Pentagon "NTSB animation" is wrong!

Originally posted by johndoex
meanwhile they go on for 10 pages and several threads claiming the NTSB animation is fabricated by P4T.

Rob,

Thank you for once again giving everybody an example of your disregard for the truth. Nobody claimed that the NTSB animation was fabricated by P49T. What I said, and what still stands, is that you never showed any evidence that the animation video is what you actually received from the NTSB.

Further, and this still stands as well, your attempt to claim the scanned letters somehow authenticate the animation video really detracts from your credibility. Anybody taking the time to actually analyze this would understand that there is a gap in the chain of custody that you have no way to authenticate. Trying to do so and not admitting this gap is a problem in terms of credibility.

On a side note, our organization is looking into a possible slander/libel suit. Contact me for details.

I would imagine you're going to have more important things to worry about that suing somebody for slander or libel. When you do some "expert research" and figure out the difference between slander and libel let me know. By the way, it's not slander or libel if it's true.

Seriously, do you really think your rants, insults, and tantrums give anybody the impression that you're a serious researcher?

We already have the name of one.. i dont expect little Nicky to fess up to his name or credentials... but we can get it through the webmaster im sure if needed. I have a feeling we're dealing with teens. That is why Nick doesnt want to get on the phone.

As I explained before, you're really in no position to set the terms of this "debate." I've also explained that I prefer to debate the issue in this forum so other people can watch and comment. If you don't prefer this arena, quit posting. It's not that complicated. Nobody except you cares when you point your finger at me like a spoiled school child and say, "Oooh... look at him! He won't talk to me on the phone."

Your predicament is that you can't answer the questions which were raised with reasonable explanations. Therefore, you try to personally discredit and insult me. You've already shown your level of maturity, which from what I've seen is cloder to a teen than most people that post on this forum.

Here's a simple question for you, Rob. A chance to maybe regain a bit of credibility:

Why not just admit that you have no way to verify, other than your personal claim, that the csv file and the animation video came from the NTSB?

edit.. deleted.. not worth it.

Have a nice day folks...


Nicky, when you want to play with the big boys, join us in a conference or radio interview. So far you have wasted everyone's time including your own...

[edit on 5-6-2007 by johndoex]

An accurate summary?

The hard data from ‘A’ black box shows:

A) an outbound pressure reset procedure by the pilot.
-This action is reflected in the NTSB Animation

B) an inbound pressure reset procedure by the pilot.
- NO animation of this physical action by ‘A’ pilot in the NTSB Animation

C)Therefore a lack of necessary parity between flight data and animation ‘suggests’ visually to the casual observer that the plane probably hits the Pentagon.

Per this thread’s discussion it’s the same case for the plane’s heading.

A) Animated plane on runway / takeoff shows correct heading
-Parity between known physical parameters, black box data and the animation

B) During an in-flight animated maneuver the display fails to register the required compass heading adjustment. Disparity!

C) Therefore: the animated completion of the flight AGAIN ‘suggests’ to a casual viewer that the Light Pole / South of CITGO path might be possible. (This assumption by simualtion error is further compounded when the ‘erroneous’ onscreen magnetic compass is corrected for true heading)

Assumption – if the invalidating discrepancies of the NTSB simulated flight path are corrected for now known errors the animated flight path would ‘suggest’ to the public that the official Pentagon story is improbable.

Originally posted by scrapple

B) During an in-flight animated maneuver the display fails to register the required compass heading adjustment.

Scrapple, could lyou please tell me what this means? Thanks.

(I mean just what in the heck is a required compass heading adjustment?)

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by scrapple

B) During an in-flight animated maneuver the display fails to register the required compass heading adjustment.

Scrapple, could lyou please tell me what this means? Thanks.

(I mean just what in the heck is a required compass heading adjustment?)

Sorry simply trying to paraphrase from the discussion. That part comes from JDX’s data ‘expert’ attach page (7 or so?)

Animated plane making turn, so too should animated compass. Yet do to his/her assessment (I may be misreading) the FDR data feeding the compass was clipped to ‘lag’ the readout on its animated cockpit dial.

From this reading (I can go back and clip it if necessary) it makes it sound like the animated flight path is calculated/driven from physical flight parameters while the animated flight compass read-out is driven from separate compass data in the spreadsheet.

Bottom-line the plane’s turn and compass turn should be in conjunction.

I’ll happily correct / add to my admittedly weak summary as suggested/interpreted!
Scrap


[edit on 5-6-2007 by scrapple]

Hey Mr. Lear,

I have a very short question for you but its more to the UFO side. Care to hear it - and where would you want to field it - if so?

best,
scrap

Originally posted by scrapple

Hey Mr. Lear,

I have a very short question for you but its more to the UFO side. Care to hear it - and where would you want to field it - if so?

best,
scrap

In questions for John Lear. Thanks Scrap.

Originally posted by scrapple

Bottom-line the plane’s turn and compass turn should be in conjunction.

I’ll happily correct / add to my admittedly weak summary as suggested/interpreted!
Scrap

I don't know what the discrepency is here or even why you think there is a discrepency but if you would like to make it clear I will take the time to address it.

I reviewed page 6, 7 and 8 and can't find anything that is similar to what you are talking about here.

Bottom-line the plane’s turn and compass turn should be in conjunction.

OK. And?

Rob: Good luck with the lawsuit. You have my name and can figure out where court papers should be mailed to or however the hell that works. I don't think I've said much I regret or don't stand by. FALSE and INJURIOUS are the requirements I believe. I'm pretty sure I can bck up all I've said as established fact filled in with opinion, and we can see what the judge thinks. All I'm looking for now is better facts to inform that opinion and then we'll see where it stands.

Nick: Good fight, but I've been meaning to suggest - slow down a bit. If the Pilots are frauds we will discover it. If the animation and all the files we've seen are real and NTSB, along with all the curious errors, and all the evidentiary shadiness is just accidental illusion, then it is so. And there's still the issues you point out so passionately - how they use the data selectively despite its obvious errors, that their expertise can only do so much good when analyzing erroneous evidence, etc.

JDX: Is it true you guys never meant to imply that the animation is from the FDR of the overflying plane? It's true that specific statements to that effect are not there, but is it not your experience that people GOT THIS IMPRESSION? They see "9/11 thruth," and an off flight path and an off altitude by which the old Eastman flyover story seems necessary, many of your fans looking for just this... If you didn't mean to give me and others the impression that led to my implying this was your message, you should have more explicitly stated something like, well...

Please copy and pate this statement I've prepared, corrected so it's correct by you, to clarify the record:

This animation is NOT from the plane that flew over the Pentagon. It is faked by the NTSB and matches the other faked FDR info at the beginning but by the end just happens to show roughly the real flight path (unlike the other FDR data) as seen by our brother org's eyewitnesses but with a different altitude, which being neither 440 feet AGL as we calculate or 80 ft AGL as the witnesses saw, must be faked.

Thank you for helping to clarify the reord.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by scrapple

Bottom-line the plane’s turn and compass turn should be in conjunction.

I’ll happily correct / add to my admittedly weak summary as suggested/interpreted!
Scrap

I don't know what the discrepency is here or even why you think there is a discrepency but if you would like to make it clear I will take the time to address it.

I reviewed page 6, 7 and 8 and can't find anything that is similar to what you are talking about here.

Bottom-line the plane’s turn and compass turn should be in conjunction.

OK. And?

Found it on page 9 half way down from the expert insert in JohndoeX's post.
"......What is important to note is, about halfway through the turn, (bold mine) the magnetic heading is still at 270 degrees when obviously the heading has changed. The true heading at this point is at about 270 degrees (parallel to the ground line), during the first half of this turn, the magnetic heading value was “trimmed” by 10 degrees."

maybe I missunderstood - was this a point where the 3D animation of the plane and flight controls separates from the compass heading - that's all.

Can such a data error (and its subsequent compass animation offset) compile over the length of the animated planeflight so as to bring us back around to a false end of show display of 70* heading? I dont know.

..and wish I had taken a flight nav. course
.. and better understand how the flight simulation program's data compiler (used to make thier 3D animation) worked

There is just not enough time in one day.




[edit on 5-6-2007 by scrapple]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

JDX: Is it true you guys never meant to imply that the animation is from the FDR of the overflying plane? It's true that specific statements to that effect are not there, but is it not your experience that people GOT THIS IMPRESSION?

- Icecream melts in the sun. If I take my cone outside based on somebody's evaluation of a situation. I need to start a lick'n. But surprise surprise in that light it tastes all the better.

Thanks for this discussion as I 'think' I may understand the situation even better than before. Everyone gets props.

Originally posted by scrapple

..and wish I had taken a flight nav. course
.. and better understand how the flight simulation program's data compiler (used to make thier 3D animation) worked

There is just not enough time in one day.

You don't need all of that scrapple. All you need to do is listen to me. There was no Boeing 757. It was a holograph. The holograph was projected at the same time a Predator or other missile carrier hit the Pentagon. The Flight Data Recorder tabular data was from a Boeing 757 that flew the faked profile some other place and at some other time. The pilots that flew the faked profile were professionals and current on the Boeing 757. It was a holograph. That is why there were no Boeing 757 parts inside or outside the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 overflew the Pentagon. There simply was no Boeing 757. And there were no bodies inside the Pentagon because there was no Boeing 757.

Where did Flight #77 go? Where did the passengers go? Sorry, I don't know. I wasn't the magician. All I can tell you is that there was no Boeing 757 in, around, through, on top of, into or out of, over, between, behind or near the Pentagon except in holograph form. It is a total impossibility that a Boeing 757 flew into the face of the Pentagon and caused so little damage. It is also a total impossibility that a Boeing 757 overflew the Pentagon after faking a crash and landed nearby or elsewhere without being seen by somebody.

If you aren't ready to accept the above scenario then you aren't ready for the truth.

Originally posted by johnlear

If you aren't ready to accept the above scenario then you aren't ready for the truth.

You are talking to the converted I assure you. And please check on that question I hit you with in your ?'s thread.

I am AOK with holograms personally - if they are that good, but hey all I ever really saw was the Pentagon gate camera vid and the follow-up CNN footage. All that never felt right to me anyhow - like ~18' of airplane (bottom of engine to top of fuselage) flying at worm-burner flight level into an 14' slabxslab opening. Where were my aunty's overhead suitcases? She never flies without 4 of them!!

I know its a waste of time trying to understand irregular data - proof of the offical conspiracy - and really what would we do about it anyhow - if we could proove it? I mean honestly?

Nada!

We will happily drink another Coke and hope we get paid and laid - that's what. And that is fine.

Its only a stubborn hatred of the unknown and that scratchy wool in my eye which pisses me off.

Thanx all



[edit on 5-6-2007 by scrapple]

[edit on 5-6-2007 by scrapple]

Originally posted by johndoex
Nicky, when you want to play with the big boys, join us in a conference or radio interview. So far you have wasted everyone's time including your own...

Coming from the same people who supposedly spent hundreds of hours analyzing FDR and amination data that they admit is fake, you certainly have the credentials to comment on wasting time.

Radio shows or phone calls aren't what makes somebody a "big boy." If you want to BECOME a big boy, you might want to address the issues and stop with the grade school insults.

Issue 1: You have shown no proof that the "NTSB" video actually came from the NTSB. Worse, you seem to think your letter from the NTSB is proof. It's not. Knowing the history of snowygrouch, you could have made sure you documented the chain of custody of the NTSB CDs which were sent to you, but you chose not to. Why?

Issue 2: You use an "NTSB" animation and "NTSB" csv files that are contradictory and internally inconsistent to support theories of a north flight path and too high altitude. You simply can't use false data as a source to support claims about the *real* flight path.

Issue 3: You ignored focusing on the bad csv and animation data because the bad data conveniently supported the fly-over and north of Citgo theories. This approach is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion. If the data from the NTSB was falsified, this alone would have been a big enough story. It's contradictory to argue, "This data is bad AND by the way, it supports my theory so look at it anyway."

For all the concern you've been making about your time, my time, and everybody else's time, it would have been easier to address these issues from the start.





[edit on 5-6-2007 by nick7261]

say, would the flight data given possibly be from a plane that did a normal landing at the airport past the pentagon?
because it seems way too high to have hit the pentagon.

faking dates/times is much easier than faking a whole flight path.

you have to wonder, too, 'why did they cut off the datastream BEFORE it hit the wall?'

why CENSOR the final moments before impact, and impact itself?

could it be.....DUNH DUNH DAHHHHH ....a cover-up?

I really did not want to get involved in this discussion, but I think there may be some misunderstandings of my analysis of the AA77 FDR data and animation. I am the “reverse engineering” individual that seems to be quite controversial here.

First let me make it perfectly clear that I have no “flight path” or “theory” to present or prove. I have had more than my share of disagreements with the folks at P4T and the PentaCon (they really don’t like my witness evaluations) and I stay under fire from both sides of the issue on this one.

My objective is to reconstruct the events of 9/11 at the Pentagon using the available data set. The first step in that process is data validation. In the case of the NTSB data, there are three sets of data (csv, raw, animation) and all three tell a different story. The fact that all three are different requires that at least two are incorrect. The csv file has perhaps the largest number of problems, since the both the longitude and latitude data has been shifted. During my investigation of that phenomenon, I discovered that the physical parameters (acceleration values) did not correlate with the instrument parameters (heading and altitude) during certain segments of the files. With the raw file, although the latitude and longitude were a closer fit, the parameter inconsistencies persisted. Upon examination of the animation, there is an obvious discrepancy. Either the animation was generated by the physical parameters and not the instrument parameters (one possible explanation), the animation was deliberately fabricated, or some unknown disparity resulted in a radically different approach than described by the other two data sets.

Since there are irregularities in all three data sets, they are useless for my purposes so as far as I am concerned, end of discussion. Now if others want to speculate as to why or how they are garbage, then feel free, but that really is beyond the scope of my project. Interestingly however, other independent data also indicates the northern approach (Citgo video phenomenon and eyewitnesses). In any event, there is evidence for both approaches and hopefully over time more data will become available to solidify one, both, or neither.

If I understand the statement of P4T, they have basically raised the same issues I have coming from an entirely different direction and simply want the source of the data, the NTSB to clarify the data irregularities. I don’t think that is a lot to ask for and I should think that everyone would be interested in knowing the answers to those questions. There seems to be a consistent pattern of the government releasing altered or “incomplete” data.

If others wish to just take the governments word on what happened, then it is okay by me if you want to live in a fantasy land. The Pentagon in recent years does not have a great track record when it comes to “factual” accounts (NORAD tapes, Tilman, etc, etc…). But I require good solid data and/or evidence, and to date I have found very little in that category. I certainly recommend that others get the data from NTSB and do their own work with it. Don’t take my word, P4T’s word, and certainly NOT the governments word for what is and is not. But why are you attacking P4T because the government’s data is corrupt? Shouldn’t you be taking the issue up with the government instead?

Originally posted by spcengineer But why are you attacking P4T because the government’s data is corrupt? Shouldn’t you be taking the issue up with the government instead?

and therein lies the event horizon between people who truly want truth, and those who are working to keep the status quo in a state.

a good indicator. thanks. your concision is useful to my brain.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by spcengineer But why are you attacking P4T because the government’s data is corrupt? Shouldn’t you be taking the issue up with the government instead?

and therein lies the event horizon between people who truly want truth, and those who are working to keep the status quo in a state.

a good indicator. thanks. your concision is useful to my brain.

Because they dont think the information came from the NTSB. Although we have provided the chain of custody, the envelope, the cover letters, the FOIA Contact name of Melba D. Moye, the NTSB Phone number of 202-314-6000, Geo Wash University who has the same information, JREF with the same information, 911Myths with the same information, but they still think we are lying about the data being from the NTSB.. (ooops.. im sorry.. that we havent "provided enough proof") rolleyes...

We have stated time and time again on radio interviews (which are available for download for those who are thorough researchers), TV interviews, many forums including this one.. that the NTSB data is not proof of anything real. We have stated time and time again that the data provided by the NTSB doesnt not support the govt story.. period. Therefore we have been questioning the FBI and NTSB on recorded telephone calls to get answers for their data, but they refuse to answer. It seems some cannot comprehend this statement and twist it into "P4T is using this data as what really happened", Or "P4T is lying!" or "P4T fabricated the animation!" or "The Pentacon is a Hoax!".

We have stated time and time again that the flight path is secondary and the only reason we added it to the questions for the US Govt is due to eyewitnesses describing the plane on the north side of Citgo. That is the only point at which CIT witnesses match. Other CIT witnesses do not match.

Our primary concerns are altitude, vertical speed, system indications, airspeed, bank angles et al as noted in the questions to the US Govt found on our pentagon page, which do not support the govt story. Why do some many so called 'debunkers' (who also seem to claim they are truth seekers) focus on a flight path we already know shows 070 degrees?

We have not once said the NTSB data is "Faked". We have not once stated the NTSB data is "real". We said it is data provided by the NTSB claimed to be from AA77 and does not match the govt story... period. We now know through 'spcengineer' that some parameters show signs of being "ALTERED". This does not mean the data as a whole is fake or real.

The only way to know 100% what happened at the pentagon is to be riding in the jumpseat on that Sept morning.

I dont think ANY of us will find out what exactly happened at the pentagon. But the fact remains we have a great starting spot to open up a can-o-worms since the govt provided us with data that does not support their story. I can careless if you think the data came from the NTSB or not.. we know it did. We are recording the FBI and NTSB based on it. Monday Morning Quarterback all you want.

Some self-proclaimed "truther's" seem to want to attack us for questioning the govt regarding this data because they do not have enough proof from P4T that the data is authentic. How absurd is that? Nor were they able to do their own leg work to get their own data to verify ours prior to their accusations.

For those concerned who the real truth seekers are.. ask yourself.. who is out in the field filming on location...? Who is recording the FBI and NTSB regarding their data? Who sits behind their computer attacking those who go into the field to seek the truth? Who sits behind their computers and refuses to call the very govt they seek answers? Even when supplied with links, phone numbers and names? There you will have your answer of who is really seeking the truth.

Cheers!

just so you understand...

i'm on your side.
the government info does not support itself, therefore it is false, for whatever reason.

those who would try to distract us from the FACT that it is false, have revealed themselves as apologists for the status quo/official TRIPE.

thank you for what you are doing.

Originally posted by billybob
just so you understand...

i'm on your side.
the government info does not support itself, therefore it is false, for whatever reason.

those who would try to distract us from the FACT that it is false, have revealed themselves as apologists for the status quo/official TRIPE.

thank you for what you are doing.

Yes.. i know BillBob...

If you want.. come on over and join our forum.. we'd love to have ya... lots of professional discussion among mature respected researchers goes on there...

forums.pilotsfor911truth.org...