Flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon

reply to post by Donny 4 million

---

Oh, "Donny"...if it was a snake it woulda bit ya!!!

"Tom Flocco", and whoever he cites as 'sources' have been shown to be full of it. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the claims of the engine debris, and wheel hubs.

www.911myths.com...

Just ONE sample website that blows away the "A-3" fantasy...so, time to drop that one, it ain't lookin' too good anymore.

I found nothing about Tom Flocco in your links at all.
Nothing proving the A3's were not retrofitted.
You already admit his report that the Raytheon executives disappeared
on 911.
That they were directly involved in the 911 omission commissions findings.
Also you show not one word of cross examined evidence from any court of law.
Your rebuttal to Tom's patriotic research is total hearsay and requires nothing more
than babbling the retoric of those that attempt to destroy America.

Just a minor point probably irrelevant to the exact thread
Just delighted to see we have a pilotsfor911truth website
I think that's fantastic
I feel less isolated on this topic the more I see websites like this come to light
Does anybody know if there's anymore? I know we have Aefor911truth as well
I hope uncovering 9/11 can be the initiation of an enlightened society and then from that point I don't know
I don't want the fact that we're disposable assets to become a part of anybody's psyche.

reply to Donny 4 million's post #142

---

Tom Flocco is mentioned in 911myths.com, but not on the page weedwhacker linked to. Whenever someone links to a page that doesn't even mention what they're talking about, I generally take is as a fairly bad sign. I imagine it's possible that weedwhacker might have clicked on a -link- within that page, but I wasn't about to go looking around the hard way for it, so I googled:
911myths.com + "Tom Flocco"

and came up with the following:

www.911myths.com...

The actual article which mentions Flocco isn't on the 911myths.com site, but rather in an article at the site of one Eric Hufschmid:

www.erichufschmid.net...

Hufschmid's commentary on Flocco and others isn't exactly scintillating. To whit:



So what has he questioned of Tom Flocco's work? Here we go:



So, to sum up, Mr. Hufschmid only question concerning Tom Flocco's site is what it's for (how embarassing.. how embarassing :-p) and believes that it contains no intelligent information because, well.. that's what he believes. This reminds me of my claim of a secret program at Reagan National; I saw it somewhere and thought I'd bring it up here. However, I never found the mention of it again, and no one in the truth movement had heard of it. Anyway, unless weedwhacker can come up with something better then "911myths.com doesn't think Flocco's site is good", I think we should dismiss 911myths' claim as just another unsubstantiated allegation.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by scott3x]

I was reviewing posts in this thread and came to the realization that there were some issues that I raised back in post #35 that were never addressed between me and weedwhacker that I believe are quite important. So I'll bring them up once more:







[edit on 12-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to weedwhacker's post #133

---

We never finished our discussion concerning CIT's videotaped witnesses who claim that they saw the plane fly North of the Citgo gas station instead of south, as claimed and required by the official story. I'm still not sure why you haven't been persuaded by their work. And then, ofcourse, there is the issue of the impossible pull up that we never finished discussing as well. Perhaps we can start these subjects up again.

reply to Boone 870's post #134

---

I took a look at both; the problem is that both of those things are too technical for me. Perhaps turbofan or someone else on the truther side could take a look at them.

reply to post by IrnBruFiend

---

A good question; however, I think it's somewhat off topic here, so I responded over in the Free 9/11 Researcher Starter Pack thread, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by scott3x

---

RE: "Tom Flocco"....

Credibility is shot when you see that the crux of his 'story', as related by whomever (Schwarz??) about the wrong engine debris, it is patently wrong.

Fail #1

The FDR data, it fits very well, and comports with the FAA radar, the RADES and the ATC recordings.

Fail #2

But, the real big one is the illogic of the entire premise.

IF (and this is a big IF) you wished to expend the energy and find the technology to possibly retro-fit a jet for 'remote control' (yes, has been done, but not very effictively, and with only very limited control abilities) but.....would it make more sense to use a 50-year old jet, that looks NOTHING like a Boeing 757, and risk people taking photos, seeing ACTUAL incorrect crrash debris, etc....OR just go out to a desert "boneyard" and get an older 'mothballed' B757 and use it???

Does this make any sense?

The other inconsistency in the "Tom Flocco" account is --- on one hand, according to the ATS poster who keeps bringing it, the "A-3" was fitted with a missile, which was fired, and the "remote control A-3" overflew.

Great idea. Get Turbofan to take a look at them. Then perhaps he can make one of his trademarked simulations about it.

Thanks for taking the time scott.
The 911 tragedies are to important to trivialize IMO.
The mods might consider you for duty.
Flocco's article is just conjecture until it can be heard in a court of law.
Something the weed is quite worried about for some strange reason.
How could he ever be hurt by A REINVESTIGATION?

Show you what? Both Twins were hit with commercial airliners, who would
be the first to find out in the aviation and/or military sector?

Don't answer too quick, it may be a trick quesiton!



1. When was the second tower hit Weed?

2. What three criteria did Hani fail to comply with when entering class B airspace?

3. Knowing your country is under attack and there are two PROHIBITED
ZONES within reach of a hijacked aircraft: what should have happened?


Let's not take five pages to understand these questions please...

Have you downloaded that NTSB data yet, Weed?



Does it match up with the incorrect altitude as well?

reply to post by scott3x

---

FYI: Rob is still capable and certified by FAA to fly aircraft. His medical
condition does not prevent him from maintaining his pilot status.

Most people aren't aware as he doesn't make his personal life public.

Since "Weed" wont/hasn't downloaded the data yet, I thought I'd give
him some more incentive to study.

Check it out, see if you can keep up with real pilots:



Claim - The data file terminates at a point west of the Pentagon based on altitude correlation of the MC values recorded by the PLA and IAD radar facilities and the full set of DME data matched to the various VOR's used along the flight path.

FDR Positional/DME Data obtained from a file (RO2) which was decoded by software not intended for use with Aircraft Accident Investigation. Above claim ignores this point. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have not used RO2 for any official analysis published on our main site due to this point alone. Although, we have shown Radar Altitude from RO2 in conjunction with claims made still place the aircraft too high. See claim 3.

Above Radar data processed by a person with an extreme bias for the govt story, has made numerous math errors in the past regarding simple vector analysis and has been shown to be in error of their radar analysis. Above claimant does not know the difference between pressure and true altitude and has admitted a "large potential for human error" in his Radar plot/analysis. When invited for debate by a 3rd party moderator on above claim(s), P4T accepted, claimant refused.

"In general, the final AA77 data in the raw [radar] file differs materially from the processed file."


"aa77" Final Approach Ground Speed Determination From The 84rades Radar Data, 84Rades and FDR data mutually INCONSISTENT?


Altitude Correlation determined above based on primary RADES radar returns. NTSB states. "... the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors" when attempting to correlate primary RADES altitude data for Egypt Air 990.

Points within the RADES Data have the alleged AA77 in excess of 50,000 feet.


RADES Altitude Data is not reliable for correlating position.

Altitude Data impossible to correlate due to inoperative Mode C.

Nav 1 DME recorded 1.5 NM off DCA VOR. The above claim ignores this point.
American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data - DME Video


DME Slant Range errors are ignored by above claim.

Repetitive DME returns in excess of regulation intervals in RO2 ignored by above claim.

INS Errors are ignored by above claim (AA77 RO2 positional data shows aircraft departing roughly 3,000 feet south of IAD Runway 30. Illustration - www.aa77fdr.com...)

INS vs DME



[edit on 13-10-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan

---

Ah ok, thanks.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

---

I don't think that weedwhacker is trying to trivialize things, but I do believe that in this particular case he didn't properly investigate the link he referenced.







Thanks :-)






Has he voiced worry? I actually haven't seen his view on the possibility of a reinvestigation.

sorry dp



[edit on 13-10-2009 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by Donny 4 million

---

Well, all I know is that weedwhacker hasn't posted in this thread in a while. I wonder why...