First of all, we don't need the FDR to prove that a Boeing 757, AA77, struck the Pentagon. There is an abundance of physical and other evidence to prove that it did.

Other than the erroneous statements that the original math formulas provided by R. Mackey and Myraid at the JREF are wrong, the entire premise of this video is based upon the assumption of a known exact longitudinal location of AA77. Pfffft and Cap'n BoB do not know the longitudinal location of the aircraft along it's flight path, they only pretend to know.

The NTSB did not do a typical Accident Investigation, they only did a flight path study for the FBI who was the lead investigator for this attack. All of the data that is now available in the way of Radar returns, etc was not available to the NTSB during their original flight path study. Several seconds of data are missing from the FDR, yet pffft denies this and uses the original NTSB calculated impact time for their entire premise of both altitude and position. Those who know and understand FDR's know that data can be missing and has been missing from FDR's in the past. Therefore, the calculations based upon altitude at the VDOT antenna are based upon a false premise. The altitude they use for the video calculations was PRIOR to the Antenna. Therefore, no matter how they calculated the descent or what formulas they use, it is all based on a FALSE PREMISE.

The statement and presumption that the aircraft was level across the Pentagon lawn is FALSE. The one video available is from a "fish eye" lens and it is impossible to determine the pitch attitude/descend rate of the aircraft. While it appears to be level, this in no way indicates that it actually was due to the distortion of the "fish eye" lens and the small pixel difference between a level attitude and a pitch down descent.

It appears that the landscape from the Navy Annex toward the Pentagon is too level in the animation. There is a constant slope from the Annex to the West Pentagon wall and it appears that this is not correct in the animation. There will be studied in more detail once the entire video is available online. I don't know of anyone who would pay $$ for this garbage and it's false conclusions.

There are no FDR experts at pffft. They are simply a group of hackers that managed to get the frame layout to decode the raw data. The data decode is in some cases different from the NTSB decoded data. In other words, there is absolutely no guarantee that pffft has the correct data from the FDR, particularly for it's precise use as a forensic tool.

No FDR company or FDR expert in the entire world supports their findings. No Pilot's Union or Airline supports their findings. No Mainstream Media outlet supports their findings. Due to their previous hostile and adversarial approach it is highly unlikely that the NTSB will ever respond to their findings.

No comprehensive technically oriented paper has ever been published by pffft, only videos for selling DVD's to the gullible are produced to report their findings.

Although Cap'n BoB boasts that their membership is growing by leaps and bounds it isn't. Their membership includes only a handful of all of the pilots in the world and very few have viable credentials. Most of those who belong to the group have Political motivations and are malcontents and activists in other areas, as well.

R. Mackey and Myraid will address the attacks on their math at a later time, but it won't take 5 months.

Originally posted by Reheat

The statement and presumption that the aircraft was level across the Pentagon lawn is FALSE. The one video available is from a "fish eye" lens and it is impossible to determine the pitch attitude/descend rate of the aircraft. While it appears to be level, this in no way indicates that it actually was due to the distortion of the "fish eye" lens and the small pixel difference between a level attitude and a pitch down descent.

I cant talk for the rest of your post Reheat,but this I do not agree with.The video is clear enough to see the object is level,if there was a fish eye distortion then the building and other structures would be distorted in a fish eye effect,even if the building was distorted in a fish eye effect and the lawn was curved also, the plane would still follow the contour of the ground but at the same level from beginning to end,which is what the video shows it does.

No?

I just dont buy this flyover business.

No offense intended all round of coarse.

Originally posted by Reheat
The statement and presumption that the aircraft was level across the Pentagon lawn is FALSE. The one video available is from a "fish eye" lens and it is impossible to determine the pitch attitude/descend rate of the aircraft.

Complete and utter garbage.

Of course it is possible to determine the angle of inclination from the video. The properties of that camera lens should be known and adjusted for with video software.

Stop spreading bunk.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Meanwhile this simple 13 minute presentation...

Well, you're right about it being "simple". It is really an unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited "simple" cartoon of your interpretation of what happened.

Simple.

The "calculations" in this "story" are laughable. TYhey are based upon nothing at all but someone's opinion.

If you are going to debunk something, at leasdt use a credible source, not some nutcase theory that doesn't prove what it purports to prove.

Keep in mind, accoding to aerodynamics, a bumblebee can not fly.

with the fish-eye lens, the "plane" stays the same, even distance from the ground throughout, obviously proving it's level. do you realize how far that plane has to fly that close to the ground to hit from the angle it did?! those are big, heavy jets, that are sluggish to pull up from those kinds of descents/angles at that altitude; and i'm pretty sure pilots know more about them than i do. i'll take their word any day over government officials who've been known to lie through their teeth!

can anyone reverse the fish-eye lens effect through a video editing program??? i can only edit photos...

I'm trying to figure out how people who have NEVER flown an airplane act like they know what it means to actually fly an airplane.

Does anyone know the steady G-force in a stable 60-degree bank turn??

No??? Well, it is 2 Gs. Two. At 45-degrees (the standard in Simulator training, when we conduct 'steep turns' it would be, in a real airplane, 1.3 Gs)

A steep-turn is a skill assessment, for pilots. It is a way to ascertain airmanship. Hold the altitude, +/- certain parameters, and airspeed +/- certain parameters....usually, +/- 100 feet and +/- 5 knots.

Now, having said this, the G-forces I referred to only apply in a STABLE turn, at that bank angle, while maintaining an altitude. A steep bank, in a descending turn, will not require the G-forces of a stable turn, at altitude.

People who have never flown an airplane simply cannot grasp this concept. People who cannot think in three dimensions simply cannot grasp this concept.

Folks, I used to Flight Instruct. I taught people how to do a 'steep turn'...at 60 degrees of bank...to show them that they could handle the airplane, even outside their comfort area. (It included knowing how to add a little power, to maintain airspeed, and to learn the basic 'Four Forces', and how they interract....and then to return to 'straight and level', on-speed, after the turn). We also taught 'turns about a point'....this, to show how to use a reference on the land, and to see how winds aloft affect the airplane, when you want to fly a particular track over the ground.

AND, these things we taught....all before the first Solo!!!! That's just the first ten hours, or, so, when you learn to fly.

So, give a guy, even a bad pilot, about 40 hours (minimum for a Private Pilot license) and he can (badly) fly an airplane.

Originally posted by Th0r
Nice post but why do people still post stuff like this, anyone with half a brain cell knows a jet did not hit the pentagon.

This is not a troll or bait or anything.

not really, this is a little late reply but most ppl out there still deny something about 9/11 was either covered up or 9/11 was an inside job. Take my dad for instance, he's sort of an average Joe but he thinks I'm crazy for believing 9/11 or 9-1-1 wasn't terrorists or at least just terrorists