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.

 

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The FDR that was found by firefighters gives you what you (truthers) are looking for. That the FDR was from flight 77 and contained the flight data from 911 and the several hours from a prior flight.

Is this the same FDR that has inconsistent heights for the light poles?



We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.
This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.

Source Link




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tessajw,

Correct...if you read my post that is what I stated. Now...try reading the destruction of their work here:

forums.randi.org...


6. Conclusions

All of the available data suggests a terminal trajectory that is achievable by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Even the most unfavorable example suggested by "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," specifying an initial height inconsistent with the FDR figures supplied by them along with the most challenging altitude at both light pole and impact, requires only 4.0 g of load in the airframe for a mere 4.4 seconds. The aircraft is expected to survive such a load without any significant risk of failure.

Based on these calculations, there is absolutely no case to be made that (1) the obstacles are inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, (2) the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, or (3) the FDR data is inconsistent with impacts to the obstacles themselves. Furthermore, with the exception of Case F, all of the various requirements lead to a trajectory that is easily reconcilable with an amateur pilot at the controls. Even Case F is plausible, it is merely unexpected.


This was actually in response to a newer article. It only mentions briefly about the light poles height.

However...there are more papers debunking the theory that Mr. Balsamo has put on his site.

If I find them tonight, I will post them.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Tessajw,

If it's not entirely obvious to you, then I'll assume that you misread my screen name. It's tezzajw, not Tessajw. Please use my correct screen name. Repeated failure to do so will be taken as an attack against me (breaching terms and conditions of this website) and I shall contact the moderators. Thanks for your understanding.

Here's the parts I liked in that link you supplied:


The proposed boundary conditions of our problem are not well summarized, but can be extracted from articles and follow-up discussion on the Internet, initiated by a group known as "Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

That's a great start so far... they can't be sure of the boundary conditions.



There was also a substantial radio tower, operated by the Virginia Highway Patrol, reaching a total height of 304 feet ASL further back along the line of travel. This tower was located roughly 3,400 feet downrange. The aircraft did not destroy this tower, though accounts vary as to whether it missed the tower entirely or brushed it slightly.

They are guessing as to whether the plane hit the radio tower or not. Wow, how much error will that introduce into their parabolic model? Any impact will affect the velocity of the plane and change the displacement in all three vector directions.



The aircraft's last known velocity was approximately 781 feet per second. We will assume this is the groundspeed in all cases. For shallow angles of pitch, this is approximately constant; we further have no insight into thrust or drag in the final few seconds before impact.

Velocity is a vector quantity. It is meaningless to mention velocity without also mentioning a heading. Considering the alleged plane was in 3D space, the velocity was lacking pitch, roll and yaw characteristics to determine the plane's true heading. If the article meant 'speed', then the author has already shown that he knows very little about mathematics.

They have assumed a constant speed for the final approach of the plane, without knowing anything about the thrust or drag. Again, that's going to cause error to their parabolic model.



FDR data, which stopped at approximately the distance of the radio tower, suggests the actual altitude at that moment was 408 feet (using RADALT data) or 480 feet (possibly using a moving average or air data). These altitudes at the radio tower, 408 feet ASL and 480 feet ASL, are Case D and Case E respectively.
Finally, the NTSB animation -- which does not appear to be calibrated for this purpose -- suggests a height of 699 feet ASL as it passed over the tower. This is Case F.

Did you read that? The NTSB data does not appear to be calibrated - so was it or was it not calibrated? They don't know so that's going to create more error for their parabolic model. Can any of the 'official' data actually be verified with regards to high the plane allegedly was?



At this time we do not have any insight into the aircraft altitude, rate of descent, or attitude apart from the conditions listed above. To provide a simple trajectory model, we use the following assumptions:
We assume the aircraft exerts a constant pull-up maneuver, beginning at the radio tower, and ending when the rate of descent reaches zero.
This point is the vertex of a parabolic curve. If the aircraft reaches the vertex prior to striking the Pentagon, it continues flat and level from the vertex until impact.

Please, you have to be serious? They admit to having no insight to the altitude, decent rate, etc... but they are prepared to assume a SIMPLE PARABOLIC flight model? Was this article written by a comedian? Perhaps a 10th Grade student in high school, who just found out how quadratics and turning points work? Those assumptions are LAUGHABLE and totally devoid of any SERIOUS mathematical modelling.

The plane was flying in 3D space and they are assuming a 2D model? What about the effects of cross-wind shear? ANY deviation from their 2D approach will affect the planes velocity (and resulting speed). They're assuming a 2D model, given an initial 'speed' without knowing the 3D velocity direction? Come on, don't make me laugh - that's a load of BUNK!

Sure, we'll solve it all with a 10th Grade quadratic, after admitting we know very little about the conditions that will distort the plane from flying a smooth gradient until it hits zero at the vertex.

Don't try and bluff me with false mathematics, CaptainObvious - I know the danger in assuming an INCORRECT mathematical model.

The over-simplified parabolic model is utterly false and does not take into account any of the twin jet engine thrusts or dynamic airflow over the fuselage and wings. It completely ignores the effects of atmosphere drag on the airframe and the flight path. It condenses a 3D flight path into a 2D model that can't support the dynamics involved that would simulate a real plane flying through a real atmosphere into a real target.

Laughable.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox


Once again you expose the flaw in your logic. The onus is upon the government to make its case as to what happened based upon the data and physical evidence.


Incorrect logic. The government is not responsible for making any case. It is neither a suspect nor charged with a crime. It was not even required to sponsor the NIST or the 9/11 Commission. FEMA was charged by charter; ASCE as a matter of course.


They are tasked with making the official investigation. I will not let my eyes see, nor my ears hear that which is not evident. If their investigations can not fulfill its obligation, then a new investigation is warranted, by those without vested interest in hiding the truth.


Again, flawed logic. First, the various investigations were completed and anyone in the world can refute the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions. They have fulfilled their obligations. You can quibble legitimately with some aspects of the 9/11 Commission Report, but it's conclusions stand as stated. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims.

Second, the premise that the "government has a vested interest in hiding the truth," is false. It is a red herring. It is neither a truism nor a demonstrated claim. Neither has it been demonstrated that the government is a suspect in a crime.


The fact that the materials which would settle this argument are kept locked away from independent scrutiny is certainly cause for suspicion. There should be a demand to have those materials properly examined.


The burden of proof for your claims rests squarely on your shoulders. You have to demonstrate them factually.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
people.....the VIN number is ALWAYS used.....dont fool yourselves. I was a claims agent and you get nowhere with out the VIN and/or the license plate....both identify the car. Get it right and do some research. Unless you can provide that you have NO case.


Yes, they identify the car and for various official purposes.

However, as we know, we can look at a car, tell it's a car, and know it's a car, without any need for a VIN number.

For the same reason, you can look at the wreckage of a crashed airplane, tell it was an airplane (unless it so completely destroyed in which case you rely on all the other evidence), even what kind of aircraft, without the need of serial numbers.

For AA77, ALL of the evidence available before it crashed identifies that aircraft as AA77, despite the wishes of no-planers to the contrary. Further, wreckage and passenger remains are consistent with it being AA77, despite the claims of no-planers.

This whole argument that there "needed" to be some "formal process" of identifying the wreckage, either by serial numbers of parts or some other unnamed "formal process" is specious. We don't need any such process to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


And as stated before. Plane wreckage is just that until positively identified as flight 77.


You're free to believe the wreckage was not identified as being from AA77.

As the saying goes, one can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff... What you aren't grasping here is that there was no question as to what hit the pentagon. I don't think Jthomas was looking to cop out. He was clearly stating that literally thousands of people saw what was left of an airplane.

There was no reason to sift through thousands of tons of wreckage to find a serial number. The FDR was found.

This FDR actually had recorded information from a flight the day before?

Pilots 4 911 Truth even state this somewhere on their site.

The FDR that was found by firefighters gives you what you (truthers) are looking for. That the FDR was from flight 77 and contained the flight data from 911 and the several hours from a prior flight.

Now, if you want to start with the "planting the FDR with doctored data" B.S. then go for it. I would love to know how it was done.


Griff and others are only making a claim that wreckage wasn't identified. The argument that one needs a "formal process" to identify the wreckage is specious and a red herring. That argument is based on ignoring all of the evidence and specifying a "requirement" that is actually not needed to identify an aircraft. Hence, we end up with claims that no evidence matters other than some unspecified "formal process of identification."

What we know quite clearly is that all of the evidence from all sources identifies the aircraft as AA77. That evidence demonstrates that we know the aircraft approaching the Pentagon was AA77. We knew that with a high degree of confidence within 1/2 hour of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

We always end up with Truthers not wanting to discuss all of the evidence - and why my question has never been answered since I first asked it in 2002.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


It's pretty funny how truthers demand a reversal of the burden of truth concept over and over and over and over and over again and then when we finally bite and provide exactly what they asked for they either stop talking only to reappear in another thread demanding the same answers or they just stop talking and act like the exchange never happened in the first place.

I tell you what, I am starting to think there is mental component that compliments the obvious political nature of the "truth" movement.

As I have said numerous times before: the "truth" movement is interested in neither truth nor 9-11. It's a far left, fringe political movement that exists mostly in the minds of con men who "lead" the movement and those that are so far hard-over left they are primed to believe anything that supports their personal feelings of paranoia, persecution and kooky "NWO" thinking.

Of course, this is just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


It's called moving the goal posts. Go read the thread I created about DNA evidence at the Pentagon.

Tezzajw posted a detailed response to a NASA scientists paper from the JREF forum. I'm sure it will get read by them over there. I am not a pilot and wont even attempt to respond. I put my trust in people I know and look at their track record. Thats why you will often see me here posting papers from Mr. Mackey.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
That argument is based on ignoring all of the evidence and specifying a "requirement" that is actually not needed to identify an aircraft.


In case you did not know the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville are crime scenes. That means there is a requirement to identify the wreckage as per a criminal investigation.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I appreciate your critical thinking.

If you're claiming that it's routine for opposing counsel to question if their client was in fact actually driving, or if the car their client was driving was the one recovered at the scene or that only photographic evidence of the vehicles "VIN" will tie in the act of driving or placing their client at the scene; you're more than a little bit wrong.

Can you point to the NTSB page number that refers to the serialed components recovered and how they were matched to the airframe, or not?

Can you please list for me the components on 757s and/or 767s that are serialed and why? Can you provide a list - from the publicly available documentation (NTSB reports of the various sites or conversely the 9-11 Commission’s report) that supports your claim(s)?

What I am seeing is a very thought out semantics game of "gotcha". I ask this honestly: are you asking genuine questions, or merely attempting to play both sides and keep the conversation going?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


It's the only argument they can make. If they don't make these kinds of ridiculous arguments than they have to acknowledge the massive, overwhelming amount of evidence staring them in the face.

The "truth movement" six years later hasn't presented one thing, not one iota of evidence that can withstand any kind of scrutiny. Since they can't provide any evidence they are left with one thing: attacking the evidence on the other side.

The main problem with this strategy is the nature of our evidence. It's overwhelming. Crushing. Devastating to their theories. If they tried to take on specific data points (as they have for years now) they are confronted by the shear volume of evidence they must debunk, which is impossible.

So, they seek to simply dismiss the evidence by finding fault post-mortem and demanding answers to questions that are completely unreasonable to begin with or can't possibly be answered in the first place. By focusing on these voids, they convince themselves that's where the "proof" lays. They never seem to put it together that the golden proof is ever elusive, always around the next corner, always hidden by “shadow” government types, always in the most minute of details that only they can understand. In short, they could see the forest if not for the trees, birds, raccoons, streams, signs denoting a public forest reserve, campers, bears, fish in streams, various and sundry wildlife jumping about and the map in their hand.

How this manifests itself is threads with picture of little puffs of smoke circled in MS Paint, speculations about things that didn't happen, demanding you prove their claims are false instead of providing evidence that their claims have any basis in reality and carefully constructed semantics hurdles.

It's all nonsense.

They spend so much time trying to find faults in the accumulated evidence in the public domain because they don't have anything support their assertions.

It's really that simple.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
It's called moving the goal posts. Go read the thread I created about DNA evidence at the Pentagon.


Actually, in my case it is not moving anything. It is trying to figure out truth from fiction. When one question is answered (and I'll admit a few questions of mine have been answered in this thread), then a few more pop up.

And, BTW, slighltyabovepar, it isn't running away. It is excepting what others have posted and then there is no need to continue with an argument.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff... i was not talking about you. The person i was tlaking about knows who they are




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Necessarily, any claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon must include the statements from these people as to what they actually saw and handled. But since the question was first asked of 9/11 Truthers in 2002, not one has answered it.

That's quite remarkable, isn't it?

Nice try. There is not one piece of evidence in your quotes (from your two posts) that a plane crashed there. Or is it in the stuff you didn't quote?

Note that i'm not saying that there is no evidence at all (because there is _some_ evidence), but you didn't quote any of it.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
That argument is based on ignoring all of the evidence and specifying a "requirement" that is actually not needed to identify an aircraft.


In case you did not know the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville are crime scenes. That means there is a requirement to identify the wreckage as per a criminal investigation.


Done. We know which aircraft hit what on 9/11, and from the wreckage too.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willie911

Necessarily, any claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon must include the statements from these people as to what they actually saw and handled. But since the question was first asked of 9/11 Truthers in 2002, not one has answered it.

That's quite remarkable, isn't it?



Nice try. There is not one piece of evidence in your quotes (from your two posts) that a plane crashed there. Or is it in the stuff you didn't quote?


You missed what we are actually discussing. We are talking about the claims of some here that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon. I am asking for their evidence.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



The government is not responsible for making any case. It is neither a suspect nor charged with a crime.


I really hope you are trying to be funny. Is that why the government can't make their case then, because it is not their responsibility now? So who does investigate crimes of epic proportion perpetrated on American soil? And at this point, they most certainly are suspect.



First, the various investigations were completed and anyone in the world can refute the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions.


Facts based upon scientific method cannot be refuted.



They have fulfilled their obligations.


The obligation is to determine the truth, nothing less, nothing more. This has not yet been accomplished.



You can quibble legitimately with some aspects of the 9/11 Commission Report, but it's conclusions stand as stated.


Now you make a scientific error which as known as "affirming the consequent." Conclusions that cannot stand against the scrutiny of step 4 of the hypothetico-deductive scientific method, are not conclusions at all.



Second, the premise that the "government has a vested interest in hiding the truth," is false. It is a red herring. It is neither a truism nor a demonstrated claim.


Their vested interest has been bought and paid for by lobbyists and secret societies. The government's actions against the interests of the citizenry have been demonstrated clearly many times, including deliberate deceptions which have resulted in epic loss of life by the American people.



The burden of proof for your claims rests squarely on your shoulders. You have to demonstrate them factually.


And this is exactly why I demand access to all material relevant to the events of 9/11.



[edit on 3/23/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
what i want to know is what happenned to the black boxes?

Everybody please subscribe to my podcast go to i-tunes store and search for "the new world order, and the elite" and subscribe
or
go to www.mypodcast.com ..then go to the browse podcast link, and type in "new world order", in the search engine, thnn click on any of the podcasts, with roberto...+regalado.mypodcast.com



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


The burden of proof rests with the state-sanctioned investigator, until such time as all material is released publicly, or to an independent body.



If you're claiming that it's routine for opposing counsel to question if their client was in fact actually driving, or if the car their client was driving was the one recovered at the scene or that only photographic evidence of the vehicles "VIN" will tie in the act of driving or placing their client at the scene; you're more than a little bit wrong.


The only "routine" that has been broken in this case is the collection of data.

If there is reasonable doubt as to wether or not the client was driving the vehicle, or if the identitiy of said vehicle was in doubt, it is up to the prosecution to remove such doubt with the introduction of physical evidence or face an acquittal by the jury.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join