Pentagon "NTSB animation" is wrong!

Cross-quoted from the PentaCon thread - I'm trying for my part to keep animation discussions out of that thread, along with myself, for the moment.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I'll say this (now I've had a chance to consider some of the points raised over the last however long) - I don't think they're setting out to deliberately mis-lead, lie, etc.. but I think the way they've presented their "facts" needs clarifying A LOT. As has already been raised - if it is as it first appears - it is frankly very serious stuff. However, if it is not as it first appears, then appropriate notices about what it is they're actually showing needs to be made, so it isn't open to interpretation, and so they're not open to allegations of misrepresentation (it works both ways). If their case is solid - they have nothing to lose, right?

I think that sums it up pretty fairly. I admittedly started from doubting their core claims. Whaaa? North of the Citgo and that high? From the FDR? Where the hell did they get that? Then whaddya know the paper trail is muddled in the extreme. Then I relize I know the official mag heading, and find the animation doesn't match the FDR, and wonder what's up. In that context, and with PBB selling copies based on a never-explicit premise of "this is what the FDR shoows" and with PentaCon on the way... you can see where suspicion might arise?

Now I’m seeing additional verification, which was in the process of coming to light as I happened to post the analysis that started this thread. Had I been keeping up on news, I would still have started it when that spark hit, but approached it differently. As it is, I was caught off guard.

That’s why I’ve changed gears, and suspend fraud charges or implications until I see a reason to do so, Previous speculations were just that – though well-founded from the evidence I had seen, there is no good excuse to have not studied the newer evidence of NTSB authenticity and adjusted for a less-suspicious-seeming case and a stronger case for NTSB origin.

It's still wrong IMO. The FDR says 70 I bet if you see the real deal, the black box on the 757, whther hijacker flown, remote control, whatever, that slammed into the Pentaon on 9/11, as all evidence shows, and no matter what the Pilots say, imply, whatever, collectively or singly, and no matter what this shoodily-done NTSB cartoon says.

I look forward to hearing what you and Nick have to say on your FOIA requests and conversations with the NTSB.

Should be interesting to say the least.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

As do I. Not so much the process, but the results will be worth something. Even a brush-off is interesting in its own way. Getting discs in the mail is another thing altogether I’m sure. Then i'll have something real to add to this thread. Maybe something else too in the meantime, like a reponse yo JDX's post I need to read now...

Originally posted by billybob
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.

Wow, things have gotten backwards. A couple days ago I was starting a thread called Pentagon "NTSB Animation" is WRONG!" It's rare that I even use caps like that. In questioning the SOURCE of that error rather than taking the word of P4T as absolute gospel, I have apparently pissed you off. I'm sorry, but it is POSSIBLE for Truthers to lie, if you bothered to RESEARCH you'd see I had my reasons, and now that I'm seeing more evidence I have
A) Ceased accusations
B) Stood beside everything I've said given what I knew when I said it.
I also promise a responsible about face once I see the evidence for myself and have my questions answered. Until then please try not to let the Pilots' spin on this delude your thinking. This has been blown WAY out of proportion, guys.

I am not some kind of agent. I just have the BALLS to call BS when I see it or suspect it, even within the "movement." others can learn from that. If I'm wrong I admit it and learn. I show my work. Call me out on a specific point if you like or you're just a spouting bot.

Lear, Scrapple: Thank you for your contributions to continued analysis of this evidence at hand. That's still what the thread is about -

Spcengineer: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s interesting to hear how you’ve had your disagreements with the pilots and are just speaking from the heart.

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?

I have never “attacked” the Pilots for the government’s data being flawed. The only “attack” I have made is in wondering aloud if maybe this was NOT an NTSB animation but rather a forgery, since it was so odd and not well documented.
But my speculation is injurious! So… I am looking for clarification from the NTSB for my part, taking it up with the government who has handed us this turd to see if I can find out why.

So all just chiiillll... nothing to hide, I'll be looking like a fool quite soon, right?

Thank you for the thoughts JDX... I'm having a mixed reaction.

Originally posted by johndoex
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...

Yeah thanks these things take time... Sorry I don't just trust your word. That's my major crime here, isn't it? Wanting to see for myself. So relax. Once I see this my own way, right there I'll do a special thing to reconcile, to help you petition, whatever. Whatever else we disagree on, getting to the bottom of WHY this NTSB animation issue was created with their errors and what it's covering for will be a common issue for us. We may part ways in a week, but I'll feel I owe you one.

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.

Got it. Some of us are just silly, and I'm sorry I misrepresented you as using the animation to push a theory. "The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon." Sounds a little like "it shows the plane did not hit," but that's just my imagination. It's just an odd thing that needs figured out.

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?

Again, some silly people have thought you were trying to show a mag heading of 90 in your video. But while that is what's shown, and you mention it being far to the left in your video, it's really just an insignificant glitch you barely even noticed, tho it's striking to some non-expert eyes, and almost gives a false impression, and did coincdentally prep people for the CIT witnesses.

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.

I agree that whatyou've all done is pretty much from what I can see and verify accurate readings from the data you've been provided, which you admit is tampered. I think you've pointed out some interesting things in that data. I'm sure you have complex ways of knowig whichparameters are authentic and which have been altered, with input from John Lear and the others. Props in fact for some of your research I've looked into.

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

That's certainly true, but we can also find ways to cut thru as much mystery as we can and take our best guess, right? 90-foot hole, engine parts, landing gear, angled damage, 70 degree heaing, AA-painted scraps, more eyewiitnesses than CIT, etc... Or maybe not...

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.

Agreed, you will never figure out the truth of what happened, but have a good position to make a big deal of wrong and altered data that "is not proof of anything real."

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.

Good for you that you don't care and are so sure. I'm not sure and do care. So we're opposites there, cool.

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.

Misread. NO ATTACK FOR QUESTIONING! read that sentence carefully... Twisted logic

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.

I wasn't unable, I just didn't. So I'm doing it now and i look lazy and I'll look like a real idiot when I come up with what you guys did. So relax.

For those concerned who the real truth seekers are.. ask yourself..

Who castigates and threatens with lawsuits those who DARE to seek their own verification, who DARE to wonder and air their suspicions. Ask yourself who pretends like their expertise puts them above question like a high priest while prophesizing eternal mystery (which by the way requires experts like themselves). WHO has still not offered a theory on what happened, six years later, even with all the evidence out there.

There you will have your answer of who is really seeking the truth.

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

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Again, some silly people have thought you were trying to show a mag heading of 90 in your video. But while that is what's shown, and you mention it being far to the left in your video, it's really just an insignificant glitch you barely even noticed, tho it's striking to some non-expert eyes, and almost gives a false impression, and did coincdentally prep people for the CIT witnesses.

Hey CL,

Just curious. Could you explain the above quote.

-As based off the video clip you yourself posted to start this thread - the compass's animated readout never swings through 90*?

Are you asserting that a coach-class citizen "sees" 90mag on the NTSB video?

Or do you mean that if they were to ignore the animated compass readout entirely and only focus on the 3D animated plane approach - that its trajectory North of the CITGO gives them an impression which is off course from the offical story?

-scrap




[edit on 6-6-2007 by scrapple]

Originally posted by scrapple

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Again, some silly people have thought you were trying to show a mag heading of 90 in your video. But while that is what's shown, and you mention it being far to the left in your video, it's really just an insignificant glitch you barely even noticed, tho it's striking to some non-expert eyes, and almost gives a false impression, and did coincdentally prep people for the CIT witnesses.

Hey CL,

Just curious. Could you explain the above quote.

-As based off the video clip you yourself posted to start this thread - the compass's animated readout never swings through 90*?

Are you asserting that a coach-class citizen "sees" 90mag on the NTSB video?

Or do you mean that if they were to ignore the animated compass readout entirely and only focus on the 3D animated plane approach - that its trajectory North of the CITGO gives them an impression which is off course from the offical story?

-scrap

Thanks. What I mean is the last - it shows the animation that should be 90 alongside a dial that says 70. Most wouldn't KNOW it's 90, but can see how it counters the official story (they show comparison video to help) ... a "coach class" viewer in fact might've been confused enought to think therefore a 70 mag heading IS north of the Citgo, see a gov. report saying the plane hit the building at 70, look at an official map that doesn't match, and decide the gov is lying - 70 takes it a different way! The FDR data shows this! I was it in PBB!

Now of course they never meant to give this impression. The Pilots are not conspiracy theorists, they just share off-kilter bits of data and raise questions. They are trying their best to answer those questions I hope instead of just appealing to mystery and letting people do their own theorizing based on what they see. I'm not an expert in every public utterance of theirs, but I'm sure they've xplained the discrepancies elsewhere to keep their fans from becoming confused. I guess I just missed that. Maybe they should have explained that in the video where they raised the mystery.

CL,

Thanx.

When I am presented with physical evidence such as downed light poles on the 70 magnetic heading, it represents to me the official government story. Rightly or wrongly, I place the ownership of this scenario on them.

When I am presented with a animated recreation officially released by Our government, contradicting ‘their fact’, I am naturally troubled.

Therefore IMO the resolution of this contradiction is their burden. Not ours, I hope you could agree?

And I do appreciate the contribution you have made in bringing this point to light.

Best
Scrap


[edit on 6-6-2007 by scrapple]

Originally posted by scrapple
When I am presented with a animated recreation officially released by Our government, contradicting ‘their fact’, I am naturally troubled.

The animation shows on the dial face of the instrument a magnetic heading of 70 degrees. This matches the official story. However, what one sees on the screen is the plane approaching the Pentagon at what would translate to a magnetic heading of about 90 degrees. The screen also shows a visual flight path the matches the PentaCon witnesses.

Here is where the story gets muddled, and where you need to be precise in your description. The source of what is known as the "NTSB animation" has only been claimed to be the NTSB by Pilot's for 9/11 Truth. As far as I can tell, not another independent researcher has ever claimed that they've received the same video animation from the NTSB, let alone authenticated such a claim. And it just so happens that coincidentally, P49T's brother organization, CIT, produced a movie with eye-witnesses describing a flight path that just so happens to match the NTSB data, which, by the way, P49T says has been doctored anyway.

So the whole "the video is came from the NTSB" has one source. Technically, I'm not sure if the story originated upstream from P49T and they've just repeated it as if it were fact, or if the person who claimed to receive the original "NTSB" data actually is an official member of P49T.

In any event, there has never been ANY independently verified corroboration that the NTSB sent out an animation that contradicts the official story.

Therefore IMO the resolution of this contradiction is their burden. Not ours, I hope you could agree?

This is consequence the muddled P49T tale has led to. No, the burden is first on the people who claim the data came from the NTSB to authenticate that the data was actually sent by the NTSB. This has never been done. For some reason, Rob Balsamo seems to think if he insults people enough and threatens to file lawsuits, it's somehow going to prove that their animation came from the NTSB.

Maybe it did, or maybe it didn't. Until the "NTSB" data is verified, then it's not really accurate or fair to make conclusions that the government sent out data that contradicted the official story. The burden is P49T's to authenticate their claims of where the data originated.

If the source of the contradictorary animation can be proven to have originated with the government, then the burden will fall on the government to explain why their own NTSB data doesn't match the official story.


[edit on 6-6-2007 by nick7261]

Thumbs up to CL and Nick for ignoring Rob's childish name calling and "not so subtle" indirect threats of legal action. Seems to me that he doth protest too much. Why does he try so hard, with insults and threats, to silence anyone who dares question his story while he and his gang freely question the govts story regarding what happend at the Pentagon and to AA77?

I'm sure that now Rob, or one of his cohorts will add me to their "official" list of ATS posters who are teenagers, or poor researchers, or confused, misinofrmed, time wasting, and inexperienced in such complicated matters.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Thumbs up to CL and Nick for ignoring Rob's childish name calling and "not so subtle" indirect threats of legal action. Seems to me that he doth protest too much. Why does he try so hard, with insults and threats, to silence anyone who dares question his story while he and his gang freely question the govts story regarding what happend at the Pentagon and to AA77?

Thanks!

The biggest question which Rob has repeatedly avoided is why P49T didn't make a big deal out of the 70 mag heading on the instrument panel and the visual "about" 90 degree heading. The animation, as CL pointed out to start this thread, is internally contradictory, i.e., faked. Therefore, WHAT it shows as far as content doesn't matter as much as the fact that it is bogus to begin with.

Why didn't P49T focus on the animation being obviously fake?

I'm sure that now Rob, or one of his cohorts will add me to their "official" list of ATS posters who are teenagers, or poor researchers, or confused, misinofrmed, time wasting, and inexperienced in such complicated matters.

You can always do a radio interview if you want to become one of the "big boys."

Originally posted by scrapple
CL,

Thanx.

When I am presented with physical evidence such as downed light poles on the 70 magnetic heading, it represents to me the official government story. Rightly or wrongly, I place the ownership of this scenario on them.

When I am presented with a animated recreation officially released by Our government, contradicting ‘their fact’, I am naturally troubled.

Therefore IMO the resolution of this contradiction is their burden. Not ours, I hope you could agree?

Being troubled is understandable. It is troubling stuff, which is what got me interested in the first place. I'm simply up in the air at the moment as to what, if anything, the anomolous animation MEANS. The burden of explaining this is on them, but for whatever reason they're not helping yet and seem to enjoy watching us squirm. I'm tired of it. Just got my first contact at NTSB and an e-mail address to explain my questions more thoroughly. I plan to explain how it's in their interests to help clarify the situation, and any unreasonable refusal on their part will be duly noted by me.

And I do appreciate the contribution you have made in bringing this point to light.

Best
Scrap

[edit on 6-6-2007 by scrapple]

Yer alright mate. Thanks for helpig get JDX in here, I think this is becoming fruitful now that it's come to a head. I'm tryin for my part anyway, but still sticking to my guns too on the bigger issues.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by scrapple
When I am presented with a animated recreation officially released by Our government, contradicting ‘their fact’, I am naturally troubled.

The animation shows on the dial face of the instrument a magnetic heading of 70 degrees. This matches the official story. However, what one sees on the screen is the plane approaching the Pentagon at what would translate to a magnetic heading of about 90 degrees.

That's data that contradicts their fact as Scrap says. That's the prob.

Here is where the story gets muddled, and where you need to be precise in your description. The source of what is known as the "NTSB animation" has only been claimed to be the NTSB by Pilot's for 9/11 Truth. As far as I can tell, not another independent researcher has ever claimed that they've received the same video animation from the NTSB, let alone authenticated such a claim.

Don't forget "Slob" at the other board. True we haven't seen a scan of the letter yet, but it says a DVD with the animation, it's been posted and it matches. NTSB, FOOIA, non-P49T. Until that's shown otherwise I'm taking it as it is.

And it just so happens that coincidentally, P49T's brother organization, CIT, produced a movie with eye-witnesses describing a flight path that just so happens to match the NTSB data, which, by the way, P49T says has been doctored anyway.

Strange but apparently true.

In any event, there has never been ANY independently verified corroboration that the NTSB sent out an animation that contradicts the official story.

Again, not true unless you debunked SLOB's story too.

...the burden is first on the people who claim the data came from the NTSB to authenticate that the data was actually sent by the NTSB. This has never been done. For some reason, Rob Balsamo seems to think if he insults people enough and threatens to file lawsuits, it's somehow going to prove that their animation came from the NTSB.

Could be... The burden's been on them, they've borne it how they have, I have my suspicions now so the burden's on me to floow up. But that's just my take.

Maybe it did, or maybe it didn't. Until the "NTSB" data is verified, then it's not really accurate or fair to make conclusions that the government sent out data that contradicted the official story. The burden is P49T's to authenticate their claims of where the data originated.

They say they have. The evidence is there. If you want to keep arguing it's falsified or misleading, let's look at specifics some more. Suggestion...

If the source have the contradictorary animation can be proven to have originated with the government, then the burden will fall on the government to explain why their own NTSB data doesn't match the official story.

Which is right where I am - at that crossroads. It's heavy, man.

ETA:

John Lear

Here is an amateurish question for you. Will the flight data computer reset the altimeters at 18,000 feet when the autopilot is engaged? I have been investgoogling(I stole that) and checking the pilots for truth web site to see if I could come up with any answers. As you have pointed out, I do not know how to read the CSV file. The autopilot may not have even been engaged at 18,000 feet.
I would appreciate any answer or even if you wanted to, point me in the right direction for information that might help me out. Thanks

Dont have the time to read the replies so im not sure if this has been posted...

Although this thread doesnt get a fraction of the hits our forum and website gets... (more than 10-15,000 per day combined and growing) i felt the need to paste this here...

Debunking FDR Debunking - Addressing Common Arguments

z9.invisionfree.com...

also found on our front page...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Be sure to keep an eye out for a joint article between David Ray Griffin and myself due out shortly... and upcoming radio interviews that reach 100's of thousands if not millions...


Cheers!
Rob

typos and add

ETA: And dont worry guys.. we wont pursue a lawsuit any longer. You guys do enough damage to yourselves as it is among respected researchers.





[edit on 6-6-2007 by johndoex]

Originally posted by Boone 870

John Lear
Will the flight data computer reset the altimeters at 18,000 feet when the autopilot is engaged?

The Flight Data Computer receives inputs of altitude, airspeed, temperature, and other information and gives it to the pilot in corrected form.

The Flight Data Computer nor anything else can reset the altimeters. This is a funtion that must be physically done by both pilots.

I have been investgoogling(I stole that) and checking the pilots for truth web site to see if I could come up with any answers. As you have pointed out, I do not know how to read the CSV file.

Please get Excel, then go to the web and get the tabular data or ask me and I will post it. Then open the tabular data in Excel. When you get it open I will teach you how to read it. It is very simple.

The autopilot may not have even been engaged at 18,000 feet.
I would appreciate any answer or even if you wanted to, point me in the right direction for information that might help me out.

The FDR line numbers for the altimeter setting event on descent run from 31310 to 31582 and from 9:24:12 to 9:24:46 and from 18,205 ft. to16, 787 ft. The Altimeter settings for the Captains altimeter are on channel CG and the co-pilots altimeter setting are on channel CH.

Autopilot 1 and 2 which are called (Captains) Autopilot Left and (Copilots) Autopilot right are on channel L and M and are labeled A/P Command L and R for Left and Right. The Captains autopilot was engaged during the descent through 18,000 feet.

You can watch the co-pilot begin to set his altimeter first. That usually happens because it is the co-pilots responsibility to call out "Flight Level 180 Altimeters Reset". Since the Captain is flying it will take him a few seconds to reach up and set his altimeter.

The Captain who was flying this airplane took a little longer to set in local barometric unless, of course, Hani thoughfully reached over to set the co-pilots altimeter first and then set his. The only problem with this scenario is that at one point both altimeters are being set at one time which would take an ambidextrous Arab hijacker with a long reach and 2 sets of eyes to set both altimeters at the same time. Maybe thats why it takes him longer. He probably starts setting them both at the same time but realizes he doesn't have 2 sets of eyes so he concentrates on settting the co-pilots altimeter then comes back over and sets is. Now that takes talent and dedication considering he doesn't even need the correct altimeter settings because one: he is not going to use the autopilot below 7000 feet and two he is not going to be looking at the altimeter during the last few thousand feet of descent. He is going to be looking out the window lining up on the Pentagon. Ops sorry. He can't see the Pentagon because he is in the left seat and they are in a right turn. He won't be able to see the Pentagon until they get within about 30 degrees of line up and he can start seeing the Pentagon through the right side of the co-pilots windshield. What skill! What airmanship!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Don't forget "Slob" at the other board. True we haven't seen a scan of the letter yet, but it says a DVD with the animation, it's been posted and it matches. NTSB, FOOIA, non-P49T. Until that's shown otherwise I'm taking it as it is.

I'm not taking SLOB's claim "as is." If the animation actually came from the NTSB, then you're talking about irrefutable proof that somebody in the government has falsified documentation of FL 77's flight path. This is too significant of an allegation to take at face value just because somebody name SLOB anonymously says something is true. Imo, of course.

In any event, there has never been ANY independently verified corroboration that the NTSB sent out an animation that contradicts the official story.

Again, not true unless you debunked SLOB's story too.

I guess we are going to disagree here. My opinion is that posting a video along with a claim of its origin online does not constitute independently verified corroboration. If three or four other people online here at ATS made FOIA requests and at least two corroborated the animation, then I'd be satisfied of the claim that the animation came from the NTSB. Or of course, if the FOIA information I requested shows the same animation, I will be 100% convinced.

They say they have. The evidence is there. If you want to keep arguing it's falsified or misleading, let's look at specifics some more. Suggestion...

I never argued that it WAS falsified, just that it could have been falsified because there was never any way to authenticate the source of the animation. Even if they got an animation video on a DVD from the NTSB, that doesn't mean that the video they uploaded wasn't created by their own software.

Thanks John, I appreciate your patience. I'll let you know when I get Excel and maybe I can force some of this info into my dense gray matter!

edit - deleted..



[edit on 6-6-2007 by johndoex]

Originally posted by johndoex

Debunking FDR Debunking - Addressing Common Arguments

z9.invisionfree.com...

also found on our front page...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Rob,

There's no evidence that you cited above that does anything to *authenticate* that the animation you claim to have originated with the NTSB actually DID originate with the NTSB. The more you try to make these bogus claims the what you have shown authenticates the "NTSB" data the more your credibility drops. I might as well debunk this right now.

Here's what's on your website:

Claim - The Information that P4T has analyzed may not be from the NTSB (P4T may have fabricated the information and claims it came from the NTSB)

1. csv file download and cover letters provided by Undertow
z9.invisionfree.com...

2. Raw data decode provided by Undertow
z9.invisionfree.com...

3. Animation cover letters/envelope provided by Snowgrouch
z9.invisionfree.com...

4. Animation cover letters provided by Mick Harrison
z9.invisionfree.com...

5. Reserved - More forthcoming

6. Animation provided by Third party on google video
video.google.com...

7. George Washington University NTSB Data
www.gwu.edu...

8. NTSB FOIA Website
www.ntsb.gov...

9. NTSB FOIA Contact - Melba D. Moye
202-314-6000

10. NTSB FOIA Request form -
www.ntsb.gov...

So you listed 10 items on your website to "debunk the debunkers." Let's look at these one by one.

Items 1-4 -scanned letters that reference FOIA requests. Only problem is, there is no way to tie anything in these letters to any of the data you claim came from the NTSB

Item 5 -Mystery item? Why hold back?

Item 6 -Google animation provided by anonymous 3rd party. I'm surprised this "3rd" party's name wasn't Undergrouch or snowytow. Do you really think this proves the animation came from the NTSB?

Items 7-10 -Provide NOTHING at all about the NTSB animation or csv file.

To reiterate, I'm not saying you faked the NTSB data. I'm saying that your claims that the evidence you provided actually authenticate the data as coming from the NTSB are wrong. The only thing you have is evidence that the NTSB sent people SOMETHING. You show no evidence connects the videos you published with what you actually received from the NTSB.

ETA: And dont worry guys.. we wont pursue a lawsuit any longer. You guys do enough damage to yourselves as it is among respected researchers.

Thank God... now I'll be able to sleep again.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by nick7261]

Keep going Nick.. its rather entertaining...

Anything else that "doesnt prove it came from the NTSB"? (you havent called the NTSB yet have you?.. i know.. that doesnt prove anything.. we manipulated the animation after we opened the envelope.. thats how it was done.. right Nicky? We also intercepted and manipulated the JREF animation... you got us!)

Anyone you can name that doesnt believe it came from the NTSB? You say you have so many people on your side...

These are the people on my side.. i guess i fooled em all..

pilotsfor911truth.org...

(oh.. and the google video came from Slob at JREF.. CL tried to tell you that. .i did too.. but.. oh well)


So Nicky.. tell us how we are liars again? I love to hear it. What have we done that is bogus? Please spell it out... 1 by 1.

What was your name again? You're a Truth seeker .. right?





[edit on 6-6-2007 by johndoex]

Originally posted by johnlearHani thoughfully reached over to set the co-pilots altimeter first and then set his.

[]

Pshaw!! I say to all these over trained jet jockeys and their confounded data!!

I am going over to learn how to fly at Hani's school.

- think I can take my courses online?? []



[edit on 6-6-2007 by scrapple]