It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing
HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.
Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)
The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.
None of this is surprising, said Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. "Eyewitness memory is reconstructive," said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. "The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there."
The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: "How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire."
Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident
We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006).
Investigating the mid-air collision of a passenger DC-9 and a Marine Corps F-4 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found “witnesses in the area of the accident gave widely varying accounts” (NTSB, 1972). Five people described both aircraft on steady courses prior to the collision, but fifteen people described the fighter aircraft in a rolling or evasive maneuver prior to the collision.
Wilikinson (1977) quotes an eyewitness to a crash describing a light aeroplane just before impact as “heading right toward the ground—straight down” (p.102). However photographs of the crash site clearly showed the aeroplane plane hit flat and at a low enough angle to skid for almost 1,000 feet. Two expert eyewitnesses to a crash on takeoff of a MD-82 stated that the wing flaps were extended, but the Board determined the flaps were in fact not extended (NTSB, 1988). What was initially reported as a possible bombing of a B767 due to many eyewitness accounts of the plane first exploding in fire (Johnson, 1991; Kelly Elliott, 1991) turned out to be caused by the uncommanded activation of an
engine thrust reverser (Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee, 1993).
When a fuel tank explosion caused a B747 to descend in pieces from 13,000 feet, the fireball was seen by hundreds of people, about one-third of who reported that they observed a streak of light moving upward in the sky (NTSB,
2000). However there was no evidence that a missile struck the plane, and physical examination of the wreckage unequivocally supports the cause as a fuel tank explosion. Thirty-eight of the witnesses described a streak of light as
ascending vertically. Forty-five reported that a streak moved to the east, 23 that itmoved to the west, 18 that it moved to the south, and 4 that it moved to the north.
When a MD-82 crashed on takeoff initial reports included eyewitness accounts of an engine catching fire as the aeroplane heading down the runway(Goodman, Todd & Koch 2008; Naughton & Strange, 2008). However analysis showed that engine performance was normal on takeoff, and that the cause of thecrash was failure to set the flaps (CIAIAC, 2008).
A reply to: LaBTop (to his OP on page 1 )
You've lost me somewhere on the flight through specifics, I'm sorry.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: PublicOpinion
I deal in facts.
...truthers... cospiracy theorist... Truth Movement... Truth Movement... conspiracy theorist...
In my NoC flightpath, we have 25 eyewitnesses their NoC explanations, plus from lots of them, multiple video and/or phone interviews. We also have a curious ceiling flash in the FOIA freed CITGO gas station security cameras screens, that points to a NoC passing plane, and that flash exactly fits timely, as if it is originating from a NoC passing reflective aluminum attack plane. The reactions of the customers visible in the counter videos are also a giveaway, directly after that flash occurs.
And I thought the witnesses were compelling, pretty impressive display of applied logics!
For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing
His math is bogus as proven by the documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon. Even "Pilots For 911 Truth" has debunked the NoC flight path as well.
To sum that up, only 9/11 conspiracy theorist who have no understanding of aerodynamics would push a NoC flight path. As far as eyewitness accounts are concerned, you might want to review this article in case you missed it.
Pilots For 911 Truth? The very website that you always say is full of disinformation?
Rob Balsamo's Conclusion
“Conclusion – It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station.
The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.”~Rob Balsamo
Your math is bogus. The fact is You presented no math to debunk LapTop.
And you want us to believe a hijacker who couldn't pass a written examination, much less take off and land a Cessna 172 was able to perform such maneuvers in a B-757.
You need to stop with the insults. Anyone who dares to question or has a different "opinion" than you does not need to be INSULTED.