FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

[rsalinger]

I hope these questions are different enough from what's already been posted here to get some good answers. I am new to the JREF forum so my search skills by still need to improve.

1. On the Pilots for Truth forum they have a post (can't post URL's yet)
from February of 2007 in which Rob Balsamo claims to have deciphered the raw FDR data. It shows that two seconds before impact (his analysis) the aircraft was at 288 feet. I can't work out whether there's anything wrong with this analysis (beyond wondering how accurate the translation is from radar altimeter to FDR format to engineering measure (feet i this case)). Comments please.

2. In reading through a lot of old posts here I have the impression that the original csv file which I have is not considered as being usable because the times shown are the time stamp from within the flight recorder rather than the time stamp of the observation. (I know it's a simplification). Are there other reasons for not trusting the numbers - calibration for example?

3. What is the accuracy of this kind of data? I'm trying to work out whether the use of a 12 bit word with some bits used for error correction (256 words per second as I read the specifications) doesn't inherently mean a reading can be easily of by say 100 feet when you could have a value from 0 - 40000. I have the feeling that these readouts cannot be used in isolation partly for this reason as well as the time delay possible. Can anyone comment.

I'm trying to get educated. If someone has threads which will give me some answers, please shoot them over to me.

[Slayhamlet]

In depth explanation and discussion of the AA77 FDR Data here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047).

[Reheat]

The one thing you need to keep in mind as you examine the technical minutiae is that the FDR Data is NOT NEEDED to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. There is a mountain of evidence that it did.

[jaydeehess]

1) The FDR data can be several seconds behind the time stamp. Balsamo originally used the pressure altitude which is certainly not meant to work properly at 400 MPH AND at low altitude and is useless.

2) There will be an inherent +/- error in all measurements. The VOR/DME data for instance which Balsamo oddly seems to ignore anyway.

3) See slayhamlet's link

[Reheat]

The VOR/DME data for instance which Balsamo oddly seems to ignore anyway.

That's an easy one. He ignores it because it shows the aircraft where he doesn't want it to be.

[beachnut]

I hope these questions are different enough from what's already been posted here to get some good answers. I am new to the JREF forum so my search skills by still need to improve.

1. On the Pilots for Truth forum they have a post (can't post URL's yet)
from February of 2007 in which Rob Balsamo claims to have deciphered the raw FDR data. It shows that two seconds before impact (his analysis) the aircraft was at 288 feet. I can't work out whether there's anything wrong with this analysis (beyond wondering how accurate the translation is from radar altimeter to FDR format to engineering measure (feet i this case)). Comments please.

2. In reading through a lot of old posts here I have the impression that the original csv file which I have is not considered as being usable because the times shown are the time stamp from within the flight recorder rather than the time stamp of the observation. (I know it's a simplification). Are there other reasons for not trusting the numbers - calibration for example?

3. What is the accuracy of this kind of data? I'm trying to work out whether the use of a 12 bit word with some bits used for error correction (256 words per second as I read the specifications) doesn't inherently mean a reading can be easily of by say 100 feet when you could have a value from 0 - 40000. I have the feeling that these readouts cannot be used in isolation partly for this reason as well as the time delay possible. Can anyone comment.

I'm trying to get educated. If someone has threads which will give me some answers, please shoot them over to me.
There are 4 or more seconds not on the final storage chip! The plane is 2800 feet or so from the Pentagon when the survivable chip data stops.

The pipeline is running at the bits per second, that is one second of data!

The data confirms that the FDR was 77, there are over 24 hours of flight data from previous flights, so all the implications of BS by p4t is false. P4t have the data to prove this.

[jaydeehess]

The one thing you need to keep in mind as you examine the technical minutiae is that the FDR Data is NOT NEEDED to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. There is a mountain of evidence that it did.

Not to mention no evidence at all that something other than a large fast object hit the Pentagon, not a missile and no bombs either in or outside the building.

For instance, a bomb inside the building would require that the 100 feet of missing ground floor wall be strewn about in front of the building and a bomb just outside the building could not have moved the generator towards the building and could not also confine its effects to the ground floor wall in a 100 foot line. Instead, the damage to the building mimics what one would expect from impact of a 100 foot wide fast projectile.

[ktesibios]

One might also consider the pure, unadulterated USDA Prime insanity of using the data from an aircraft flight data recorder found in the wreckage at the Pentagon to "prove" that the aircraft it was installed in didn't hit the Pentagon.

Or the notion that if the NWO has it together to plant all that aircraft debris undetected under the noses of a large number of onlookers, and has included an FDR loaded with faked data, they would fake the data in such a way as to prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

[Gravy]

One might also consider the pure, unadulterated USDA Prime insanity of using the data from an aircraft flight data recorder found in the wreckage at the Pentagon to "prove" that the aircraft it was installed in didn't hit the Pentagon.

Or the notion that if the NWO has it together to plant all that aircraft debris undetected under the noses of a large number of onlookers, and has included an FDR loaded with faked data, they would fake the data in such a way as to prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.Hey, remember that Balsamo is the one who posited that the Pentagon was attacked by a MOAB dropped from the C-130 overhead, while flight 77 skimmed over the Pentagon, made a "hard left," and escaped up the Potomac. He's the Judy Wood of the air.

[rsalinger]

I read the material you all kindly posted but I don't think it fully answers my question, so I want to rephrase.

Before I do, I acknowledge that there's a ton of other evidence, but most folks who think there was "no plane" have focused on this item as conclusive scientific proof that either the recording was faked or was from a different aircraft.

My question remains - is any official information regarding the actual accuracy of the altitude data as found in a flight recorder. As a corollary, is there any information regarding how that data might be affected by speed or altitude that's both authoritative and in the public domain?

[maccy]

rsalinger, if I can ask a question, if what Rob Balsamo says about the FDR is correct, what do you think that indicates about what happened at the Pentagon? In particular, how do you think that the FDR came to be found in the wreckage?

[funk de fino]

hi rsalinger

i dont exactly know what you are asking for here

if its about the use of pitot/statics for aircraft instrumentation and how it works and what factors can affect it then here is a link

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSSI.htm

[ref]

Just for the heck of it, check out the response by Rob to my "exposed" entry on him.

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=86434&sid=efd9decfb2b9e7b9cdae80e4b513fab7#86434

We never claimed that the information "proves" anything and have stated as such on many radio/television interviews. What we do "claim" is that the data provided by the govt does not support the govt story of an impact with the pentagon.

Ok, you say that the data does not support the hit, but you say the information proves nothing? Whut?

And of course the usual, commenting my website entry:
Folks, the above tactic is typical of govt loyalists and apologists. Spin. obfuscation, strawman arguments and flat out lies to distract you from the real truth.

[uk_dave]

Has Balsamo been on TV? Real tv?

[rsalinger]

Thanks ref. I get it now. All Balsamo is saying is that the FDR doesn't equal the exact flight description contained in the video animation of the crash published by the NTSB. Of course, without any information as to FDR accuracy from anywhere, that's no indication of anything sinister. No one in the US government ever said (?) that it would dovetail to their video precisely.

(Where I think Rob may be out of line is in the video where they clearly cite these discrepancies as "evidence" for a conspiracy. The reason I wanted the information on how accurate FDR data is was that it seems to me that much of this debate is emotionally charged.)

Emotions are great and I have some myself. I'd like to be able to discuss this with anyone I encounter with specific facts and figures. I keep reading statements like "there wasn't enough wreckage", when there is no standard measure for how much airplane wreckage needs to be found to constitute proof that an airplane crashed under a specific set of circumstances. Maybe it's just the way I think, but I've always found avoiding ad hominen attacks and trying to get to the heart of the dispute is the best way to get people to move from one side of the argument to the other. So, in this case, a word from the manufacturer of the hardware/software system about it's accuracy would be useful.

Anyone know why I can't post URL's?

[Anti-sophist]

My question remains - is any official information regarding the actual accuracy of the altitude data as found in a flight recorder.

The closest thing you'll get is the official speed/altitudes these items are checked in and what errors are expected.

The conditions on 9/11 were far beyond any combination of speed/altitude that anyone does any testing, certifying, etc, etc.

As a corollary, is there any information regarding how that data might be affected by speed or altitude that's both authoritative and in the public domain?

Not really. All we really know is that the altimeter was operating way beyond what it's tested for.

[Anti-sophist]

1. On the Pilots for Truth forum they have a post (can't post URL's yet)
from February of 2007 in which Rob Balsamo claims to have deciphered the raw FDR data. It shows that two seconds before impact (his analysis) the aircraft was at 288 feet. I can't work out whether there's anything wrong with this analysis (beyond wondering how accurate the translation is from radar altimeter to FDR format to engineering measure (feet i this case)). Comments please.


Balasamo seems to focus on debunker arguments related to altimeter lag. He ignores the fact that the data he's looking at appears to be much earlier than he claims.


2. In reading through a lot of old posts here I have the impression that the original csv file which I have is not considered as being usable because the times shown are the time stamp from within the flight recorder rather than the time stamp of the observation. (I know it's a simplification). Are there other reasons for not trusting the numbers - calibration for example?


Yes, calibration is an issue. Time is the bigger one, though.


3. What is the accuracy of this kind of data? I'm trying to work out whether the use of a 12 bit word with some bits used for error correction (256 words per second as I read the specifications) doesn't inherently mean a reading can be easily of by say 100 feet when you could have a value from 0 - 40000. I have the feeling that these readouts cannot be used in isolation partly for this reason as well as the time delay possible. Can anyone comment.

I don't know the answer to this question. I'm sure you can look at the data in the CSV file and guesstimate the "bit-distance" and figure out how much uncertainty is related to the quantization due to the digital encoding.

My suspicion, though, is that error due to quantization is minimal.

[ref]

Anyone know why I can't post URL's?

You can post links after 15 posts.

[iAmerican]

The FL77/C-130 convoy was seen flying along Columbia Turnpike in Arlington. Many evacuating Capitol Hill heard the explosion at the Pentagon and looked up to witness a large commercial jet sweep up over The Capitol...which is directly in line with the Pentagon and Columbia Pike.

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Retired Air Force crash expert Colonel George Nelson: "And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building."

"If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes."

[ref]

Welcome back to 2002 theories, iAmerican.

[Reheat]

Good Lord, here we go again.

I predict 10-12 pages of "Looking up a goat's butt with one eyeball" and the Troofers are still "just asking questions". I want my $$ now Randi!

[ref]

I thought I would not even care to post this. But since we are on the topic, Rob has progressed to flight 93 as well:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html


The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.

[rsalinger]

The FL77/C-130 convoy was seen flying along Columbia Turnpike in Arlington. Many evacuating Capitol Hill heard the explosion at the Pentagon and looked up to witness a large commercial jet sweep up over The Capitol...which is directly in line with the Pentagon and Columbia Pike.

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Retired Air Force crash expert Colonel George Nelson: "And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building."

"If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes."
1. When you say "live on CNN" was he actually at the scene? Can you give more context because this could refer to, for example, a second purported incident? How many plane crashes has he been so that we can take him as an expert? We should know this, don't you think. Haven't you taken one quote here, but aren't there hundreds of experienced first responders at the scene who don't say this? (You might want to do some research on eye witness accounts and you'll understand that you can only look at the preponderance of them to insure correctness of interpretation.)

2. While the diameter of the hole may have been 16 feet, there was a horizontal cut made in the building which totaled much more than that. I did the math once before from pictures and drawings and determined it was at least 60 feet in width, remember that the wings aren't all that strong and aren't designed to stand up in a crash. (You need to use the pictures taken before the collapse to see this, which may to be what confuses people.)

3. Where did this quote come from? All the video I've been able to find shows that an airplane will disintegrate when it hits a more or less solid barrier at these speeds. It's important to remember that the speed in this case is some 500mph, as opposed to most crashes we see (which are grazing blows by pilots who are trying NOT to hit the earth). So the energy (proportional to delta v squared) is maybe six times larger than the average plane crash which is surely going to pulverize things more than "usual". The most important point, though is that conservation of momentum is going to put whatever remains INSIDE the building (isn't it?), so we wouldn't expect to see much of a debris field outside the building. Comment?

[Calcas]

rsalinger, pardon most of us for not answering your questions so quickly but we have all "been there done that" so much on the Pentagon that it gets tiring.

Our member "Gravy" has put together links and info on almost anything you want to know. Look around and then come back if you still have specific questions.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

P.S. Balsamo will ban you if and when your questions don't fit into his aganda. Simply ask a few tough questions and you're gone. How's that for "truth"?

[Jonnyclueless]

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”


Let's stop being dishonest here. You're misquoting with the intent to mislead people. If you put in the whole quote you would see that Jamie no way thinks that there wasn't a plane there. You're simply taking the part of the quote where he was explaining how much damage there was to the plane. Jamie has also gone live on CNN to talk about how people like you go around mis-quoting him and how there absolutely was a plane and he saw it crash into the building with his own two eyes. Of course anyone who say the interview being referred to above would know that.

[beachnut]

1. When you say "live on CNN" was he actually at the scene? Can you give more context because this could refer to, for example, a second purported incident? How many plane crashes has he been so that we can take him as an expert? We should know this, don't you think. Haven't you taken one quote here, but aren't there hundreds of experienced first responders at the scene who don't say this? (You might want to do some research on eye witness accounts and you'll understand that you can only look at the preponderance of them to insure correctness of interpretation.)

2. While the diameter of the hole may have been 16 feet, there was a horizontal cut made in the building which totaled much more than that. I did the math once before from pictures and drawings and determined it was at least 60 feet in width, remember that the wings aren't all that strong and aren't designed to stand up in a crash. (You need to use the pictures taken before the collapse to see this, which may to be what confuses people.)

3. Where did this quote come from? All the video I've been able to find shows that an airplane will disintegrate when it hits a more or less solid barrier at these speeds. It's important to remember that the speed in this case is some 500mph, as opposed to most crashes we see (which are grazing blows by pilots who are trying NOT to hit the earth). So the energy (proportional to delta v squared) is maybe six times larger than the average plane crash which is surely going to pulverize things more than "usual". The most important point, though is that conservation of momentum is going to put whatever remains INSIDE the building (isn't it?), so we wouldn't expect to see much of a debris field outside the building. Comment?
You are talking to a false idea promoter. Good luck
You need to do some reading, iAmerican advice on the truth is like going to the undertaker to get your heart bypass.

You are correct, the impact at the Pentagon is 10 times more energy than most accidents. There will be few parts that you would recognize. The parts are all there, in small pieces.

[T.A.M.]

The FL77/C-130 convoy was seen flying along Columbia Turnpike in Arlington. Many evacuating Capitol Hill heard the explosion at the Pentagon and looked up to witness a large commercial jet sweep up over The Capitol...which is directly in line with the Pentagon and Columbia Pike.

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Retired Air Force crash expert Colonel George Nelson: "And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building."

"If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes."

holy flippin love of CHR*** dear sweet mother of mary...NOT AGAIN!!!!

Someone else handle this 2nd grade truther stuff please before I blow a gasket or six!!

TAM:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[Anti-sophist]

Someone busted out the 2004 truther playbook. What's next? Jet fuel can't melt steel?

[Anti-sophist]

I thought I would not even care to post this. But since we are on the topic, Rob has progressed to flight 93 as well:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html

Oh god. I'm too tired. I can't even go to that site w/o feeling ill. Maybe someone else will watch his incredibly long and boring videos and give me a readers digest version of what needs debunked.

[uk_dave]

holy flippin love of CHR*** dear sweet mother of mary...NOT AGAIN!!!!

Someone else handle this 2nd grade truther stuff please before I blow a gasket or six!!

TAM:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

You need a holiday mate :D

[T.A.M.]

I just had one, but you are right, I need a holiday from "the truth".

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Oh god. I'm too tired. I can't even go to that site w/o feeling ill. Maybe someone else will watch his incredibly long and boring videos and give me a readers digest version of what needs debunked.
He is just pushing his DVD sales. He is in the CT world of making money. His claims are just junk.


The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.I agree, who wants to watch(listen) stupid, aka JDX, make up stupid ideas with no conclusions.

[AMTMAN]

(Where I think Rob may be out of line is in the video where they clearly cite these discrepancies as "evidence" for a conspiracy. The reason I wanted the information on how accurate FDR data is was that it seems to me that much of this debate is emotionally charged.)


If you do your homework you will see is off on pretty much everything. His game is make one unsubstantiated claim after another in order to drum up DVD sales. And when those claims are shown to be lies or distortion of facts he does two things. One, he makes personal attacks and plays games by saying things like the source that debunked him is actually working for him. Then he will move onto the next claim. That's pretty much his MO.

[wtcconspiracy]

Just read something interesting in book called 9-11 coup against america. the pentagon analysis by Pet Tiradera.
The evidence states that flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH. Even though official Pentagon attack time was 9:37 AM based on evidence in the book the probable time of attack is 9:31 AM. Now there is questions also about UA 175 exceeding max flight speed but will discuss that in appropriate thread. The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min.
Even to assume assume the Pentagon was attacked at 9:37 we can still see its not possible as the plane would have to maintain a speed of 486 MPH yet some radar readings say that flight 77 was travelling at between 400 - 480 MPH.
What exactly happened to initially make some people monitoring this aircraft believe it went down in Kentucky. Why was the plane invisible for so long. Is there really no other way to track a plane once the transponder has been turned off. And when this plane was believed to have crashed in Kentucky why did no one react to this. No one was sent to look for this aircraft. No emergency response, as if a downed 757 over kentucky did not constitute emergency response. Then once it was discovered it was not down no action was taken to find out why flight 77 was missing. It can just go untracked, undetected. Fly into the nations most restricted airspace. In then flies past White House and Capitol building to hit an almost empty and reinforced section in the Pentagon. Why did this flight not crash at the White House. Would this not have been a much more devestating blow to the American Government.
And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.
Why will the FBI not show the Hotel Sheraton and CITGO gas station video tapes of what happened at the Pentagon. Some say it because of the trial of the supposed 20th hijacker but can this really be a good enough reason. There was no restriction on the Naudet brothers releasing the footage of a plane hitting the North tower of the WTC which was the only known footage of that attack. Obviously UA 175 Crash was shown on live TV so could not be censored. But why was the only footage taken showing the AA11 Impact allowed to be shown yet the footage of AA77 Impact can not be as its evidence. Could it be more so that one shows a plane crash and one doesnt.
Would appreciate any sensible answer not insults as I got last time I discussed here.

Ben

[DGM]

Ben:
Why don't you put the "skater gun" away and address one point at a time.

If a plane loses it's transponder in an area with no primary radar it is essential lost. This was the case for AA 77

[wtcconspiracy]

Ben:
Why don't you put the "skater gun" away and address one point at a time.

If a plane loses it's transponder in an area with no primary radar it is essential lost. This was the case for UAL 77

what skater gun

[Magenta]

Ben, I would suggest you will develop a better understanding if you research these questions yourself initially, and then come back with more specific questions. Gravy has a web page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) dedicated to AA77 with links to resources to help you. Also, at the top of this thread you will see tags for AA77, Pentagon and flight data recorder. If you click on those it will take you to threads where these questions have been discussed previously.

[DGM]

what skater gun
It's actually Scatter (I spelled it wrong) It's when you put out more than one issue at a time (usually several). It's a confusing way to discuss anything.

[beachnut]

Just read something interesting in book called 9-11 coup against america. the pentagon analysis by Pet Tiradera.
The evidence states that flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH. Even though official Pentagon attack time was 9:37 AM based on evidence in the book the probable time of attack is 9:31 AM. Now there is questions also about UA 175 exceeding max flight speed but will discuss that in appropriate thread. The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min.
Even to assume assume the Pentagon was attacked at 9:37 we can still see its not possible as the plane would have to maintain a speed of 486 MPH yet some radar readings say that flight 77 was travelling at between 400 - 480 MPH.
What exactly happened to initially make some people monitoring this aircraft believe it went down in Kentucky. Why was the plane invisible for so long. Is there really no other way to track a plane once the transponder has been turned off. And when this plane was believed to have crashed in Kentucky why did no one react to this. No one was sent to look for this aircraft. No emergency response, as if a downed 757 over kentucky did not constitute emergency response. Then once it was discovered it was not down no action was taken to find out why flight 77 was missing. It can just go untracked, undetected. Fly into the nations most restricted airspace. In then flies past White House and Capitol building to hit an almost empty and reinforced section in the Pentagon. Why did this flight not crash at the White House. Would this not have been a much more devestating blow to the American Government.
And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.
Why will the FBI not show the Hotel Sheraton and CITGO gas station video tapes of what happened at the Pentagon. Some say it because of the trial of the supposed 20th hijacker but can this really be a good enough reason. There was no restriction on the Naudet brothers releasing the footage of a plane hitting the North tower of the WTC which was the only known footage of that attack. Obviously UA 175 Crash was shown on live TV so could not be censored. But why was the only footage taken showing the AA11 Impact allowed to be shown yet the footage of AA77 Impact can not be as its evidence. Could it be more so that one shows a plane crash and one doesnt.
Would appreciate any sensible answer not insults as I got last time I discussed here.

Ben
Oops, you do not understand flying. First of all you have to use the correct times. The plane at altitude was going 500 mph. So? So far you have a lot of bs.

[jaydeehess]

Why will the FBI not show the Hotel Sheraton and CITGO gas station video tapes of what happened at the Pentagon.

Actually both of those were released last year. The CITGO tapes show nothing other than a slight reflection of the glow of the fireball. As expected the cameras are aimed at the pumps and at the cash register and not at the Pentagon.
The Sheraton tape,IIRC, does show the plane well back in the background and along the advertised flight path.

In then flies past White House and Capitol building to hit an almost empty and reinforced section in the Pentagon.

No it did not fly past the Whitehouse or the Capitol. It was at all times on the opposite side of the Potomac.

And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.

There are several ways to determine altitude to some extent. For ATC one way is to notice at what point the aircraft shows up on a primary radar. The lowest altitude at which an individual radar tx/rx can 'see' a plane is a function of the distance from the installation. Thus as a target disappears under the look angle of one site and appears over the look angle of another one can ballpark the altitude within a few hundred feet.
Then there is the fact that we know the altitude of the aircraft as it cruised towards the Pentagon because of the data on the DFDR. During that portion of the flight the altimeter is still fairly accurate. It is only once it is in the situation of being very low and very fast that just how the altimeter would react is an unknown and thus the data unreliable.


The evidence states that flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH. Even though official Pentagon attack time was 9:37 AM based on evidence in the book the probable time of attack is 9:31 AM. Now there is questions also about UA 175 exceeding max flight speed but will discuss that in appropriate thread. The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min.
Even to assume assume the Pentagon was attacked at 9:37 we can still see its not possible as the plane would have to maintain a speed of 486 MPH yet some radar readings say that flight 77 was travelling at between 400 - 480 MPH.

300 miles in 30 minutes = 600 MPH
extend flight time by 7 minutes and 300 miles in 37 = 487 MPH

So you have noticed that an error in the time of 7 minutes means that the estimated velocity is off by a difference of 113 MPH, right?

Did the plane start its heading at exactly 9 am? No, that's a ballpark figure and if its off by 5 minutes then the flight time is now 42 minutes
,,, that makes it 423 MPH

Was it exactly 300 miles travel distance? No, that's a ballpark figure. If its off by 10% and rounded up then the actual distance is 270 miles
That's 386 MPH

So when you have more accurate information as to the distance and time of travel then re-do the math.

[jaydeehess]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2702750&postcount=15

for a timeline in a post by gumboot.

[jaydeehess]

,,, and on the web page cited a few posts above
Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."Source

Mark Willams: "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.' "Source
"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept. Source

[beachnut]

... flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH. Even though official Pentagon attack time was 9:37 AM based on evidence in the book the probable time of attack is 9:31 AM. Now there is questions also about UA 175 exceeding max flight speed but will discuss that in appropriate thread. The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min.
Even to assume assume the Pentagon was attacked at 9:37 we can still see its not possible as the plane would have to maintain a speed of 486 MPH yet some radar readings say that flight 77 was travelling at between 400 - 480 MPH.
Ben
The plane started back at 8:54 and hits the Pentagon after 9:37! FACT Now there is one problem, clocks, I am using a reliable clock, but idiots in 9/11 truth do not understand time. I am not sure why they do not understand time; who knows?

43 minutes, not 30 minutes. Sorry, but your book is a lie! Liar author makes up lies and lets people who can not look up stuff fall for fraud. Who would think there are liars out there?

That is 418 mph! Wowzer! What were the winds that day at altitude; what were they? Did you know the winds are usually out of the west and sometimes over 200 mph. That kind of day would give at attitude a ground speed of 650 would only be 450 airspeed. Wow! Do you understand this?

So far the book looks like a bs pile of junk.

[wtcconspiracy]

Oops, you do not understand flying. First of all you have to use the correct times. The plane at atitude was going 500 mph. So? So far you have a lot of bs.

i cant understand this post..what does the plane at atitude mean.....

[beachnut]

i cant understand this post..what does the plane at atitude mean.....
altitude, oops, you can not even correct my errors, how can you correct the lies of the book?

Do you understand ICET?

[Reheat]

While we're on the subject of airspeed, AA77 could have been going over 600mph GROUND SPEED. Prevailing winds aloft are generally from the West in the US and sometimes they are very strong. Winds in the jet stream can exceed 100 mph. That means if the aircraft is going 480 True Airspeed it could would be going 580 mph over the ground, etc. which is how time over distance is calculated.

In this case your times are wrong, but you need to understand the airspeeds anyway because it could be relevant to your calculated times.

Ben, you need to stop reading CT Sites, Videos, Books and perhaps you won't be so confused.

[wtcconspiracy]

altitude, oops, you can not even correct my errors, how can you correct the lies of the book?

Do you understand ICET?

No what is it

[Reheat]

No what is it

I = Indicated Airspeed shown on cockpit guages
C = Calibrated Airspeed - Indicated Airspeed corrected for instrument and installation error.
E = Equivalent Airspeed - Calibrated Airspeed corrected for compressibility.
T = True Airspeed - Equivalent Airspeed corrected for temperature.

GS = Ground Speed - True Airspeed corrected for winds.

[beachnut]

damn pilots

so much jargon... how does 9/11 truth mess up the flying part so bad?

some will tell him 77 only was over the max speed for less than 20 seconds; I wonder if he knows what the max speed is. In fact if we consider the leg to the pentagon a dive, 77 was not over speed by much. But I still think the low altitude placard is around 350KIAS to make it easy.

[Tweeter]

Pilots? You guys couldnt fly a kite.

[Horatius]

i cant understand this post..what does the plane at atitude mean.....



Beachnut flies planes (or he did, not sure if he still does), and he has an attitude.


But we like him!

[beachnut]

Pilots? You guys couldnt fly a kite.
I flew a big tricycle with 4 engines. My job was to be on time! (note, I never got to fly with these engines, the CRM-56; my engines were built in the 50s, which I was flying in the 90s. Ford made some of the parts for our engines, the J57)

http://www.beachymon.com/photo/kc1.jpg
Reheat flew the little jets that are fun. I gave him gas, he would go do his thing. We flew kites with engines, no strings.

Is your post indicative of all your posts? (i kept the statements real simple, so you will understand; i included pictures) Your post is very informative on the 77 FDR. Thank you

[tsig]

Pilots? You guys couldnt fly a kite.

I have flown kites. Nice bird try itt.

[beachnut]

The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. So? That is close to being correct at .86 MACH.
The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min. As shown it was 43 minutes; book lies. RECAP
545 mph was the average speed from 8:54 to 9:20. The speed then averaged 410 mph from 9:21 to 9:30. And then averaged 340 mph until the terrorist pushed up the throttles in the last 10 to 20 seconds to reach speeds over 526 mph and impact at 9:37. The made up times in the book are lies.

With the simple calculation of 418 mph for the 300 miles in 43 minutes. Looks like the book is in error on the flying stuff. And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.
After 77 crashed into the Pentagon, the FAA pulls all the radar data. On the radar there is the primary target from 77. No transponder need be on. With the tapes you can calculate altitude from the radars; you could look up this stuff.

What else did this guy get wrong in the book?

[Reheat]

Ssssshhhh Beachnut, he's studying trying to figure out the formulas for ICET. You're overloading him with too much information.:D

[Anti-sophist]

As already stated, the FDR is completely and entirely consistent with the around ~43 minutes between turn-around and impact. The speeds contained in the FDR also completely agree with traveling that distance in that time.

As far as the FDR data is concerned (which is the topic of this thread), there's no evidence at all to support a 30 minute flight time.

[jaydeehess]

As already stated, the FDR is completely and entirely consistent with the around ~43 minutes between turn-around and impact. The speeds contained in the FDR also completely agree with traveling that distance in that time.

As far as the FDR data is concerned (which is the topic of this thread), there's no evidence at all to support a 30 minute flight time.

In short then
43-30=13
13/43=0.30
,,, which means the time given in the book is off by 30%

[gumboot]

The evidence states that flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH.

As others have pointed out AA77 was hijacked between 0851 and 0854 and it crashed at 0837. Your flight time is off by at least 12 minutes.



What exactly happened to initially make some people monitoring this aircraft believe it went down in Kentucky.

Indianapolis ARTCC had simultaneous total loss of radar return and communication. By the way it went "missing" and was suspected crashed over Ohio, not Kentucky.


Why was the plane invisible for so long.

It was only "invisible" for 9 minutes. The reason it was "invisible" was because the preferred coverage Long Range Radar site for the radar sort box in which it was flying had only a secondary surveillance radar which requires cooperation from an aircraft transponder.


Is there really no other way to track a plane once the transponder has been turned off.

An aircraft with a deactivated transponder can be tracked on Primary Surveillance Radar which works by receiving a radio signal bounced directly off the hull of the aircraft. However Air Traffic Controllers can only see such returns if their Primary Radar coverage is turned on, and if the Radar Data Processor is sending primary information to their screen.

If you have primary coverage available where the transponder is turned off the controller can simply flick a switch and the primary return will immediately appear where the secondary return previously was. Then you can continue to closely track that primary return and keep track of the aircraft.

However if the transponder is turned off in an area without a primary feed, the primary return cannot be picked up. This is what happened with AA77. When AA77 reappeared on primary radar it appeared in a place no one was looking for it, and promptly entered another ARTCCs airspace.

By now, of course, the aircraft could be anywhere, and controllers turning on their primary radar coverage are faced with dozens of primary-only returns on dozens of different screens. There's no way to work out which is AA77, and no way to track every single primary return at once.


And when this plane was believed to have crashed in Kentucky why did no one react to this. No one was sent to look for this aircraft. No emergency response, as if a downed 757 over kentucky did not constitute emergency response.

At 0908 Indianapolis ARTCC contacted the USAF Search And Rescue Coordination Centre at Langley Air Force Base and reported that an American Airlines 757, flight 77, was suspected crashed in southern Ohio. The SAR centre is responsible for coordinating all search and rescue efforts inside the United States. A Search and Rescue mission was immediately activated to look for the crash site.


Then once it was discovered it was not down no action was taken to find out why flight 77 was missing. It can just go untracked, undetected.

At about 0920 Indianapolis ARTCC learned of the other hijackings in Boston and New York airspace, and immediately reassessed the status of AA77. At 0921 Indianapolis ARTCC notified the national Air Traffic Control System Command Centre (ATCSCC) in Herndon, Virginia that they suspected AA77 was a hijacking, and may be heading east.

The ATCSCC immediately told Washington ARTCC and Cleveland ARTCC to start looking for AA77 on primary radar, as well as Dulles TRACON.

At 0932 Dulles TRACON detected a fast moving low altitude primary-only radar return heading east within 6 miles of the White House.


Fly into the nations most restricted airspace.

AA77 did not enter restricted airspace at any time during its journey.


In then flies past White House and Capitol building to hit an almost empty and reinforced section in the Pentagon.

AA77 flew past neither the Capitol nor the White House. The section of the Pentagon that was hit was called Wedge 1, and the impact area crossed diagonally so that the exit hole was just across on the very edge of Wedge 2. On the morning of 9/11 Wedge 1 was 85% occupied and Wedge 2 was 40% occupied. Approximately 2,500 people were in the immediate impact area.


Why did this flight not crash at the White House. Would this not have been a much more devestating blow to the American Government.

Osama Bin Laden chose the Pentagon as a target because it was symbolic of US military power.

The White House was initially proposed as a target however Mohammed Atta concluded after an aerial recon that it would be too difficult to hit due to its small size and the surrounding geography. United 93 was intended to hit the US Capitol Building.


And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.

The flight path of AA77 was determined by the Flight Data Recorder which is incidentally what this thread is about. The FDR records aircraft altitude as well as rates of ascent and descent.

AA77s final flight path was tracked by Potomac TRACON (usually referred to as Dulles TRACON) which takes primary radar feeds from a number of ASR-9 radar sites. The ASR-9 is a short range primary surveillance radar that does not have height finding ability.

AA77 did not dive 7,000ft towards the Pentagon in the last moments. It descended 6,300ft over a period of 3 minutes and 18 seconds before descending a final 2,000ft in about 30 seconds.


Why will the FBI not show the Hotel Sheraton and CITGO gas station video tapes of what happened at the Pentagon.

The FBI was in possession of a total of 85 videos that FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire determined might be relevant to the FOIA request for videos of the impact of AA77. Of those:

56 did not show the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of AA77.
16 showed the Pentagon building but neither the crash site nor the impact of AA77.
12 Showed the Pentagon building and the crash site, but only after the impact had occurred.
1 Video showed the Pentagon building, the crash site, and the impact of AA77.

Maguire states that she did not find any evidence that the FBI were in possession of a video taken from the Sheraton Hotel. Videos from the Pentagon security gate camera (which showed the actual impact), from the CITGO Station and from the Doubletree Hotel were released.

[jaydeehess]

Maguire states that she did not find any evidence that the FBI were in possession of a video taken from the Sheraton Hotel. Videos from the Pentagon security gate camera (which showed the actual impact), from the CITGO Station and from the Doubletree Hotel were released.

My bad, didn't notice the hotel name differences in my post above.

[Calcas]

As others have pointed out AA77 was hijacked between 0851 and 0854 and it crashed at 0837. Your flight time is off by at least 12 minutes.


Excellent recap of events gumboot. I knew most of it but your times and details are spot on. A few things I didn't know though. Such as, how was it determined that UA93 was destined for the Capitol? I always assumed so but is there any evidence?

Anyway, Gravy (or somebody) should stick your recap into one of the many research links, if it isn't already there.

[Jonnyclueless]

Anyone have an image of a radar screen showing primary radar some those who don't buy this scenario can point out to us which plane is which on the screen?

[gumboot]

Excellent recap of events gumboot. I knew most of it but your times and details are spot on. A few things I didn't know though. Such as, how was it determined that UA93 was destined for the Capitol? I always assumed so but is there any evidence?


I believe the evidence comes from the testimony of captured and former Al Qaeda members. (Before anyone screams the "torture" line, not all of that testimony comes from the CIA or even from the US government).

Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower collaborates these targets, for example.

[gumboot]

Anyone have an image of a radar screen showing primary radar some those who don't buy this scenario can point out to us which plane is which on the screen?

This (http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/rtudslide01.html) easy to follow and illustrated presentation (consisting of 41 slides) demonstrates quite effectively why it is that an aircraft can disappear from a radar. The issue Tom Lusch is addressing is somewhat different to 9/11, however what he presents is significantly relevant to the disappearance of AA77, especially if you consider that the long range surveillance radar site closest (about 50 mi away) to AA77 at the time it was hijacked (QHY - Harmony, WV) did not have a primary radar.

[tony soprano]

That's an easy one. He ignores it because it shows the aircraft where he doesn't want it to be.

You couldnt find it Reheat? It appears they addressed the DME Feb 9, 2007. Thats last year. I'd post the link, but cant post links yet. Its in their pinned topics. Im surprised you couldnt find it. You seem to know what you are talking about most of the time when i read your posts. I may have to rethink that.

They also came out with a new video and it appears beachnut is very wrong with his 3000+ feet 1.5 DME calculation.

I been lurking for a while.

[Reheat]

You couldnt find it Reheat? It appears they addressed the DME Feb 9, 2007. Thats last year. I'd post the link, but cant post links yet. Its in their pinned topics. Im surprised you couldnt find it. You seem to know what you are talking about most of the time when i read your posts. I may have to rethink that.

They also came out with a new video and it appears beachnut is very wrong with his 3000+ feet 1.5 DME calculation.

I been lurking for a while.

Your point is?

[tony soprano]

The plane is 2800 feet or so from the Pentagon when the survivable chip data stops.





Beachnut, you need to make up your mind. I've seen you say 2600 feet, 2800 feet, 3000 feet, 3000+ feet, and now its back to 2800. Thats good. It closer to the actual data, but still very wrong. Anyone with Google Earth can check 1.5 DME Nautical miles from DCA VOR. But even so, 2800 feet from the wall is still to high it seems. Ever seen 8000-10,000 fpm descents at less than 300 feet above the ground? Because that is what you are advocating if the data stopped at 2800 feet from the wall. When did they pull out of that dive?

Also, you said you worked with FDR's. Are you familair with ED-55 and/or TSO-124? I think the 4 second buffer was applicable in the old mag tape FDR's. Not the supposed SSFDR claimed to be used in AA77.

[tony soprano]

Your point is?

My point is you said PfT never acknowledged DME distance. You are wrong.

[Reheat]

The VOR/DME data for instance which Balsamo oddly seems to ignore anyway.

That's an easy one. He ignores it because it shows the aircraft where he doesn't want it to be.

My point is you said PfT never acknowledged DME distance. You are wrong.

Note what I actually said is quoted above. It's not polite to misquote people, particularly on an early post. It detracts from your credibility and makes everyone question your honesty.

Dopy has razzled dazzled his way through so many things and changed his stance so many times it's difficult to keep up with his latest rendition of the troof.

Apparently, you want to "look up the goat's butt with one eyeball" (the FDR Data) and ignore the other mountain of evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. Good freakin' luck.

I'm not an expert on FDR's, in fact, I probably don't know as much as many engineers here. But, I do know one thing. That is that they were never intended to and have never been used as a method of determining if a crash occurred or not. That is usually obvious to even a casual observer. They were designed as a tool to HELP determine the cause of accidents. They are not the sole infallible device to be used exclusively in ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION.

Even tho' it disgusts me to have to read the unadulterated crap on the p4t site, I have watched as the "experts" tried to unravel the FDR Data. Tell your friend Robbie to have a recognized FDR expert analyze the FDR data and agree with his numbers and premise and then I'll discuss it in a serious manner.

BTW, how many feet are in a nautical mile?

[tony soprano]

Thanks for the correction Reheat. It was "ignore" instead of "acknowledge". You are still.. very... wrong. PfT has never "ignored" the DME. It was posted last year, thoroughly, in pinned topics, and a recent video was just published. But perhaps i guess you can say they "ignored" the DME. I disagree with you, respectfully.

As for "other evidence". Is this thread about the FDR or "other evidence"? I havent thoroughly looked at the rules for JREF, but is off topic posting against the rules?

As for FDR Experts, it appears they have quite a few. I know it "disgusts" you to look over their work, but they do have an interview with Ed Santana from L3 Communications on their front page which completely destroys beachnuts' argument. When was the last time Beachnut worked with an FDR? It seems quite awhile.

edit to add: Why do you automatically assume im a "friend of Robbie"? Why do you call them names? Isnt it against JREF rules to attack the person instead of the argument? I read many of your posts and initially thought you were fair, i see you are wrong. Feel free to call me a "kook" if it makes you feel better. But it still wont change the fact you are wrong.

[Reheat]

Thanks for the correction Reheat. It was "ignore" instead of "acknowledge". You are still.. very... wrong. PfT has never "ignored" the DME. It was posted last year, thoroughly, in pinned topics, and a recent video was just published. But perhaps i guess you can say they "ignored" the DME. I disagree with you, respectfully.

It is customary here to post a link when you refer to other material. I realize you can't post HTML type links until you have 15 posts, but you can separate with spaces. I'm not going to waste my time searching through junk to find the material. I could be wrong, I was once about 25 or 30 years ago.

Sure, they've posted a lot of crap, doesn't mean it was properly addressed, does it? Unless you're talking about recently, after all this thread is pretty old.

As for "other evidence". Is this thread about the FDR or "other evidence"? I havent thoroughly looked at the rules for JREF, but is off topic posting against the rules?

If it's an extended off thread discussion it is not allowed, but it certainly is pertinent to this issue.

As for FDR Experts, it appears they have quite a few. I know it "disgusts" you to look over their work, but they do have an interview with Ed Santana from L3 Communications on their front page which completely destroys beachnuts' argument. When was the last time Beachnut worked with an FDR? It seems quite awhile.

I have no idea what you're talking about without a link referring to the material you address. What did Ed Santana say?

I'm sure beachnut can and will defend his own argument. Why mention it here, I'm not beachnut?

edit to add: Why do you automatically assume im a "friend of Robbie"?

Perhaps a bad assumption, but you seem to be enamored with his work. If referring to him as your friend is insulting, I'm sorry about that.

Why do you call them names?

Oh, Dopy is a term of endearment. He's been called worse.

Isnt it against JREF rules to attack the person instead of the argument?

Where's the attack? You ain't seen nothing yet if you think there's been an attack.

I read many of your posts and initially thought you were fair, i see you are wrong. Feel free to call me a "kook" if it makes you feel better. But it still wont change the fact you are wrong.

You're repeating yourself. If you're patronizing me it not going to work if you accuse me of calling you names before I actually do.

BTW, I'm not going to be wrong and stay up until 0 dark thirty to have a chat. You're not that interesting.

[apathoid]

Tony, welcome to JREF. Please take anything from so the so-called "Pilots for Truth" with a pinch of salt....they are selling snakeoil.

Truth is: the exact time, or distance if you prefer, the aircraft was from the wall at the last frame of recorded data cannot possibly be known directly, it has to be inferred. There are two very good values which can triangulate the position of the aircraft during this frame: the DME(+/- 0.1 nm) and the track track(true heading corrected for wind drift). As PfT noted in the new video, the IRS position can be off due to drift and other factors so it's not very reliable here.

I've already worked out this position, but I invite you to do the same. Perhaps we can compare answers.

As for FDR Experts, it appears they have quite a few.

Such as?

[tony soprano]

It is customary here to post a link when you refer to other material. I realize you can't post HTML type links until you have 15 posts, but you can separate with spaces. I'm not going to waste my time searching through junk to find the material. I could be wrong, I was once about 25 or 30 years ago.

Thanks for the instruction.

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum // index.php?showtopic=5388

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum // index.php?showtopic=10751

You may use the excuse "junk" as the reason for making statements without checking source, but others will find you are very wrong with your statements and perhaps think you are biased when they actually check readily accessible information you claim PfT ignores? The links are truly very easy to find. Just an observation. With respect. Not sure why anyone would make such a statement as you have without at least checking pinned topics. But thats your choice i suppose.

Sure, they've posted a lot of crap, doesn't mean it was properly addressed, does it? Unless you're talking about recently, after all this thread is pretty old.

The topic you say they ignored was published last year. You posted that they ignored the topic... last month. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "ignore"

If it's an extended off thread discussion it is not allowed, but it certainly is pertinent to this issue.

The topic of this thread states "FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth". After respectfully realizing your faults, i can see why you would want to shift the topic to "other evidence".



I have no idea what you're talking about without a link referring to the material you address. What did Ed Santana say?

pilotsfor911truth. org. You dont have to watch it i suppose since it "disgusts" you. Many others will and do. Seems their core member list is growing pretty rapidly. pilotsfor911truth. org / core . html

I'm sure beachnut can and will defend his own argument. Why mention it here, I'm not beachnut?

Nothing personal to beachnut, but many of his posts are full of ad hom attacks. When he does try to stick to topic, it seems rather incoherent with shifting arguments. I remember a thread awhile back where many on JREF asked him why he had a problem posting coherent posts. I suppose i can dig it out because im sure no one here will try.. but i'll take my time. I understand he is a bit of an old timer. God Bless him. However, i am addressing beachnut because he posted in this thread and it appears he is very wrong as well.

Perhaps a bad assumption, but you seem to be enamored with his work.

Not really. Im just not "disgusted" and will look at both sides.

If referring to him as your friend is insulting, I'm sorry about that.

Doesnt matter to me, but it seems par for the course around here when anyone questions posts from the "regulars". I lurked alot. :)

It really only hurts you i suppose.


Oh, Dopy is a term of endearment. He's been called worse.

Agreed. I seen it here many times against more than just "Robbie". But again, we're getting off topic and im sure unbiased lurkers understand.

Where's the attack? You ain't seen nothing yet if you think there's been an attack.

Oh, i seen plenty over the years lurking this board. Yes, you are rather tame at this point. But again, getting a bit off topic.


You're repeating yourself. If you're patronizing me it not going to work if you accuse me of calling you names before I actually do.

My apologies.

BTW, I'm not going to be wrong and stay up until 0 dark thirty to have a chat. You're not that interesting.

Sleep well. Im sure this post will be here when you wake up. Hopefully.

[tony soprano]

Tony, welcome to JREF. Please take anything from so the so-called "Pilots for Truth" with a pinch of salt....they are selling snakeoil.



If they are selling snake oil, why are so many pilots and aviation professionals joining?

patriotsquestion911. com/ pilots

Those guys dont look like snake oil salesman to me. Good to see you posting again apathoid. I thought you may have disappeared. You happen to be able to put your face on your claims calling them snake oil salesman?

[apathoid]

If they are selling snake oil, why are so many pilots and aviation professionals joining?

patriotsquestion911. com/ pilots

Those guys dont look like snake oil salesman to me. Good to see you posting again apathoid. I thought you may have disappeared. You happen to be able to put your face on your claims calling them snake oil salesman?


I'm really not in the business of making claims a la the "Truth" movement - but I guess my claim, if anything, is that there is not enough information from the FDR to do a forensic investigation of AA77s position relative to the light poles.

I simply suggested that you use all available data to attempt to place AA77, don't conviently leave out major parameters(like heading)...doing so will not lead you to the truth my friend.

[tony soprano]

Thanks for your insightful post apathoid.

It appears DME found in the CSV file provided by the NTSB places the airplane in a rather specific location, even given the .1 NM error. Ask Beachnut, he'll tell ya. It appears he did on page 1. Or do you feel he is wrong?

Now, back to the snake oil salesman part. Have you tried to speak with PfT and tell them that face to face? I understand "Robbie" has recordings with Ron Weick and Ron doesnt feel that way at all. Matter of fact, Ron says it was rather pleasant phone calls. Of course, im just going by my lurking here and what Ron has posted. I can dig them out as well if you like, but im sure Ron wont disagree, because he did post it.

I'd like to see those who accuse PfT of being "snake oil salesman", from behind their screen to actually stand up to PfT, or at the very least, create a website and put their face and name on their ad hom attacks. Might be asking too much, my apologies.

[tony soprano]

BTW, the 300 miles in 30 min claim is addressed here,

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum// index.php?s=&showtopic =8123&view=findpost&p=9880981

[gumboot]

When did they pull out of that dive?

What dive?

[beachnut]

Beachnut, you need to make up your mind. I've seen you say 2600 feet, 2800 feet, 3000 feet, 3000+ feet, and now its back to 2800. Thats good. It closer to the actual data, but still very wrong. Anyone with Google Earth can check 1.5 DME Nautical miles from DCA VOR. But even so, 2800 feet from the wall is still to high it seems. Ever seen 8000-10,000 fpm descents at less than 300 feet above the ground? Because that is what you are advocating if the data stopped at 2800 feet from the wall. When did they pull out of that dive?

Also, you said you worked with FDR's. Are you familair with ED-55 and/or TSO-124? I think the 4 second buffer was applicable in the old mag tape FDR's. Not the supposed SSFDR claimed to be used in AA77.
Too bad you have no idea how a FDR works;

[gumboot]

BTW, the 300 miles in 30 min claim is addressed here,

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum// index.php?s=&showtopic =8123&view=findpost&p=9880981


Except when AA77 was 300 miles from the Pentagon it was about 39 minutes away, and when it was 30 minutes away it was only 227 miles from the Pentagon. In other words it was never both 300 miles and 30 minutes from the Pentagon.

[tony soprano]

Sorry buddy, but the plane is only maximum of 393 feet at 2800 feet from the Pentagon. What was the altitude it hits at, and what is the reference point on flight 77?

2800 feet/781 f/s speed = 3.5 seconds

393 feet altitude/3.5 seconds = 112 f/s descent rate x 60 = 6737 fpm descent rate at less than 400 feet above the ground. Unfortunately, you just increased the descent rate/pitch angle the NTSB provided, which in fact doesnt hit the poles.

pilotsfor911truth.org /forum// index.php?showtopic=8166&b=1&st=0&p=0&#entry0

Care to revise your statement.. again?

have no brought but talk to a fact discussion you are not advancing knowledge

Coherent posts my friend. Please slow down.

you are repeating hearsay and lies of p4t; idiots who once flew!

Anyone want to report Beachnut for attacking the person instead of the argument?

By the way Beachnut, it appears they have many who are current. And from what "Robbie" says, a major update on the way. Are you current? Or did you only fly limited flights and then assigned a desk.... just wondering.

Still waiting to see if you know what ED-55 and TSO-124 is, but please, keep ignoring it.

Thanks for your input Beachnut. It is always useful.

[tony soprano]

Except when AA77 was 300 miles from the Pentagon it was about 39 minutes away, and when it was 30 minutes away it was only 227 miles from the Pentagon. In other words it was never both 300 miles and 30 minutes from the Pentagon.

If you read the linked post gum, you'll see it agrees with what you been saying. Are you also "disgusted" to click links to PfT? Even when it agrees with your analysis? Or do you just like to argue.

[beachnut]

Thanks for your insightful post apathoid.

It appears DME found in the CSV file provided by the NTSB places the airplane in a rather specific location, even given the .1 NM error. Ask Beachnut, he'll tell ya. It appears he did on page 1. Or do you feel he is wrong?

Now, back to the snake oil salesman part. Have you tried to speak with PfT and tell them that face to face? I understand "Robbie" has recordings with Ron Weick and Ron doesnt feel that way at all. Matter of fact, Ron says it was rather pleasant phone calls. Of course, im just going by my lurking here and what Ron has posted. I can dig them out as well if you like, but im sure Ron wont disagree, because he did post it.

I'd like to see those who accuse PfT of being "snake oil salesman", from behind their screen to actually stand up to PfT, or at the very least, create a website and put their face and name on their ad hom attacks. Might be asking too much, my apologies.
Too bad rob can't keep from threatening people.

"snake oil rob" says the plane seen to hit the poles and the Pentagon was too high to do it. Now that is pure "snake oil".
Funny, he even thinks the INS was messed up by the normal turn (sloppy but well with in parameters for normal flight!) and the final 10 to 20 second over speed of 77; wait, 77 was in a decent; what is the real top speed for a decent for 77? (never to present facts! p4t)

[tony soprano]

[COLOR=black] But he has said 77 did not hit the Pentagon,

Source? Link?

Are you rob?

But of course. We're all "Rob" who expose you. Right? ;)

I see you are trying hard to shift this post off topic Beachnut. I dont blame you actually. Anytime you want to tell us if you know what TSO-124 and ED-55 is, please, im sure many are waiting.

Edit to add:

sloppy but well with in parameters for normal flight

It appears apathoid disagrees with you. Did you read his post(s)?

[beachnut]

Anyone want to report Beachnut for attacking the person instead of the argument? Rob, the guy
who threatens to kill people? Good idea report me for telling on rob. Good idea.
By the way Beachnut, it appears they have many who are current. And from what "Robbie" says, a major update on the way. The only major update on rob is he ignores evidence as you do questions. You failed to answer one simple question posted to your hearsay parroting of rob.
Still waiting to see if you know what ED-55 and TSO-124 is, but please, keep ignoring it.Thanks for your input Beachnut. It is always useful.
The standards for FDRs change all the time! Please state the exact date of the standards you do not understand, and when the airlines had to comply with the standard?

[tony soprano]

[COLOR=black] Rob, the guy who wants to kill people?


Beachnut, keep reaching. It really shows you want to bring this thread off topic and attack character. Why do Ron and Pat exchange phone numbers and address with Rob if "Rob wants to kill people"? Nice try though...

TSO-124 and ED-55. Do you know what it is? Yes or no? 4th time asked.

[BenBurch]

The stupid! It BURNS.

[tony soprano]

The stupid! It BURNS.

agreed. How many times can one ask of FDR regs when a self proclaimed "FDR Expert" avoids?

[beachnut]

Source? Link?
But of course. We're all "Rob" who expose you. Right?

I see you are trying hard to shift this post off topic Beachnut. I dont blame you actually. Anytime you want to tell us if you know what TSO-124 and ED-55 is, please, im sure many are waiting.
Edit to add:
It appears apathoid disagrees with you. Did you read his post(s)? I agree with apathoid he is right!

See, you failed to listen to the rob of p4t. In his interviews, he stated both positions! He stated 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and that he can not say 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Gee, why are all the flights that 77 did for 24 hours before 9/11 on the FDR? That proof is in the hands of p4t expert researchers and they fail to tell the world it all checks out! Why are they failing to tell the world the FDR holds 24 hours of data that match where 77 was?

[beachnut]

Beachnut, keep reaching. It really shows you want to bring this thread off topic and attack character. Why do Ron and Pat exchange phone numbers and address with Rob if "Rob wants to kill people"? Nice try though...

TSO-124 and ED-55. Do you know what it is? Yes or no? 4th time asked.
If only you understand the standards old rob tells you to post! When were they in effect and how do the airliners comply? You tell me when and why the FDRs were not covered by the standards published after the FDRs were installed in 77? Can you offer some knowledge or are you just posting HEARSAY?

[tony soprano]

blah blah blah


TSO-124 or ED-55. Can you tell us what they are? 5th time asked.

(hint: Ed Santana tells everyone what it is on the front page of PfT)

I will keep asking, im sure you'll keep avoiding.

If you do try to BS your way through the regs, we'll move onto your tour of duty and desk assignment as i dont expect to convince anyone here who already drops their critical thinking hats at the door as long as it supports the govt story.

Love the 393 feet though. Keep up the great work! That post is saved.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, keep reaching. It really shows you want to bring this thread off topic and attack character. Why do Ron and Pat exchange phone numbers and address with Rob if "Rob wants to kill people"? Nice try though...

TSO-124 and ED-55. Do you know what it is? Yes or no? 4th time asked.
Rob has threatened people, he should not. Fact

Once again you post standards you know not of. Good job

[beachnut]

I'm really not in the business of making claims a la the "Truth" movement - but I guess my claim, if anything, is that there is not enough information from the FDR to do a forensic investigation of AA77s position relative to the light poles.

I simply suggested that you use all available data to attempt to place AA77, don't conviently leave out major parameters(like heading)...doing so will not lead you to the truth my friend.
Gee, he said you disagree with me! I agree with you.
Outstanding.

I agree with your post. there is not enough information from the FDR to do a forensic investigation of AA77s position relative to the light poles. Correct!

use all available data to attempt to place AA77, don't conviently leave out major parameters(like heading)... This is very true.

Great post

[tony soprano]

Rob seems to be growing a rather credible group. Has spoken to Ron and Pat Curley, recorded.

Why do you keep attacking his character instead of sticking to topic?

ED-55... TSO-124. 6th time asked. Can you tell us what it is or no. If you refuse to provide a direct reply regarding the question asked numerous times, and effective date (thanks for bringing it up by the way), we will know you dont have a clue what they are (although, i think many lurkers here already know).

Beachnut, whether you know it or not, you help PfT more than trying to disuade "fence sitters". Your posts are mostly incoherent, your arguments shift constantly and you are filled with nothnig but venom for those who question the govt story.

ED-55 and TSO-124. Effective Dates and content. Can you do it or no?

[tony soprano]

apathoid said
Quote:
there is not enough information from the FDR to do a forensic investigation of AA77s position relative to the light poles.

Beachnut said
Correct!


...the plane is only maximum of 393 feet at 2800 feet from the Pentagon.


Beachnut, make up your mind already...

[beachnut]

TSO-124 or ED-55. Can you tell us what they are? 5th time asked.
(hint: Ed Santana tells everyone what it is on the front page of PfT)
I will keep asking, im sure you'll keep avoiding.
If you do try to BS your way through the regs, we'll move onto your tour of duty and desk assignment as i dont expect to convince anyone here who already drops their critical thinking hats at the door as long as it supports the govt story.

Love the 393 feet though. Keep up the great work! That post is saved.
393MSL is the high side; since you can not tell me in time where in the frame and relative to the second of time it exist then you failed to present info.

The FDR is not for showing you where the plane was, it is for storing data to recreate the flight to give insight for mishaps; we know were 77 was on 9/11! You don't.

I know what the standards are, now you tell us all when they were in effect and when the FDR on 77 had to comply.

And then tell me why missing data in FDRs happens; do you need examples of missing data? Then please look it up! Can you do any work for yourself before I get tired of your posts of p4t hearsay bs that does not explain, but tries to mislead.

Dates? Compliance requirements please? (btw, I keep answering your standards junk and you clearly do not understand them)

You continue to fail to answer! I have told you they are standards many times. Dates? Compliance requirements please?

[beachnut]

Beachnut, make up your mind already...
Hi rob

[gumboot]

If you read the linked post gum, you'll see it agrees with what you been saying. Are you also "disgusted" to click links to PfT? Even when it agrees with your analysis? Or do you just like to argue.


No I followed the link. I don't tend to feel disgust from the act of entering a web address into my internet browser. The post you linked to (or at least the post that came up on my screen when I followed your link) claimed that AA77 was 370 miles from the Pentagon at 0900. I must confess I interpreted your post "the claim is addressed here" as "the claim is explained here" rather than "the claim is refuted here". I see that below the post you linked to is another post by a Rob Balsamo who points out the distance error.

[tony soprano]

Very good Gum.

Beachnut, whenever you want to address ED-55 and TSO-124 as asked for the 7th time, im sure the lurkers would like to know. Or not, doesnt really matter i guess as many "get your number" rather quickly from what i've seen.

BTW, exactly how many "Robs" are on this board? I seen you guys accuse at least, what, 20?


Whatever. Have a great day all. I'll be back to play more with Beachnut in the future. Hopefully by that time he can tell us more about TSO-124 and ED-55, and why he was assigned a desk.

[beachnut]

Rob seems to be growing a rather credible group. Has spoken to Ron and Pat Curley, recorded. Comedy forum is not here.
Why do you keep attacking his character instead of sticking to topic? He has no character and betrays the memory of pilots who dies on 9/11 by making up false implications and lies. He threatens people and makes up stuff. Character?
ED-55... TSO-124. .... Standards; Why not tell us the dates and the compliance requirements? YOU FAILED TO! Beachnut, whether you know it or not, you help PfT more than trying to disuade "fence sitters". Your posts are mostly incoherent, your arguments shift constantly and you are filled with nothnig but venom for those who question the govt story.
Fence sitters please go join p4r, you will raise the IQ! P4t make up stuff, ignore evidence and rob just wants to sell DVDs of false implications. Join p4t, the leader does not understand many aspects of flying, he needs your help!
ED-55 and TSO-124. Effective Dates and content. Can you do it or no? Sorry, that is your job. You make extraordinary claims you need to explain them; and you can't.

[tony soprano]

Thank you Beachnut. You proved a very important point with your last post.

For the regulars here, i'd think twice about backing this man.

The best of all..

Beachnut wrote:
393MSL is the high side; since you can not tell me in time where in the frame and relative to the second of time it exist then you failed to present info.

Beachnut wrote:
the plane is only maximum of 393 feet at 2800 feet from the Pentagon

Beachnut, you just told us the time frame. If you're confused, perhaps someone here can help you with speed = distance/time. If you dont know where to find the speed, the NTSB provided it in their CSV files.

TSO-124 and ED-55. Its on the PfT front page interview with Ed Santana. Why do you keep avoiding it asking me to answer? Stale tactic. You cant answer. We get it.

Have fun!

[beachnut]

The best of all..

Beachnut, you just told us the time frame. If you're confused, perhaps someone here can help you with speed = distance/time. If you dont know where to find the speed, the NTSB provided it in their CSV files.

TSO-124 and ED-55. Its on the PfT front page interview with Ed Santana. Why do you keep avoiding it asking me to answer? Stale tactic. You cant answer. We get it.

Have fun!
The data for each second is collected; can you tell me or anyone when in the infinite portions in that second the RAD ALT is from in time (0 to 1 second use .001 second portions)? (you need to think before you mess up again and post stupid stuff) Ask questions if you do not understand?

You keep posting standards! Fence sitters, he is talking about standards and he can not tell you the date, or the compliance requirements of the standards he is posting. (124b is current, ED-112 is current)

HINT:New models of FDR systems identified and manufactured on or after the effective date of this TSO must meet the MPS in the European Organization for Civil Aviation Electronics’ (EUROCAE) publication ED-XXX Fence sitters, please be warned, the p4t cherry pick and mislead! They want you to buy pure dumb DVDs which mislead to feed paranoid minds who want to let others make up their minds for them. Those who understand reality must ask questions of those who ignore facts to sell DVDs which mislead. This simple quote from the standard our newest expert can not produce, explains why he can not tell anyone the whole story it will destroy the misinformation of p4t. Join the p4tf and see pure stupid in action. It hurts to see how dumb people can mess up 9/11 without any effort.

[tony soprano]

Too bad you have no idea how a FDR works;



Beachnut, why did you edit the above post almost 1.5 hours after your posted the original? Your original is quoted all over the place. Are you trying to hide something?

You do know people can see date/time.. right?

For those not familiar redirecting to quoted posts, click the little arrow next to the name in above quote. Note the difference in time from original to edit. Also note Beachnut didnt give a reason for edit. He deleted his whole post and reposted something completely different. Beachnut, poor form.. very poor form. Even for JREF. Scroll down on same page to see quotes from his original post.



Dont bother editing again, as its now saved.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, why did you edit the above post almost 1.5 hours after your posted the original? Your original is quoted all over the place. Are you trying to hide something?

You do know people can see date/time.. right?

For those not familiar redirecting to quoted posts, click the little arrow next to the name in above quote. Note the difference in time from original to edit. Also note Beachnut didnt give a reason for edit. He deleted his whole post and reposted something completely different. Beachnut, poor form.. very poor form. Even for JREF. Scroll down on same page to see quotes from his original post.



Dont bother editing again, as its now saved.
So?

[tony soprano]

So?


Beachnut, i understand what you did and why you did it. You deleted a post you made that incriminates yourself and the govt story. You placed the aircraft location based on speed and height. You realized you were wrong, and you deleted it almost 1.5 hours later when you finally "woke up" to what you had done.

Its all spelled out here....

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3443068&postcount=80

and subsequent posts.

So tell me JREF regulars, is it normal to edit your posts almost 1.5 hours after its been quoted everywhere? Maybe i'll go back and edit mine. Nah, i dont need to.

Beachnut, careful, JREFers might start to think you are hired by P4T as controlled opposition. You're just to easy to spot.

:D

[beachnut]

Beachnut, i understand what you did and why you did it. You deleted a post you made that incriminates yourself and the govt story. You placed the aircraft location based on speed and height. You realized you were wrong, and you deleted it almost 1.5 hours later when you finally "woke up" to what you had done.

Its all spelled out here....

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3443068&postcount=80

and subsequent posts.

So tell me JREF regulars, is it normal to edit your posts almost 1.5 hours after its been quoted everywhere? Maybe i'll go back and edit mine. Nah, i dont need to.

Beachnut, careful, JREFers might start to think you are hired by P4T as controlled opposition. You're just to easy to spot.

:D
They can read my posts in your posts: I am saving space and wanted to say less! I could care less if you have all my edits stored forever! So? I can edit them for 2 hours, you can too; so? I want to shorten them all. But I was typing away; I type too fast unlike Rob who can't type as fast; I am watching movies and typing; so; after I read my posts, I want to shorten them despite the fact you have them all stored in your posts! So?) Do not be surprised when this goes away too, so keep a record for me! thank you very much.

BTW, I have listen to rob and so have others here is what others have heard rob say as I have! You can find these recording if rob has not deleted them.

Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:
It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits.

How can you support such tripe? How can you support such a nut? He does not know how many feet were in a NM, the spectrum of a RADAR ALT, and this is his idea of reality! Good for you, you have no evidence and you support an idiot!

[tony soprano]

I notice you dont provide source links. Typical.

"Saving space". And i bet many JREFers will buy that?

However, i dont support no one but myself, my family and the Constitution. I have questions regarding 9/11. You seem to think anyone who questions 9/11 is a liar, a thief, a snakeoil salesman, a dolt, a junk "scientist" ..etc etc, while you delete your posts when they are used against you.

I hope you feel proud.

Tell us Beachnut, why were you taken off the line and assigned to fly a desk?

[gumboot]

I have to ask, what is the point of all this obsessive compulsive amateur analysis of the FDR output from AA77?

[beachnut]

I notice you dont provide source links. Typical.

"Saving space". And i bet many JREFers will buy that?

However, i dont support no one but myself, my family and the Constitution. I have questions regarding 9/11. You seem to think anyone who questions 9/11 is a liar, a thief, a snakeoil salesman, a dolt, a junk "scientist" ..etc etc, while you delete your posts when they are used against you.

I hope you feel proud.

Tell us Beachnut, why were you taken off the line and assigned to fly a desk?
You support the nut case ideas of rob as posted here!

You can not supply the dates and what the standards mean for FDRs.!

You have posted no facts, you have failed to make a point except to support a fantasy made up by rob.

NO, anyone who makes up lies is a fraud and those who believe the ideas of rob are dolts for not demanding evidence to support the fantasy he made up!

If you have listened to all of rob's interviews you know this is true of what he said! Either you are a good researcher and know this, or you are a poor researcher and do not know what rob has said. Which is it?

Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:
It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits.

Do you do your own research? Then you can look up the oath I took too. Why do you lie?

[tony soprano]

You support the nut case ideas of rob as posted here!

You attack person instead of argument. Against JREF rules?

You can not supply the dates and what the standards mean for FDRs.!

i have told you numerous times Ed Santana supplied the information through an interview provided on PfT front page. I asked you if you knew what it meant, 7 times. Instead, you chose to attack asking me what it meant.

You have posted no facts, you have failed to make a point except to support a fantasy made up by rob.

I have posted and quoted your own words, which you deleted once you realized it didnt add up to the govt story. Your excuse? "Saving Space"...

NO, anyone who makes up lies is a fraud and those who believe the ideas of rob are dolts for not demanding evidence to support the fantasy he made up!

All dolts according to you... http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots ... and growing rapidly..

Wheres your picture and statements?

Again, care to tell us why you were assigned to fly a desk? I lost count, but i think its the 5th time asked.

[tony soprano]

I have to ask, what is the point of all this obsessive compulsive amateur analysis of the FDR output from AA77?


Great question Gum. Why dont you think it over.

But i disagree with "amature", unless of course we are talking about Beachnut.

[DGM]

Tony:
Simple question. Is all the physical evidence, DNA, wreckage, witnesses and such all an elaborate fake?

[beachnut]

You attack person instead of argument. Against JREF rules? Wrong, I said nut case ideas! And here it is.
Rob Balsamo's hypotheses:
It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC. Because sound travels a few seconds there, they couldn't have heard the actual boom for about a second or two. They would have looked over and seen a smoke and a fire and what have you. They could think it would be just another plane, all morning they were departing this way. So if eyewitnesses saw this plane, they thought it was just another plane they'd seen all morning.

There people's focus and attention would be on the smoke coming from the Pentagon. There was a white aircraft circling Pentagon, the C4B a 747 (?). This thing could have flown over, dropped it's payload there and climb out, and then circle around and circle back out to the Pentagon to check out the damage. We don't say this happened, but it certainly fits. It certainly fits. Have you found the interview yet? i have told you numerous times Ed Santana supplied the information through an interview provided on PfT front page. I asked you if you knew what it meant, 7 times. Instead, you chose to attack asking me what it meant. Tell me in your own words what the standards say for the FDR used on 77. Facts please. I have posted and quoted your own words, which you deleted once you realized it didnt add up to the govt story. Your excuse? "Saving Space"... No, I edited my posts; my posts, to make them smaller (less is more) and what I want to post now. If you have the old ones that is great; you can keep them; thank you for making up what you think I am doing; it shows how good you are at stating facts; I know you have quoted my old posts, I edited them; you have got my old post; I wanted to shorten my old posts as I wish; you can keep the old ones, I posted new ones. SO? I will remove this after a few minutes cause I am wasting space with your stupid statement. So be quick I want to edit my posts as I see fit to say what I want to say when I want to say it. SO? Please keep beating this dead point into the ground so you can avoid actually answering a single real question I have posted many times.
All dolts according to you... http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots (http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots) ... and growing rapidly..
Those who can not figure out 9/11 after 6 years are dolts; those who finally figure it out are cured of terminal stupidity and can be then be known as knowledgeable and be proud they have learned to identify idiot ideas made up by frauds. Wheres your picture and statements? Where's yours? Again, care to tell us why you were assigned to fly a desk? I lost count, but i think its the 5th time asked. Why do you make up lies? Is this a habit or a learned technique from 9/11 truth?

[gumboot]

Great question Gum. Why dont you think it over.

I'd rather not waste my time, and as I already expressed I am ignorant of its importance. Obviously it has something to do with a theory of what happened on 9/11, but I'd like something a bit more specific.


But i disagree with "amature", unless of course we are talking about Beachnut.

I mean amateur in the sense of it being conducted via a method and via people that are not professionally qualified and properly equipped FDR analysers.

[tony soprano]

ok.. i see the gang rape is coming on board. Sorry if i dont get to all of you.

Beachnut, i'll keep it simple as others are lurking, know your name, and know your "assignment".

Just answer these questions.

Does ED-55 and TSO-124 set the standard for SSFDR's?

What is the standard buffer lag for SSFDR's?

Were these regs effective in 1965, 1970, 1980, 1990, or 2001?

Were they only effective for SSFDR?

Do you put your name on the fact that SSFDR's can have a 4 second buffer lag?

Just answer please. Dont ask me to answer (spin is so unbecoming). Im asking you.

Remember now, "Save Space" with your reply. :rolleyes:

Thanks in advance.


edit to add: Beachnut, are you saying you were never taken off line to fly a desk? Please tell me i am lying again.

[beachnut]

2800 feet/781 f/s speed = 3.5 seconds

393 feet altitude/3.5 seconds = 112 f/s descent rate x 60 = 6737 fpm descent rate at less than 400 feet above the ground. Unfortunately, you just increased the descent rate/pitch angle the NTSB provided, which in fact doesnt hit the poles.
Sorry, it is 94 feet/second; you forgot to adjust some things and you rounded 3.63 seconds to 3.5! As usually you have the wrong amount of feet to impact in absolute attitude and you shave the time to cheat.

The less than 5667 feet rate of descent is not out of the ordinary for 77! Sorry, what is your point besides showing how you can shave time and increase the absolute altitude above the Pentagon impact point to make up false information on 9/11.

Sad you make up stuff to mislead, does not seem your actions support your ideals.

[gumboot]

ok.. i see the gang rape is coming on board. Sorry if i dont get to all of you.


For what it's worth I'm not interested in discussing the matter as I really don't know much about FDRs. I'm just curious to know what the specific relevance is. Maybe it's worth addressing in my Air War paper I'm writing.

[tony soprano]

ok, lets get critical...

2800/781 f/s = 3.58 What calculator are you using? What speed are you using?

393/3.58 = 109 f/s dive

109 f/s dive = 6586 fpm descent rate at less than 400 feet above the ground, at less than 4 seconds from the pentagon wall.

Beachnut. Are you telling all these pilots who are lurking that a 757 can pull out of a 6500fpm dive, less than 400 feet above the ground, in less than 4 seconds? Is that what you are telling us? Because once again, you increased the rate the NTSB provided. They show a 4500 fpm descent rate. 4500 fpm is too high. But hey, feel free to keep arguing it. You help PfT.

edit to add: keep in mind, the above are Beachnuts numbers (where he got them from, who knows, but he did delete his originals, i guess we can see why), which are very wrong when one watches the video here based on actual NTSB numbers:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10751

[gumboot]

Beachnut. Are you telling all these pilots who are lurking that a 757 can pull out of a 6500fpm dive, less than 400 feet above the ground, in less than 4 seconds?


Not that I'm really following the conversation, but why would a 757 need to pull out of such a dive? :confused:

[eeyore1954]

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”




Anyone who uses this quote is either wildly misinformed or definately not interested in the truth. The complete quote plainly shows to any reasonable reader that he does not mean there was no crash of a jetliner.

[tony soprano]

Not that I'm really following the conversation, but why would a 757 need to pull out of such a dive? :confused:

Perhaps click the link to the videos? Others will, and others do.

edit to add: ok, i'll help you a bit here Gum.

Watch this video first. Its based on working backwards from the "impact hole" with NTSB pitch/bank data.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8166

That pitch is about 4500 fpm descent.

Beachnut, even if we go with his 5880 fpm descent rate, has increased the pitch beyond what the NTSB provided. Hope this helps.

[beachnut]

ok.. i see the gang rape is coming on board. Sorry if i dont get to all of you. lol

[eeyore1954]

Even tho' it disgusts me to have to read the unadulterated crap on the p4t site, I have watched as the "experts" tried to unravel the FDR Data. Tell your friend Robbie to have a recognized FDR expert analyze the FDR data and agree with his numbers and premise and then I'll discuss it in a serious manner.



To me this is the crux of the matter if Rob Balsamo is really interested in the truth why doesn't he do that. Someone who really uderstands the limitations and inherent errors in the analysis of FDR.

This is common across the "truth" movement.

[tony soprano]

It appears there are 4 or more seconds missing from 77 FDR


I stopped reading here. Beachnut, you're moving goal posts again. Was the plane 2800 feet away from the wall or not?

Wait, lets see what you said...

Beachnut wrote:
the plane is only maximum of 393 feet at 2800 feet from the Pentagon

Did you say that Beachnut? Or did you delete it to "Save Space".


Does anynoe really take this guy seriously anymore?

[chillzero]

Stop this bickering you two. Remove any further personal remarks from your posts or you will find further mod action will follow. If you have details to debate then discuss them without getting personal or sarcastic. Keep to the points at hand.

[tony soprano]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page. You didnt see it eeyore?


I suppose you people can ask for experts all day long while saying out of the other side of your cheek "That place disgusts me, i'll never go there".

Thanks. It appears you justify why people have questions about 9/11 and some are biased no matter what.

[DGM]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page. You didnt see it eeyore?


I suppose you people can ask for experts all day long while saying out of the other side of your cheek "That place disgusts me, i'll never go there".

Thanks. It appears you justify why people have questions about 9/11 and some are biased no matter what.
Why should we ignore all the physical evidence?

[tony soprano]

Is this thread about the physical evidence or the FDR?

Feel free to open a physical evidence thread. Unless your purpose is to shift the topic?

[DGM]

Is this thread about the physical evidence or the FDR?

Feel free to open a physical evidence thread. Unless your purpose is to shift the topic?
The FDR was found at the Pentagon. It's part of the physical evidence. To focus on the FDR and ignore all other physical evidence would suggest we also ignore the FDR.

[eeyore1954]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page. You didnt see it eeyore?


I suppose you people can ask for experts all day long while saying out of the other side of your cheek "That place disgusts me, i'll never go there".

Thanks. It appears you justify why people have questions about 9/11 and some are biased no matter what.

I generally don't go the PFT website.

Assuming this man is the expert you claim.

I have not heard of the interview but has he analyzed the data or just answered a few questions in the interview. There is a big difference.

[tony soprano]

The FDR was found at the Pentagon. It's part of the physical evidence. To focus on the FDR and ignore all other physical evidence would suggest we also ignore the FDR.


Was it found at the entrance hole or exit hole?

Can the Govt get their story straight?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

Who is Lying?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html

[gumboot]

Perhaps click the link to the videos? Others will, and others do.

edit to add: ok, i'll help you a bit here Gum.

Watch this video first. Its based on working backwards from the "impact hole" with NTSB pitch/bank data.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8166

That pitch is about 4500 fpm descent.

Beachnut, even if we go with his 5880 fpm descent rate, has increased the pitch beyond what the NTSB provided. Hope this helps.


I got half way through and it still hadn't got to the point. I don't have spare time to sit around watching meaningless videos.

I was merely curious but if you're unwilling to explain it simply never mind.

[eeyore1954]

I am not interested in the flight data very much because the amount of evidence that the plane hit pentagon is overwhelming.
It takes a lot of something (I don't know what) to believe someone would have planned to fly over the pentagon , to plant broken light poles , plant evidence at the pentagon , tamper with the evidence in the DNA identification , etc , etc,

What about the eyewitnesses , what about the first responders who saw firsthand what was there.

[gumboot]

Was it found at the entrance hole or exit hole?

Can the Govt get their story straight?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

Who is Lying?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html


Since when were MSNBC, PBS or an anonymous internet poster called "Undertow" part of the US Government? Is the above examples of typical Pilots For Truth research standards?

[tony soprano]

MSNBC quoted an Arlington Spokesperson. Undertow quoted a picture from the new Pentagon Book released by the DoD. I notice you didnt reference the ASCE report?

Feel free to check all sources if you wish, or make excuses. Whichever.

Edit: My bad, i got it a bit mixed up, MSNBC quoted "Pentagon Officials" and PBS quoted the Arlington Spokesperson.

"Pentagon officials said the recorders, also called "black boxes" were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of wreckage in the collapsed part of the building.." (MSNBC Sept 28). "Dick Bridges, a spokesman for Arlington County, Va...said the recorders were found 'right where the plane came into the building.'" (PBS - Sept 14). "

[DGM]

Was it found at the entrance hole or exit hole?

Can the Govt get their story straight?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

Who is Lying?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html
So the USG releases a bad fake figuring no one would notice? What about all the rest of the evidence, is that planted also? Be careful you are accusing an awful lot of people of covering up a mass murder.

[tony soprano]

I am not interested in the flight data .


I posted this before, but it seems to have been split out....


And you are posting in an FDR thread because....?

[tony soprano]

So the USG releases a bad fake figuring no one would notice? What about all the rest of the evidence, is that planted also? Be careful you are accusing an awful lot of people of covering up a mass murder.


It seems the PfT have recorded the NTSB and FBI numerous times looking for just those answers. They dont speculate. Do you really mean "careful" or "fearful"....?

It appears PfT has no fear and want answers. Why dont you?

[jhunter1163]

It takes a lot of something (I don't know what) to believe someone would have planned to fly over the pentagon , to plant broken light poles , plant evidence at the pentagon , tamper with the evidence in the DNA identification , etc , etc,

I think the word you're looking for here is "stupidity".

[beachnut]

ok, lets get critical...
2800/781 f/s = 3.58 What calculator are you using? What speed are you using?
393/3.58 = 109 f/s dive
109 f/s dive = 6586 fpm descent rate at less than 400 feet above the ground, at less than 4 seconds from the pentagon wall.
Beachnut. Are you telling all these pilots who are lurking that a 757 can pull out of a 6500fpm dive, less than 400 feet above the ground, in less than 4 seconds? Is that what you are telling us? Because once again, you increased the rate the NTSB provided. They show a 4500 fpm descent rate. 4500 fpm is too high. But hey, feel free to keep arguing it. You help PfT.
edit to add: keep in mind, the above are Beachnuts numbers (where he got them from, who knows, but he did delete his originals, i guess we can see why), which are very wrong when one watches the video here based on actual NTSB numbers:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10751
77 was descending in the last 20 seconds as high as 6600 feet per minute. 110 feet per second.

[tony soprano]

I think the word you're looking for here is "stupidity".


Yep, all the "stupid", "dolts" are listed here. Keep an eye on it as its growing rapidly...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Why is it those who use ad hom do so behind their screen?

[Brainache]

"Pentagon officials said the recorders, also called "black boxes" were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of wreckage in the collapsed part of the building.." (MSNBC Sept 28). "Dick Bridges, a spokesman for Arlington County, Va...said the recorders were found 'right where the plane came into the building.'" (PBS - Sept 14). "

So are you saying that these two statements contradict each other? Because I was under the impression that the collapsed part of the building was right where the plane came in.

[DGM]

It seems the PfT have recorded the NTSB and FBI numerous times looking for just those answers. They dont speculate. Do you really mean "careful" or "fearful"....?

It appears PfT has no fear and want answers. Why dont you?
Why don't I what? What should I fear? I can speak with any of the witnesses if I choose I have never seen any reason to doubt what these people have reported. Thousands of people worked on the scene are they all in on it?

[eeyore1954]

I posted this before, but it seems to have been split out....


And you are posting in an FDR thread because....?

To point out that the FDR evidence would have to be dramatically convincing and accurate in order to trump all the physical evidence and also to challenge Rob Balsamo to go out and hire unbiased true experts in the field to examine the data if he is really interested in the truth.

[tony soprano]

So are you saying that these two statements contradict each other? Because I was under the impression that the collapsed part of the building was right where the plane came in.


However, The ASCE Building Performance Report and a new book published by the Dept Of Defense claims the FDR was found at the exit hole in the C-Ring. "[FDR] found in the building near the hole in the inner C Ring wall leading to A-E Drive." (Undertow quoting new DoD Book).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html


Dont "Critical Thinkers" ever click on links anymore? Or do they just throw out the "Critical Thinking" when it supports the govt story.

[gumboot]

MSNBC quoted an Arlington Spokesperson. Undertow quoted a picture from the new Pentagon Book released by the DoD. I notice you didnt reference the ASCE report?

Feel free to check all sources if you wish, or make excuses. Whichever.

Edit: My bad, i got it a bit mixed up, MSNBC quoted "Pentagon Officials" and PBS quoted the Arlington Spokesperson.

"Pentagon officials said the recorders, also called "black boxes" were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of wreckage in the collapsed part of the building.." (MSNBC Sept 28). "Dick Bridges, a spokesman for Arlington County, Va...said the recorders were found 'right where the plane came into the building.'" (PBS - Sept 14). "


Yes I read the website, I know what they say. My issue is that Pilots For Truth are evidently not checking sources, otherwise they would not use the above.

You obviously don't understand the difference between an official saying something, and a newspaper claiming an official said something.

I didn't mention the ASCE report because the ASCE report is the official government investigation into the Pentagon impact site.

[Par]

Dont "Critical Thinkers" ever click on links anymore? Or do they just throw out the "Critical Thinking" when it supports the govt story.


Of course. We’re paid to. We all work for the New World Order. All will kneel trembling before us.

[tony soprano]

Yes I read the website, I know what they say. My issue is that Pilots For Truth are evidently not checking sources, otherwise they would not use the above.

You obviously don't understand the difference between an official saying something, and a newspaper claiming an official said something.

I didn't mention the ASCE report because the ASCE report is the official government investigation into the Pentagon impact site.


Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to justify it with that excuse. But the fact remains, govt county spokesman, popular mechanics, the new DoD book and the ASCE report all contradict each other. And as usual, they all refuse to comment. It appears PfT is digging deeper with their names, faces and professional reputations on the line, you can make excuses i suppose from behind your screen.

Ok, im checking out now. Have fun folks. Watch that Beachnut now, he may take the FDR to 6000 feet away, and then delete the post.

[gumboot]

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to justify it with that excuse.

I fail to see how that's an excuse. Do you deny that the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report is an official US Government investigation?


But the fact remains, govt county spokesman, popular mechanics, the new DoD book and the ASCE report all contradict each other.

No, the fact remains that an MSNBC news report is contradicted by two official US government documents and the Popular Mechanics investigation. The ASCE report, the DOD book and the Popular Mechanics book do not contradict each other.

So we have on in depth investigation and two official investigations versus one news report. Well call me crazy but my money is on the media being wrong as per usual.



And as usual, they all refuse to comment. It appears PfT is digging deeper with their names, faces and professional reputations on the line, you can make excuses i suppose from behind your screen.

I'm sure Undertow will be right onto it for them. (By the way I'm in front of my screen, not behind it. If I say behind it I wouldn't be able to see anything on it).

[beachnut]

Beachnut, you said the plane was max 393 feet at 2800 feet away from the wall. You have made numerous posts regarding DME. You are getting tiring.

Are you really asking "Please tell me you have data to show were 77 was", when you have argued 1.5 DME DCA VOR ad nauseum?

Its in the CSV files and raw file decode. You seen it, you posted many times referencing it, you found out its too high with the latest video and vertical speed. You deleted your post in an attempt to justify, yet used the excuse of "Saving Space".

Give it up already.
393? MSL, PA, RAD ALT, AGL, what was it?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1849603&postcount=1

Links to give perspective to people who lack facts on 9/11 ,like the FDR. Even me.

(http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummaryConspiracists ) Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police To make up false information on 77 and the FDR means the people spreading those lies are essentially calling all these people liars. Until you can prove all the information about the Pentagon is false, your ideas are fantasy. Good luck; You had 6 years and the best you have is p4t false implications and hearsay.

[Calcas]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html


Dont "Critical Thinkers" ever click on links anymore? Or do they just throw out the "Critical Thinking" when it supports the govt story.

You finally joined here, huh Rob?

Personally, I stopped visiting your site when I was banned for no reason other than to disagree with you. No cussing, no insulting, no attacking...just disagreeing.

You'll notice that you won't get banned here except for breaking some rules that are very explicit and even then all the details will be posted in the Forum Management section.

I noticed you complaining about attacking the arguer instead of the argument in the same post(s) that you repeatedly demanded personal information from beachnut. Who woulda thunk it?

Pilots for twoof...except when people disagree. My irony meter explodes...

[Lisa Simpson]

Sorry, Calcas, he was banned this morning. Or maybe I should have said he was 'wacked'.

[pomeroo]

It seems the PfT have recorded the NTSB and FBI numerous times looking for just those answers. They dont speculate. Do you really mean "careful" or "fearful"....?

It appears PfT has no fear and want answers. Why dont you?



In fact, the phony "pilots" wouldn't dream of presenting their bogus "evidence" to anyone who isn't a True Believer. They refuse to debate rationalists for a very good reason.

[Unsecured Coins]

Sorry, Calcas, he was banned this morning. Or maybe I should have said he was 'wacked'.

we're gonna blame you either way, so...

[Reheat]

Well, here we are at 4+ pages of mostly nonsense and still going. :rolleyes:

Note what I said at the very beginning of Mr. "Soprano's" appearance here:

I'm not an expert on FDR's, in fact, I probably don't know as much as many engineers here. But, I do know one thing. That is that they were never intended to and have never been used as a method of determining if a crash occurred or not. That is usually obvious to even a casual observer. They were designed as a tool to HELP determine the cause of accidents. They are not the sole infallible device to be used exclusively in ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION.

Others have said the same thing in different words. Not sufficient data, not suitable for forensic investigation, etc., etc. This is FACT.

All of the different data available prior to the crash into the Pentagon has AA77 ALL OVER THE FREAKIN' PLACE. INS Data places it one place, 84 RADES info places it another, DME places it at another, etc, etc. The only thing we can conclude it that it was in a position to strike the Pentagon and the TOTAL EVIDENCE proves that beyond reasonable doubt. To believe otherwise in view of the mountain of evidence is absurd.

The DME from Reagan National is not accurate enough particularly if you want to cheat on numbers. During a discussion converting the 1.5 nm DME distance from Reagan Nat'l into feet, Robbie (the bully) stated that a nautical mile was 6,000' and his DRONES never objected. A nautical mile=1 nautical mile = 6,076.11549 feet. Not that this makes a huge difference, but when there is argument about slant range differences at low altitude which makes about 14' difference and then "the bully" convinces his experts drones that a nm is 6,000', that is very telling about the desired outcome.

Another thing about DME "Mr. Soprano". Since the FDR seems to record in .1 nm increments the actual distance could be from the VOR could be up to ~600' further than calculated when using a simple rounded 6,000'. Adding all of those variable numbers together could easily increase the distance of AA77 another second further from the Pentagon at the end of the data. Have you considered that the exact second of impact of the NTSB estimate could possibly be wrong? That's a rhetorical question, no answer needed.

I'm afraid quoting Ed Santana as your ultimate expert won't hack it. Of course, the manufacturer is going to say his FDR is perfect. Any reasonable person would expect nothing else. That certainly doesn't mean that it always performs to design specifications. If you disagree prove that it always does. Don't come back with a childish "you prove it" because I'm not making the claims you're supporting, you are.

Where are all of these "other experts" you have referred to? Seems to me the vast majority of the members at p4t are "POLITICAL MALCONTENTS" as is the vast majority of the bowel troof movement. Their posts on the Forum prove it and you wonder why I'm disgusted reading that crap.

ETA: I was writing during the discussion of the ban, so I guess my comments are wasted. Then again, maybe not, as he'll lurk to determine what else he needs to fabricate to continue his fantasy.

[DavidJames]

For the lurkers, tony soprano was in fact Rob Balsamo, the unemployed former pilot behind Pilots for Truth.

Lying, as you see, is what he does.

[Calcas]

Sorry, Calcas, he was banned this morning. Or maybe I should have said he was 'wacked'.

Seems I'm always a day late and a dollar short. LOL.

Yes, Rob/weedwacker/Tony could always be counted on for a mature discussion.



weedwacker has been banned.

It came to our attention that the required information he or she had provided was incorrect. The standard PM was sent requesting the correct information be supplied. He or she responded with:


Originally Posted by weedwacker

"no. you get **** and like it... ban me.."

[beachnut]

Hi rob
He never did say hi. Good points made about the FDR by many. Why does rob have a problem with my agreement with apathoid, reheat, and gumboot?

[Reheat]

He never did say hi.

BWHAAAAAA!

Just a couple of additional notes in recap.

Robbie's idea of an expert probably doesn't agree with most rational folks' definition. During one of his infamous "interviews" with a former Navy electronics technician the "expert" stated that there was an electrical anomaly shown in the FDR data that should have resulted in the replacement of the FDR. Is it any wonder why that claim was dropped "like a hot potato"? I deliberately will not post a link to subject others to the junk audio/video propagated by these dolts.

His obsession with Beachnut's assignment to flying a desk is funny. It is normal practice in the AF that senior folks often get reassigned to management jobs not specifically involving flying. That would be particularly appropriate in Beachnut's case since he is also an engineer. It causes the irony meter to peg since it appears that Balsamo has not flown since about 2003 because his Medical expired. Considering all of his "expertise" one can't help but wonder why he can't get a flying job as opposed to selling 9/11 related merchandise.

He's not finished yet as he needs to keep selling those DVDs and t-shirts as a source of income. We'll be hearing more in the future.

[jaydeehess]

Thanks for the correction Reheat. It was "ignore" instead of "acknowledge". You are still.. very... wrong. PfT has never "ignored" the DME. It was posted last year, thoroughly, in pinned topics, and a recent video was just published. But perhaps i guess you can say they "ignored" the DME. I disagree with you, respectfully.

Ahh, that explains my mistake. Perhaps it was acknowledged by P4T after I was banned from rob's personal kingdom.

Just for clarity then can someone post all of the distances from the Pentagon at the time of the last recording on the DFDR according to all devices, INS, DME, etc. as well as the height from each data source, radar and pressure alt for instance ,,, and imporatantly, the inherent error in each number.

Perhaps that would illustrate just how accurate any description of the plane's location using the electronic devices actually is in such a situation.

[ElMondoHummus]

For the lurkers, tony soprano was in fact Rob Balsamo, the unemployed former pilot behind Pilots for Truth.

Lying, as you see, is what he does.


Redirecting this towards Lisa and other mods: Just out of curiosity, how was that determined?

No, I'm not questioning the verdict; as a matter of fact, I was thinking that exact thing, that this sounded like a JDX sock. I'm just curious as to how it was determined he was Balsamo, that's all.

[BenBurch]

agreed. How many times can one ask of FDR regs when a self proclaimed "FDR Expert" avoids?

Ummm.... Son, I was talking about you.

[Jonnyclueless]

Kinda funny how tony asks question after question accusing people of not answering them, yet is never able to answer any questions himself. Just one of those traits you see in a troll.

[Reheat]

.......Just for clarity then can someone post all of the distances from the Pentagon at the time of the last recording on the DFDR according to all devices, INS, DME, etc. as well as the height from each data source, radar and pressure alt for instance ,,, and imporatantly, the inherent error in each number.........

I'm not sure this is a good idea at all. He will "cherry pick" the data and perhaps get an "expert" to explain away any inaccuracy as he's already attempted to do. It just gives him more justification to produce another DVD to sell.

The vast majority of "fence sitters" don't understand the technical discussions anyway and there is no reason (in my view) to give him the opportunity to "razzle dazzle" his way around a rational explanation for discrepancies which are numerous.

If we develop comprehensive data in that regard, all we do is just continue to fall into the trap of using ONE aspect of the Pentagon Investigation to prove whether AA77 hit the wall or not. The FDR Data alone is NEVER going to prove it conclusively one way or another anyway.

All data available shows AA77 in a position west of the Pentagon just short of the Pentagon, let's allow them attempt to PROVE it didn't hit it. The onus is on them, not us.

ETA: If he ever produces a written document with conclusions, I would reevaluate my position and reconsider a written response. Until then we should just let them produce their DVD's into oblivion. They are not effective anyway except for the gullible few.

[Anti-sophist]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page.

This is a continious distortion that pft keep pretending is relevant. The actual quote says that the system is designed to lose at most 1.5 seconds of data when power is lost.

Going from that statement to "at most 1.5 seconds is lost in the CSV file we have, after it was decoded, after it was validated, after it was on fire, and after slammed into a reinforced concrete structure at 550mph".

If and when Ed Santana says that _your_data_ has at most 1.5 seconds missing, I'll pay attention. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves in the face of such overwhelming and continuous gibberish.

[AMTMAN]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page. You didnt see it eeyore?


I suppose you people can ask for experts all day long while saying out of the other side of your cheek "That place disgusts me, i'll never go there".

Thanks. It appears you justify why people have questions about 9/11 and some are biased no matter what.

I wonder what PfT member, or founder, you are. I also wonder what you people think it was that hit the Pentagon since, according to PfT, the evidence does not support a AA 757 hitting the Pentagon. I also wonder why they waste their time on message boards since they have all this "evidence". Seems to me if they are so sure of themselves they should go to the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA TImes, 60 Minutes, Dateline etc, etc.

[AMTMAN]

If you read the linked post gum, you'll see it agrees with what you been saying. Are you also "disgusted" to click links to PfT? Even when it agrees with your analysis? Or do you just like to argue.

Is that you Rob?

[twinstead]

Seems to me if they are so sure of themselves they should go to the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA TImes, 60 Minutes, Dateline etc, etc.

Yea. One would think...

[apathoid]

Is that you Rob?


Yep, and he's already been banned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106686) as a sockpuppet of 'weedwanker'.

[BenBurch]

For the lurkers, tony soprano was in fact Rob Balsamo, the unemployed former pilot behind Pilots for Truth.

Lying, as you see, is what he does.

How bad/messed up do you need to be to remain unemployed as a pilot??? There is always SOME sort of flying job that needs to be done, even if it is just towing banners.

[apathoid]

How bad/messed up do you need to be to remain unemployed as a pilot??? There is always SOME sort of flying job that needs to be done, even if it is just towing banners.


Going off his forum management style and numerous death threats, I'd say there is a good chance he has a problem getting his blood pressure under control and can't get a medical...

(In fact, his face is probably turning beet red as he reads this.)

[AMTMAN]

This is a continious distortion that pft keep pretending is relevant. The actual quote says that the system is designed to lose at most 1.5 seconds of data when power is lost.

Going from that statement to "at most 1.5 seconds is lost in the CSV file we have, after it was decoded, after it was validated, after it was on fire, and after slammed into a reinforced concrete structure at 550mph".

If and when Ed Santana says that _your_data_ has at most 1.5 seconds missing, I'll pay attention. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves in the face of such overwhelming and continuous gibberish.

I wonder if Rob asked Mr. Santana if he thought an AA 757 hit the Pentagon. I'm guessing no, that's because he would not have liked the answer he would have gotten. Somewhere along the lines of "Are out of your mind?" I'm sure if Mr. Santana saw PfT's interpretation of the data he would have proceeded to tear it apart.

[Magenta]

I also wonder why they waste their time on message boards since they have all this "evidence". Seems to me if they are so sure of themselves they should go to the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA TImes, 60 Minutes, Dateline etc, etc.


I often wonder the very same thing. Has any truther ever been known to answer this question? (And saying "they" i.e. the media are in on it doesn't address the futility of arguing with strangers on internet forums.)

[EvilBiker]

Redirecting this towards Lisa and other mods: Just out of curiosity, how was that determined?

No, I'm not questioning the verdict; as a matter of fact, I was thinking that exact thing, that this sounded like a JDX sock. I'm just curious as to how it was determined he was Balsamo, that's all.


Can't comment from the mods side, but it was pretty obvious...

Balsamo pointers:
Keep up the great work! That post is saved.
Rob seems to be growing a rather credible group. Has spoken to Ron and Pat Curley, recorded.
Beachnut, make up your mind already...
I'll be back to play more with Beachnut in the future.
Dont bother editing again, as its now saved.

Typical ad hom when losing it:
Tell us Beachnut, why were you taken off the line and assigned to fly a desk?


I was just waiting for his classic "I didn't read the rest of your post" mantra...

Note to potential trolls: if you're socking at a site where you've been previously banned, change your posting style.

Of course, this would involve some thinking before posting, which tends to weed out the majority of these idiots.

[chillzero]

Moderation issues should be discussed in forum mgt, not in threads. Additionally, it helps us for pointers not to be given out to potential socks.

Please keep this thread more on topic, if the discussion is to continue.

[jaydeehess]

I'm not sure this is a good idea at all. He will "cherry pick" the data and perhaps get an "expert" to explain away any inaccuracy as he's already attempted to do. It just gives him more justification to produce another DVD to sell.

The vast majority of "fence sitters" don't understand the technical discussions anyway and there is no reason (in my view) to give him the opportunity to "razzle dazzle" his way around a rational explanation for discrepancies which are numerous.

If we develop comprehensive data in that regard, all we do is just continue to fall into the trap of using ONE aspect of the Pentagon Investigation to prove whether AA77 hit the wall or not. The FDR Data alone is NEVER going to prove it conclusively one way or another anyway.

All data available shows AA77 in a position west of the Pentagon just short of the Pentagon, let's allow them attempt to PROVE it didn't hit it. The onus is on them, not us.

ETA: If he ever produces a written document with conclusions, I would reevaluate my position and reconsider a written response. Until then we should just let them produce their DVD's into oblivion. They are not effective anyway except for the gullible few.

Actually the final few posts of mine on P4t that got me banned were to do with them putting together a written report with calculations, and the sort of lists that I mention above. Rob simply and utterly refused to entertain such a suggestion and when I pushed him on it I was banned. I used no ad homs, no sarcastic attitude, just a simple suggestion.

Given that the lists I mention above would require a lot of explanaitory information (accuracy of radar and pressure alt, data write times and lag....) you are correct, it would be more than what one could put in a forum post , or for that matter, a video. Too bad that the 'experts' at P4t find it so very difficult or against their constitution to produce such a thing. If all they want to say it that the NTSB video does not match the advertised flight path and that the raw numbers on the DFDR do not match the advertised flight path then fine, that is true. If the plane was at 393 MSL above the light posts then it would not hit the light posts.

However, of course, although P4t says they make no claims, they in fact do. They back the CIT video which is tacit approval of the CIT claim. They expect that the above differences make the gov't story of Flt 77 wrong. Yet when pressed to produce a technical paper outlining all of their ,,,, concerns,,, they not only fail to do so, but actually refuse to.

boggles the mind........

[Reheat]

boggles the mind........

I think you really know why he won't put it all in a comprehensive technical paper. :D:D

A technical paper would pin him down. It would be easily reviewed. As it is he can continue to "razzle dazzle" his way through the endless explanations and sell DVDs.

If he's as correct as he indicates he is, a technical paper would more readily accomplish an honest goal of gaining the attention of someone in authority or the scandal hungry media. As it is, his objective is obviously not an honest one.

He will never ever document the variables to his theories as that would be the end of his fantasy. He'll continue to use whatever perpetuates his delusions.

I agree with you that his objective sometimes seems to be to prove that he's smarter than the NTSB. I get the impression repeatedly when watching his silly videos....

[AMTMAN]

I think you really know why he won't put it all in a comprehensive technical paper. :D:D

A technical paper would pin him down. It would be easily reviewed. As it is he can continue to "razzle dazzle" his way through the endless explanations and sell DVDs.

If he's as correct as he indicates he is, a technical paper would more readily accomplish an honest goal of gaining the attention of someone in authority or the scandal hungry media. As it is, his objective is obviously not an honest one.

He will never ever document the variables to his theories as that would be the end of his fantasy. He'll continue to use whatever perpetuates his delusions.

I agree with you that his objective sometimes seems to be to prove that he's smarter than the NTSB. I get the impression repeatedly when watching his silly videos....

That's the game he plays in a nutshell. When he's shown hard proof that he's wrong he will say things like We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available. Does he ever correct himself, no he does not. Admitting he has been caught in a lie would never cross his mind. What's even sadder is that his followers are so blind that they don't even think to question him.

[rsalinger]

I actually started this post a long time ago. I went back to it today and discovered an interesting conversation between Beechnut and Tony Soprano. Apparently Tony was banned. I am new to this forum and hadn't seen this before so I'm curious as to whether there's any way to tell why Tony was banned, his posts seem reasonably polite.

It seems to me that the issue continues to be whether you can rely on the data coming out of the flight recorder to be available in real time and accurate under the conditions - speed, altitude and rate of descent - which 77 was experiencing at the time of the crash. I personally haven't found anything which is available within the public domain which gives that key information. Given that, I think that you cannot use the FDR to prove or to disprove the official explanations to the extent one might wish. That cuts both ways. I'm really disappointed that there isn't a full article somewhere on the subject with a named author with appropriate credentials.

[Calcas]

I am new to this forum and hadn't seen this before so I'm curious as to whether there's any way to tell why Tony was banned, his posts seem reasonably polite.


Bannings and suspensions are always posted in the Forum Management section under "public notices."

In this case, it's here.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=53

"Tony" was simply Rob Balsamo (from pft) coming back again with his same lame, debunked crap.

But, he was banned for being a sockpuppet of another previously banned member.

[Reheat]

I'm really disappointed that there isn't a full article somewhere on the subject with a named author with appropriate credentials.

It's my opinion that the ONLY folks who could possibly do this would be someone from the NTSB who has worked with them for many years. No one else has relevant experience. Technical specifications are one thing, but out of envelope crashes are another. There are also likely some variables depending upon the nature of the accident. It has never been a problem in the past that I've ever heard about until the amateur Sherlock Holmes' have begun to attempt to fulfill their fantasies.

I think another problem in this case is the split investigation between the NTSB and the FBI. It is unusual in that it is a criminal case, not an accident and we don't know exactly how the responsibility was split between the two agencies. I suspect that is the crux of the problem on getting additional information. In addition, I'd be reluctant to release information to satisfy insatiable Kooks anyway, if only for spite.

[beachnut]

In this case, it's here.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=53

"Tony" was simply Rob Balsamo (from pft) coming back again with his same lame, debunked crap.

But, he was banned for being a sockpuppet of another previously banned member.
He only comes back for me. I am his hero.
Tell us Beachnut, why were you taken off the line and assigned to fly a desk?
My last job was flying in the USAF was in single engine piston planes. I flew in single engine planes from California to Washington state between the Cascades it was surrealistic in the weather! I had a handheld GPS to back up my VOR/DME. As the VOR varied 3 or 4 degrees I flew just below the freezing level with oxygen bottles solo. It was interesting to see the Cascade mountains up close, in the weather. Flying the KC-135 was easier.

Yes I had a desk, but I flew as much as I could; and I ran our units flying program. I was the instructor and evaluator (check pilot) for California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii; what a great job.

I was not taken off the line! I was placed on the line. I love flying, it is easy, hard, and fun. They paid us to do fly!

[beachnut]

I actually started this post a long time ago. I went back to it today and discovered an interesting conversation between Beechnut and Tony Soprano. Apparently Tony was banned. I am new to this forum and hadn't seen this before so I'm curious as to whether there's any way to tell why Tony was banned, his posts seem reasonably polite.

It seems to me that the issue continues to be whether you can rely on the data coming out of the flight recorder to be available in real time and accurate under the conditions - speed, altitude and rate of descent - which 77 was experiencing at the time of the crash. I personally haven't found anything which is available within the public domain which gives that key information. Given that, I think that you cannot use the FDR to prove or to disprove the official explanations to the extent one might wish. That cuts both ways. I'm really disappointed that there isn't a full article somewhere on the subject with a named author with appropriate credentials.
I am sorry, I call him nuts all the time. I have listened to his interviews and because I am a pilot I was interested in why a person makes up stuff, or tries to imply so many lies. Actually he was doing the usual stuff he does; he takes quotes out of context and uses them to support his agenda to make implications of flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon, without saying 77 did not hit the Pentagon. If you have listened to his interviews, he actually presents his information which says 77 did not hit the Pentagon because it was too high.

He takes the impact time as the time the NTSB said it was; the trouble being the NTSB never finished anything on 77 to show anything, except the facts the FBI wanted. Therefore it appears the NTSB did not finish their animations and never did an accident investigation because it was not an accident. So the NTSB did release under the FOIA a working copy of an animation of 77 approaching the Pentagon. Tony, JDX, Rob, uses this to grow CT ideas on 9/11. The NTSB video shows 77 heading towards the Pentagon at 20 degrees off. This due to the fact the Pentagon was plance on the map but the data and map did not line up due to the difference in magnetic heading and true heading. This gives an error of 20 degrees. So JDX, Tony, Rob, uses this to fuel his north of the Citgo crap or some other weird ideas on the subject.

A few idiots come out of the woodworks to make up junk about the FDR. One guy did an analysis of heading vs the INS coordinate heading he calculated and came up with the idea the FDR was faked, but he has no idea that the INS is changing due to errors and VOR updates. So the INS position information changes due to updates from the VOR which the idiot thinks are faked data!

The FDR verifies that 77 left the proper airport and approached the Pentagon. The FDR decoded by p4t verifies the FDR was 77 because they have 24 hours of data showing where 77 was for previous flights. Ironic@!

The FDR was damage severely in the impact, and data is missing. It takes time to record the data, and that time is the same as the data per second gathered. Plus the FDR was a model with a solid state chip; it is slow! Think back to 1991 when 77 first flew, the chips used to store data were slow and not as fast as data transfer now.

If you want to figure out more about 77's FDR go to the guys who built it and ask them. They might not tell you the limitations that will help understand if there is 4 to 6 seconds of data not stored in the chip; or there is a back log of data in the FDR system buffers that never were compressed and saved at impact time.

The facts are 77 did hit the Pentagon; thousand of pieces of evidences prove that fact; even the FDR was found in the Pentagon. So JDX, Tony, Rob is making up lies.

Therefore JDX, Tony, Rob is nuts.

You can easily see the NTSB animation ground representation of the Pentagon was positioned in error; dumb Rob tries to make something up about it! You can see the FDR is never used for what Rob thinks it should be. The FDR is to help solve accidents, not where a planes hits! New standards seem to imply older solid state units (chips) did not store data in a manner to save several final seconds in severe accidents. Rob and his group have the data to confirm this statement but failed to connect the dots.

Poor Rob wants to interview other people so he can cherry pick quotes to use to support his ideas. Go sign up at p4t and see how nuts one group can be.

[AMTMAN]

Since Aldo posted a link to this thread over at LCF I decided to bring back this blast from the past.

< http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93401 >

Along with this.

< http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85833 >

Now I know most of the "skeptics" over at LCF will not think to question Aldo, Craig or Rob on this. But I figured what the heck, maybe someone will. Not that I'm holding my breath.

P.S. Hey Aldo, how long does it take to analyze "conflicts"? I would have thought a bunch of hard hitting investigators like you, Craig and Rob would have figured this out much quicker than five months.

[pomeroo]

I often wonder the very same thing. Has any truther ever been known to answer this question? (And saying "they" i.e. the media are in on it doesn't address the futility of arguing with strangers on internet forums.)



The notorious fraud Craig Ranke, who posted here as "Lyte Trip," was finally trapped on one the threads devoted to his insane Pentagon "flyover" delusion. It was established that the number of actual witnesses to this imaginary event is zero. Ranke was hammered with questions about what he planned to do with his "evidence." He admitted eventually that he had no intention of ever taking it to a real news outlet because they're all in on it.

Buy his DVD and learn Da Twoof!

[Anti-sophist]

Since Aldo posted a link to this thread over at LCF I decided to bring back this blast from the past.


So bizarre. Rob (presumably) made a post repeating things that have been debunked for months. Aldo posts a victory thread. We've debunked these lies dozens of times. Dozens. Every single one of them. They don't have a single unanswered claim. They haven't for months.

And they wonder why we are bored.

[wtcconspiracy]

As others have pointed out AA77 was hijacked between 0851 and 0854 and it crashed at 0837. Your flight time is off by at least 12 minutes.




Indianapolis ARTCC had simultaneous total loss of radar return and communication. By the way it went "missing" and was suspected crashed over Ohio, not Kentucky.




It was only "invisible" for 9 minutes. The reason it was "invisible" was because the preferred coverage Long Range Radar site for the radar sort box in which it was flying had only a secondary surveillance radar which requires cooperation from an aircraft transponder.




An aircraft with a deactivated transponder can be tracked on Primary Surveillance Radar which works by receiving a radio signal bounced directly off the hull of the aircraft. However Air Traffic Controllers can only see such returns if their Primary Radar coverage is turned on, and if the Radar Data Processor is sending primary information to their screen.

If you have primary coverage available where the transponder is turned off the controller can simply flick a switch and the primary return will immediately appear where the secondary return previously was. Then you can continue to closely track that primary return and keep track of the aircraft.

However if the transponder is turned off in an area without a primary feed, the primary return cannot be picked up. This is what happened with AA77. When AA77 reappeared on primary radar it appeared in a place no one was looking for it, and promptly entered another ARTCCs airspace.

By now, of course, the aircraft could be anywhere, and controllers turning on their primary radar coverage are faced with dozens of primary-only returns on dozens of different screens. There's no way to work out which is AA77, and no way to track every single primary return at once.




At 0908 Indianapolis ARTCC contacted the USAF Search And Rescue Coordination Centre at Langley Air Force Base and reported that an American Airlines 757, flight 77, was suspected crashed in southern Ohio. The SAR centre is responsible for coordinating all search and rescue efforts inside the United States. A Search and Rescue mission was immediately activated to look for the crash site.




At about 0920 Indianapolis ARTCC learned of the other hijackings in Boston and New York airspace, and immediately reassessed the status of AA77. At 0921 Indianapolis ARTCC notified the national Air Traffic Control System Command Centre (ATCSCC) in Herndon, Virginia that they suspected AA77 was a hijacking, and may be heading east.

The ATCSCC immediately told Washington ARTCC and Cleveland ARTCC to start looking for AA77 on primary radar, as well as Dulles TRACON.

At 0932 Dulles TRACON detected a fast moving low altitude primary-only radar return heading east within 6 miles of the White House.




AA77 did not enter restricted airspace at any time during its journey.




AA77 flew past neither the Capitol nor the White House. The section of the Pentagon that was hit was called Wedge 1, and the impact area crossed diagonally so that the exit hole was just across on the very edge of Wedge 2. On the morning of 9/11 Wedge 1 was 85% occupied and Wedge 2 was 40% occupied. Approximately 2,500 people were in the immediate impact area.




Osama Bin Laden chose the Pentagon as a target because it was symbolic of US military power.

The White House was initially proposed as a target however Mohammed Atta concluded after an aerial recon that it would be too difficult to hit due to its small size and the surrounding geography. United 93 was intended to hit the US Capitol Building.




The flight path of AA77 was determined by the Flight Data Recorder which is incidentally what this thread is about. The FDR records aircraft altitude as well as rates of ascent and descent.

AA77s final flight path was tracked by Potomac TRACON (usually referred to as Dulles TRACON) which takes primary radar feeds from a number of ASR-9 radar sites. The ASR-9 is a short range primary surveillance radar that does not have height finding ability.

AA77 did not dive 7,000ft towards the Pentagon in the last moments. It descended 6,300ft over a period of 3 minutes and 18 seconds before descending a final 2,000ft in about 30 seconds.




The FBI was in possession of a total of 85 videos that FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire determined might be relevant to the FOIA request for videos of the impact of AA77. Of those:

56 did not show the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of AA77.
16 showed the Pentagon building but neither the crash site nor the impact of AA77.
12 Showed the Pentagon building and the crash site, but only after the impact had occurred.
1 Video showed the Pentagon building, the crash site, and the impact of AA77.

Maguire states that she did not find any evidence that the FBI were in possession of a video taken from the Sheraton Hotel. Videos from the Pentagon security gate camera (which showed the actual impact), from the CITGO Station and from the Doubletree Hotel were released.

See the thing is why all the secrecy about the tapes then. Why not just show them and shut everyone asking up....There is very little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon....There must have been one clear video showing the plane crash....if in fact there was a crash.....

[ElMondoHummus]

There is very little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon....

This, newbies and lurkers, is a very old argument. Look back at threads here where the Pentagon evidence was discussed. There are mountains of evidence that not just any plane, but that Flight 77 specifically hit the Pentagon. ATC radar evidence, the plethora of debris, the DNA evidence, the eyewitnesses, several of whom actually witnessed the impact directly.

If wtcconspiracy stays true to form, he'll ask for examples of such evidence. Despite all the previous threads dedicated to this subject.

At any rate, I just wanted to illuminate one of the ways the conspiracy peddlers argue. They pretend there's "little evidence" of any of the parts of the narrative they wish to dispute, which is an assertion in contradiction to reality.

[Reheat]

See the thing is why all the secrecy about the tapes then. Why not just show them and shut everyone asking up....There is very little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon....There must have been one clear video showing the plane crash....if in fact there was a crash.....

Well, the FBI has specifically stated that there is NO OTHER VIDEO which shows the crash. Obviously, you choose not to believe them. OK, they release blank video and you accuse them of erasing it or faking it. What's the point?

Tell you what...you are NOT going to convince any rational person here that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon. But, it really doesn't matter much about us here. The people you really need to convince are those who lost loved ones in that crash. Why don't you tell them there was no crash. I dare say you'd also have a hard time convincing them or convincing the THOUSANDS of rescue workers who cleaned it up and the HUNDREDS of military folks who picked up all of those little bitty pieces of human body parts containing the DNA used to identify all of the passengers on AA77. Yep, go convince them and see how far you get with your stoopid little conspiracy....

[WildCat]

See the thing is why all the secrecy about the tapes then. Why not just show them and shut everyone asking up....
You know the CT lons would just claim they are faked, as they have already with the ones that were shown.

There is very little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon....
Except, of course, for all the wreckage of Flight 77 recovered from the scene, the fact that Flight 77 didn't show up anywhere else, the remains (identified with DNA) of the passengers, crew, and hijackers recovered at the scene, the FDR's from Flight 77 recovered from the scene, the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw it crash there, the hundreds of firefighters and other rescue workers who saw the plane wreckage... etc etc. It takes a special kind of stupid to disregard all that because there isn't a clear video of it. Of course, there is a faction of the "truth" movement that claims the many crystal-clear videos of the planes hitting the WTC are faked. In other words, with people as collectively stupid as those in the "truth" movement, no amount of evidence will be sufficient.

There must have been one clear video showing the plane crash....if in fact there was a crash.....
And the whistle went Woooooooo!

[beachnut]

...There is very little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.....if in fact there was a crash.....
As of today, no one has discredited the thousands of pieces of evidence proving 77 hit the Pentagon; talk will not do it, lies will not do, and the proof is in. Failure is 9/11 truth and the lack of logic and rational thought.

Not one person has been able to show 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Not a thing new but talk and made up ideas by 9/11 truth.

[wtcconspiracy]

As of today, no one has discredited the thousands of pieces of evidence proving 77 hit the Pentagon; talk will not do it, lies will not do, and the proof is in. Failure is 9/11 truth and the lack of logic and rational thought.

Not one person has been able to show 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Not a thing new but talk and made up ideas by 9/11 truth.

One thing I will say is. Yes there are witnesses who saw a large american airlines plane hit pentagon....But there are some who saw a small private jet....With a plane flying as low as flt 77 was can the two really be mistaken....

And who exactly did the DNA testing on these parts....

There is evidence to show 77 didnt hit pentagon, although those who believe the official theory will ignore this...

Ben

[WildCat]

There is evidence to show 77 didnt hit pentagon,
But you won't be presenting any, will you? :rolleyes:

[wtcconspiracy]

But you won't be presenting any, will you? :rolleyes:

hmm i actually will....

Let see.....how about the government claim that cctv cameras nearest to point of impact were destroyed by the crash....well ok but why is this relevant as the video tapes or digital video images recorded by these cameras were not stored in camera....so where is the footage....why was all the DOT camera footage confiscated...And how if this was such a surprise attack were FBI agents at the gas station within minutes to confiscate tapes....The fact is that these tapes show what really happened and they dont want us to see that....Then how come as the plane was fast approaching the Pentagon, According to Mineta testimony, Cheney gave orders not to shoot down the plane...some say that this was not flt 77 being talked about, but why would the VP say not to shoot down an unidentified aircraft approaching DC after what happened in NY.....

[Magenta]

See the thing is why all the secrecy about the tapes then. Why not just show them and shut everyone asking up....There is very little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon....There must have been one clear video showing the plane crash....if in fact there was a crash.....


Hmmm, a thoughtful and detailed post from Gumboot in response to a request for information, but instead of engaging with it you hand wave it away and move on to your next objection. In the post that Gumboot answered you said you "Would appreciate any sensible answer not insults as I got last time I discussed here." Your post is a disappointing response, Ben. Did you read any of the material in the link that I gave you on the first page of this thread? Because your post shows a degree of wilful ignorance about the video tapes and the vast (not "very little") amount of evidence that is available.

[Bananaman]

The fact is that these tapes show what really happened

I love this. Lets run with it for a second. Let's imagine what is being put forward by troofers here in their conspiracy scenario. A hijacked jet is barrelling towards the Pentagon but then jumps over it and...er...disappears. Meanwhile a missile hits the Pentagon. Anyone scratching their heads yet?

Oh yes, and then an enormous cover-up has to be done to fake DNA evidence, jet wreckage, the media, let's not forget the media, and to top it all disposing of Flight 77 with its crew and passengers.

And all this to fit into some crazy conspiracy idea. It beggars belief.

In England we have a thing called 'care in the community'.

Bananaman.

[WildCat]

hmm i actually will....

Let see.....how about the government claim that cctv cameras nearest to point of impact were destroyed by the crash....well ok but why is this relevant as the video tapes or digital video images recorded by these cameras were not stored in camera....so where is the footage....why was all the DOT camera footage confiscated...And how if this was such a surprise attack were FBI agents at the gas station within minutes to confiscate tapes....The fact is that these tapes show what really happened and they dont want us to see that....
You're not very good at this, are you? Do you know what "evidence" is? Do you have any that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Then how come as the plane was fast approaching the Pentagon, According to Mineta testimony, Cheney gave orders not to shoot down the plane...
This is a flat-out lie, about what we've come to experct from "truthers".

some say that this was not flt 77 being talked about, but why would the VP say not to shoot down an unidentified aircraft approaching DC after what happened in NY.....
Actually, he did order it to be shot down, and that is 100% supported by Mineta's testimony.

I take it you won't actually be presenting positive evidence that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon then, will you?

[beachnut]

One thing I will say is. Yes there are witnesses who saw a large american airlines plane hit pentagon....But there are some who saw a small private jet....With a plane flying as low as flt 77 was can the two really be mistaken....

And who exactly did the DNA testing on these parts....

There is evidence to show 77 didnt hit pentagon, although those who believe the official theory will ignore this...

Ben
No there is zero evidence to show 77 did not hit; and you have failed to present it yet. Not even close yet.

You forgot the DNA, FDR, RADAR data, all prove 77 hit the Pentagon because the entire plane was there. Even the fireball is part of the evidence 77 hit the pentagon.

Not a great idea to hung up on bs trivial non evidence, hearsay stuff.

[wtcconspiracy]

You're not very good at this, are you? Do you know what "evidence" is? Do you have any that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?


This is a flat-out lie, about what we've come to experct from "truthers".


Actually, he did order it to be shot down, and that is 100% supported by Mineta's testimony.

I take it you won't actually be presenting positive evidence that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentaghon then, will you?

What part of Minetas testimony says he ordered the jet to be shot down.....there was no order to shoot the jet down....or it would have been....

Ben

[tsig]

One thing I will say is. Yes there are witnesses who saw a large american airlines plane hit pentagon....But there are some who saw a small private jet....With a plane flying as low as flt 77 was can the two really be mistaken....

And who exactly did the DNA testing on these parts....

There is evidence to show 77 didnt hit pentagon, although those who believe the official theory will ignore this...

Ben

My brain stopped for a second when I read DNA testing for airplane parts. I showed it to my wife and had to do cpr.

[wtcconspiracy]

My brain stopped for a second when I read DNA testing for airplane parts. I showed it to my wife and had to do cpr.

I think if you read the post properly you would see it was in response to another post...If you took the time to go back to that post you would then see the poster mentioned DNA on BODY parts.....I was referring to that....How could you actually think I meant DNA testing on airplane parts....oh and by the way i didnt say airplane parts.....I said PARTS......this meant.....BODY......

[WildCat]

What part of Minetas testimony says he ordered the jet to be shot down.....there was no order to shoot the jet down....or it would have been....

Ben
The 9/11 Commission report. Pages 36-37, 42-42. Have you read them?

Then from Mineta's testimony:


MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.
MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

So, your evidence that there was a stand-down order is...?

[BenBurch]

The DNA testing was done by several different labs if I recall correctly; There was far too much of it for any single lab.

[tsig]

I think if you read the post properly you would see it was in response to another post...If you took the time to go back to that post you would then see the poster mentioned DNA on BODY parts.....I was referring to that....How could you actually think I meant DNA testing on airplane parts....oh and by the way i didnt say airplane parts.....I said PARTS......this meant.....BODY......

So you always refer to hands or feet as body parts?

[wtcconspiracy]

So you always refer to hands or feet as body parts?

I really dont understand your point.....are they not body parts......what are they then.......

[Corsair 115]

One thing I will say is. Yes there are witnesses who saw a large american airlines plane hit pentagon....But there are some who saw a small private jet....With a plane flying as low as flt 77 was can the two really be mistaken....Here's a little project you can do:

First, create the list of witnesses to the crash at the Pentagon and list their statements as to what they saw. Second, of the ones who say they saw what they thought was a small private jet, find out how far away they were from the Pentagon when the impact happened, and their exact location in relation to where the impact occurred.

It should be noted there's a difference between someone who watched the impact directly and those who only caught the event in their peripeheral vision.

[Dave Rogers]

See the thing is why all the secrecy about the tapes then. Why not just show them and shut everyone asking up....There is very little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon....There must have been one clear video showing the plane crash....if in fact there was a crash.....

This is classic conspiracist "logic". Since the video you want to see never existed in the first place, you'll never allow yourself to be convinced that it isn't being suppressed. Can you explain to me how you can deduce the existence of a video that would show a clear view of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, given that we have already seen the videos from the two cameras best placed to observe the crash and both of them, for thoroughly understandable reasons, give images which are so unclear as to be very difficult to deduce anything from?

And if your argument is based on the premise that there must have been security cameras positioned to get a good view, can you please explain why anyone would need security cameras to cover a section of wall containing no doorways, only blastproofed windows that don't open? What possible threat would these cameras have been protecting against? Theft of turf from the Pentagon lawn?

One thing I will say is. Yes there are witnesses who saw a large american airlines plane hit pentagon....But there are some who saw a small private jet....With a plane flying as low as flt 77 was can the two really be mistaken....

Something like 103 witnesses claim they saw a large airliner, and two claim they saw a small airliner. The two who say they saw a small airliner were IIRC about two miles from the Pentagon. How good is your estimation of scale at a two-mile distance? Allow for the possibility that those two witnesses misjudged the scale of what they saw, and your "evidence" is gone. And there's a good reason why they would have misjudged that scale: the speed of the airliner. Generally we're only used to seeing airliners close to the ground during takeoff and landing, when they're travelling at relatively low speeds - less than half the speed flight 77 was travelling at impact. When the brain is looking for visual clues to assess the scale of an object, speed can be one of them; the time the object takes to cover its own length is a good marker. However, if your estimate of speed is off by a factor of two, so will your estimate of the object's size be; so a distant observer, assuming that the plane is travelling at under 200mph rather than over 500mph, will perceive the airliner as much smaller in order for the speed to look right.

That may sound complicated, but this is the sort of rule-of-thumb estimation that the brain can do subconsciously. Even yours.

Dave

[WildCat]

The 9/11 Commission report. Pages 36-37, 42-42. Have you read them?

Then from Mineta's testimony:


So, your evidence that there was a stand-down order is...?
Bumping so wtcconspiracy can present the part of Mineta's testimony where he claims a stand-down order.

[wtcconspiracy]

Bumping so wtcconspiracy can present the part of Mineta's testimony where he claims a stand-down order.

The Part where the young guy kept coming in the room saying plane was 50 30 10 miles out.....and then asked cheney do orders still stand and cheney whipped round and said of course orders still stand have you heard anything to contrary....now this could only mean an order not to shoot down plane as if it was an order to shoot down plane then it would have been shot down.....

ben

[DGM]

The Part where the young guy kept coming in the room saying plane was 50 30 10 miles out.....and then asked cheney do orders still stand and cheney whipped round and said of course orders still stand have you heard anything to contrary....now this could only mean an order not to shoot down plane as if it was an order to shoot down plane then it would have been shot down.....

ben
Except they were talking about UAL 93 and it had already crashed.

[wtcconspiracy]

Except they were talking about UAL 93 and it had already crashed.

but the conversation took place at about 9:25.....and flight 93 was never as close to DC as 50 miles ?????

Ben

[DGM]

but the conversation took place at about 9:25.....and flight 93 was never as close to DC as 50 miles ?????

Ben
Source for that time?

[lapman]

but the conversation took place at about 9:25.....and flight 93 was never as close to DC as 50 miles ?????

Ben
Not even close. Mineta stated that Bush was already on his way to Louisiana. That wasn't known until after 10am. Mineta's timeline is off by at least 40 minutes.

[wtcconspiracy]

Not even close. Mineta stated that Bush was already on his way to Louisiana. That wasn't known until after 10am. Mineta's timeline is off by at least 40 minutes.

Mineta even said he was talking about the plane that hit pentagon.....and how could it be flight 93.....its never got near DC

Ben

[DGM]

Mineta even said he was talking about the plane that hit pentagon.....and how could it be flight 93.....its never got near DC

Ben
He also said Chaney was there already and it was after the White house evacuation.

[jaydeehess]

The DNA testing was done by several different labs if I recall correctly; There was far too much of it for any single lab.

That is true but misses the point in addressing the question that wtcconspiracy raises.
"Who did the DNA testing?", implies that the lab(s) that di it were somehow also in-on-it, part of the conspiracy to fake evidence that flt 77 hit the Pentagon. The response to this question should then be, "What lab would have sufficed for you to believe the results?" The answer one will get from conspiracists will completely avoid presenting any alternative and they will then claim that this just made this part of the subterfuge even easier.

So now they have showed that their supposed 'evidence' is once again a lack of evidence.

There is no video evidence showing something other than Flt 77 hitting the Pentagon and therefore there are suppressed videos that show exactly that.
In other words; Lack of evidence = evidence

There is no lab that they would trust to do DNA identification and therefore they conclude that there is no evidence that anyone from Flt 77 perished in the Pentagon.
Once again then; Lack of evidence = evidence

Then there are the witnesses. In this case the TM takes a slightly different tact. There are numerous witnesses that have the plane as a large airliner and a small minority saying it was a smaller craft.
In this case then the minority reports = evidence

Some go further and attempt to create senarios in which as many of those witnesses who did see a large airliner are considered unreliable because of an affiliation with either the military, the government, a government contractor or the mainstream media. The very fact that this describes a very large number of people who would be expected to live and work in the area around the Pentagon and D.C. is ignored in order to deliberatly reduce the number of , to their mind, witnesses that can be trusted. On the other hand we are told that one taxi driver cannot be trusted because his story, when twisted with enough force, does not match some of the evidence while on the other hand we can trust two police officers even though they would be prime candidates for mistrust. Why? Because their minority witness account matches what the TM would want to hear. I gues Brooks and Lagasse just didn't get the memo.

[pomeroo]

The Part where the young guy kept coming in the room saying plane was 50 30 10 miles out.....and then asked cheney do orders still stand and cheney whipped round and said of course orders still stand have you heard anything to contrary....now this could only mean an order not to shoot down plane as if it was an order to shoot down plane then it would have been shot down.....

ben


For the thousandth time, there were NO planes approaching Washington, D.C. Both Flight 77 and Flight 93 had already crashed. They were looking at a projected flight path for Flight 93. BUT--they didn't know that.

IF CHENEY WAS TALKING ABOUT A STAND-DOWN ORDER, THEN HE WAS CONFESSING TO THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY AND NOT A SINGLE REPORTER SMELLED A STORY.

[wtcconspiracy]

For the thousandth time, there were NO planes approaching Washington, D.C. Both Flight 77 and Flight 93 had already crashed. They were looking at a projected flight path for Flight 93. BUT--they didn't know that.

IF CHENEY WAS TALKING ABOUT A STAND-DOWN ORDER, THEN HE WAS CONFESSING TO THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY AND NOT A SINGLE REPORTER SMELLED A STORY.

Who had a projected flight plan for flight 93.....i thought they didnt know abot 93 until after it was down.....and also how the hell did they not know 93 was down....do they not communicate....i mean we are not talking small planes here.....a bit like when they didnt know at first that flt 77 hit pentagon as they thought it was a bomb.....then after some time they thought flt 11 was still in the air.....i mean did no one know anything on 9/11...

Ben

[DGM]

It's called confusion over a very chaotic event. The world is an imperfect place.

[wtcconspiracy]

It's called confusion over a very chaotic event. The world is an imperfect place.

Are the military not trained for chaotic events....I mean they didnt do anything on 9/11......Hijacked jets just flying around and no one to stop them......Can it really just be confusion.....

Ben

[DGM]

Are the military not trained for chaotic events....I mean they didnt do anything on 9/11......Hijacked jets just flying around and no one to stop them......Can it really just be confusion.....

Ben
You first problem is you believe that they didn't do anything. This is a big country and things were over before anyone could get there. I think you would have found though that UAL 93 wouldn't have made it to Washington if that's any conciliation.

[Corsair 115]

Are the military not trained for chaotic events...You've never head the old military sayings, "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" and "the fog of war"?

[T.A.M.]

Are the military not trained for chaotic events....I mean they didnt do anything on 9/11......Hijacked jets just flying around and no one to stop them......Can it really just be confusion.....

Ben

Where do you get this "they didn't do anything" on 9/11?

Have you listened to the NORAD Tapes? Have you read the accounts of those involved? After all of your research into this, that is what you have concluded?

Shameful.

TAM

[ElMondoHummus]

Good Lord... does no one in the Truth Movement read those who've done basic primary research??

It is an excessive oversimplification to sum up the response by the military by saying "... they didnt do anything on 9/11", and it also ignores the civillian air traffic control's involvement. Mistakenly summarizing the events of that day in that manner betrays a lack of research and an appalling ignorance regarding the basic elements of the event.

Strongly suggested basic reading:

Vanity Fair - 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608)
Gumboot's "The NORAD 9/11 Response (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752)" basic timeline
Gumboot's further elaboration (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300) on the NORAD ResponseThis is basic reading. This only gets the reader up to speed on the events of that day. Learning those elements should erase any hideously mistaken notion that "... they didnt do anything on 9/11".

Read it, please. Please gain a basic understanding before you make such a terribly erroneous conclusion again.

[tsig]

It's called confusion over a very chaotic event. The world is an imperfect place.

Not in Ct land where everything has to fit and make sense to them.

[beachnut]

Ed Santana, FDR Expert from L3 Communications, the manufacturer of the FDR, is on a recordered interview on PfT front page. You didnt see it eeyore?
I love the p4t experts! Ed Santana is a Sales Manager. Their FDR expert is a sales manager!

[JHarrow]

You first problem is you believe that they didn't do anything. This is a big country and things were over before anyone could get there. I think you would have found though that UAL 93 wouldn't have made it to Washington if that's any conciliation.

Perhaps all the drills that were taking place at the time, including hijack scenarios, were causing them some confusion.

[beachnut]

Perhaps all the drills that were taking place at the time, including hijack scenarios, were causing them some confusion.
Nope and the FDR has not a thing to do with drills. Wrong, drills would have extra supervision and enable better response.

But then, this is a FDR thread not a NORAD Pentagon drill thread. Got some FDR facts?

[wtcconspiracy]

Where do you get this "they didn't do anything" on 9/11?

Have you listened to the NORAD Tapes? Have you read the accounts of those involved? After all of your research into this, that is what you have concluded?

Shameful.

TAM

well i get the fact from the world trade center being destroyed and a hole in the side of the pentagon....kinda shows military didnt do anything......

Ben

[wtcconspiracy]

Where do you get this "they didn't do anything" on 9/11?

Have you listened to the NORAD Tapes? Have you read the accounts of those involved? After all of your research into this, that is what you have concluded?

Shameful.

TAM

ok this transmission is shameful......

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!
(bold for emphasis).....
How exactly is a Real-world hiacking cool.....am i missing something......

Ben

[beachnut]

ok this transmission is shameful......

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!
(bold for emphasis).....
How exactly is a Real-world hiacking cool.....am i missing something......

Ben
No! Normally a hijacking in the US means a trip to Cuba, or some other thing. I doubt the controllers know the pilots have been executed! I doubt anyone knew the planes were now weapons; when did you figure out 9/11? Oh, it has been six years and you have zero clues!

It may seem like a shallow thing to say, but it shows his enthusiasm to do REAL WORLD events instead of some stupid drill! (but only shallow in hindsight, he does not yet have full idea what 9/11 will mean yet; did he?!)

In minutes the people on flight 93 figured out 9/11, it has taken you only 6 years to make up junk and still you are lost without a clue. This is a tread about FDR! Not NORAD or other silly 9/11 truth ideas.

Do you have FDR stuff?

[twinstead]

Christ how I HATE the "well, if I were to do that, I would have done it different, therefore it is suspicious" crap.

[MG1962]

ok this transmission is shameful......

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!
(bold for emphasis).....
How exactly is a Real-world hiacking cool.....am i missing something......

Ben

Thats no worse than the range director calling off altitude and down range readings as Challenger sprayed herself all over the North Atlantic.

Or in the 1950s when 27 spectators were killed during the running of the Le-Mans 24 hour race - The officals forced the drivers to continue racing, so that ambulances could get in and out of the curcuit

[Garb]

ok this transmission is shameful......

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!
(bold for emphasis).....
How exactly is a Real-world hiacking cool.....am i missing something......

Ben

How exactly is that statement proof of a standown or inside job theory?

[iAmerican]

Those open to enlightenment regarding 9-11 need only read Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." Though his manner is gentle and academic, his reputation is unimpeachable and through his inexorable and exhaustive heuristic the only possible conclusion, for a reasonable person, incontrovertible: Bush and Cheney committed 9-11.

Please stick to the topic at hand, Flight 77 Recorder Data. Any further derails will be moved to AAH.

[WildCat]

Bush and Cheney committed 9-11.
Good for them! :)

[beachnut]

Those open to enlightenment regarding 9-11 need only read Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." Though his manner is gentle and academic, his reputation is unimpeachable and through his inexorable and exhaustive heuristic the only possible conclusion, for a reasonable person, incontrovertible: Bush and Cheney committed 9-11.
You believe the biggest hearsay master David Ray Griffin, who only writes books of hearsay to part a fool from his money. Not the best person to believe, all his conclusions on 9/11 are failed, false and pure fraud.

[Walter Ego]

Those open to enlightenment regarding 9-11 need only read Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." Though his manner is gentle and academic, his reputation is unimpeachable and through his inexorable and exhaustive heuristic the only possible conclusion, for a reasonable person, incontrovertible: Bush and Cheney committed 9-11.


David Ray Griffin? The same guy who claimed there were no GTE airphones in United Airline planes on 9-11 and who, when corrected in that false statement, withdrew the claim only to go back to making the same false claim because it was ‘too good’ not to use it. That David Ray Griffin?

[iAmerican]

David Ray Griffin? The same guy who claimed there were no GTE airphones in United Airline planes on 9-11 and who, when corrected in that false statement, withdrew the claim only to go back to making the same false claim because it was ‘too good’ not to use it. That David Ray Griffin?
As Professor Griffin's sedulous proof of Bush/Cheney's treason is absolute based on inarguable public knowledge of indisputable statements, actions and evidence, would you mind providing specific cites of the minutiae you question? I've spent some time reviewing "The New Pearl Harbor," Griffin, 2004, 6th Printing, and online, attempting to validate your criticism, with no success. TIA

[AMTMAN]

You believe the biggest hearsay master David Ray Griffin, who only writes books of hearsay to part a fool from his money. Not the best person to believe, all his conclusions on 9/11 are failed, false and pure fraud.

I think iAmerican knows that if he says how wonderful DRG is he is going to get a response. Just another way of trolling, nothing more nothing less.

[twinstead]

The best punishment I can think of for people like iAmerican is already happening, namely continuing to bask in irrelevance on an internet forum while his 'movement' slowly vanishes.

That's gotta hurt.

[iAmerican]

I think iAmerican knows that if he says how wonderful DRG is he is going to get a response. Just another way of trolling, nothing more nothing less.
Please cite the errors you allege in "The New Pearl Harbor," by page number. Professor Griffin's proof of Bush/Cheney's treason is multi-faceted, and multi-layered, like any strong legal prosecution, relying on no single element. Your minutiae should be openly noted, however, should it need correction.

[ElMondoHummus]

Off topic. This thread is centered around FDR issues and the PF911T claims. Not about DRG's book. That should be its own thread topic.

[AMTMAN]

Please cite the errors you allege in "The New Pearl Harbor," by page number. Professor Griffin's proof of Bush/Cheney's treason is multi-faceted, and multi-layered, like any strong legal prosecution, relying on no single element. Your minutiae should be openly noted, however, should it need correction.

It never seases to amaze me that the same sort of people who say we should be asking questions will never think to ask questions of their hero DRG.

[Anti-sophist]

Professor Griffin's proof of Bush/Cheney's treason is multi-faceted, and multi-layered, like any strong legal prosecution, relying on no single element.

Ie, it's based on alot of hand-waiving, false implication, and requires substantial preconception in order to get the brain primed for false pattern matching.

When DRG, or you, or anyone, can come up with, ya know, some evidence, I'll be inclined to pay more attention.

Weaving a fanciful and highly improbable tale doesn't impress me. Especially when no effort whatsoever is made to eliminate prosaic explanation. At that point it becomes a simple exercise in pseudo-science (-history, etc).

[twinstead]

Jesus, Not "The New Pearl Harbor" again. Yea, iAmerican. Start a new thread about it. We haven't discussed it in oh, hours I guess. Maybe the 100th time a thread is started might just do the trick, huh?

Meanwhile, it is OT for this thread.

[SpitfireIX]

Christ how I HATE the "well, if I were to do that, I would have done it different, therefore it is suspicious" crap.


As you may recall, that's what Jay Windley has dubbed the If I Ran the Zoo fallacy.

[twinstead]

As you may recall, that's what Jay Windley has dubbed the If I Ran the Zoo fallacy.

Yup. Probably one of THE most common fallacies, and one that transcends conspiracy theories.

As an aside, it's too bad that Jay doesn't like to deal with 911 deniers; his work dealing with Apollo HBs is brilliant.

[wtcconspiracy]

How exactly is that statement proof of a standown or inside job theory?

It is not proof of anything.....I was just merely saying that this was shameful hearing what they said about Hijacking being cool....wether it meant a trip to Cuba...or if they didnt know the pilots had been killed....I just think that the response by these people should not have been COOL......I think it should be lets respond ASAP.....think of the innocent people on the plane....

[wtcconspiracy]

Those open to enlightenment regarding 9-11 need only read Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." Though his manner is gentle and academic, his reputation is unimpeachable and through his inexorable and exhaustive heuristic the only possible conclusion, for a reasonable person, incontrovertible: Bush and Cheney committed 9-11.

All of David Ray Griffin's books are excellent.....Very well written....Especially The New Pearl Harbor....

[DGM]

All of David Ray Griffin's books are excellent.....Very well written....Especially The New Pearl Harbor....
As fiction maybe.