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.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
The inward bowing was not spontaneous or sudden. It almost looks like the out walls of the tower were breathtaking, then the vertical columns failed in one final inhale.
Peter Michael Ketcham, an iPhone app developer from Wisconsin, has a masters degree in mathematics and worked as a mathematical data visualization programmer at NIST from 1997 to 2011. He had no involvement in the 9/11 investigation (or any other investigation), and has no background in structural engineering or physics
edit on 27-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Addededit on 27-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed a. It more
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander
Do I really need to link and quote from the Scientists for 9/11 truth article that shows the flight recorder data was legitimate and backs the official narrative again? Got any evidence to discredit their view?
Summary and Conclusion
In response to FOIA requests the NTSB provided a CSV file and a coded FDR file. All contradictions between the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and these files appear to be traceable to missing data. In the case of the CSV file the data stopped about four seconds short of the impact. In the case of the FDR file the final frame was not initially decoded. Some researchers recognized that data was missing, while others claimed that the files proved the official account was false, as it appeared the flight terminated at a point too high to have created the observed damage trail on the ground.
Previous analyses were further confounded by uncertainty of the position of the last data point; failure to consider possible calibration errors in the pressure altimeter data, caused by high speed and low altitude; and false information in the NTSB flight animation.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.
As calculation shows the flight path proposed by CIT to be impossible, the north path claim must be seen to be based on nothing more than a few faulty recollections of the approach path. Without the north path claim, the flight path is in accord with the path set out in the official account. There is thus no reason to doubt that the flight terminated by collision with the Pentagon, as reported by the majority of witnesses and as seen in the FDR file, where the low level approach and impact is recorded. The north path is refuted and must be abandoned. This removes the need for explosives to create the illusion of impact and also removes the need for the flyover theory. Nothing has been found to disprove the official description of the final seconds of the flight and the impact.
Glad you put AE 9/11 in a nut shell. Hope for you yet. Or would you be more specific with your evidence.
Yes I have and thats why I don't understand your comments about "so called peer review" and "predetermined ending from the beginning, and the real evidence was ignored".
What evidence was ignored?
I'm not playing stupid, I have an engineering background, i understand the reports and am wondering if you do.
You and I are pros into 911, why are you playing stupid?