It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

page: 20
40
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I reject the government story and the sophistry offered by apologists for that story.

I accept the analysis of private citizens like Dennis Cimino, in this case.

The FDR data provided by the government was forged, obviously so. They did not show it assigned to an airframe, a sure sign of forgery.




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Have you ever looked at WWII dive bombers? There's a reason that they all had things like dive flaps, and larger control surfaces. Diving an aircraft at high speed is hard, and you're more subject to winds and other factors. When he initially was over the Pentagon, he would have had to dive at a steep angle to try to hit the building.

This maneuver was well within the capabilities of the 757, and was obviously performed by a less than average pilot. An aircraft coming out of a descending turn is going to build speed.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Spoken as someone who has no clue about how an FDR works. If you hang your argument on not seeing the serial number, then once again, you are relying on flawed premise.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

I They did not show it assigned to an airframe, a sure sign of forgery.




You don't know the story do you. It's hilarious. Let me fill you in.

Dennis Cimino is a FDR specialist, his credentials are legit. But he has never worked on this model of FDR before.

After years of Cimino doing tours and giving lectures saying this:





There are two data fields in the very front end of the file for the flight data recorder when it writes the crash protected memory data in to the memory module that is inside what is called a pig or protected memory encapsulation. I saw that the Aircraft Identification Number and the Fleet Identification Number were zero zero zero zero zero for both of the data fields.


Wile Warren Stutt and Frank Legge were decoding the last 4 seconds of FLT data, they found the FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER also in the data.

What they could not find was:

FLEET IDENT 00000
A/C NUMBER 00000

In the text header like Dennis claimed.

Waren wrote to Dennis asking for clarification. This is his letter:



Originally Posted by wstutt on Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Hi Dennis Cimino,

I have now decoded the FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER parameters from the FDR data according to the generic Boeing data frame layout 757-3B. When they are interpreted as unsigned integers they have values of 1 and 35 respectively. Although they were not in the text preamble of the file where you were expecting to find them, do you think they could be used to identify the aircraft? They do not appear to me to be a tail number, however if I understand you correctly, you were not expecting them to be a tail number.

I see from Rob Balsamo's list of your credentials that you have experience with Doppler RADAR. It has been suggested that since at least one make and model of radio altimeter that is used to measure an aircraft's height above the ground and that has been used in 757s has a specified tracking capability of 330 feet per second that such a radio altimeter would not work correctly if the aircraft in which it is installed has a speed faster than 330 feet per second. I do not immediately see a reason why this would be so. However, I could see how the Doppler effect would impact the accuracy of the radio altimeter if the distance between the aircraft and the ground is rapidly changing.

Would the tracking capability of the radio altimeter be referring to the speed of the aircraft as has been suggested or to the rate of change of the height of the aircraft above the ground? If it is the former, could you explain why or cite a reference where I can read about it?

Warren Stutt.



This was Dennis's courteous and professional reply to Warren's question.




Originally Posted by Dennis Cimino on Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Mr. Stutts:

I now have to define your entire 'work product' as utter and total ********. You had about 4 days to come up with a better ******** story than this one, and to propose that AC ID and FLEET ID are buried in the flight parameter stream after the preamble, where it always always always is, is so beyond the pale and absurd, that it's now not conjecture that you're a COIN OP (counterintelligence) from either the U.S. government, or the mossad, but you're actually a very badly managed one, to float this ****.

You failed to address any of the incongruencies I published about the entire event, not even one of them. Now, as a non pilot, I don't expect you to try to understand how the entire thing is absurdity from the very start to assert that an 80 ton plane went thru the 'cat door' at the Pentagon, and didn't leave any wreckage till the F.B.I. began to seed it later that morning with the Buga, Colombia jungle weathered wreckage. I can understand that, as you would have no way to explain the lack of aircraft upset during a violent and ugly hijacking, and also, the Altimeter setting in the NTSB fabricated crap in one of their products, because they were so sloppy they failed to both see it and understand it's importance here, in that this, as well as the no aircraft upset, and the lack of rudder inputs, while not on A/P., and the impossible pullout from the dive, all were so impossible that only in a child's game could any of this hokey **** be believable.

So now I have to say for the record you guys are a COIN OP for the people who did this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to prove you were not a ******** mill for Sunstein's cognitive infiltration network of zio prostitutes for Israel, and you totally blew that gig here.

I tell you what. Go sell this to the National Enquirer. They might print your dissertation. But no meaningful and relevant aviation based analysis validates any of your turd feed here, because virtuallly all of your stuff has borne itself out to be so absurd that even the Enquirer would probably balk at publishing your disinformation.

I'm sorry, Mr. Stutts, but you unmasked yourself with this total, utter ******** today. And we didn't even have to do it for you, you did it yourself.





Even thou that letter clearly answered Warren's question, he was still curious. So he decoded the header page from 3 other crashes that used the same FDR looking for the FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER for comparison:


Text header for file American 77.fdr:
// L3 Communications, Aviation Recorders
VERSION = 1
SEGMENT = 1
TYPE = FULL
FIRSTBLOCK = 0
NUMBLOCKS = 192
LOOPBLOCKS = 192
CUR_INDEX = 28 19328 28 19072
;EOH




Text header for file DCA02MA001_AAL587_ALL.fdr:
// L3 Communications, Aviation Recorders
VERSION = 1
SEGMENT = 1
TYPE = FULL
FIRSTBLOCK = 0
NUMBLOCKS = 128
LOOPBLOCKS = 128
CUR_INDEX = 67 1472 67 1728
;EOH




Text header for file DCA07MA310_AALengOct07.fdr:
// L3 Communications, Aviation Recorders
VERSION = 1
SEGMENT = 1
TYPE = FULL
FIRSTBLOCK = 0
NUMBLOCKS = 128
LOOPBLOCKS = 128
CUR_INDEX = 33 31808 33 32000
;EOH




Text header for file UR-DWH from RUAG Raw Data.FDR:
FILE_ID=UR-DWH
PI_VERSION=1.6
// L3 Communications, Aviation Recorders
VERSION = 1
SEGMENT = 1
TYPE = FULL
FIRSTBLOCK = 0
NUMBLOCKS = 512
LOOPBLOCKS = 512
CUR_INDEX = 483 27072 483 26880



As you can see none of them contain a field for FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER.

That makes this statement:




There are two data fields in the very front end of the file for the flight data recorder when it writes the crash protected memory data in to the memory module that is inside what is called a pig or protected memory encapsulation. I saw that the Aircraft Identification Number and the Fleet Identification Number were zero zero zero zero zero for both of the data fields.


An outright Lie.


Your evidence for a fake FDR is GONE. The FDR data is real.

Learn to live with it!



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Not to mention it was the section of the Pentagon with the least amount of potential conflict.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Which government story.

First, scores of accounts from private citizens that witnessed a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.

Then accounts by municipal law enforcement and rescue.

Municipal coroner's reports.

Then accounts by air traffic controllers and military personnel.

Then accounts at state and county level.

911 emergency calls.

Then you have FBI.

Then you have trial evidence.

Can you be more specific on what lies you think exists by citizens, local, municipcal, district, pentagon, county, state, air traffic controllers, military, 911 dispatch, emergency rescue, trial, federal agencies, and federal governments?
edit on 2-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

I reject the government story and the sophistry offered by apologists for that story.

I accept the analysis of private citizens like Dennis Cimino, in this case.

The FDR data provided by the government was forged, obviously so. They did not show it assigned to an airframe, a sure sign of forgery.



I asked you to form rebuttals to papers and arguments by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that proves a large jet hitting the pentagon is the only credible explanation. Not the government.

"a reply to: Salander

The flight data recorder recovered from the pentagon was the recorder of the jet that hit the pentagon. There you go, proven by your standards....


Conspiracy is you cause, you make the case.

Still waiting on on rebuttals to:
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...
www.911truth.org...
"

Thanks for trying to create a false argument. Again.....



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Yet, you have no problem pushing the cons of the truth movement to help in the exploiting of 9/11 for personal gain and notoriety?



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




exploiting of 9/11 for personal gain


There is no personal gain, just Justice for those who died, and for friends and family left over wanting justice for there dead loved ones. In this case justice served is even more painful because of the source of the terror event.

If you thought it was a bunch of Noob Saudi pilots, then you find it's something completely different it's going sting.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Dr Woods books sales? Interviews? Richard Gage runs AE9/11Truth and speaking tours like he is a hero by conspiracists. AE911TRUTH questionable expenditures. After Steven Jones lost notoriety over cold fusion, he is treated like a hero and speaking tours on the conspiracists circuit. The countless likes for conspiracists videos pushing false sensationalism to generate likes and traffic to YouTube channels to increase the desirability for advertising to feature adds.

All working in a field in which they are held to no academic accountability by their target audience. It's always "they" that are lying. Never the person pushing books sales...

Oh, to be so naive about the real motivation behind ufology, conspiracy, cryptozoology, publish books about Bigfoot, little green men, rods, hollow earth theory....

People make a relatively easy living selling out their credibility to publish fantasy as fact.....
edit on 2-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And don't forget Alex Jones, His network. And Coast to Coast late night radio show. Audiences that are not the most decreeing and don't hold anyone telling what the want to hear to any level of science.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Oh, to be so naive about the real motivation behind ufology, conspiracy, cryptozoology, publish books about Bigfoot, little green men, rods, hollow earth theory....


Did you just forget what site you were posting to, or do you post to so many, that a canned statement like that was going to be used at some point anyways.

From my perspective.....you are busted dude.
edit on 2-7-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596


Having read Cimino's analysis, and having seen him deliver a speech about that analysis, and being aware of his credentials, and understanding the high reputation of the pentagon for mendacity, and understanding the work done by the Citizen Investigation Team years ago with the witnesses near the pentagon that day, I will accept Cimino's analysis any day and all day over your nonsensical posts and WayWayPastVne's comments.

No airliner impacted the building that day, and Cimino's work is consistent with all the other facts and evidence surrounding the pentagon attack.

Whether it was struck by any aircraft at all, and I think it was, the attacking aircraft was NOT an airliner. The purpose of the attack was to destroy the records and auditors regarding the missing funds about which Rumsfeld had been deposed the day before.

The attack had a very specific purpose, and they would not have left that to the pathetic skills of a piss poor pilot flying a boeing for the first time in his life.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And what facts or works cited have you contributed to discredit that Hanjour had the skills to crash into a building larger than 24 football fields. Like to quote yourself were you ever referenced the flight recorder data, radar data, and contact evidence from the antenna, trees, lightpoles, concrete lip, and trailers.

Like to quote yourself from where you refuted the arguments and quotes from Scientists for 9/11 Truth that prove the only credible argument to what happened at the pentagon was being hit by a large jet.

You talk about justice? But literally ignore the shock and horror witnessed by scores of civilians traumatized by seeing first hand a jet hit the pentagon without a credible argument to discredit their experiences. Without holding those that exploit 9/11 for person gain and notoriety to any standards of science or credibility?



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Then list what makes his argument credible. Then form rebuttals to why people have shown Cimino to be wrong.


What you falsely believe is bogus flight recorder data has nothing to do with the physical evidence which only could be caused by a large jet strike and the civilian accounts that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon. More false logic on your part.

When are you going to refute and provide a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that proves the only credible argument for what happened at the pentagon was being hit by a large jet.
edit on 2-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

All of these arguments could go away if the Pentagon released the footage it has of an actual plane hitting the Pentagon. Instead they rely on you defending them when the simple narrative of an unskilled pilot who never flew a Boeing 757 until the day of the attack managed to fly, navigate, and crudely fly 530 MPH into an important US landmark.

Please don't respond with..."HIS ENGLISH WAS BAD". His English may have been non-existent but you manage to ignore the comments on his utter incompetence as a pilot.




FBI documents cited by the Commission reveal that witnesses from the school told investigators that “Hanjour was a terrible pilot. Hanjour had difficulty understanding air traffic control, the methods for determining fuel management and had poor navigational skills.” The FBI was told by one witness that “the only flying skill Hanjour could perform was flying the plane straight”, and that “he did not believe Hanjour’s poor flying skills were due to a language barrier.” He was “a very poor pilot who did not react to criticism very well. Hanjour was very, very nervous inside the cockpit to the point where Hanjour was almost fearful.”[35]


[35] FBI Summary of Information, Lofti Raissi.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

That is anothe false argument. I have repeatedly quoted the organization that followed through and forced the release of recorded flight 77 footage by court order.

There's been repeated accounts cited in various ATS links of where the pentagon cameras where pointed and what was recorded. Accounts that list why there are no more videos to be released.

I have cited a source that very clearly stated there are no more videos of flight 77 to release that was not refuted by you.

There are no more videos of flight 77 to release. Prove me wrong.
edit on 2-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

Ever find a quote from his instructors that a large jet didn't hit the pentagon. Ever find a quote from his instructors that Hanjour was not in the cockpit.

I have quoted one instructor that clearly stated Hanjour had the skills and another instructor that knew Hanjour was part of 9/11.

You listed one individual? Is it false that most instructors based their evaluations on Hanjour's poor English skills.

Still waiting on rebuttals to the works by Scientists for 9/11 truth.
edit on 2-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And you still have radar proving flight 77 hit the pentagon.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

From you referenced documents, was there not one individual quoted in that Hanjour flew as if he had flight experience? Let's see how well you research?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join