It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Close the thread? I see none of your 'experts' have answered the simple
question about all of the devices connected to the PA static port?
You still want to believe their nonsense when they can't back up their
claims? Is it any wonder why TomK hasn't been around in DAYS?!

Still waiting for those who make ASSUMPTIONS about the 757-200 to step
forward and tell me what devices are attached to the static port instead
of making BLIND THEORIES about a system they have NO CLUE about.



On top of that, you still need to find evidence of at least ONE pole strike
in the FDR data. First place to look would be EGT of the "damaged" engine.




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
If you're a math major, then figure out the error in your assumption:

1.5 DME +/- 1 nm from the airport beacon intersecting the damage path
with an aircraft moving at 462 knots is how many seconds to "impact"?

If you believe your assumptions (IE: errors) on your page, then
you cannot agree with Warren's data; specifically SIX SECONDS OF
MISSING DATA.

You're just being incoherent. My review does not even
mention DME, and the numerical assumptions of my review are
the same as those made by Rob Balsamo. If my assumptions
are in error, as you claim, then the errors are Balsamo's.

You have not stated any connection between DME, my assumptions,
and your conclusion that either or both are inconsistent with
Warren's data. Rather than speculate unflatteringly on the
misunderstandings that might have led you to such a conclusion,
I will allow you another attempt to formulate a coherent question.

Will



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by cesura My review does not even
mention DME


There's your first mistake. You're not accounting for positional data,
and then you claim there is six seconds +/- 2 sec. missing from the
FDR file.

You are aware Warren's data decode includes four additonal seconds
which you claim are "missing"?

P4T never made the 6 seconds of data missing claim. That came from
people who have no clue about INTEL's FLASH EEPROM and L-3's FDR product
intergrity.

The analysis is flawed. A simple trace back from the "impact" point along
the "damage path" puts the aircraft too far off track for the DME values
last recorded at a speed of 462 knots.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Let us know when you confront Balsamo with your claims and his reply. Till then, you're just another self-proclaimed "brain" who makes excuses for the govt story attempting an argument from authority with increased "technobabble" obsessed with Balsamo and his work. You also may want to look at their list of members. Many engineers listed, including an Aeronautical Engineer who helped with the project you say wasn't reviewed by Engineers.

It sounds as though neither you nor turbofan have even read
my review of the PfT/CIT video and Rob Balsamo's physics of
conspiracy:
www.ccs.neu.edu...

My review enumerates ten specific mistakes in Balsamo's
calculations and argument, and mentions several more.
I have presented my own calculations in such detail that
they can be checked quite easily by anyone who has taken
a freshman-level course in calculus or physics. Even those
who lack that competence can confirm that I have identified
specific errors in Balsamo's argument, and will probably be
able to understand at least one or two of Balsamo's errors.

You, on the other hand, have been unable to find a single
error in my review. Judging from your performance in this
thread, I assume you just aren't competent to evaluate any
kind of technical argument. There's no shame in that, so
long as you don't pretend to competence you don't possess.

If you have never before encountered a technical argument,
and know nothing of mathematics or physics, then you can be
forgiven for your inability to distinguish between sound
technical arguments and technobabble.

On the other hand, there is no excuse for your attempts to
dismiss my review as an argument from authority, especially
while making such naked appeals to authority on your own or
Balsamo's behalf. Don't you realize that your rhetorical
tactics are just like those that have already garnered so
much discredit for Rob Balsamo and his PfT?

Will



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by cesura
 


It's funny you think I have no technical background and continue to
post garbage when you cannot even follow your own page.

Here is a direct copy of the missing seconds paragraph:


Contrary to Balsamo's statement above, the missing seconds are implied by the flight data recorder's own positional data, which end well short of the Pentagon, about twice as far as the Navy annex and VDOT antenna. The missing seconds have been confirmed by correlating the FDR's positional and altitude data with independent data obtained from ground radar and other sources. That correlation was performed by Rob Balsamo's former collaborator, engineer John Farmer (who should not be confused with attorney John J Farmer, Jr, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission). Farmer's most important conclusion: "The FDR file positional data ends 6 ± 2 seconds prior to the reported impact location."


What does it say? It says SIX MISSING SECONDS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED.

WRONG!

There are no missing seconds. Warren's decode proves that.
Your analysis is FLAWED.

I have asked you to place the aircraft six seconds back from "impact"
using the last recorded speed of 462 knots.

If you do this simple task, you will see your ERROR immediately.

LAstly, you cannot use a separate data source to verify the aircraft's
positional sensing system (DME data). Each source has it's own set of
tolerances and pros/cons. Furthermore, these systems are not sync'd
in any fashion.

I hope you understand this SIMPLE TECHNICAL concept.


[edit on 11-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
There's your first mistake. You're not accounting for positional data,
and then you claim there is six seconds +/- 2 sec. missing from the
FDR file.

Giving credit where due, that was John Farmer's conclusion
concerning the original decodings of the FDR file, as done
separately by PfT and by the government. As you should know,
since it is the subject of this thread, Farmer's conclusion
has been confirmed by Warren's ability to recover four more
seconds of data (compared to the government decoding, or five
compared to the PfT decoding).


Originally posted by turbofan
You are aware Warren's data decode includes four additonal seconds
which you claim are "missing"?

Of course. That is the subject of this thread.


Originally posted by turbofan
P4T never made the 6 seconds of data missing claim. That came from
people who have no clue about INTEL's FLASH EEPROM and L-3's FDR product
intergrity.

You appear to be trying your best not to understand that
the missing seconds really were missing from the decoded
data, and that no one outside the government (and quite
possibly no one inside the government either) was aware
that the missing seconds were actually present in the
data file and could be recovered by doing a better job
of uncompressing and decoding the data. Let's give
Warren Stutt some credit here.


Originally posted by turbofan
The analysis is flawed. A simple trace back from the "impact" point along
the "damage path" puts the aircraft too far off track for the DME values
last recorded at a speed of 462 knots.

None of us thought you'd drown without grasping a straw.

Your claim has nothing to do with Balsamo's claim that
all possible approaches to the impact site require g loads
that exceed the capabilities of a Boeing 757. That claim
was the sole focus of Balsamo's written calculation and
was the primary focus for Balsamo's portion of the video
I reviewed. That was, accordingly, the focus of my review,
as I stated explicitly at the end of this section:
www.ccs.neu.edu...

You will doubtless complain that my review of the PfT/CIT
video does not elucidate all mysteries, including mysteries
that were not mentioned by the PfT/CIT video. Sorry.

Will



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I have already addressed most of turbofan's most recent
post. This part is new:


Originally posted by turbofan
LAstly, you cannot use a separate data source to verify the aircraft's
positional sensing system (DME data). Each source has it's own set of
tolerances and pros/cons. Furthermore, these systems are not sync'd
in any fashion.

I hope you understand this SIMPLE TECHNICAL concept.

Scientists and engineers routinely use independent sources
of data to test and to verify the accuracy and validity of
other sources. John Farmer's use of data from the flight
data recorder, CITGO and Doubletree videos, and military
and civilian radars to correlate those sources' times and
to estimate the time of impact is a good example of this.

Will



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I refuse to discuss data with somebody who cannot grasp the meaning of DME.

Have you at least done what I have asked with respect to placement of
the aircraft 6 seconds from impact? Probably not.

Let's try another angle:

The NTSB animation shows the aircraft too high over the light poles and
too close to the Pentagon for the last recorded speed and DME value.

A final reading of DME in the flight data shows 1.5 nm with additional frames
which tell us that the aircraft was closer than last recorded.

When you intersect the flight path with the DME distance from the
airport beacon +/- 1 nm, where does that place the aircraft?

What does Warren's data decode show for final position?




[edit on 11-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cesura
It sounds as though neither you nor turbofan have even read
my review of the PfT/CIT video and Rob Balsamo's physics of
conspiracy:


I looked through it. I quoted it on the last page.

I just checked your first calculation using the same online calculator offered by Farmer, Ryan Mackey and Myriad.

tutor4physics.com...
(ignore the units on the above calculator as long as you keep all numbers in the same unit feet, they will solve for feet, but you should already know this)

Plug 271 into the top window for distance.

Plug 0 into final velocity.

Plug 61.6 into Initial Velocity. (271/4.4 seconds)

Click solve.

Acceleration = -7.0 f/s^2 (rounded)

Divde by 32 = .2G

Add 1 for earth = 1.2 G

You claim 1.9 G for the same numbers.

Solving for your 28.3 f/s^2 using the above calculator, the initial velocity required is 123.8 f/s. No one has claimed this descent rate. You just pulling numbers out of thin air to meet your agenda Will?

You're doing something wrong Will. This is why I personally will not spend too much time on you and your "paper" and certainly will not spend the amount of time you spend on Balsamo.

Again, let us know when you confront Balsamo with your claim and his reply. But you may want to first check your work, or have someone else do it for you.

Edit: Here is a reply from Balsamo based on the above "paper" someone posted at their forum.




Hi Swing,

One of our forum members sent me an email awhile ago with the above link. Although the above paper appears to be intended as mostly an ad hom attack and as such, the author refuses to confront us directly, basically, the above paper shows what we have already demonstrated in our presentation, that it is possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon when removing all the variables. See the 6 minute mark here.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

What the above paper fails to address is that our analysis was based on topography, obstacles AND data. The above paper does not account for data and the near linear trends provided and plotted by the NTSB.

Hope this helps.


Source

Looks like you wasted a boat load of time trying to prove something wrong which is already covered Will.



[edit on 11-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I just checked your first calculation using the same online calculator offered by Farmer, Ryan Mackey and Myriad.

tutor4physics.com...
(ignore the units on the above calculator as long as you keep all numbers in the same unit feet, they will solve for feet, but you should already know this)

Plug 271 into the top window for distance.

Plug 0 into final velocity.

Plug 61.6 into Initial Velocity. (271/4.4 seconds)

Click solve.

Acceleration = -7.0 f/s^2 (rounded)

Divde by 32 = .2G

Add 1 for earth = 1.2 G

You claim 1.9 G for the same numbers.

Solving for your 28.3 f/s^2 using the above calculator, the initial velocity required is 123.8 f/s. No one has claimed this descent rate. You just pulling numbers out of thin air to meet your agenda Will?

No, but that's what you just did.

Your mistake was to assume the initial velocity is
61.6 ft/sec = (271 ft)/(4.4 sec). The calculator
reports that an deceleration of 7 ft/sec^2 will reduce
the velocity to 0 within the given distance of 271 feet,
and it will, but it will also take
(61.6 ft/sec)/(7 ft/sec^2) = 8.8 sec to do that. That
8.8 seconds is not consistent with your 4.4 seconds.

With that particular calculator, you can't compute the
acceleration without first knowing the initial velocity,
and you can't compute the initial velocity without first
knowing the acceleration. Tis a puzzlement.

I suggest you use the 28.3 ft/sec^2 deceleration from
my review. Plugging in 271 for the distance, -28.3 for
the acceleration, and 0 for the final velocity, the calculator
will tell you that the initial velocity (rounded) is 123.85 ft/sec,
roughly twice the value you assumed.

Checking that calculation the same way we checked yours,
(123.85 ft/sec)/(28.3 ft/sec^2) = 4.4 seconds (when rounded).

28.3 ft/sec^2 is about 0.9g. Adding 1g for gravity, we
get 1.9g.

Looks like the calculation in my review is correct after all.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
You're doing something wrong Will. This is why I personally will not spend too much time on you and your "paper" and certainly will not spend the amount of time you spend on Balsamo.

What am I doing wrong?


Originally posted by R_Mackey
Again, let us know when you confront Balsamo with your claim and his reply. But you may want to first check your work, or have someone else do it for you.

I have no desire to confront Balsamo; one such encounter
is sufficient for a lifetime. His absence from this forum
is one of the reasons I'm here.

Will


[edit on 11-11-2009 by cesura]

[edit on 11-11-2009 by cesura]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Will,

Please see the edit I made above. We may have cross posted. Your whole paper is moot as P4T have already shown possible flight paths when removing all the variables.


Originally posted by cesura
With that particular calculator, you can't compute the
acceleration without first knowing either the initial
velocity or the acceleration.


Will, the initial velocity is known and it is the velocity that has been used from P4T and those at JREF. This is your mistake. And a big mistake it was.

Farmer and the others offered the above calculator for the layman to cross check their work, they used the wrong formula based on initial velocity. This was pointed out in the P4T analysis.

Also, you need to check your arithmetic.

a = 2 s / t2

a = 2(271)/4.4^2

a = 28.00 (rounded up from 27.99...)

not 28.3


[edit on 11-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by cesura

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Solving for your 28.3 f/s^2 using the above calculator, the initial velocity required is 123.8 f/s.



I suggest you use the 28.3 ft/sec^2 deceleration from
my review. Plugging in 271 for the distance, -28.3 for
the acceleration, and 0 for the final velocity, the calculator
will tell you that the initial velocity (rounded) is 123.85 ft/sec,
roughly twice the value you assumed.


Will, read the above quotes and where they originate. Do you even read the posts you quote before you reply?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Please see the edit I made above. We may have cross posted.

Sounds plausible.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
Will, read the above quotes and where they originate. Do you even read the posts you quote before you reply?

Must have missed that somehow. Sorry!


Originally posted by R_Mackey
Will, the initial velocity is known and it is the velocity that has been used from P4T and those at JREF. This is your mistake. And a big mistake it was.

You're saying that some people at both PfT and JREF used
the incorrect 61.6 ft/sec initial velocity that takes 8.8
seconds to reach the Pentagon? That's hardly surprising.
Even at MIT, some freshmen make that same mistake on the
one-half-a-t-squared problem(s) on their first midterm.

To summarize: You now agree that the calculator you cited
confirms the 28.3 ft/sec^2 deceleration and 1.9g calculated
in my review (to within roundoff---more on that in a moment),
but you're surprised by the high initial velocity. That's
progress.


Originally posted by R_Mackey
Also, you need to check your arithmetic.

a = 2 s / t2

a = 2(271)/4.4^2

a = 28.00 (rounded up from 27.99...)

not 28.3

With Balsamo's distances, the VDOT antenna is 3416 feet from
the Pentagon. Travelling at 781 ft/sec, which is Balsamo's
assumption, that translates into 4.373879641485275 seconds
(rounded to the fewest digits that would allow that IEEE-754R
double precision number to be read back into an IEEE-754R
system without any loss of accuracy). If you use that value
for t, you will find that a is 28.331243075703814 ft/sec^2.
When referring to those numbers in my review, I rounded both
to a single decimal place, but I kept the full IEEE double
precision throughout all calculations.

Because you were surprised by the rounding, here are the full
IEEE double precision values for all three of the flight paths
considered in my review, rounded to the fewest digits that
allow them to be read back into an IEEE-754R system without
any loss of accuracy, using 1g=32.174 ft/sec^2:

vertical distance (feet), vertical deceleration (ft/sec^2), g-load, iniital velocity (ft/sec)

271, 28.331243075703814, 1.8805632832630015, 123.91744730679159
180, 18.817799828880762, 1.5848759815031008, 82.30679156908666
120, 12.545199885920507, 1.3899173210020672, 54.8711943793911

The 271-foot path goes over the VDOT antenna. The 180-foot
path goes over the Navy annex or on either side of the VDOT
antenna. The 120-foot path is implausibly ground-hugging.

The calculator you cited should confirm all three of the
above. All three end in level flight at the Pentagon in
4.373879641485275 sec (assuming Balsamo's 781 ft/sec).

The 82.3 ft/sec initial vertical velocity associated with
the most plausible of the three flight paths (the one that
goes over the Navy annex or on either side of the VDOT
antenna) is also the closest match to the FDR data. We
can discuss that match after you agree that my calculations
were corrrect for all three flight paths above.

Will



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Will,

Please read this statement again.


...basically, the above paper shows what we have already demonstrated in our presentation, that it is possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon when removing all the variables. See the 6 minute mark here...

pilotsfor911truth.org...


You claim P4T only analyzed one "favorite" path, the one that is "impossible". This is false. P4T analyzed several paths all with varying variables, even those that are possible. You also attribute all of this work solely to Balsamo. Which is also false. Several others had a hand in the project including Engineers, one of them of the Aeronautical type, Captain Jeff Latas, current Captain for Jetblue, Former Lt Col in the USAF, F-15 Driver in Iraq and USAF Aircraft Accident Investigation Board President including Weapons Requirement Officer stationed at the Pentagon. Please review the credits to "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

I know you spent a lot of time on your paper, but your paper is moot. The top of your paper is especially moot as those errors were conceded by P4T within a week after publish.

Next, The calculator offered by Farmer and others, which you have correctly pointed out, does not take into account time. Therefore, it does not consider forward (horizontal) velocity. This is the wrong calculator to use and was pointed out in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" with screenshots of the exact calculator offered.

Your formula does not consider initial velocity, therefore your formula is also the wrong one to use based on the premise/objective of "9/11 Attack On The Pentagon" which is based on topography, obstacles and data. And no, P4T nor JREF use 61.6 f/s. I believe the number used was 75 f/s but was based on the same premise, vertical distance over time. "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" used NTSB data.

Finally, if you accept the new data decoded by Warren, your new vertical distance is now closer to 330 feet which concludes a more than 2 G pull for the entire duration along the 4.4 second path (using your formula). Keywords, "entire duration". This is not found in the new data provided by Warren. The overall vertical acceleration during that period is less than 2 G. This decreases the vertical distance and once again cross checks with PA and a flyover, if in fact one took place and Warren's data was pulled from that aircraft.

Warren's Vertical Accel. data also coincides with P4T's addendum to "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon", "The North Flight Path" and it's supplemental technical paper, "The North Approach". And since I know iSunTzu will be having an aneurysm over this paragraph, the heading data does not.


As for your rounding errors, I just plugged your numbers from your paper using your formula into a calculator and rounded the final result.

a = 2(271)/4.4^2

a = 542/19.36

a = 27.9958677685950.....

not 28.3

Anyone can do it, and they don't even need to take a course in calculus. Being an instructor, I'm sure you're familiar with this term? K.I.S.S.

Especially since those touting your paper, such as Pat Curley at Screw Loose Change admits,


I confess that I can't follow the math....


Say hello to the ladies of White Hall if you ever get a chance. Lots of good memories from that place and time. They pick them well over there. At least, they used to.


[edit on 11-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
On top of that, you still need to find evidence of at least ONE pole strike
in the FDR data. First place to look would be EGT of the "damaged" engine.


Let's recap.

We have a Boy's Club who claim that the Camp Springs 1 Departure out of Andrews Air Force Base is not used in the AM periods because of "incoming rush hour traffic" into KDCA. And we are to take you people seriously.

They claim that the C-130 departing out of Andrew on the morning of 11 Nov. was vectored towards Prohibited (repeat..."Prohibited") Area 56 and was instructed to fly along the southern edge of this "Prohibited" area. And we are to take you people seriously.

They signed and submitted an affidavit in support of a law suit that claims, among other egregiously erroneous things, that there were surface to air missiles in place at the Pentagon that were "stood down" to allow an aircraft to "fly by" the building. (How IS that Gallop lawsuit coming anyhow, guys?) This idiotic lawsuit also speculates that the defendants’ incentive to blow-up the Pentagon is based on trying to cover up some $2.3 trillion in Pentagon expenses that cannot and were not properly documented (seeing how the US Defense budget was only around $300 or so billion per year in the decade prior to 2001, how many years would every cent of the defense budget have to be stolen to get to $2.3 trillion?) And we are to take you people seriously.

They have "core members" who are airline or former airline pilots who have stated that they lack the aviation ability to fly an 767 into a building, specifically a 1,200 foot tall sky scraper. And we are to take you people seriously.

They claim that the 767's in question at the World Trade Centers would have had their wings rip off at the speeds in question (NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Report, 384 knots for AA 11, 470 knots for UAL 175), yet at the Pentagon, an aircraft flying similar speeds and 500 feet lower in altitude is expected to have a perfectly normal and completely operating static pressure system when the aircraft (AA 77) was humping at 463 knots. And we are to take you people seriously.

Their club believes the aircraft at the Pentagon did a 160 degree turn at "50 to less than 100 feet" after passing north of the NEX service station and exited southwest over lane 1 of South Parking at 463 knots - according to their lone "fly over" witness, Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts. And we are to take you people seriously.

And NOW you claim a Boeing 757 wing, weighing in at 43,000 lbs (with over 7 tons of fuel and over 15 tons of wing/landing gear hardware), traveling at 463 knots, is going to register an impact on a FDR system with a lamp pole designed to break away after impact with a 1,800 lb (820 kg) passenger car impacting at 22 mph? The thing wouldn't even hiccup.

And we are to take you people seriously.

Yeah, I think this thread, and PfT's credibility, is pretty much done...again.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Has anyone else noticed that the more we learn about all this stuff, the lamer P4T's excuses get for being wrong?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by .Sol.
Has anyone else noticed that the more we learn about all this stuff, the lamer P4T's excuses get for being wrong?


That seems to be a big part of their modus operandi - baffling the hoi polloi with confusion to the point they'll get that glassy-eyed, slack-jawed blank stare and say "North of Citgo...Yes...Airplane too high...of course".

All their "witnesses" are right....except when they say they saw the aircraft hit the building, then they aren't.

All their planes have their wings ripped off at 450 knots...except when they don't.

Faster, please.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Lame excuses? Like:

- 2,4,6 seconds data delay

- transient erase miracle

- Bird strikes

- Multiple devices accessing the static port

Notice your 'boys' have not come back since I sourced the Boeing documentation.

Their EXCUSE about the static port is actually a lie. They don't have any
documentation about the 757-200 and continue to make up stories to
explain why the flight data should fit their fantasy.

Let me know when TomK and/or Reheat want to tell us which devices
are connected to the PA static port. It has been about a week since
they ran off...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Lame excuses? Like:

- 2,4,6 seconds data delay

- transient erase miracle

- Bird strikes

- Multiple devices accessing the static port

Notice your 'boys' have not come back since I sourced the Boeing documentation.

Their EXCUSE about the static port is actually a lie. They don't have any
documentation about the 757-200 and continue to make up stories to
explain why the flight data should fit their fantasy.

Let me know when TomK and/or Reheat want to tell us which devices
are connected to the PA static port. It has been about a week since
they ran off...


TF, don't bother replying to people like trebor. For one, he has already lost quite a bit of credibility on this board, and two, it's clear he cannot debate the topic of this thread and instead attempts to bait the opposition using unsourced, off-topic strawman arguments in every-single-one of his posts. It's what people call flame-bait (some feel it's libelous) and is mostly a tactic used by trolls. But in the case of "trebor", an admitted DoD employee, perhaps a blogger(s) hired by the Pentagon. I'm not sure why the mods here at ATS let it continue. Maybe for traffic? But the violations of ATS T&C are well recorded, documented and sourced throughout this thread and elsewhere.

We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.

To put it simply, it is good people are still debating this topic (9/11 in general), even if it takes 30 years to find the truth. When the debate/communication stops, is when you/me/they/we have to worry. Perhaps this is all by design? You decide.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.

To put it simply, it is good people are still debating this topic (9/11 in general), even if it takes 30 years to find the truth. When the debate/communication stops, is when you/me/they/we have to worry. Perhaps this is all by design? You decide.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]


Then please Rob, stop with the 'disinfo'. For example, myself and many others verified that there was 6 secondds (plus or minus two seconds) of data missing from the NTSB CSV and the RO2 done by P4T. We verified that by appling known and established engineering principles. The success of Warren in decoding that missing frame (4 seconds) has done nothing but to validate the missing data 'hypothesis'. The so call 'bird strike' and other conjecture by others was to brainstorm why the data was 'missing'. As it turns out, the final frame was incomplete and as such not read by the software used by the NTSB for its CSV and P4T for its RO2.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate anything other than the plane for which the data represents hit the Pentagon. Yes, PA is off, but if you compare the slope of the change curve for PA with acceleration and RA values, it is clearly anomalous.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join