Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
The Woolworth Building and 9/11.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 10:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:

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.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 11:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 12:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:

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%20Septembre%202001.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-couannier-vs-greening-concrete-pulverization-calcs-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.


Well, there some fairly hefty physics being discussed in some of those threads and I'm not going to be foolish enough to pretend I understand all of it. Suffice to say, I get the impression that Couannier doesn't fair well in the argument. You obviously see it differently from me. I doubt we will ever agree.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 12:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
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.


OK, to save time, I'll cut and paste a more detailed answer to the door sensor data evidence:

Quote:
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.

Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 12:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile 
wembley9Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 14 May 2009
Total posts: 242
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 13:47    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Quote:
(though actually a lot of the dust is not from concrete

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.
Quote:
unless you're going to start with some numbers?


Are you going to introduce any regarding the dust?


The dust has been analysed in great detail.
See, for example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021224091033.htm

Lots of glass fibre, asbestos, organics etc - what you would expect from a normal building.

Quote:
(Witness statements on missiles)
It's in the article Cavynaut started the thread about.


That does not give descriptions or statements from any witnesses who say they saw missiles, does it?



Quote:
Quote:
What is this evidence for lasers?

We've been here before.


And you're still not answering.
Iit sounds to me as though you do not have any.

Quote:
If there wasn't a missile or any lights, what possible significance would that hold for the rest of the 9.11 events?


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.

Sadly, it all distracts from the real issues around 9/11 and the reaction to it.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 13:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
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.


The researcher who provided that data to Pilots for 9/11 Truth doesn't agree with you.

Quote:
There were retro-applied upgrades.


I don't think you're reading the answer I gave correctly. A plane of Flight 77's age would be required to upgrade to 18 parameters if its FDAU or DFDAU was fitted before July '96 or 22 parameters if fitted after July '96. Even at 22 parameters, it still wouldn't be recording the flight deck door data.
Back to top
View user's profile 
wembley9Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 14 May 2009
Total posts: 242
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 14:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
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.


Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 15:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 15:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

They are in the report Cavynaut linked to in the OP. I believe I have already said that. Have you read my post yesterday in response to WowBagger?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 15:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
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?


From the relevant thread on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth site:

Warren Stutt wrote:
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.


This kind of conflicts with your earlier assertion:

Bigfoot73 wrote:
The door sensor checked door status every 4 seconds, and it has been established that it was working properly.


So, once again, possible evidence but insufficient data to prove anything one way or the other. Conjecture, in other words. You shouldn't really present conjecture as fact, that's why the whole 9/11 debate is such a mess (and that applies equally to both sides of the argument).
Back to top
View user's profile 
WowBaggerOffline
Grey
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Total posts: 24
Location: UK
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 17:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
I hope I haven't given the impression I was trying to marginalise or exclude


Yes it did seem to be the case, but I can see now that it was not your intention, and I understand how hitting your head against a wall can get tiresome.


Quote:
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. Twisted Evil Wink Razz


I do enjoy a fresh new theory, and this one for a while seemed to have some credibility, but seeing the presence of birds in a number of videos around the towers lead me to only one conclusion for the missiles.

Quote:
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.


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!

Quote:
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. Wink


I'm going to have to look into the pilots for 9/11 website, and have always wondererd (being in the business) what happend to the flight 77/93 SSR/PSR radar recordings, operator voice recordings/transcripts, flight plan information and FAA incident reports. i'd like to recreate the entire event for myself electronically and draw my own conclusions.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 17:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc I'm getting confused here: first W Stutt is claiming the flight deck door wasn't a required parameter, now he's saying there's data there, when surely if the parameter isn't even listed then there shouldn't be anything at all regardless of it's meaning?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 17:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Most other truthers have had the great good sense not to get involved in the interminable bickering over theories...


You don't seriously mean that do you?

Quote:
and it can get tedious, particularly when you're right. Twisted Evil Wink Razz


Yes, I'm sure that's how Rob Balsamo felt when he was banned from the Loose Change forums. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 18:37    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You don't seriously mean that do you?

I was referring to this board and this thread, where it seems to me conspiracists are as rare as , well, 8igfoot.

Quote:
Yes, I'm sure that's how Rob Balsamo felt when he was banned from the Loose Change forums.


I know nothing of this.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 21 of 23

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group