Professional Pilot Questions 9/11 Scenario - Video

reply to post by gladtobehere

Oh yeah, the flight deck door.

Does the PffffffT piece mention that the same data show, that the flight deck door had been shut for several of the previous flights - including various transcons? Which is somewhat unlikely, as I'm fairly sure the flight deck crew would have enjoyed some food and hot coffee along the way.

I can't remember the specifics, but it turned out that the particular data port which recorded the state of the flight deck door, had been grounded to show 'always closed'.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by trebor451

And yet ANOTHER banned sock!

The question NOW is what ATS can do about this serial sock puppet.

Why? You afraid to debate against Rob Balsamo, or something?

"Why"? Debate? Debate someone who believes that that as soon as an aircraft exceeds its "design limits, it breaks. Period. ?

Debate someone who does not understand the procedures of a standard departure from a military air base?

Debate someone who believes a air traffic controller would vector a C-130 along the very southern edge of P-56?

Debate someone who claims a radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan?

Debate someone who claims 757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes?

Debate someone who lied about "many of the Officers of ALPA" being members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth" when not a single one of the Airline Pilots Association Officers were?

Debate someone who is so obsessed with this thing that he has created over a dozen alternative personas, some female, some homosexual, many using nick names of people from other discussion boards, just so he can come back here to ATS and point people back to his web site and to post a home-made Vg diagrams?

Debate someone who's followers believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon? That there are moon bases on the dark side of the moon where we interact with aliens? That it was high explosives and not AA 77 that caused the damage to the Pentagon? That all it takes is a split second to switch a 767 transponder from its normal squawk over to the hijack code (7500)? That there was no jet fuel at the Pentagon crash site? That believe holograms were used and slammed into the WTC? That it would take 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive towards the Pentagon? That believe a "pod" was attached to UA 175?

"Capt" Bob Balsamo and his crew over at PfT do not have a shred of credibility on any of the aforementioned issues nor on anything related to 9/11 to be worth debating. When the only press he can get comes from Jesse Ventura, America's foremost crackpot on conspiracy theories, that says it all.

Think about it. If "Capt" Bob Balsamo's claims were correct, don't you think someone of any responsibility from the NTSB or the FAA or the military or congress or some state legislature or some aircraft union or some airline association or some person of some responsibility somewhere would have signed on to P4T? Instead we have "Capt" Bob Balsamo creating yet another sock puppet to log onto ATS and pist his home made Vg diagram and point towards his web site. If that is your idea of success, knock yourself out.

reply to post by roboe

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Oh yeah, the flight deck door.

Does the PffffffT piece mention that the same data show, that the flight deck door had been shut for several of the previous flights - including various transcons? Which is somewhat unlikely, as I'm fairly sure the flight deck crew would have enjoyed some food and hot coffee along the way.

I can't remember the specifics, but it turned out that the particular data port which recorded the state of the flight deck door, had been grounded to show 'always closed'.

First you say "oh yah" as though you remember, then go on to cite "some data somewhere" that you think you recall...

Can you please be more specific with regard to your lack of sources and alleged "same data"?

The link I provided makes the data available for download so that anyone can analyze their conclusions.

reply to post by gladtobehere


AA 77's FDR not only recorded data of its final flight but 11 previous ones, amounting to some 40 hours of flying, and including trans-continental.

At no time was the cockpit door recorded as open. So, what is most likely ? that no-one on the flight deck had a cup of coffee or needed the lavatory in 40 hours plus of flying ? Or, that the parameter was never set up to be recorded on that aircraft's FDR ?

Too many independent pilots (masters of aerial acrobats, maneuvers) verified it's impossible to for amateur people to perform such feat with jumbo jet.

If a piece of the puzzle is manifestly out of place, the rest cannot be right. - Adam "Dewpoint" Shaw

Brilliant quote. Thank you very much for upholding the truth.

reply to post by Alfie1

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

AA 77's FDR not only recorded data of its final flight but 11 previous ones, amounting to some 40 hours of flying, and including trans-continental.

At no time was the cockpit door recorded as open. So, what is most likely ? that no-one on the flight deck had a cup of coffee or needed the lavatory in 40 hours plus of flying ? Or, that the parameter was never set up to be recorded on that aircraft's FDR ?

Can you please provide sources.

Regarding the whole FDR / flight deck door, I can highly recommend reading through the previous discussion on the topic (even if it does get quite technical at times):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The flight deck door discussion doesn't really kick in until around page 35-36.

Originally posted by roboe
Regarding the whole FDR / flight deck door, I can highly recommend reading through the previous discussion on the topic (even if it does get quite technical at times):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The flight deck door discussion doesn't really kick in until around page 35-36.

A classic "Capt" Bob Balsamo reaction to this. Every bit of logical analysis, both electronic as well as practical, points toward the fact that the door sensor is not hooked up, resulting in a null value. If we are to believe "Capt" Bob Balsamo, the aircrew, for the duration of the recorded cross country flights (lasting in the neighborhood of 3.5 to 4 hours) never once opened the door to use the lavatory, or get a cup of coffee or a soda or a meal or anything.

Yet "Capt" Bon Balsamo inexplicably (well, there *is* an explanation but I am not allowed to voice that here) clings to his claim that the door was never opened. Ever. Period.

Originally posted by trebor451 If we are to believe "Capt" Bob Balsamo, the aircrew, for the duration of the recorded cross country flights (lasting in the neighborhood of 3.5 to 4 hours) never once opened the door to use the lavatory, or get a cup of coffee or a soda or a meal or anything.

Yeah, the crew probably slept on the flightdeck, or entered the plane through the side panels using the evac ropes.

That sounds like the most likely explanation yeah

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by trebor451 If we are to believe "Capt" Bob Balsamo, the aircrew, for the duration of the recorded cross country flights (lasting in the neighborhood of 3.5 to 4 hours) never once opened the door to use the lavatory, or get a cup of coffee or a soda or a meal or anything.

Yeah, the crew probably slept on the flightdeck, or entered the plane through the side panels using the evac ropes.

That sounds like the most likely explanation yeah

Heck...I don't even have a problem if the door sensor is not operative while the electrical power is not on the aircraft. Who cares about that? I know in that pre-9/11 environment the cockpit door was open a great deal during the entire boarding, post boparding and start-up process. Even now, 9 years afterwards, while boarding, as you pass by the cockpit you can see THROUGH THE OPEN DOOR the aircrew on the flight deck performing pre-flight checks.

"Capt": Bob Balsamo would have us believe that would never have happened on AA 77.

Plus, this BOMBSHELL smoking gun "discovery" of the Flight Deck Door Never Opening! by "Capt" Bob Balsamo and his intrepid team of flying followers is over a year old now and nobody - nobody - has jumped on it in support of PfT.

In fact, on "Capt" Bob Balsamo's recent foray into Wack-a-mole land with Jesse Ventura, this BOMBSHELL smoking gun "discovery" of the Flight Deck Door Never Opening! was never discussed. "Capt" Bob Balsamo's websiet claim that "PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT" was not even adressed. Must have been pretty strong stuff.

Originally posted by trebor451Even now, 9 years afterwards, while boarding, as you pass by the cockpit you can see THROUGH THE OPEN DOOR the aircrew on the flight deck performing pre-flight checks.

We don't close and lock the door until after walkaround. Our SOP states that the door must be closed before we do the checklist, it's actually point1 on the before start checklist.

I don't see a problem with an open door until we're good to go.

Pre 9/11 none of our planes did record the flight deck door parameter, i think it was a customer option on all Boeing airplanes except the B777.

So if it wasn't recorded on flt. 77 it probably wasn't connected or inop.

reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen


Our cockpit door is on the "After Start" checklist. Last item. "Closed and Locked" is the response.

The "After Start" is called for after the last engine stabilizes at ground idle. THEN, the flows are conducted (we have no "Taxi Checklist" anymore....all configuring is done either in the "Before Start" or "After Start").

The checklist is supposed to only be read when ALL items have all ready been accomplished...but, usually we'll go "down the line" until the final item (door) if the F/As are slow getting the headcount up to us.

The "rule" is, you can sit there, engines running as long as you need, until it's all ready....but, before commencing taxi, the door must be closed first. And, THAT "completes" the Before Start checklist.

This is very common to most airlines, in the U.S. And, the DFDR is powered up as soon as "normal" electrics are on the buses, after engine starts.

So, no....American 77 dd NOT have the Flight Deck Door open/closed status as a functioning recorded parameter.....yet, the clowns at "PilotsFor9/11Truth" STILL have their so-called "smoking gun" story prominently displayed at their site....along with all the OTHER incredibly bogus information.

What do you suppose that says about their credibility???

Originally posted by weedwhackerWhat do you suppose that says about their credibility???

Since some of those people call themself investigators, they are obviously looking for evidence to fit the story.

No credibility at all in my book.

A bit ot:

Originally posted by weedwhacker (we have no "Taxi Checklist" anymore....all configuring is done either in the "Before Start" or "After Start"

When the NG came about we got new checlists fleet wide, before start, before taxi and before takeoff.

Reduced taxi incidents since one could keep a look outside instead of sitting there face down (or up) when rolling.

reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen

When the NG came about we got new checlists fleet wide, before start, before taxi and before takeoff.

Yes, similar concept....your "before taxi" is the same as our "after start". ON the 757/767/77, we even do things like control checks on the gate, as part of "Before Start"...depends on airplane the 737 Classics and NGs still do it on after start.

And, reason being the philosophy is as you said....less "heads down" and other distractions during taxi. It is an industry trend......especially now, there just are NO more three-crew-member cockpits.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen

 

When the NG came about we got new checlists fleet wide, before start, before taxi and before takeoff.

Yes, similar concept....your "before taxi" is the same as our "after start". ON the 757/767/77, we even do things like control checks on the gate, as part of "Before Start"...depends on airplane the 737 Classics and NGs still do it on after start.

And, reason being the philosophy is as you said....less "heads down" and other distractions during taxi. It is an industry trend......especially now, there just are NO more three-crew-member cockpits.

weedwacker...i have read all the posts in this thread, and i have to assume that you believe everything the government said happened on 9/11 was correct. and that the 9/11 commission took in all evidence and answered all the questions.
because of that, why wouldn't the government release the information requested, that appears to have so many inconsistancies, and at the same time, so many unlikely coincidences?

reply to post by jimmyx


The "government" isn't the sole source of the description of the events of that day. There is no "ONE" single source, no "ONE" single "story". It is a narrative compiled by the observations and experiences of many, many people that on aggregate, amount to the over-all timeline of what occurred. There is over-whelming evidence that documents and supports in the same way, the multiple and consistent recollections of thousands of people.

....and that the 9/11 commission took in all evidence and answered all the questions.

No. You see, THAT is but one of the "strawman' arguments that the so-called "Truth Movement" (an amorphous, unorganized collection of about three dozen or more conflicting "theories") put forth, in order to simplify, distract, distort....and have something to use as a "target", and a "talking point".

The 9/11 Commission really was tasked with investigating the intelligence failures, the mistakes, the 'why it happened and wasn't caught before it started"....not the details and mechanics of the rest of it, the buildings' collapses, etc. THAT is yet another lie, from the so-called "TM"

...because of that, why wouldn't the government release the information requested, that appears to have so many inconsistancies, and at the same time, so many unlikely coincidences.

SO vague....another hallmark of what his being told and alleged by the "TM", and has no relationship to actual facts.

What is allege to being "withheld"? What is "inconsistent" (**), and what are "unlikely coincidences"?

See, the vague allegation of "withholding" is just used to plant the seeds, in people's minds....and then the crowbar of disinfo is inserted into the crack, by the various "TM" factions, according to their own pet "theories".

There really are no "coincidences"....except those that are concocted in the fevered imagination of those same "TN" factions.

Finally, my (**) from above.....the "inconsistency" claims. Personally, I think that any hints there, when examined properly, lead to the CYA of various people...there are many "ass coverings" going on, after-the-fact because, many people screwed up royally, for many reasons....all that consisted of a "chain" of intelligence and lack of imagination and action failures that prevented the stopping of the plan, the attack plan, before it started.

A miscalculation of grand proportions, many in fact. And, no-one wants to take the "fall" for it. THAT has to be the most heinous of "crimes", if you want to call it that.

The crime of incompetence and arrogance, and the refusal to "man up" and admit it. Who would, though? We're talking, after-the-fact, about a type of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking", to use an American football phrase. It is examining where one went wrong, and thinking (next day), "WoW!! It was so obvious, how did I miss it?!?"

And, that planted the seed for the "conspiracy" tinfoil hat crowd to begin to crawl out of the woodwork, early on.....and their twisted views took root, even in the minds of normally sincere people, and in some cases it polluted their ability to be rational thinkers, anymore....they keep falling for the hype and lies and distortions, and refuse to acknowledge, anymore, the evidence and facts.

It is an interesting psychological phenomenon. The "pull" of the most 'out-there' theory, no matter how ridiculous in the light of day....people are drawn to the feeling of being somehow "in the know", or something....it is weird, the mindset that develops......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Goodaye Weed, the zionists so strongly infiltrated through the USA Congress / Executive, and so little discussed, why is that?

On another note, was reading that Giuliani, Mukasey, Ridge and Fran Townsend, recently at a meeting in Paris "expressed wholesale support" for a terrorist organisation, Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK).
And yet I'm having trouble locating any coverage / comment in the USA mega-media. Why is that?

reply to post by markjohnconley


I haven't the faintest clue as to what you're talking about, there.

As to "zionists"? I leave that hot potato to others....it can fit into threads in the "Political Madness" forum....or maybe "general Conspiracies"?? Much of the anti-Semitism that pervades that topic makes it worse than nuclear waste to wade into....

But, for this thread....when it comes to the video in OP, it is deceptive....in that it purports to be about the pilot who "questions" the abilities of the hijacker suicidal/murderer extremists to fly the airplanes (a non-starter "argument", actually)....but, it is really a thinly-veiled excuse to scatter-shot a bunch of other more "general" 9/11 "theories"...as is typical, the tactic of throwing everything out there, to confuse the issues...and to promote, in part, that website that we are all too familiar with....that club of "pilots", led by a rather inept pilot (apparently), based on his very public odd opinions and skewed views on "facts".....and concepts of flying. There is a puzzling agenda, there. This same agenda has recently been showcased, yet again, in a segment of that very bad TV show episode that features Jesse Ventura. More of the same poorly presented misinformation.....continued poisoning of the well.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...the speed dynamic in this example doesn't negate crash physics that the example shows...

Oh? Do tell.

You truly want to sit there and tell everyone that a vehicle (airplane, car, locomotive, whatever) that impacts a structure at, say...5 knots velocity, versus the same vehicle striking the same structure at, say, 500 knots velocity....that there is NO difference in the "crash physics"?!?

Really??

are you telling us that SPEED negates crash physics and/or are no longer important or measurable?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Speaking of your next rant (that I decided to leave in, for emphasis:

... which your ego and denial appear to be the driving force behind your emotion and opinion that has nothing to do with reality.

"denial"? Well, well. "opinion", eh? I suppose, to those who haven't taken time to actually learn physics and science, then yeah.....that "stuff" might just be someone's "opinion". That darn Newton!!! What a fool, huh?? That "apple" hitting him on the head probably gave him brain damage?

funny how Newton is suddenly so important to your argument but irrelevant when discussing the Pentagon, Shanksville or WTC crash physics. U only use his name when you need something to support your twisted agenda and theories that fit the OS lie. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways which is why its really a waste to address anything you say with anything other than the same type of rhetoric you spout.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh wait, thought you were done, Rob...ermmm, I mean, "lord9":

So you think i'm Rob Balsamo? Haha!!!! you're more paranoid than i thought...whats even more interesting though is how even those with no experience in aviation or being a pilot, can study and educate themselves on the evidence enough to realize you're wrong and haven't remotely disproven what Rob and others have presented to support their argument in this thread you've failed to address and prove wrong for over 100 pages.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

>You assert you're an authority and have expert knowledge on such subjects, but the evidence proves your OPINION and expertise have little credibility.

Gosh, you used the word "evidence" and "proves" as if you understood their definitions....

This, from the same person that doesn't realize (or pretends not to...which is it?) that impact velocity has a tremendous effect, in physics, on the outcome.

too bad you refuse to apply that same standard to all aspects of the OS you blindly defend.

you pick and choose whatever fits that LIE best, whether factual, reality-based or not

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Tell ya what......if someone were to ask you which you preferred, a shotgun blast to the leg, from a

--irrelevant diatribe snipped--