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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

page: 27
2
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Now its a whole new argument and its the Tail FIN (vertical stabilizer) that is empty....Not surprised the same tactic of changing the subject.

There is no tactic; I have been referring to the same thing, since it first came up. You are the one that is changing the subject as far as I can tell. Even another poster clarified this for you.


Originally posted by kix
Now its the stabilizer, you see, you changed the subject and I brought the APU and NOW the APU info and side tracking the debate....Not surprised the same tactic of changing the subject.

No you brought up:

Originally posted by kix
where is the tail?

It’s here in back and white for all to read. You asked where the tail was, and this is what I was answering. The person who is changing the subject is you, by taking this from the tale to the APU. There is still not the kind of structure in the tail of a 757 that exists in the tail of an aircraft with tail-mounted engines. I don’t care if we call the tail a stabilizer, a rudder, or George; it changes nothing of the point. Point being no heavy frame structure, period.


Originally posted by kix
You said it, I did not.

No I did not say this, you have taken what I said out of context, with is another BS, Loopy movement, tactic when they are in deep doggy do-do. What I said was:

Originally posted by defcon5
Thus, as I said, the tail on a 757 is nothing like the tails on engine mounted aircraft such as DC-9’s, 727’s, L1011’s, or DC-10’s. The whole rumor of, "sitting in the tail cause its stronger, in the case of an accident", no longer applies.

Meaning this stronger tail stuff does not apply to a 757 as it has no tail-mounted engines. Again in black and white above for all to read for themselves…


Originally posted by kix
said that the tail is NOT an empty shell the APU for example is in that zone, thanks for proving my point.

No the APU is inside the empennage, and not in the Vertical stabilizer, which is what most everyone thinks of when you say tail. At this point you’re trying to play word games to win an argument, and I am sure it’s plainly apparent to all who read this.


Originally posted by kix
And thanks for the photos, you see there is SOMETHING IN THERE, and also the picture show a really shinny surface...(must have been cleaned just the day before.

It’s a training photo, so yeah it’s going to be taken on a freshly cleaned, or a brand new aircraft, which is at a maintenance base. Considering how clean the APU area is, I would say it is a brand new aircraft. See how clean the inside of that APU door is, on a aircraft that had been in rotation for even a little bit, that door would be absolutely covered in oil.


Originally posted by kix
not of that size, the tail has the AA logo on capital "AA" and has not curved parts (and also a eagle on top) the other engine (NOTHING RECOVERED) or the nose gear door cant be because of the size of the letters. those have to be (if they were) the american logo on top of the fuselage.

This is a moot point as there is no gray paint on that part.


Originally posted by kix
Section 43 is the fuselage section between the nose/cockpit area and the center section of the plane, if you took a tour of Boeing facilities at Renton circa 1996 you would know how a 757 is made, and also spend a lot of time on ramp youd know

No, working around aircraft does not train folks in the numbers they use for sections in the production facility. Still though, I don’t have to go to a plant to understand the structure of the aircraft, and that your wrong in trying to lay out a twisted piece of debris according to its rivets. You would need to get that piece and hammer it down flat to tell something that specific about it.


Originally posted by kix
But hey I must be a native american right? (your personal attacks fail badly)

I have no way of determining that, so it was not meant in that fashion.


Originally posted by kix
Citing Pan Ams old three holers wont save your reputation, a 757 cant exceed that speed at LOW ALTITUDE, please read LOW ALTITUDE, all you cite are high altitude incidents, please for God sakes JOHN LEAR tell this guy the diference between manuvering at over 20k feet and low altitude manuvering.

I absolutely do not understand what is so difficult to wrap your brain around on this subject. The point has nothing to do with altitude, nor about what type of aircraft it is. It’s that the specs are written, so the maximum limits are not absolute. In other words, there is no set number to exceed in any stat that is going to make the aircraft just fall apart. The same way that you, and I can buy the same model of car, and I might get 400K miles out of mine before it falls apart, and you might get 550K. This is not rocket science here. Yes, they are not supposed to exceed the maximums, but doing so for limited time is not going to necessarily make the plane disintegrate.


Originally posted by kix
Show me a photo of a 757-200 from AA that is not shinny,also your photos of a tank fail miserabily because: airplanes travel a lot faster and at different altitude.... show me a pic of a 757 as bad as the tank you portrayed...

On aircraft, it is a matter of skin corrosion due to sun, and weathering. The look is exactly the same as I have shown you though. I will have to look around the net later for a picture, obviously I did not find one last night that showed this well. But hey, keep me looking around the net for pictures of things as obvious as the fact that aircraft aluminum corrodes under sunlight, and you tie up the time I have to get to the truth of the Poof Movement, right? Now you guys also have three people tag teaming posts at me in hopes that in my haste I’ll make some error that you can use to discredit me. Your tactics are so flippen obvious I don’t even know what to say about them. Same nonsense that Tripper and his crew used to use in the old 757 thread. I guess if I made my living off this subject like those guys, I could spend 100% of my time on these topics as well.


Originally posted by kix
love the way this zombies think that they are the only ones to know things and think we are just "inventing" things, FYI I am quite familiar with the 752

Yeah, then why does the Lack’O’Proof movement quote fuel load averages for these aircraft, which are substantially below what a originating aircraft would have for a fuel load? Considering the short distance that those aircraft flew and that they would have been ballast fueled the night before, the loads should be more like 80-90% full not the 43% they claim. Is it maybe because they change their facts to fit the story when the real facts prove them incorrect?


Originally posted by kix
likewise some of the zombies tried to pull the same stunt on JOHN LEAR CREDENTIALS some time ago and came out burned.

Oh, you mean like when I asked him simple aviation related questions, and he could not answer them. Some of them were so obvious that other non-aviation folks were answering them for him. Oh, there was a reason I nicely laid off on that at the time, and it certainly was not because he won or I was proven wrong. I mean I can see where a pilot would not know the hand signal for “your engine is on fire”.


Originally posted by kix
prove me wrong (you havent)

Other then you trying to twist around your words to cover your tail (as in buttocks, and not vertical stabilizer), you have been proven wrong, in black and white.

How about the fact, you stated, that the only location that gray paint is used on an AA aircraft was on an Airbus, just for starters?


[edit on 4/28/2007 by defcon5]




posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you believe the official story you should be able to provide evidence to support it and you have not. So do not ask anyone to provide evidence if you can not.


I never said what I believe, I am simply putting it to Occam’s Razor, and you’re theories cannot hold up can they?

Where is the proof of your extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so where is it?


[edit on 4/28/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I mean I can see where a pilot would not know the hand signal for “your engine is on fire”.


Well i was a Crew Chief and i was taught that the signal to give a pilot if an engine is on fire was to point to the engine and make the gesture of yelling (talking)with your hand.

Now 1 for you. What is the hand signal for emergency ground egress?



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i was a Crew Chief and i was taught that the signal to give a pilot if an engine is on fire was to point to the engine and make the gesture of yelling (talking)with your hand.

Now 1 for you. What is the hand signal for emergency ground egress?


Moreover, here is the whole problem with you guys; you’re comparing apples to oranges.

These are military signals you are talking about; John states he was both military and commercial. I asked him specific questions based on the aircraft he claimed certifications on, and even withdrew ones that he did not.

In commercial aviation, there is no such hand signal as “emergency egress” as you have passengers on the aircraft that need to be attended to. It’s not like they can just jump out of the cockpit and leave everyone else behind.

Heck even other posters knew that making a cutting motion in front of your neck means you are to cut an engine, then the engine number is specified by a finger on the left hand.

Funny how you all cannot play fair like everyone else does, about every other topic, I wonder why that would be, must be some money on the line for someone. The Truth about the Truth Movement is that they have no interest in the real truth, only in proving they are right, and defending their stance.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Funny how you all cannot play fair like everyone else does, about every other topic, I wonder why that would be, must be some money on the line for someone. The Truth about the Truth Movement is that they have no interest in the real truth, only in proving they are right, and defending their stance.


Well that was my point about asking you about the hand signal. You said you had aviation experience but you did not know and did not bother to lookup what i was asking. Its the same for most poeple that still believe the official story.

Well i beleive its the people who still beleive to official story that do not play fair. They either keep asking for more evidence (without providing any) or insult and put down people who are trying to find the truth.

How can anyone with basic intelligence and some common sense not see all the problems and questions with the official story ?



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
did not bother to lookup what i was asking.


I did not look it up because I represent myself for what I am on here, I am not going to try and give the impression that I am an expert at military aviation, as I am the first to admit I am not. Heck, if I had wanted to misrepresent myself I wouldn’t even have to bother looking it up, I could have just asked zaphod in the chat room.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Its the same for most poeple that still believe the official story.

Before you began on this site, under this avatar, there was an even older 911 thread. In that thread I stated what I believed then, and what I still believe to this day. To me it is possible that there is some government involvement, or complacency, I would certainly say that some of the elite in this country new about the events in advance and used them to make a profit. But that does not change what fundamentally happened, which is that aircraft were used on that day. There is absolutely no reason for them to use anything other then what they stated was used in the attacks.

As I said just above here, what would have changed about the end result if Thermite had been used in the towers, and it was blamed on the terrorists, or if a missile had been used on the pentagon? We would still be at war, we would still be loosing freedoms, and oil would still be a zillion dollars a gallon. By using something other then what was represented it would require the involvement of far more people who could spill the beans, and things that could go wrong and backfire on them. So for what possible reason would they take these extra and unnecessary risks, unless they wanted to be caught?

It makes no sense when you think about it logically. At this point the whole truth movement deal is about some folks using sensational theories to wow the masses and make money or gain fame off of tragedy. Mr. Lear above states that he is not involved in any such ventures, yet he is in the process of writing a book with undo, is he not? Even if his book is not directly connected with the 911 theories the extra publicity gives him face time on the web and on the radio, doesn’t it? So he is being only partly truthful.

If you guys wanted folks like us Skeptics to take this stuff seriously, then you would be far better served to go track the money. Track the money, and research the whole anthrax thing which seemed to get brushed under the rug over the last few years. This other crap is nothing but a red herring to keep people baffled with BS while the real events are swept away.

In magic they call this misdirection….

Lets see here:
You are ex-military, and admit you work for the NSA.
Lear is ex-military.
Anok is ex-military.
Almost 80% of the Pilotsfor911truth.org are ex-military.
I can most likely find a lot more if I want to dig.

Am I seeing a pattern here?
Maybe you guys are the magicians intended to keep the rest of us searching after red hearings.



Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i beleive its the people who still beleive to official story that do not play fair. They either keep asking for more evidence (without providing any)

Bull durum, if you guys ask something I always answer it (if I can), then you just dismiss the answer. You all have kept doing that until most of us have given up and stopped posting. I have answered what happened to the wings, the engine, and the tail more times then I would even care to count, it would take to long to count that high anyway. Three posts later and someone else is asking the same stupid question again. Round and round it goes until you get your opposition to just give up trying, and you win. Your guys tactics are well documented on this board, and very similar to the ones that were used at one time by the Freemasons in the Secret Society Forum.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
insult and put down people who are trying to find the truth.

Look at the silly semantics game that is being played with me above here by Kix, and then stand there and tell me how we play games with folks. Maybe the reason some of us get insulting is because we get tired of these “we cannot lose” tactics you guys use. “Win at any cost”. Obviously this is more then just a past time to many of you for some reason. If it’s not money then maybe it’s magic, it certainly seems to be personal for some reason.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How can anyone with basic intelligence and some common sense not see all the problems and questions with the official story ?


First off I don’t think that anything these hijackers did was terribly difficult. See this is one of those areas where I am reluctant to say a lot because I don’t want to be accused of giving anyone any information or ideas. The events are not as spectacular as some made them out to be. As to some of the data discrepancies I don’t see that many which are legit. Steel can be molten over a stoked wood fire, it certainly can be the same from a fuel induced fire started by aviation fuel and sustained by plastic, wood, nylon, and the other substances which cover offices, and be stoked by the winds coming up the side of the building, the stairways, and elevator shafts. A 757 will most certainly fit in the hole in the Pentagon, it might lose a few feet of each wing, but it will fit. The debris field is almost identical to that of the NW DTW crash which went though a similar set of heavy pilings. There were no wings at that crash and the only reason the tail survived is because, as I mentioned above, it had tail mounted engines which fell off prior to hitting the pilings.

So if this is not about misdirection, then why doesn’t everyone take a break from this: fire, fuel, bombs, 757, missile, UCAV, Lear Jet crap, which really changes nothing, and go research some of these other things which are far more significant.

Like who sent US military grade WMD’s to the offices of elected officials as though it was some sort of threat to keep them in line. Possibly a threat to for them not to stand in the way of the Patriot Act which was passed sight unseen by these guys.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
It took some time to get this, so here ya go!

www.ntsb.gov...

Lot's of information here:
www.ntsb.gov...

Gypsy..
Peace...



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I did not look it up because I represent myself for what I am on here, I am not going to try and give the impression that I am an expert at military aviation, as I am the first to admit I am not. Heck, if I had wanted to misrepresent myself I wouldn’t even have to bother looking it up, I could have just asked zaphod in the chat room.

Before you began on this site, under this avatar, there was an even older 911 thread. In that thread I stated what I believed then, and what I still believe to this day. To me it is possible that there is some government involvement, or complacency, I would certainly say that some of the elite in this country new about the events in advance and used them to make a profit. But that does not change what fundamentally happened, which is that aircraft were used on that day. There is absolutely no reason for them to use anything other then what they stated was used in the attacks.


1. But you could have least tried to look up what i was talking about. Just as i stated most people who beleive the official story do not botther to even look things up when someone gives them information, they are usually too closed minded.

2. I have never mentioned any theories, i am a truth seeker and looking for the truth of what happened that day, although i do beleive their had to me something else that had to bring down the towers since the fires were not hot enough and burn long enough, and we do not have enough proper answers for the Pentagonand FLight 93. Also we do not have any FBI and NTSB crime scene reports to give us infomration left out in the official story and the 911 commission reports.

3. I have been doing research and have found more questions then answers when it comes to the official story. I have not found enough evidence the say the government had anything to do with 911 but their is enough evidence to suggest the government knows more then what have told us and may have left it happen due to the facts of all the warnings prior to 911.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Can someone please answer this:


As I said just above here, what would have changed about the end result if Thermite had been used in the towers, and it was blamed on the terrorists, or if a missile had been used on the pentagon? We would still be at war, we would still be loosing freedoms, and oil would still be a zillion dollars a gallon. By using something other then what was represented it would require the involvement of far more people who could spill the beans, and things that could go wrong and backfire on them. So for what possible reason would they take these extra and unnecessary risks, unless they wanted to be caught?

I really want to know why they would use a missile or explosive and say it was a jet. What, did the government run out of 757's or 767's that could be used to accomplish this feat? Why is it so darn important to these truth movement folks what was used, when the end result would have been exactly the same if it was a jet or a bomb?

They cannot, and will not answer this question as it shows their true motivation, to misinform, obscure, and throw folks off the real track.


[edit on 4/29/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
and actually...hypothetically speaking...


saying it WAS a missile vs a jet would have been a GREATER cause for war.


"oh no!! al queda has missiles that can penetrate our defenses, they must have gotten them from some secret project saddam had! we must go whomp them back to teh stone age!!"

or maybe im just not sleeping enough



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
"oh no!! al queda has missiles that can penetrate our defenses, they must have gotten them from some secret project saddam had! we must go whomp them back to teh stone age!!"


You never hear anymore about the police report that a missile was fired from the Woolworth building at the towers. Its in the 911 commission report though.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Yeah and your going off the word of folks that did not see the big picture of what was happening around them, they only knew they were under attack. This missile could easily have been something thrown out of the building as a result of the attack, and to the person on the ground, who just saw something shoot by them at a million miles an hour, the first thought is that it was a rocket of some type.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

First off I don’t think that anything these hijackers did was terribly difficult.




No, not terribly difficult for any pilot who has had hundreds of hours in the Boeing 757. For instance resetting both altimeters on descent at EXACTLY FL180!

(1) Now what kind of a hijacker would bother to reset his altimeter EXACTLY at FL180? What for? He's going to crash!

(2) Where did that hijacker get the field barometric pressure for Reagan International that he set on his altimeter? He didn't get it from ATC. And how did he get the CURRENT field barometric pressure (30.24) which would have been only several minutes old?

(3) Why did the hijacker reset the copilots alitmeter within one second of setting his and WHY? And HOW? Thats a pretty long reach!

(4) How did the hijacker get so proficient in the use of the autopilot? From a book? Grimm's Fairly Tales, maybe?

(5) And about that final line up with the Pentagon. After the 270 degree turn descending turn. Within 1 degree? Thats absolutely amazing!

Anybody who states "First off I don't think that anything these hijackers did was terribly difficult" has to clarify that statement by adding, "for any pilot having several hundred hours in a Boeing 757."

The statement, "First off I don't think that anything these hijackers did was terribly difficult" is spoken by someone who is not a pilot who has flown heavy airline equipment.

And speaking about the flight recorder on AA77 how come there is not the slightest indication of a hostile takeover on the Flight Data Recorder? None of the control surface movements indicate the slightest movement indicating a struggle or pilot being dragged ou of his seat. Not the slightest.

The Flight Data Recorder from AA77 was removed from a Boeing 757 that was flown by professionals to simulate a crash into the Pentagon. Whoever was in charge of the simulation made one little tinnie, tiny error which is his undoing. He forgot (or didn't know) that the Flight Data Recorder records the elevation of the aircraft above the ground at Standard Barometric Pressure, 29.92 not local as set on the pilots and copilots altimeter. This is because is is too complex to keep track of the airplane heigth above ground with the constant switching of alitmeters settings. Crash investigators at NTSB know that they have to correct standard for local in the investigation. But whoever was simulating the Pentagon crash didnt know this.

How do we know this?

Because the tabular (FDR) data has the Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon at Standard Pressure (29.92) which happens to be 320 feet below local pressure (30.24). You see the Flight Data Recorder tabular data says 187 feet but what the guys didn't realize that were faking the data was that that altitude is recorded at 29.92. When corrected for local, 30.24 it is 300 feet higher. It overflew the Pentagon. Or was never there in the first place.

So who faked the data? Not the NTSB. It was not their investigation. All the NTSB provided was raw data.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   



(4) How did the hijacker get so proficient in the use of the autopilot? From a book? Grimm's Fairly Tales, maybe?

I know how autopilot works in pretty much all Boeing planes.... Quiet simple really unless you want to get complicated which isn't really needed.

Other than that good post....... best proof of a fake 9/11 I've ever seen (though I'm staying outa it).

[edit on 1-5-2007 by PisTonZOR]



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Other than that good post....... best proof of a fake 9/11 I've ever seen (though I'm staying outa it).

[edit on 1-5-2007 by PisTonZOR]


I would like to know how the pilot of flight 77 knew how to program the autopilot to aviod radar for as long as he did.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I would like to know how the pilot of flight 77 knew how to program the autopilot to aviod radar for as long as he did.




You cannot program an airplane or autopilot to avoid radar. That is total fiction. FAA has 2 types of radar return, Primary and Secondary. Primary returns are simply returns from a solid object. Secondary returns show returns from an airplanes' transponder which broadcast a code specific to that airplane, i.e. Flight No. airspeed, altitude etc.

If the pilots turns off the transponder the FAA can track it for a while automatically based on previous returns or by primary radar. Allegedly there is some airspace that is not covered by Primary Radar.

However there is NORAD. NORAD can track anything anywhere, no if ands or buts. They don't need transponder signals. They can track a fly buzzing around a cow flop in North Dakota. So it is complete fiction that NORAD didn't now where all four planes were during every millesecond of flight.

AA Flight 77 made no evasive maneuvers and made standard rate heading changes except for the 270 degree turn at the Pentagon which was a little steeper than standard rate.

Somebody at NORAD knew exactly where AA Flight 77 was at all times. No if's, and's or but's. And that is a fact.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
You cannot program an airplane or autopilot to avoid radar. That is total fiction.


Well according to what i heard about the flight data recorder had the plane on autopilot for most of the flight.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
No, not terribly difficult for any pilot who has had hundreds of hours in the Boeing 757.

I have seen quotes by you in the past which seem to dispute what you are saying here. I really, personally fail to see what they did that was so difficult. I mean its not like they pulled and Immelmann, barrel roll, or loop with the plane, all they did was a fairly steep dive during a turn, then brought it in like it was a high speed flyby or touch and go. Yeah, pilots spend a lot of time learning how to fly complex maneuvers and not hit anything, mainly the ground, but these loons intention from the start was to hit something and the ground.


Originally posted by johnlear
(1) Now what kind of a hijacker would bother to reset his altimeter EXACTLY at FL180? What for? He's going to crash!

I cannot answer that anymore then I could answer what was going through the head of the nutjob at Virginia Tech.


Originally posted by johnlear
(2) Where did that hijacker get the field barometric pressure for Reagan International that he set on his altimeter? He didn't get it from ATC. And how did he get the CURRENT field barometric pressure (30.24) which would have been only several minutes old?

I don’t know, had the pressure changed that much in the course of time that past since they departed the airport. It would have been a relatively simple process to call the local weather service and had checked on it prior to departure. I mean really how much does the bolometric pressure change through the day unless a front moves in?


Originally posted by johnlear
(3) Why did the hijacker reset the copilots alitmeter within one second of setting his and WHY? And HOW? Thats a pretty long reach!

I am not a pilot, mechanic, nor crash investigator, however it would make sense to me that the altimeters are linked so you don’t have different readings for the pilot and first officer. I mean it would seem to me that it would kind of suck to land on a plane where the pilot had his altitude reading he was 10 feet above the runway and the first officers read 50 feet. With this in mind I would hope that when the captains altimeter is reset, the copilots also resets automatically within a couple of seconds. But correct me if I am wrong here.


Originally posted by johnlear
(4) How did the hijacker get so proficient in the use of the autopilot? From a book? Grimm's Fairly Tales, maybe?

As pistonzor said this is not exactly rocket science, I am about 99.9999% sure I can do it, and I have 0 hours flight time in this type of aircraft.

Lets be honest here john, in this tech savvy world, programming the autopilot is not as big a deal as it was 20 some years ago when folks could not figure out how to program their VCR’s. Anyone who has played MSflight simulator can figure it out quite easily.


Originally posted by johnlear
(5) And about that final line up with the Pentagon. After the 270 degree turn descending turn. Within 1 degree? Thats absolutely amazing!

If there is a question here I am not getting it. If your intention is to show that it was difficult to line up with the Pentagon, I fail to see this. Its not like they were lining up with a runway or an invisible VOR, they were lining up with a very large, very long, very visible building. We use the term “hit the broadside of a barn” to show lack for someone’s accuracy, so if its so darn easy to hit the broadside of a barn, then really how hard is it to hit the broadside of something that is as big as a hundred barns?


Originally posted by johnlear
And speaking about the flight recorder on AA77 how come there is not the slightest indication of a hostile takeover on the Flight Data Recorder? None of the control surface movements indicate the slightest movement indicating a struggle or pilot being dragged ou of his seat. Not the slightest.

Because the pilots most likely gave up without a struggle as was the procedure in all pre-911 hijacking scenarios, and was considered to be SOP.



Originally posted by johnlear
How do we know this?

Because the tabular (FDR) data has the Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon at Standard Pressure (29.92) which happens to be 320 feet below local pressure (30.24). You see the Flight Data Recorder tabular data says 187 feet but what the guys didn't realize that were faking the data was that that altitude is recorded at 29.92. When corrected for local, 30.24 it is 300 feet higher. It overflew the Pentagon. Or was never there in the first place.

So who faked the data?

I cannot comment on this data as it exceeds my aviation knowledge. I do not intimately know how the data recorder on the 757 records nor stores data, and I do not know the quirks a data recorder may have when dealing with altitude and static pressure. It is entirely possible you may have something here, but I think that further investigation would need to be conducted into the accuracy of the pressures on the recorder. Such things as: does it require calibration, when was the last time it was calibrated, what effect would the excessive speed at low altitude have on the pressure ports, were the ports damaged, and so on.

This is another problem with the Truth Movement, they are great at finding discrepancies with the data, but they make 0 efforts to scrutinize these discrepancies and see if there is a logical reason for the discrepancy. They absolutely refuse to use the scientific process or Occam’s Razor.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I would like to know how the pilot of flight 77 knew how to program the autopilot to aviod radar for as long as he did.

I thought you had more aviation background then to ask something like this.
As john quite correctly mentioned above, there is primary and secondary radar. With the transponder turned off the secondary radar is worthless, and the object can only be tracked by the primary radar. The problem with primary radar is that it returns all kinds of crap, VFR flights, those metal balloons, sometimes even cars on an overpass. They had a serious problem here in Tampa when TIA first installed its new radar system that it was picking up cars going across the Courtney Campbell Causeway from Tampa to Clearwater. Trying to follow this object, when it’s switching from radar station to radar station would be a challenging task to say the least. I would think that NORAD would have a similar problem with tracking it, as they don't only use one radar. Now add to this the fact that this event occurred early in the morning, and you have a ton of VFR aircraft up operating as well. You have all the news and radio station planes and helicopters up there to monitor morning commuter traffic. This is on top of all the other VFR traffic that is up there doing its thing such as police, air ambulances, commuters who fly to work, and student pilots going up before work or school.
It would have been a clutter of stuff on those primary radar scopes.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by johnlear
(1) Now what kind of a hijacker would bother to reset his altimeter EXACTLY at FL180? What for? He's going to crash!

I cannot answer that anymore then I could answer what was going through the head of the nutjob at Virginia Tech.


Now what kind of data would tell us the pressure WAS re-set at that point creating that interesting question? NTSB data right from the FDR? Mmmmaybe. It don't match the animation also from the NTSB. Or is it from them? Mmmaybe.

I've looked into the evidence trail supplied by the proponents of this data and its troubling questions, and I'm not convinced. I'm not calling the Pilots liars, but I'd like to see better evidence linkage and verification - like the right FOIA response cover letter for Snowygrouch's request that mentions anything about animation files. Could this animation fit on a single CDR?



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
and actually...hypothetically speaking...


saying it WAS a missile vs a jet would have been a GREATER cause for war.


"oh no!! al queda has missiles that can penetrate our defenses, they must have gotten them from some secret project saddam had! we must go whomp them back to teh stone age!!"

or maybe im just not sleeping enough


“Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, October 12 2001.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... ssion.html

There are those who say the no-757 honeytrap is sponsored by the Pentagon itself to discredit... was that an accidental mistranscription?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join