Official Account of 9/11 Flight Contradicted by Governments Own Data

Official Account of 9/11 Flight Contradicted by Governments Own Data

www.opednews.com

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 18/4/2008 by budski]

[edit on 18/4/2008 by budski]

I'm no expert oon 911 (although I'm slowly learning) but to me this seems to be one more nail in the official story.

As far as I can make out, there are many things about 911 that just don't add up, and bear closer investigation.

This looks like yet another.

www.opednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Starred and Flagged!

The "official" story has more holes in it than 10 ten tons of swiss cheese. I haven't made my mind up yet whether the gov was directly responsible, or whether they were co-conspirators by deliberately letting it happen, but I'm pretty darn sure they had a hand in this one way or the other. It's the biggest cover-up in the history of this nation IMO.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Thanks DD,
as I said, I'm a mere beginner when it comes to 911 and all the theory's and speculation.

Having said that, the thing that made me sit up and take notice was the amount of holes in the story.

Too many things just don't add up for the official explanation to be 100% - either forthcoming or accurate.

I won't attempt to go into these inconsistencies, as there are people on ATS whose knowledge far surpasses my own, and I would probably just end up looking silly

BUT - we know these holes are there, that they need further exploration, proper investigation, and that there are groups liek the one in the OP fighting for truth on behalf of us all.



[edit on 18/4/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski


budski, glad to see you start this thread. I tend to sit on the side of the 'official' story, but have looking into the 'alernate' ideas as well.

I'm a retired airline pilot, have over 30 years of aviation experience...been to the 911pilotsfortruth site, and think it's time to really dig in and see for myself.

I have in front of me a printed copy of an NTSB report, Feb 13,2002 by Daniel Bower and John O'Callaghan that referenced AAL77 and UAL93.

Got it from a link by another ATS member.

Although it is a summary specific to Autopilot, Navigation Equipment and Fuel Consumption Activity and not a full NTSB report, it is a good read, and has several 'figures' (graphs and charts) to help analyze and 'visualize' the two events.

One bone of contention that has arisen re: AAL77 is the re-setting of the altimeters that 'apparently' occured, based on DFDR information.

The argument is that the hijackers weren't sophisticated enough to think of re-setting from 29.92 inches to the local Altimeter setting as they descended through 18,000 feet, as professional pilots do...hence the approximate 300' discrepancy. I can't say one way or the other yet...but, frankly, you don't need real accurate altimeter settings if you're flying visually (there is a caveat to that statement, but I've gone on long enough).

Cheers, WW

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks WW, I'd love to read more about your take on the technical side, caveats and all

It's always good to hear from as many sources/arguments as possible

There is a new 'ground swell' of interest in the 9/11 events. Perhaps prompted at some level by the domestic political 'goings on' but also by the inability to conceal or explain away the evident lack of diligence by some official investigators.

Also, note that there are so many new 'reasons' why the data - even coming from the on board equipment is suspect. It's as if a new effort is brewing and coming forth in dribs and drabs establishing a new 'meme' - you can't trust the hard data - because the equipment was not 'properly' calibrated, or how the data is 'somehow' corrupted, amongst other comments. Nevertheless, for decades companies have been making top dollar for this 'rock solid' 'fool-proof' technology to ensure that all forensic data is reliable ("we owe it to those who perish in accidents" said one official). IN fact, the equipment was so expensive that it's mandated incorporation into the business model was actually cited as one of the reasons for the increased cost of air travel. NOW however, it's not good enough, spotty at best. Possibly outright incorrect.

I'm expecting all physical evidence will soon be 'officially' discarded as unsuitable for the evaluation of the event. Any bets this will go there too?

I think, at least from my perspective, that the 'truth' of the matter is gaining forward momentum. As soon as the system begins to debunk the accuracy of the very sources it used to propagate the initial story, you know there's some 'retooling' going on. This is not to offer any resistance to weedwhackers' contribution regarding altimeter calibration - I think it will be highly relevant. It just reminded me that I meant to bring this up on my earlier thread re: Flight 93; and it seemed appropriate to mention it here as well.

BTW - We often see the argument brought up in these forums about 'cherry picking' information that supports the conspiracy theorists' claims (I suspect you'll get at least one or two such 'battle cries' here too.) However, I have begun to catalog an interesting set of observations - regarding 'debunker' tactics that is quite revealing about the 'cherry picking' stratagem and who uses it and for what purpose. Since it will be generically applicable to lots of different topics I'm just not sure how to post it - but it should be a fun topic regarding the conflict between theorists and debunker's.


[edit on 18-4-2008 by Maxmars]

On the less technical end of it, I would say that if the planes had hit those reinforced steel light poles at 500 mph, the wings would have been muitlated and the plane would have tumbled out of control before even hitting the Pentagon.

Then there is the air-flow factor under the plane, flying that low at that speed.

weewhacker, what say you of this second point?

This is called spot the freeper and has some great info about how to combat certain tactics by people who try to derail a thread they don't agree with.

I'm all for open discussion, but sometimes a line needs to be drawn.

I expected this thread to be a little contentious - but I hope it won't degenerate into pointlessness.

Good post BTW, starred.

reply to post by budski


Thank you, I knew there must be some way to reference the practice.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Hey, jib.

First, I can drive by the Pentagon anytime I want and look at those light poles, in the parking lot. Standard light poles, same as you'd see on a highway or in a parking lot at Target. Likely aluminum, possibly frangible.
And, this is only a guess of curse, since I don't have the engineering/contractor specs. Also, at the speed involved, it is only a few hundred feet of travel from the first light at the edge of the parking lot until impact. Think about how many feet/sec you cover at nearly 500 MPH.

Second point, since you asked specifically....there is a dead thread (died from lack of interest) already on ATS...I don't know how to point you to it, except by its title: The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft at 500 MPH'....not exact, but you can search for it, and peruse at your leisure.

WW

ps....it might be callled 'Boeing Spokesperson Laughs....etc...at 500 MPH'

In any event, a fast, low-level flight is not 'impossible', nor is 500MPH...

I don't think the light poles at the Pentagon were "reinforced steel". In fact, I've never even seen a parking lot or street light pole that was reinforced steel, and I cannot imagine a reason for there ever being such a thing.

As was said in a post above, the poles were probably aluminum. And the Pentagon is only a few hundred feet beyond the poles. Just out of curiosity, as I am hardly an expert on any of this stuff, could it be possible that hitting these light poles is exactly what enabled the plane to strike the Pentagon the way it did (or allegedly did) in the spot that it did? Perhaps hitting those poles was a lucky mistake on the part of the pilot(s). I apologize in advance as this is probably an incredibly stupid question, so please forgive me if it is indeed just that!

But back to the poles themselves... I've seen automobile accidents that made similar light poles bend and break light match sticks. And we're talking about relatively weak vehicles at relatively low speeds in comparison to a Boeing 767 traveling at 500 MPH. And while under any other circumstances, hitting something like light poles would easily cause a plane to crash, I think in this case there was really nowhere for the plane to go after hitting those light poles besides the Pentagon itself and maybe a hundred yards of grass and/or parking lot in front of it.

And while I'm throwing out stupid questions, here's another... Is there any evidence (besides eyewitness testimony) that the airliner (or whatever it was) actually struck the light poles? Or is it possible that the force of an airliner flying at 500MPH a couple dozen feet above ground level could have generated enough force to knock one of these over? After all, I doubt they are anchored in there to the point that they could survive hurricane-forced winds or something. It's possible that they are simply bolted onto a concrete block and are not even buried in the ground at all, like telephone poles tend to be. In fact, I believe that is the case when it comes to light poles... they are just bolted onto something and not actually buried or cemented in the ground. I also recall seeing that there was damage from the plane to some of the cars that were on the highway in front of the Pentagon as it flew over. Obviously that was not from directly striking the cars. So is it possible that the same force that allegedly damaged peoples windshields, etc., was the same force that took down these light poles? Again, forgive me if these questions are incredibly stupid. I'm not a regular 9/11 conspiracy poster as it all got old for me a few years ago (I know, I should be more interested simply because I should be demanding the truth of my government!).

Anyway... my whole theory on this is that if the government was directly involved, and I don't mean just ignoring intelligence and possibly letting the attacks happen, I'm talking direct involvement... then it would have taken a hell of a lot of people to pull it off. And however cold and calculating those people would have to be, they are still human beings just like you and me. And I can't imagine that every single one of them was able to stand by and watch this country and this world's reaction to 9/11, as well as watching the mourning of 9/11 victims' relatives, and not come forward to absolve their sins. I just refuse to believe it is possible for such a huge conspiracy to exist without a single person eventually coming forward in the nearly 7 years that have transpired since, regardless of whatever threats the government has made against them and their loved ones. The implications of the government orchestrating these attacks far outweighs any threats against those involved or their loved ones. And coming forward to confess your involvement in 9/11, as well as the culpability of the government, only to have you and/or your family suddenly die under suspicious circumstances, would only lend more credibility and more attention to your confession.

Now I'm sure people are going to blast me or call me a debunker or whatever. But if you look at my post history on this site you will see that it's just not the case. I'm just a regular guy who has always been interested in conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal stuff, etc. And I am not about to stand here and claim that the government had nothing to do with 9/11. For all I know they were entirely behind it. But I just can't swallow that yet based on the "evidence" I've seen. Sure, there are a ton of questions that need to be answered. And there are a ton of legitimate suspicions and contradictions that have been raised by many on this site and elsewhere. But it's a far leap from that to claiming that the government orchestrated all of this, especially when the whole conspiracy segment of the public cannot even agree on what exactly happened on 9/11.

Okay, I should rephrase. The light poles probably were aluminum and not steel, but I think the point still remains. They were indeed reinforced, as light poles almost always are, to withstand hurricane force winds.

Whatever resistance those poles offered, surely they would have done great damage to the wings, particularly at those high speeds.

It's like jumping into a pool of water. Hit the surface at a few miles per hour, you go right in no problem. Hit the surface after falling out of an airplane or jumping off a mountain, you're reduced to sludge.

[edit on 4/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by Rasputin13

...I'm talking direct involvement... then it would have taken a hell of a lot of people to pull it off.

Not necessarily. "Compartmentalization." You might be interested to read my further explanation in this post.

reply to post by Rasputin13


From my point of view, there's a big difference between a debunker and a skeptic.

A debunker is convinced he is right and will entertain nothing to the contrary.

A skeptic will put forth his understanding of the events, and why he believes what he does, in a non-confrontational way, listening to the opposing opinion/argument and countering them with well reasoned, rational arguments.

Of course that doesn't stop some of the more, ahem, robust "truthers" from labelling anyone who disagrees a debunker - but IMO that makes them just as bad.

I'm in shock - a civil 911 thread.

Let's keep up the good work

And thanks to WW for some great info

And thanks to Rasputin13 for a great post - starred



[edit on 18/4/2008 by budski]

Here is something to think about with the light poles.

1) Are they or were they attached directly to the ground?

2) Are they or were they not attached to the ground, but attached to a raised concrete peer or concrete base?

Why?

Different safety standards and mounting applications.

If they were attached directly to the ground and a flat concrete base they would have to have a break away bolt mounting, per code.

It they were attached to a 3 to 4 foot peer base then break away is not required and the bolts to mount these are usually 4 to 6, 3/4" to 1" diameter bolts, length varies.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I am curious to see what measure of resistance the poles would have offered, but clearly they would have offered some, and the effect of that measure would have been amplified by the speed of the impact with the wings. Whatever force was reuired to knock the poles over, the wings would have to withstand. Even a car traveling at only 60mph would have suffered great damage with such an impact. Is it really reasonable to assume that the wings would not have suffered far greater damage at 500mph?

I thought this is really significant input which many people discount, but the video speaks for itself.

Here is a thread I started today.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

General Stubblebine "Plane Does not Fit" Pentagon

Imagery intelligence officer that measured photos as a career and says a plane does not fit the hole.

How can people dispute an expert with credentials like his?

United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984





[edit on 18-4-2008 by Realtruth]

I don't think the altimeter on the NTSB animation reads AGL. I'm reasonably certain the same data showed 300' altitude before the plane left the runway. Could this not be a source of confusion?

reply to post by _Del_


Could you please explain to me, in laymans terms.

I don't know any of this technical stuff.

Please make it plain and simple for the people who can't count in that way - and by count I mean the 1 2 3 way.

You may have to dumb it down in order for me to understand it