Let's find a Level D Simulator, and re-create the 9/11 flights.

reply to post by weedwhacker


ENOUGH!!! about "csv' files!!!

Here, read this (again)....

www.forums.randi.org... -
____________________________________________________________

Please read THIS:

This means that 9:37:44 was the last, complete frame, gathered by the recorder. That puts the likely time of impact in the 9:37:45-6 range, and possibly even into the 9:37:46-7 timeframe. The presence of 9:37:46 in this data suggests that its timestamp may have made it onto the tape. How is that possible if 9:37:45 is not a complete frame? That’s a good question, but a reasonable hypothesis has to do with the storage mechanism used. Solid State Recorders, like all medium, are quite unpredictable if they fail during write operations. The actual area being used to record data can very easily be corrupted if power fails while writing. It’s plausible that the crash caused problems in and around this local area of data, causing corruption of the 9:37:45 data frame (again, changing a single bit in a synch word is enough to cause software to completely choke).

The moral of the story here is that the FDR data runs out anywhere from up to 2 seconds before the plane actually crashed into the Pentagon.

THAT was an excerpt, from the link above....PLEASE read, and stop the insanity!!!!!
___________________________________________________________

AND this:

Summary

1) The FDR did not record the final moments of Flight 77. There is up to 2 seconds missing.
2) The CSV file is not meant to be analyzed forensically, it is meant to be plotted.
3) The CSV data is not raw FDR data. It is not even serial bitstream data.
4) The CSV data is not meant to be broken down into 1/8th seconds and analyzed.
5) The CSV data, properly interpreted, says that there are N samples during this particular frame.
6) Without the frame description, we do not know when in a frame any one sample occurred.
7) Without the frame description, we have lost the measurement timestamps, so the time a particular word was recorded does not necessarily equate with when it was measured.
8) Given these time-shift errors, any mathematics that uses more than one data-point runs the risk of assuming that two numbers occurred at the same time, when they didn’t.
9) Many of these errors can be corrected, greatly, with the frame descriptor.
10) Any analysis must account for (or justify ignoring) these issues in order to draw any valid conclusions.

[edit on 21 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


There's new information available. An Austrailian, Warren Stutt, has decoded the raw FDR Data and there are four (4) more seconds than was in the NTSB CSV file and 5 more seconds than in the pffft decoded file.

forums.randi.org...

Read it and weep pffft and CIT. An already dead and stupid theory is now buried where it should have been long ago.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

"Lilly", just so I can clear up a few things.....

It is not based on data;

IF HE MEANS it wasn't based on the EXACT data from the American Airlines 77 SSFDR...WHO CARES???!!!???????

You clear up nothing. You make your own little arguments and then battle them. Look at how you play here - "IF HE MEANS........" So you can guess at what you think he might mean just out of thin air and then proceed to argue against that?
Wow. You are an amazing piece of work. It did not say exact data for AA77 though did it? So, you are just guessing and then making an argument against that guess, right? OK. Let me know when you can battle the actual given facts.

reply to post by Reheat


Thanks for that

New and independant information/analysis is what's badly needed to get to the bottom of all this. I'm keen to see how PFTs issues with the data stack up against a second opinion.

Very educational thread.

I am not, nor do I care to be, an airline pilot, so some "airline jargon" is beyond my understanding, but............

Could someone explain to me the significance of why they picked the Pentagon to crash a plane into? These terrorists go to all the trouble to devise this plan from their caves, and then they pick the Pentagon? I, personally would have targeted the whitehouse and a football stadium and a nascar race...maybe even a large college or a Pga Golf tournament....I mean, if you want the most bang for your buc, why hit something that is so well fortified?

"Let's hit the Pentagon. Not very many people will get hurt and it will send the message that______________________________?

Someone please fill in the blank for me.

I know this post probably won't get any response....none of mine do since I don't know how to star and flag stuff....

whatever....

I learned a lot from this.


Very enjoyable.

Originally posted by theonlyrusty

Very educational thread.

I am not, nor do I care to be, an airline pilot, so some "airline jargon" is beyond my understanding, but............

Could someone explain to me the significance of why they picked the Pentagon to crash a plane into? These terrorists go to all the trouble to devise this plan from their caves, and then they pick the Pentagon? I, personally would have targeted the whitehouse and a football stadium and a nascar race...maybe even a large college or a Pga Golf tournament....I mean, if you want the most bang for your buc, why hit something that is so well fortified?

"Let's hit the Pentagon. Not very many people will get hurt and it will send the message that______________________________?

Someone please fill in the blank for me.

I know this post probably won't get any response....none of mine do since I don't know how to star and flag stuff....

whatever....

The building is not that well fortified in terms of crashing a plane into it. It may be secured from intrusion but I don't even know that it would stand up to any kind of real frontal assault. Don't forget - it is not a military base or fort. It is the administrative headquarters for the DOD, not a firebase. As for why - as they said during the cold war - it is basically shaped like a target and quite easily distinguished from the air. The capital building, the white house and other federal building downtown in DC not so much so. Look at aerial photos in Google.

Originally posted by hooper
As for why - as they said during the cold war - it is basically shaped like a target and quite easily distinguished from the air. The capital building, the white house and other federal building downtown in DC not so much so. Look at aerial photos in Google.

So you are saying that because other buildings may be more important, they purposely designed the pentagon to look like a target from the sky? Why would they not just make that one as difficult as the others????

Do you own or have you ever used a firearm? When shooting at a target, is the best angle to get right up next to the target and shoot sideways at it or to shoot dead on?

....or are you claiming that one wall was what made such an easy to spot and easy to hit target?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by hooper
As for why - as they said during the cold war - it is basically shaped like a target and quite easily distinguished from the air. The capital building, the white house and other federal building downtown in DC not so much so. Look at aerial photos in Google.

So you are saying that because other buildings may be more important, they purposely designed the pentagon to look like a target from the sky? Why would they not just make that one as difficult as the others????

Do you own or have you ever used a firearm? When shooting at a target, is the best angle to get right up next to the target and shoot sideways at it or to shoot dead on?

....or are you claiming that one wall was what made such an easy to spot and easy to hit target?

Huh? No, of course they didn't design the building to look like a target. It just does. And it is huge. One of the biggest office buildings in the world. Real big.

And yes I own and shoot firearms. (not a lot). I also own archery equipment which I prefer. However your analogy is a little lost on me, I think. I don't know why the pilot choose the path that he did, and never will for sure. Now, what I suspect is that two alternatives were considered. An approach from above and the approach he did take. I think both would have been equally as damaging. I am not a commercial pilot or any kind of a pilot and do not pretend to be. I think the approach he took had a greater possibilty for success. Once the aircraft is level near the ground and pointed in the right direction then it is only a matter of keeping it on course. And I am sure he didn't care what side of the Pentagon he hit. As for diving into the top of the building I would think that once you establish the dive and find that you may overshoot your target it would be much more difficult to correct.

But like I said, we will never know for sure because the scumbag that was behind the controls is now burning in hell.

I may not have made myself clear.

What I was trying to get at was the motivation that caused them to pick the buildings they did.

The buildings they hit were not the "best" landmarks nor were they easy to get to.

I realize that what was done is done and it is now in the history books but....

If these supposed terrorists were making a list of all the BEST possible targets to hit in America, I seriously doubt that these buildings stood out on the top of their list.

Seems to me that an oil refinery, whitehouse, jefferson memorial, a large gathering of people, a childrens hospital or an airport would have been more of a devastating tactical place.

Turn the tables for a minute. Say you are planning an airline terrorist attack on Britain. Can you tell me the buildings that have the most significance? Do you even know where they are? How do you discriminate what building is in fact an important one to hit? Do you judge a buildings importance by "loss of life sustained" or do you use the old cliche' of religion to further your agenda? While our military is bombing Iraqi mosques full of innocent men, women and children attending a wedding, and this came from good intel from the most sophisticated military complex on earth, how is a bunch of cave dwelling goat herders just happened to pick the buildings they did?

Just curious....

btw, the pentagon is VERY well fortified....if 3' steel reinforced walls aren't well fortified than I suppose no one should even worry about ramming their car into a bridge abutment cause "they aren't very strong....lol

peas

reply to post by theonlyrusty


Valid questions. Of course, we can only assume what went through their minds when planning this.

First: The time chosen makes sense. And, starting from the East Coast.

The WTC had already been targeted once. It was (is?) viewed as a symbol of American capitalism. Wall Street is, of course, moreso...but I would think the NYSE is much, much harder to hit from the air than two 1,000-foot tall skyscrapers.


SO...

The buildings they hit were not the "best" landmarks nor were they easy to get to.

Actually, the Twin Towers WERE a tremendously visible, and iconic landmark for NYC, more even than the Statue, in some respects.

The Pentagon, of course, thought of as the "seat" of the American military. But, really the military C&C structure is not that centralized. Pentagon is an office building, primarily.

"Easy to get to"? Well the Twins are obvious...and the path chosen to the Pentagon followed a major highway, thus avoiding most obstacles such as buildings.

What I was trying to get at was the motivation that caused them to pick the buildings they did.

Three targets satisfactorily discussed with possible motives...I suggest the fourth (thankfully not hit) was the U.S. Capitol building. It is (after the Pentagon) the next-largest prominent building in the DC area, AND of course, the seat of the US Government. The WH could have been a target, but that would be less psychologically damaging to the American psyche, I feel. (Um...the British once burned it down, remember??)


The WH is replaceable. The Capitol is very more iconic. (Come visit sometime, and you'll see what I mean).

I seriously doubt that these buildings stood out on the top of their list.

Well, what else does?? The 'Sears" Tower? (Since sold, and re-named the 'Willis'. (NO, not Bruce...!)

...an oil refinery...

I disagree...bad, yes...economically, but not loss of life.

... jefferson memorial...

Washington Monument more prominent, easier to spot (Quick! Spot Jefferson!) but, really...as symbolic as the WH.

.... a large gathering of people, a childrens hospital...

Don't give them any new ideas!

... or an airport...

Hardly 'devastating'.

I think that their 'hope' was, especially at the Towers, for a lot of collateral damage. Maybe hoping for an off-balance collapse, and even more destruction on the ground.

Say you are planning an airline terrorist attack on Britain. Can you tell me the buildings that have the most significance?

Big Ben, Westminster, and Parliament.

How do you discriminate what building is in fact an important one to hit?

Research.

You asked about religion, then suggest "our" military (whose did you mean?) are indiscriminately bombing mosques and innocent civlians...I take umbrage at that.

But, let's dispel this notion for once:

...how is a bunch of cave dwelling goat herders just happened to pick the buildings they did?

This is a lie that is constantly spread by the TM...OBL was (is?) well-educated, as were the monsters who planned and executed this. They did research....

reply to post by theonlyrusty


Twin towers = symbol of economic strength

Pentagon = symbol of military power

Bin Laden has outlined this, as well in one of his videos. He was striking at symbols to accomplish his objective.

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

So weedwacker, just out of curiosity - who have you cleared your identity with here? You claim to be a pilot and you claim to have proven it and yet everyone else that claims to be a pilot has contradicted you so far. Why is it that you do not sound like a real pilot and other real pilots do not agree with anything you have said. Where are your credentials?

He is orders of magnitude more a pilot by his statements than any pilots from pilots for truth. People knowledgeable in aviation subjects would understand this is correct.

The reality after 8 years; the fantastic delusions of a few fringe conspiracy theorist pilots have failed to be backed with any credible evidence. Opinions of a few pilots who have not studied the events of September 11th in-depth have failed to get past the paranoid delusion stage.

Why don’t the pilots for truth, who offer no theories, take their profits from the unfounded fantasy conspiracy theories DVD sales and rent a simulator to prove licensed pilots, the terrorist pilots, can’t crash into buildings. So far all the conspiracy minded pilots claim they can’t hit buildings in a simulator; which only proves they are not half the pilots the terrorists were. Now that is embarrassing.

Thanks for the invite weed...I've been up there and will never come back for any reason.

It's easy to make all your justifications in regard to the importance of the buildings because they are important to YOU.

The men that planned all this were not from our country/culture and would have to have had done ALOT of research for those particular buildings to have any significance to THEM.

Just try this real quick.

Tell me all the important buildings in Rome. Try Morocco. Now Buenos Aires. Tokyo.
I'll bet the people that have lived there all their lives will have a different opinion than you do in regard to the most important buildings.

Would you feel different about 911 if they had wiped out 150,000 at a Nascar race? Would this have made it more or less significant?

If you are capable of by passing all the safeguards the US has in place to keep such events from happening, I would imagine that once you had the plane in the air, you pretty much could turn anything into an easy target.

How hard can it be to hit a building with a plane?

think before answering.....

peas

Originally posted by theonlyrusty
The men that planned all this were not from our country/culture and would have to have had done ALOT of research for those particular buildings to have any significance to THEM.

To the middle-eastern perpetrators, the WTC was the very temple of western capitalist economics, something they had severe issues with. The Pentagon qualifies as the military equivalent and there are several other possibilities like the White House, Capitol and the UN building they might have considered.

If you are capable of by passing all the safeguards the US has in place to keep such events from happening, I would imagine that once you had the plane in the air, you pretty much could turn anything into an easy target.

How hard can it be to hit a building with a plane?

What safeguards?
This had never happened before 2001 (large domestic aircraft used as weapons). It has already been shown that what happened is possible and within the capabilities of those who did it, this thread is suggesting a means of confirming it further to put it beyond doubt but I guess there's no convincing everyone.

[edit on 31/10/2009 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by theonlyrusty



OK....ummmm...not sure WHY you would have visited (what I guess is YOUR nation's Capitol) and not wish to return...ummmm....there is a LOT to see here....pssst...all of the museums are FREE!!!!!!!

Well, then...let's examine your other points...

Tell me all the important buildings in Rome. Try Morocco. Now Buenos Aires. Tokyo.

Oh, gawd!!! So many cities, so little time! (and nothing of relevance...)

"Rome"??? Errr..the 'Colliseum'???

"Morocco"? Ummm....never been there...sand? Mosques??

"Buenos Aires"?? Never been there (want to, some day...EVITA?)

"Tokyo"....never been there...been to Hong Kong...close enough??? (Oh, should say, I have flown into Narita....not in Tokyo, 'cuase it's way outside th e city, much as Dulles is way outside DC....)

Would you feel different about 911 if they had wiped out 150,000 at a Nascar race? Would this have made it more or less significant?

Oh, don't get me started!! [pun]

I really a) don't think that a NASCAR 'hit' would kill 150,000 people...and, b) this is going to get me in trouble, but...Who would miss them???

[dodging flaming arrows and ladles of backyard whiskey....]

I would imagine that once you had the plane in the air, you pretty much could turn anything into an easy target.

Yes. Even now. You could. Scary thought, eh???

Ya know (and this will also possibly get me into trouble) I could easily figure out how to do the EXACT SAME THING that happened on 9/11!!!!!

I could do it, any number of other pilots I know could do it...BUT WE DO NOT CARE to do it!!!! Do you see????

I, nor any of my friends or colleagues, care to DIE IN THIS MANNER!!!!

WE KNOW HOW TO DO IT!!!!

But, we have other concerns...including how NOT to let this happen ever again!

How hard can it be to hit a building with a plane?

Easier than you may think possible......


Think "Whirled peas" please.....(get it?)
____________________________________________________________

edit spelling....it's All Hallows Eve...any other mistakes are due to the spirits....arrrrggggghhhh! AND....BOO!!!

[edit on 31 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Would you feel different about 911 if they had wiped out 150,000 at a Nascar race? Would this have made it more or less significant?

Oh, don't get me started!! [pun]

I really a) don't think that a NASCAR 'hit' would kill 150,000 people...and, b) this is going to get me in trouble, but...Who would miss them???

[dodging flaming arrows and ladles of backyard whiskey....]

See, that was funny right there! Nothing like The Hillbilly Olympics!

weed,

hahahahaha...too much spirits, eay?...hope you aren't flying as you are typing these responses.....lol

The reason I found your city to be so uninviting is because the people up there were arrogant, ignorant, self absorbed and condescending. I was treated as a suspect everywhere I went..I have enough money to pay for anything I want so the FREE part didn't really appeal to me one way or another.

I am obviously trying to play "devils advocate" here and not trying to get anyones "ire" up against me.I am only trying to stand aside of the events that happened and look at it logically, rationally and unemotionally.

I am not a nascar driver, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I can tell you that the loss of 150k rednecks would be devastating to the economy in my neck of the woods....lol

So, the loss of a building is more important than the number of people that died? Those people that jumped to their death were just collateral damage as opposed to the loss of a building? These "tuurrurists" wanted to kill amerika by slaughtering a building instead of a great number of citizens? What's wrong with THAT picture?

BTW, let's say that certain aspects of 911 never happened and WTC7 still fell. How would that news article have read?
If a building in YOUR city just happened to "fall within it's own footprint" from a little bity fire, wouldn't you be suspicious?

I have learned alot by taking one small aspect of 911 and looking at it without the hype that it was done by "extremists that hate our democratic way of life". We use to have a leader that said that "god" told him, "Georgie Boy, You need to go and kill those turrurists".....Now how sick is that? The leader of the country is hearing voices in his head telling him to go and kill his fellow man......Paint that picture and tell your kids how wonderful this country is cause we live in a democracy..

So, my question from before still stands....
15 guys are sitting in a cave, planning to attack amerika. Out of 100 places to bomb, they pick the Pentagon. Maybe they hate it cause the word "pentagon" represents evil in their society. That would surely be enough stimulus to go to all the trouble they went to to bomb it. But just for my own sanity, please finish this sentence.

"Ayyyayayahh, Hajih, Mohamed, Faruk, Osama, Obama, Muhamabad, We are going to bomb akerica. We are going to bring that evil empire to it's knees by bombing the Pentagon. That will show them that______________________________________________________!!!!!!!

Let's put ourselves into their heads for a minute and figure out what they were trying to accomplish.Maybe it will help us answer some questions and it might just point us in another direction as to who the real perpa-traitors were.

Hope the halloween hangover isn't too bad. I know mine is....Everytime those little kiddies came up my long gravel drive, I would let my 2 pit bulls, I bought from Michael Vick, after them....You should see them try and run in those cheap walfart costumes....One kid, in a "Wolverine" costume, is probably hurting pretty bad this morning. They rolled him like a tire....hahahah.... I beat on the side of the trailer hooping and hollerin it was so funny.......


Now then...take the above story and know that I live in a fine home in the suburbs and am well respected (i think) by my neighbors..But you painted a picture in your head of what I might be like....

Didn't you hate me for a minute while reading the above?

We have been mislead about certain aspects of 911. I used to design buildings and am pretty knowledgeable about structural design. The way the buildings fell is still suspicious to me. So I am still after a "reason" that "they" picked the Pentagon.....Isn't it funny how it is always "THEY".....Did you hear what "they" said?....Did you see what "they" did? The government is always "they....hmmmmm.....

let the bashing begin......nascar folks are gonna be on you like a spider monkey.......

pea

posted by hooper

I don't know why the pilot choose the path that he did, and never will for sure. Now, what I suspect is that two alternatives were considered. An approach from above and the approach he did take. I think both would have been equally as damaging. I am not a commercial pilot or any kind of a pilot and do not pretend to be. I think the approach he took had a greater possibilty for success. Once the aircraft is level near the ground and pointed in the right direction then it is only a matter of keeping it on course. And I am sure he didn't care what side of the Pentagon he hit. As for diving into the top of the building I would think that once you establish the dive and find that you may overshoot your target it would be much more difficult to correct.

The 'pilot' chose the course which he did because he was ordered to. That particular wedge one area of the Pentagon was specifically chosen as the target area because the walls were just completed being fortified and the wedge one area was sparsely populated to minimize loss of life.

Any other wedge of the Pentagon was heavily populated and unfortified and would have resulted in a much greater loss of life.

No pilot would have risked flying through heavy light poles and crashing on the lawn if he had the choice. You seem to infer that your 'pilot' deliberately chose to fly through the light poles and inches above the lawn in order to deliberately hit the 1st floor. That would be stupid and unnecessary to a terrorist striving to achieve maximum damage to his enemy.

A direct dive into the unfortified Pentagon roof would have been much easier to accomplish resulting in much much more damage and a greater loss of life.

But then the explosives were not planted on the roof either were they, because the roof survived the initial blast?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2654c60f62d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e9a2077e9ac.jpg[/atsimg]