, is that it was very common to see flight attendants going into the cockpit and not uncommon to see flight crew coming out. I read habu71's post you referenced and it made me wonder whether he is describing post 9/11, perhaps he could clarify.

OK, call me a genuine conspiracy nut then but, I looked up the N number from flight 77 which is N644AA just to see what would come up, and found it still active but attached to a privately owned aircraft.

So am I wrong to assume that......

The S code is the same for both aircraft in this listing.

An N number belonging to a commercial airline can't be re-registered on a privately owned plane? I thought this was the case so am I wrong?

Who is the private person named in this search for the privately owned plane with the same N number then?

Why does the data list the catagory of AA flght 77 (de-registration) in this lookup as a "transport" type aircraft rather than a commercial passenger airliner?


FAA N number lookup for AA plane used in 911

[edit on 2-12-2009 by mikelee]

[edit on 2-12-2009 by mikelee]

does anyone know the durations of those 12 flights? if it's already been posted in this thread please show me the post.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by technical difficulties]

Originally posted by ReweyI think this is the key that needs to be answered... If the FDR was upgraded to be able to record new information, but a door sensor was never retrofit to the aircraft itself, of course the signal recorded would not vary.

For this reason I am no longer supporting the latest P4T claim as there is insufficient documentation to make a conclusive statement.

This does not mean that my view on previous FDR research changes;
simply the connection to FLT_DECK_DOOR cannot be confirmed at this
time.

When the proper manuals come available, I will reassess PilotforTruth's
position and post accordingly.

My view on 9/11 remains the same as I am interested in well researched,
well documented evidence in order to remain honest in my studies.

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.

It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.

So, here we are today. Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face.

As was the case in Rome and Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority, to "deal with the crisis".

However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders.

Are the terrorists really a threat, or just patsies with fake bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown shirts to wear by Hitler?

Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?

Indeed, given that acts of terror undermine the very public support needed by the so-called "terrorists" to bring about change, it may be argued that there are in fact no genuine acts of terror; that they are all manufactured events to be blamed on the groups wishing to challenge the status quo.

Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.

Remember that when Crassus tells you that Spartacus approaches.

Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.

Remember that when the Reichstag burns down.

Remember that when the President lies to you about weapons of mass destruction.

whatreallyhappened.com.../

and on and on it goes...................will humanity ever learn from past mistakes.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ofhumandescent]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been asked already.

Has anyone checked other FDR reports regarding this parameter, not just for the 9/11 flights but any other pre 9/11 FDR reports?

It would seem to me that at least this would give us a idea of whether or not this is typical or not.

I had the impression looking at the P4T's forum. that this particular FDR was suspicious as perhaps having manufactured data, rather than real data from Flt 77. In other words, either Flt 77 never had it's door open, or this FDR was not from Flt 77. Perhaps the parameter/s that looks after the door, (checked every four seconds) was forgotten in the manufacturing of the data? Just a thought.

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
I haven't had time to read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been asked already.

Has anyone checked other FDR reports regarding this parameter, not just for the 9/11 flights but any other pre 9/11 FDR reports?

It would seem to me that at least this would give us a idea of whether or not this is typical or not.

No, none of this was done prior to making a public statement, although
it should have been done.

It would be difficult to find data that is property of the NTSB for FOIA
however. We would have to find a similar type aircraft during the same
FAA regulation update period for Flight Record parameters in order to
make a valid comparison.

Either that, or locate the proper documentation for the aircraft type
in question ... which was also not checked.

The frame of the door may have been damaged and the sensor remained with the door, thus indicating it stayed closed.

Originally posted by earthdude
The frame of the door may have been damaged and the sensor remained with the door, thus indicating it stayed closed.

Would you mind explaining what you mean. Are you claiming that the terrorist ripped the door and the frame out of the plane without opening the door?

Originally posted by earthdude
The frame of the door may have been damaged and the sensor remained with the door, thus indicating it stayed closed.

This would be impossible due to the design of the circuit logic and the sensor
placement on the door.

It is more likely, the sensor was not connected to the system for recording
as it weighs at the moment.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by turbofan]