New FDR Decode, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:02 AM by CaptainAmerica2012
reply to post by wholetruth



Just another debunker OS loyalist trying to support an overly debunked and recanted 911 commission/ official story. He never got the memo.

Man this stuff is getting old. Debunkers should go get some new training and stop posting on 911 forums that seek an investigation.

Whats next calling everyone twoofers?

Rades , FDR whatever. The point is that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911.

Then who did?

[edit on 22-10-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 10:27 AM by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jthomas



Does it ever occur to you or the other government loyalists that the FDR might be fake? Why accept something at face value without question?


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 11:35 AM by Reheat
reply to post by SPreston



For the few rational folks here, attempting to use a barometric altimeter under these conditions is the epitome of stupid. It is unreliable because of compressibility.

I'm sure Turbofan, " the technologist", will explain why a barometric altimeter is unreliable under the conditions experienced by AA 77 in it's final phase of flight.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 11:54 AM by wholetruth
reply to post by Reheat




who's the "australian" and what are his credentials and how did he manage to suddenly find something that no one else has after all this time?

so the data now includes 'impact' ?


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:05 PM by trebor451
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to
post by jthomas



Does it ever occur to you or the other government loyalists that the FDR might be fake? Why accept something at face value without question?


Why would it be fake? If it were fake, PfT would have just said "It doesn't matter what is on it. Its fake!"

Naw...PfT is trying to prove a negative (the aircraft never hit the building) with what they call a negative (fraudulent FDR). Its really pretty funny the lengths they are going to to "prove" this is fake.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:15 PM by wholetruth
found this at pilots :

Your last 4 seconds do not add up to impact.

1. The second to last 4 seconds of travel according to your CSV is 2.25 DME, then the next/last 4 seconds is only .25 DME? (yes, i pulled up GE, fits perfectly with impact point. Neat how that works when Beachnut has been yelling the DME is in error for the past 3 years)

2. Your numbers still show a descent rate in excess of 4200 fpm.... which is still more than a 5 degree slope, still too high to hit light poles working backwards from the "impact" hole.

and.... finally...

-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.

Roof of the Pentagon is roughly 110 feet above sea level. 35 ground elevation + 77 height of pentagon. (yes, i also looked at radalt, something fishy going on there as well. They dont match Pressure altitude descent rates and (edit to add) is too high to hit the light poles based on speed. Keep in mind Radalt is altitude above ground or any object on the ground in which the radar is bouncing off... you have to look at true altitude to get a more precise figure and correlate.

Speed also becomes more of an issue in terms of structural integrity and control effectiveness being more than 20 knots faster... not to mention now it doesn't correlate with any other "official" information or documentation. (/edit)

But, your last 4 seconds of decode is more in line with what the CIT witnesses describe for altitude as the NTSB plotted altitudes seemed a bit high compared to witness statements.

Thanks for putting it together.

Assuming your decode is accurate....


guess this explains why reheat ignored my questions........

[edit on 22-10-2009 by wholetruth]


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:31 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to
post by jthomas



Does it ever occur to you or the other government loyalists that the FDR might be fake? Why accept something at face value without question?


I am not surprised that it never dawned on you 9/11 "Truthers" that we skeptics are not your fantasy "government loyalists" and that we have NEVER taken anything for granted that you 9/11 Deniers claim.

Let us know when you decide to stop trying to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders and get around to refuting the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Sheesh...


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:39 PM by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas



and.... finally...

-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:50 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to
post by jthomas



and.... finally...

-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.



Funny. Four feet above ground level is still four feet.

And there is absolutely no evidence of any so-called "flyover."



reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:56 PM by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas




i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 01:37 PM by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas



Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that theory.

DOI.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 01:56 PM by wholetruth
reply to post by jprophet420




i'll provide a source since i'm not lying and insinuating or misrepresenting anything :

pilotsfor911truth.org...

which after tracking this down i've developed serious doubts about the author of this thread as the "newly decoded" additional seconds only further corroborates claims that the plane did not hit light poles or the pentagon.....

maybe thats why the originator of this thread won't source it?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags