See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE (FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT)
Source:
pilotsfor911truth.org
URL Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html
Published: Nov 27, 2009
Author: unk
Post Date: 2009-11-27 21:43:30 by rack42
Keywords: 911, pentagon, flight 77
Views: 1783
Comments: 118
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act. On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. 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?[3] Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow. == [3] Right click and save target as here to download csv file with "FLT DECK DOOR" parameter.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 82.
#1. To: rack42 (#0)
No need to read further.
So, how should I interpret that statement? And why don't you say what you mean? [edit] And why not make plain what you mean.
"Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence " Opening statement is self explanatory.
Let me see if I get the reasoning right. That the data was read and decoded by an independent researcher makes it unworthy of notice" No one not in the government, or under a government contract, is a credible researcher - particularly independent researchers? Therefore there is no possibility that the data could be correct? Makes sense to me. The source of the data does not agree with my prejudices so throw it out without any further examination or cross checking. After all we all know that 911 was perpetrated my "19ARABSWHOHATEUSCUZWE'REFREE" directed by a madman with his magic cell phone hidden in a secret cave in Tora Bora. You know - the super sophisticated one that was in the Snoozeweak piece on Osama Ben Forgotten's high tech Deathstar Fortress. Can we say conclusion without examination? Sure we can. Wasn't that easy?
OI... The most egregious attempt to confuse an already confused affair was the eye witness accounts of the aircraft going into the Pentagon. The government took statements and testimony from 52 people at the scene that saw an aircraft. Twelve of whom identified it as an American airlines plane. They were people unknown to each other and many from foreign countries. Yet toms have been written about an aircraft NOT hitting the Pentagon. One has to strain mightily to envision getting all of them to lie, all to be there at a precise moment that no one knew. Such as that detracts from all efforts to name the people at the top.
OI... The most egregious attempt to confuse an already confused affair was the eye witness accounts of the aircraft going into the Pentagon. The government took statements and testimony from 52 people at the scene that saw an aircraft. Twelve of whom identified it as an American airlines plane. They were people unknown to each other and many from foreign countries. Yet toms have been written about an aircraft NOT hitting the Pentagon. One has to strain mightily to envision getting all of them to lie, all to be there at a precise moment that no one knew. Such as that detracts from all efforts to name the people at the top. So, one piece of planted disinformation overrules every other piece of information contradicting the Official Fairy Tale®? Without getting off into specific anomalies on the Pentagram strike I will say I do believe something struck the Pentagram. Now whether the airliner or whether the airliner was used as an optical diversion is open as there are too many valid scientific/engineering based arguments - notably that an airliner of that size and wing type would have been unstable at the reported speed and altitude; so unstable that, even assuming it was the airliner, the plane was NOT piloted by a flight school wash-out. Between the lift, and the wingtip vortices formed at that altitude it would have required a Master Pilot to hit THAT target with THAT aircraft. However, the available data is not enough to resolve the question, and the FBI insured that it would not be by collecting every videotape in the area that could have filmed the approach and strike (32 of them) the afternoon of 911. NONE of which have released or returned to their rightful owners years after the event. My mind is boggled at the reasoning involved, and I don't mean to be insulting, but I simply find it absurd that you would dismiss every other piece of data contrary to the Official Conspiracy Theory©® because of one piece of planted disinformation. There is little I can say in the face of that because it logically amounts to: My mind is made up now don't confuse me with the facts.
Going over 9/11, and all of the years, and all of the hundreds of credible doubts espoused by honest people, not ONE fact has been retracted, not one statement by the witnesses has changed. Not one iota. True or false the government account still stands. I would love to see them eat crow over just one small part of 9/11, but so far that is not happened. Many well intentioned good people have tried. I am not an expert in anything, being such, I try to take a look at the overall picture and do not involve myself with technical items that are beyond my pay grade.
Not true. No theory is valid unless it accounts for ALL of the data. Conversely if it does not account for all the data then it is not valid. There are literally hundreds of outpoints many of which are not in dispute, but merely ignored and avoided. There are in fact so many outpoints and flat contradictions that as much as I have read on the subject it is difficult to remember the details of each and every one - and I have a very good memory. 1. No proven mechanism has ever been given in the Official Conspiracy theory to account for the collapse of WTC 7. The last was so risible that it was laughed at 'round the world. Everywhere except in the controlled Amurkin' Media. 2. No mechanism has ever been proposed, in the Official Conspiracy Theory®, to account for the recovery of molten metal as much as 8 weeks after the collapse of the towers. 3. No credible explanation has ever been given, in the Official Conspiracy Theory®, to account for the stand down of the most sophisticated air defense system on the planet i.e., NORAD. No one in the Military Chain of Command has ever been charged, prosecuted, or in any way condemned or reprimanded for this failure. The lame excuse was given that they had turned off the transponders (which known incompetent pilots would first have to find and know how to shut them down) but that would not take them off Radar. It would merely eliminate the transmission of their identification. I've operated Radar, am a trained electronics technician, and I can tell you with absolutely certainty that, that explanation is complete and utter bullshit. 4. All pilots are taught a 4 digit emergency hijack code. It takes about 3 seconds to send it. Not one of the 4 aircraft transmitted that code. 5. Multiple Cell Phone Calls were alleged to have been made by low wattage cell phones, through signal attenauting skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour. The technology to do that was not available at that time. The story has since morphed to "they used the plane's phone" to cover up that impossibility. 6. None of the hijackers was a qualified pilot. In fact they were known incompetents one of which was denied rental of a single engine Cessna because the guy checking him out did not trust his ability to competently handle the plane. 7. How did the FBI know where every video camera that could photograph the approach of the Pentagon Plane? How did they know it quickly enough to have confiscated all 32 tapes by late afternoon on the day of 911? 8. Several of the hijackers were trained at U.S. Military bases. ??? I could go on, but there seems no point. You have a conclusion which no amount of fact will sway.
OI... I see none of the points that are pertinent. Number 5 is the most obvious. Most every day I place calls from inside my auto, to a tower that is NOT LOS. (Line of sight).
At ten thousand feet? You drive your car at ten thousand feet with no windows and at 500 mph? Fast enough to not make the necessary handshake to establish the connection before you are out of range of the tower? The experiment has been run using a light plane traveling less than 200 mph and using the technology extant at the time it cannot be duplicated. And you may not see the tower but it IS there. They've gotten pretty good at camouflaging them because people start objecting when they learn about the increased cancer rates near cell towers.
That is of no consequence. Way back when I was a pup in the Air force, we carried hand held VHF radios as part of our survival gear. They worked very well. Altitude was of no consequence nor was speed. All of that is irrelevant and totally misleading.
You are correct. Your comment is irrelevant and totally misleading. VHF operates in a totally different and much lower frequency band that carries much further and at higher power. Your handheld's output was probably in the range of 2 or 3 watss. The Cell Phone technology in use on 911 has an output measured in milliwatts. Cell Phones operate in the microwave range (much higher frequency) which is strictly short range (a few miles) which is why towers have to be positioned all over the place. {FYI - the bands go VHF (Very High Frequency - AM Radio), UHF (Ultra High Frequency - FM Radio), and then you enter the Microwave Band} Again you are using a Strawman Argument and committing an additional logical fallzcy known as the False Analogy. I could dissect it and refute on other points, such as the need to make the electronic handshake, as well but don't wish to hurt my head any more. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Play Again?
Our handhelds were VHF/UHF. All at VHF and above are LOS communications. If you can see them, you can communicate. This altitude and speed thing is totally erroneous.
Again, you compare apples and oranges. The technology is NOT the same, and operates with a different set of parameters and restrictions. However, I am through trying to educate you on the technology. Suffice to say you have made clear you do not understand how a cell phone operates or the protocols required for a call to connect and go through. Even the goobermunt has tried changing their story to say it was done on the Plane's Phone so I don't see what your are quibbling about. If you believe the goobermunt's hurdy gurdy you should be correcting me by telling me it was done on the Plane Phone - despite all prior claims in the Official Conspiracy Theory®.
The technology of radio/tv has never changed. Never. Equipment available changes basic tech never does. Air speed and altitude are examples of misinformation leading to confusion.
I actually tried this on take-off once. The output of a cell phone is so weak - I think it's less than a quarter of a watt - you loss signal at about 500 feet. After the aircraft reaches 1500 feet or so, forget about it. Your phone doesn't have the strength to manage the handoff from cell to cell which it manages to do in an automobile traveling along the surface, but not aloft at any appreciable altitude. You might be able to maintain service flying an ultralight, but not as a passenger on an airliner.
Hello? Have all forgot that this started with "Hari H. NEVER OPENED THE COCKPIT DOOR" evidence from the NTSB? Someone please explain that, OK? And if Hanjour didn't pilot AA77 into the Pentagon, then who did?
#85. To: rack42 (#82)
Of course they have.
Someone please explain that, OK? And if Hanjour didn't pilot AA77 into the Pentagon, then who did? If AA77 hit the Pentagon we would have seen the video of it by now. It didn't happen. As far as this new evidence goes, could be disinfo considering it is put out by pilots for 9/11 truth and a government agency. The government would never knowingly release data that would indicate they are responsible for 9/11. If they had a video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon we would have seen it by now. They have a video of the time period it was suppose to have hit, but no 757 hit the Pentagon in that time, that's for sure.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNewly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
(Edited)
No need to read further.
#3. To: rack42 (#2)
So, how should I interpret that statement?
#38. To: Cynicom, rack42 (#3)
"Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence "
#52. To: Original_Intent (#38)
Wasn't that easy?
#54. To: Cynicom, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, CadetD, Jethro Tull, IndieTX, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, Kamala, farmfriend, all (#52)
(Edited)
Wasn't that easy?
#59. To: Original_Intent (#54)
My mind is boggled at the reasoning involved, and I don't mean to be insulting, but I simply find it absurd that you would dismiss every other piece of data contrary to the Official Conspiracy Theory©® because of one piece of planted disinformation.
#62. To: Cynicom (#59)
Not one iota. True or false the government account still stands.
#63. To: Original_Intent (#62)
5. Multiple Cell Phone Calls were alleged to have been made by low wattage cell phones, through signal attenauting skin of the aircraft, at ten thousand feet, doing 500 miles per hour. The technology to do that was not available at that time. The story has since morphed to "they used the plane's phone" to cover up that impossibility.
#64. To: Cynicom (#63)
Most every day I place calls from inside my auto, to a tower that is NOT LOS. (Line of sight).
Strawman Argument
#65. To: Original_Intent (#64)
At ten thousand feet?
#71. To: Cynicom (#65)
Way back when I was a pup in the Air force, we carried hand held VHF radios as part of our survival gear. They worked very well. Altitude was of no consequence nor was speed. All of that is irrelevant and totally misleading.
#72. To: Original_Intent (#71)
VHF operates in a totally different and much lower frequency
#75. To: Cynicom (#72)
#76. To: Original_Intent (#75)
The technology is NOT the same,
#81. To: Cynicom (#76)
#82. To: all (#81)
Replies to Comment # 82. Have all forgot that this started with "Hari H. NEVER OPENED THE COCKPIT DOOR" evidence from the NTSB?
#93. To: rack42 (#82)
(Edited)
Hello? Have all forgot that this started with "Hari H. NEVER OPENED THE COCKPIT DOOR" evidence from the NTSB?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 82.