Bigfoot73 said:Now the point is whether the sceptics are going to apply the same standards of scrutiny to the contradictions between the official story and the Flight 77 FDR data...
I already have, but you chose to ignore it.
Bigfoot73 said:Now the point is whether the sceptics are going to apply the same standards of scrutiny to the contradictions between the official story and the Flight 77 FDR data...
Analis said:Another feature of CDs using jacks is that they start at free fall speed for a brief time, when they cover cover the height of the destroyed levels. Then they go significantly slower, when they meet the intact lower part. This is a point of the demonstration of structural engineer Frédéric-Henry Couannier, who has studied the demolition of the ABC tower, Vitry-sur-Seine, 25.1.2007 : http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11%20S ... 02001.html ; http://www.darksideofgravity.com/demolition_ferrari.pdf . He has confronted F. Greening and J. Quirant. Notably on http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164605 and http://the911forum.freeforums.org/henry ... -t298.html (this link on the pulverization mystery). While there was a disagreement on the methods used to estimate theoritical speeds, they matched roughly. And they are very different from what is seen in the case of the Two Towers, which fell faster than the ABC tower or estimates.
Bigfoot73 said:I wasn't ignoring you, I disagreed with you. There was a door sensor record in the data.You were assuming a lot of government officials must have known about the plot whereas I suspect many of them didn't. P49.11T based their conclusions about the flight path on the FDR data and the NTSB's own interpretation of it.
It's serious evidence, and I don't think it unreasonable to expect those who still believe the official story to explain why.
The aircraft was manufactured before October 11 1991.
The rule for these aircraft is:
AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32. On about half of all the Boeing 727, 737, DC-8, and DC-9 models the FDR system uses a single FDR, a result of the late 1980s replacement activity. Most of these FDRs should have enough spare inputs to accommodate the increased requirements with little or no modification required. Other parameter groups required to be recorded include the addition of both flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes (lateral, directional, longitudinal), lateral acceleration, and autopilot engagement status. Airplanes manufactured prior to October 11, 1991, with a FDAU or DFDAU installed as of July 16, 1996. The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80. Most of these airplanes record almost all the 22 parameter groups, some of which operators may ask Boeing to remove to save weight or to avoid maintenance costs if a parameter group is not required by a particular country's regulatory agency. The additional parameter groups required to be recorded include the addition of flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, lateral acceleration, and autopilot engagement status.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups.
If you read the rest of it you will glean that later aircraft will require 34, 57, or 88 parameter groups to be recorded.
The door sensor is not required on the earlier aircraft but they COULD have a flight recorder installed that had the capacity for more parameters, but they were unused blocks.
Or possibly it might have had to record 22 parameters, but that is still much less than the 34, 55, or 88 parameter capable recorders.
The required 22 parameters for that aircraft would have been:
1. Time;
2. Pressure altitude;
3. Indicated airspeed;
4. Heading -- primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record discrete, true or magnetic);
5. Normal acceleration (Vertical);
6. Pitch attitude;
7. Roll attitude;
8. Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchronization reference;
9. Thrust/power of each engine -- primary flight crew reference;
10. Autopilot engagement status;
11. Longitudinal acceleration;
12. Pitch control input;
13. Lateral control input;
14. Rudder pedal input;
15. Primary pitch control surface position;
16. Primary lateral control surface position;
17. Primary yaw control surface position;
18. Lateral acceleration;
19. Pitch trim surface position or parameters of paragraph (a)(82) of this section if currently recorded;
20. Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(85) of this section apply);
21. Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(86) of this section apply);
22. Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller airplane); (1)
Note that the cockpit flight door is NOT listed.
So the recorder was capable of more parameters than there were sensors for.
The parameter for the cockpit flight door was an unused block.
Bigfoot73 said:Oh, so where is it from then? You're accusing me of vagueness and evasiveness and now all of a sudden you introduce the claim that it isn't all concrete dust.(though actually a lot of the dust is not from concrete
unless you're going to start with some numbers?
Are you going to introduce any regarding the dust?
(Witness statements on missiles)
It's in the article Cavynaut started the thread about.
We've been here before.What is this evidence for lasers?
If there wasn't a missile or any lights, what possible significance would that hold for the rest of the 9.11 events?
Bigfoot73 said:The download of the Excel spreadsheet of the data I got from the site shows an entryrecorded every 4 seconds, so there must have been a door sensor activating every 4 seconds.
There were retro-applied upgrades.
Bigfoot73 said:I agree about the sort of evidence that this incident needs in order to be concluded one way or another.Witness reports are evidence of a sort, but not as good as the other types.
Bigfoot73 said:So how come it's there in the spreadsheet?
If the data is there, and it demonstrates that the door didn't open during the flight when it was supposed to be getting hijacked, then it can't be from the right FDR- unless there was no actual hijack of the plane.
Pilots for 9.11 Truth went back and checked their own decoding of the data and found it, having overlooked it at the time.
Wasn't Warren Stutt arguing that the data shouldn't be there rather than wasn't?
Warren Stutt said:What is the default if the EICAS is not receiving the door open state? I haven't seen sufficient documentation to prove it is 0 or 1. Until we do, I don't think we can prove this either way.
Bigfoot73 said:The door sensor checked door status every 4 seconds, and it has been established that it was working properly.
Bigfoot73 said:I hope I haven't given the impression I was trying to marginalise or exclude
Most other truthers have had the great good sense not to get involved in the interminable bickering over theories, and it can get tedious, particularly when you're right.
I know I keep banging on about Pilots for 9.11 Truth, but the thoroughness of their research and the import of their revelations leaves little room for scepticism : the official account of what happened at the Pentagon .As for what actually went on and how they pulled it off, many if not most people would find it very hard to conceive of how such a labyrinthine plot could be fomented and executed with- in my opinion - so very few people actually being on the team or knowing the whole story. Most of those involved in the nuts and bolts stuff were just doing their everyday jobs unaware of anything sinister. The only ones with anything to blow the whistle about are those who wanted it to happen, and they're not telling.
Now the point is whether the sceptics are going to apply the same standards of scrutiny to the contradictions between the official story and the Flight 77 FDR data, and acknowledge that the story is bogus.
Aye, there's the rub.
Bigfoot73 said:Most other truthers have had the great good sense not to get involved in the interminable bickering over theories...
and it can get tedious, particularly when you're right.
I was referring to this board and this thread, where it seems to me conspiracists are as rare as , well, 8igfoot.You don't seriously mean that do you?
Yes, I'm sure that's how Rob Balsamo felt when he was banned from the Loose Change forums.
Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?
Evidence? Checking? I was expecting a thorough debunking of the idea that the dust was predominantly concrete and the ScienceDaily report doesn't even come close, and was addressing the toxicity issue anyway. It's failed debunkings like this that have characterised the story of 9.11 analysis.Because it's such a good example of the way conspiracy theorirsts throw up wild theories without evidence and without checking. That's been the story ever since 9/11.
I agree, and if this kind of strategy works for terrorist cells, drug pushers, and the mafia hit men, then there's no reason that a double blind heirarchy won't work in government. By double blind i mean the idea of you not knowing who you are working for or what part you are playing, and the people that work for you have the same deal all the way down the chain. I'm sure there's a nice term for this but can't think of it right now!
Impressive, aren't they? Good luck with the graphics stuff.[/quote]I just watched the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Pandora's black box films, and now I feel sick.
Bigfoot73 said:- out of 100 000 tons of dust.
Bigfoot73 said:There was 100 000 tons of dust. How did that get there?
Bigfoot73 said:Funny old things these labyrynthine false flag corporate fraud concealing fake terrorist plots.
Bigfoot73 said:Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?
Wembley your last posts quote previous comments I made prior to my reply to my reply to Wowbagger, which you still do not seem to have read.
Bigfoot73 said:The Science Daily report you linked to claimed there was anywhere between 100 and 100 tons of potentially toxic chemicals and an unspecified quantity of glass fibres ( and I think it fairly safe to assume it wasn't much) - out of 100 000 tons of dust.
I was expecting a thorough debunking of the idea that the dust was predominantly concrete
Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?
The dust has been analysed in great detail.
See, for example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091033.htm
Lots of glass fibre, asbestos, organics etc - what you would expect from a normal building.
(though actually a lot of the dust is not from concrete).
A lot less. An awful lot less. The foundations were concrete, sunk 65 feet into landfill. With the floors being only 8cm thick and foundations of 65 feet it's pretty obvious where most of the concrete was - out of the way of the collapses, and not liable to be turned to dust.Actually, a lot of the concrete in the World Trade Center was in the base. The floors were about 8 cm thick and supported by steel sheets and a truss system, so the actual amount in the towers was quite a bit less.
Who's assumptions and how wrong? Yet another ineffectual debunk attempt. Don't bother asking me about lights or missiles again.Which goes to show how wrong your assumptions tend to be:
Bigfoot73 said:Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?
No I wouldn't. Why keep banging on about this when you don't bother reading my posts?
Most of the concrete from the towers really was turned to dust.
The proportion that wasn't is barely worth commenting on and certainly not enough to contradict the claim that most of it was concrete.
Yet another ineffectual debunk attempt.
Don't bother asking me about lights or missiles again.
Would you care to provide some support for that claim? (go on...)
I assume that means you have given to trying to make any defence of either
WowBagger said:As for what actually went on and how they pulled it off, many if not most people would find it very hard to conceive of how such a labyrinthine plot could be fomented and executed with- in my opinion - so very few people actually being on the team or knowing the whole story. Most of those involved in the nuts and bolts stuff were just doing their everyday jobs unaware of anything sinister. The only ones with anything to blow the whistle about are those who wanted it to happen, and they're not telling.
I agree, and if this kind of strategy works for terrorist cells, drug pushers, and the mafia hit men, then there's no reason that a double blind heirarchy won't work in government. By double blind i mean the idea of you not knowing who you are working for or what part you are playing, and the people that work for you have the same deal all the way down the chain. I'm sure there's a nice term for this but can't think of it right now!
October 2, 2001: Remote Controlled Passenger Airplane Flew Before 9/11, Despite Claims to the Contrary
A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. [Associated Press, 10/2/2001; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/28/2001] Several Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights (see September 25, 2001). Earlier in the year, a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. [Independent Television News, 4/24/2001] However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that "the technology is pretty much there" but still untried. [Observer, 9/16/2001] An aviation-security expert at Jane's Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs "in the realms of science fiction." [Financial Times, 9/18/2001; Economist, 9/20/2001] Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research "new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control." [New York Times, 9/28/2001]
Flight 11:
Peter Gay was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif.
This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.
Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
Flight 175:
Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense.
And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the while working in the Pentagon.
Flight 77:
Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."
Charles S. Falkenberg: He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology.
Raytheon is working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.