Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
just because the recorder has the parameter for it, does not mean that it was ACTIVE
since that FDR showed the door being closed for over 20 hours
again, it was shown as closed for the entire loop of recordingjust because the recorder has the parameter for it, does not mean that it was ACTIVE
It does when it is custom made by American Airlines for specific type and tail number.
Again, compare American to United.
American monitors their Cockpit doors, United does not.
since that FDR showed the door being closed for over 20 hours
It does? The NTSB makes no such claim nor do they provide readable data for the previous flights.
You got that information from some guy in Australia and it has never been confirmed by anyone, let alone the NTSB.
Those who blindly support the govt story, of course take him at his word and never bother to verify the data.
The only flight that has been confirmed is the flight on Sept 11, 2001. It shows the cockpit door closed. Therefore, it is impossible for a hijack to take place.
Please let us know when you get some data which shows the cockpit door open, or any evidence which points to a hijacking taking place.
again, it was shown as closed for the entire loop of recording
and never shown as open
you are a complete fucking LOON
if you think that is material or pertinent to anything
it clearly shows that the door sensor was either not installed or wasnt working
dont confuse disgust with frustrationCareful Divecon, your frustration is showing.
dont confuse disgust with frustration
you loons are a dime a fuckin dozen
wrong again loondont confuse disgust with frustration
you loons are a dime a fuckin dozen
Pilots For 9/11 Truth cover almost every Major Airline, most Regionals, Charter, fractionals and corporate.
They cover every branch of the Military.
Looks like it's the train for you. lol....
You may not want to step into some buildings in America either as there is a list of over 1300 Architect And Engineers who question 9/11, along with Senior Military, and Family Members and Survivors.
patriotsquestion911.com
Go there and watch the lists grow.
There was a point in time where people who thought the earth was flat also called those who claimed it was round as loons.
I guess you think the earth is flat as well?
wrong again loon
you are like the flat earthers
you deny fact and logic
i "sling" because thats all you fucking morons are worthwrong again loon
you are like the flat earthers
you deny fact and logic
Actually, Flat Earther's didn't have any data. They had a belief based on what they were told.
When people came back with data saying, "You're wrong, the earth is round, look at the data!", they were called loons by Flat Earther's. Some who provided data were even killed due to the the strong belief of Flat Earther's and their clear frustration with their inability to discuss the data.
Just as you are calling me a loon and visibly becoming enraged because you cannot present any data for your argument, nor discuss the data presented.
Let us know when you get some data or evidence for your argument.
Your decision to sling mud, ad hom's and personal attacks instead of discussing the data and facts, speaks volumes.
In the meantime - watch these lists grow with "loons". Eventually, you'll be afraid to come out of your house because you'll be surrounded by so many "loons".
lol
patriotsquestion911.com
Now learn about Data Frame Layouts -
Claim - P4T... are not using the proper Data Frame Layout when showing the port location in his diagram. They are using 757-3, they should be using 757-2 which doesn't show a FLT DECK DOOR parameter. AA77 was a 757-2 airplane.
A- Those who make this claim are confusing the Data Frame Layout (DFL) number with Aircraft Type. 757-3b is the proper Data Frame Layout required for N644AA as listed here in the NTSB pdf for N644AA.
ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf
(bottom of page 2)
United 93 was also a 757-200 aircraft, but used 757-4 Data Frame Layout.
ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf
(also bottom of page 2)
DFL 757-3b (AA77) has the FLT DECK DOOR parameter which is why you see it listed under the parameters in the NTSB pdf and recorded in the data.
DFL 757-4 (UA93) does not list a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, which is why it is not listed in the NTSB pdf nor recorded.
i've already read that. thanks for posting it and proving your flight deck door was not monitored. (let me guess. you have no idea what you just posted).
I do, do you?
I'll bold the parts you missed.
DFL 757-3b (AA77) has the FLT DECK DOOR parameter which is why you see it listed under the parameters in the NTSB pdf and recorded in the data.
DFL 757-4 (UA93) does not list a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, which is why it is not listed in the NTSB pdf nor recorded.
In other words Fizz,
The data provided by the NTSB for Flight 77 shows the cockpit door closed. It was listed and recorded. It is impossible for a hijack to take place.
Flight 93 did not list the Flight Deck Door, and is not recorded on United aircraft. It is impossible to determine if the aircraft was hijacked.
In further words Fizz -
DFL number has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft type. DFL 757-3b_1.txt is the custom data frame layout made by American Airlines for N644AA (AA77).
DFL 757-4 is the custom data frame layout made for N591UA (UA93) by United Airlines.
UA93 and AA77 are both 757-200's (not "757-2's"), they use different DFL's because they are not the same exact aircraft nor record the same exact parameters.
In case you're still confused -
AA77 records the Flight Deck Door.
UA93 does not.
Hope this clears it up for you.
shes an IDIOT that will never get iti've already read that. thanks for posting it and proving your flight deck door was not monitored. (let me guess. you have no idea what you just posted).
I do, do you?
I'll bold the parts you missed.
DFL 757-3b (AA77) has the FLT DECK DOOR parameter which is why you see it listed under the parameters in the NTSB pdf and recorded in the data.
DFL 757-4 (UA93) does not list a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, which is why it is not listed in the NTSB pdf nor recorded.
In other words Fizz,
The data provided by the NTSB for Flight 77 shows the cockpit door closed. It was listed and recorded. It is impossible for a hijack to take place.
Flight 93 did not list the Flight Deck Door, and is not recorded on United aircraft. It is impossible to determine if the aircraft was hijacked.
In further words Fizz -
DFL number has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft type. DFL 757-3b_1.txt is the custom data frame layout made by American Airlines for N644AA (AA77).
DFL 757-4 is the custom data frame layout made for N591UA (UA93) by United Airlines.
UA93 and AA77 are both 757-200's (not "757-2's"), they use different DFL's because they are not the same exact aircraft nor record the same exact parameters.
In case you're still confused -
AA77 records the Flight Deck Door.
UA93 does not.
Hope this clears it up for you.
thanks for proving you have no clue. you dont have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
N644AA (flight 77) was a 757-2 aircraft. the data frame layout can not change that. the data frame layout from a 757-3 is backwards compatible to a 757-2.
do you follow this so far? (probably not but let's continue anyway).
the cockpit door sensor is monitored and recorded in new B757-3 FDR models but not in the old B757-2 series, so this parameter will always show a meaningless '0' in decoding old B757-2 FDR data using new B757-3 FDR data frame format parameter layouts.
N644AA (flight 77) was a 757-2 aircraft.
the data frame layout can not change that. the data frame layout from a 757-3 is backwards compatible to a 757-2.
do you follow this so far? (probably not but let's continue anyway).
the cockpit door sensor is monitored and recorded in new B757-3 FDR models but not in the old B757-2 series, so this parameter will always show a meaningless '0' in decoding old B757-2 FDR data using new B757-3 FDR data frame format parameter layouts.
N644AA (flight 77) was a 757-2 aircraft.
Wrong.
N644AA is a 757-200 series aircraft. Not a "757-2".
Same with N591UA (Flight 93). Yet N591UA uses 757-4 Data Frame Layout.
Again, Data Frame Layout number designation has nothing to do with aircraft type number.
the data frame layout can not change that. the data frame layout from a 757-3 is backwards compatible to a 757-2.
Wrong. They are two separate Data Frame Layouts designation numbers which have nothing to do with aircraft type designation.
Again, N591UA (a 757-200 series aircraft) uses 757-4 Data Frame Layout. Does that mean there is a "757-4" type aircraft that uses "757-4 DFL" which is "backwards compatible" to a "757-2"?? No. Because no such "757-4" aircraft exists.
I'll say it for the 10th time since it doesn't seem to be sinking it.
Data Frame Layout number designation has nothing to do with aircraft type number.
757-3 is a generic Data Frame Layout made by Boeing.
757-3b_1.txt is the custom made data frame layout made by American Airlines tailored for N644AA based on Airline policy and needs, from the generic Boeing DFL 757-3. Read bottom of page 2. ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf
757-4 is a generic DFL made by Boeing. United then custom made their own DFL from 757-4 into 757UALmap.xls tailored for their aircraft and airline policy/needs. Read bottom of page 2. ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf
N644AA records the condition of the cockpit door. United does not.
do you follow this so far? (probably not but let's continue anyway).
I do. Apparently you don't.
the cockpit door sensor is monitored and recorded in new B757-3 FDR models but not in the old B757-2 series, so this parameter will always show a meaningless '0' in decoding old B757-2 FDR data using new B757-3 FDR data frame format parameter layouts.
Again, you are confusing aircraft type designation with DFL number. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other as proven above.
ok.... let's take this one step at a time until you realize you are an idiot.
when did N644AA, a 757-200, become a 757-300.
Why do you lie?...YOU are the only one that has posted it, moronHave you chastised your fellow skeptic friends here for posting that gif, or are you a hypocrite?
Your skeptic friend Fizz almost always posts that "cuckoo" gif. He even posted that gif in his last post in this thread!!! Talk about being a moron.no evidence of what?
you are the one claiming there was treason.
PROVE IT!!!!
I just posted the official story, so I guess you are agreeing along with me that it's pure fantasy.and the only fantasy story about flight 93 is what you fucking troofer morons post
Bump for Fizz.I'm not claiming it, the government is claiming it (your side)! (see my OP)so you are claiming everything but the cockpit was buried underground?
, isn't it?
thats an emote in the "smiles" for the site moronWhy do you lie?...YOU are the only one that has posted it, moronHave you chastised your fellow skeptic friends here for posting that gif, or are you a hypocrite?
Your skeptic friend Fizz almost always posts that "cuckoo" gif. He even posted that gif in his last post in this thread!!! Talk about being a moron.no evidence of what?
you are the one claiming there was treason.
PROVE IT!!!!
I just posted the official story, so I guess you are agreeing along with me that it's pure fantasy.and the only fantasy story about flight 93 is what you fucking troofer morons post
Ha ha, this is what you were talking about?!thats an emote in the "smiles" for the site moron
you are only proving you are a fucking idiot
the reasons are numerousHa ha, this is what you were talking about?!thats an emote in the "smiles" for the site moron
you are only proving you are a fucking idiot
OK then, why do you say it doesn't have any credibility towards the official story -- as I assume you meant?
Try me. Any attempt to avoid posting your assertions that there are numerous reasons that crash gif is not credible towards the official story will just show you really don't have any good reasons.the reasons are numerousHa ha, this is what you were talking about?!thats an emote in the "smiles" for the site moron
you are only proving you are a fucking idiot
OK then, why do you say it doesn't have any credibility towards the official story -- as I assume you meant?
and clearly you are too fucking stupid to understand