New FDR Decode

When do we finally get to see your "flyover" eyewitnesses since you believe the FDR "proves" a flyover?

Don't you think three years is long enough for you to provide us with positive evidence of a "flyover", Turbofan? What is holding you up, man?



[edit on 22-11-2009 by jthomas]

reply to post by waypastvne

---

This post is correct. now tell me which port is used for the primary device
which reads "primary" pressure altitude.

reply to post by jthomas

---

Well, I'm still waiting for you or any of your friends to:

- show me positive impact of a 757-200 which was known to be Flight 77

- show me FDR data that supports pole strikes, and/or wall strike

- tell me which device is responsible for PA (you'll note the irony of this
once someone smart enough figures it out...as it realtes to other data)

- give me an answer to CIT's witnesses (coached, miracle story tellers, or truthful)

etc., etc.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by turbofan]

Sean Boger.



Provided by NTSB, decoded by Warren Stutt



Not an aeronautical engineer, so I can't.



Truthful, but CIT fails to understand perceptional error and how human memory works. There is a reason a police officer takes notes and only testifies to what is in them or his/her report when in court years later.

Also said NoC. Take your pick. Who planted the light poles John?





What parameters show the light pole strikes? Where in the data do you
see this?



But you continue to make false theories about PA error? How does
that work? Have you figured out that you're not even talking about the
same altimeter as used to record the PA data in the FDR file?

Waypastvne is on the right track...



Really? Perception and memory?

How many people described a banking aircraft, NoC, and also drew similar
flight paths?

BTW: I read something pretty nasty about you John. Care to explain this
after you answer all the above?

z3.invisionfree.com...

Did you lie to me about Paik's statement?

Before Sean Boger saw the plane hit the Pentagon, he said that it approached NoC. Do you believe that part of Boger's testimony?



Exactly which part of the alleged FDR data proves the number one light pole being hit?

If the alleged FDR data proves that five light poles were hit, then why is there confusion about the alleged flight path of the plane in terms of altitude and heading, as it allegedly traced its way through the light poles? Knowing that five light poles were hit, official government story believers should be able to nail down, within centimetres, the alleged flight path of the plane - right? Tell me what I am missing if that's not the case.

The Sean Boger Dance

It's the chicken or the egg here.

If the plane was NOC, it did not hit the Pentagon. End of story.

If the plane hit the Pentagon it did not fly NOC as some witnessses claim.

YOU decide. Did Boger forget the flight path years later, or did he lie about watching a plane slam into the Pentagon and lie about hearing the metal going into the building.

Let's stick to the FDR...there are plenty of other threads dealing with witnesses and what they did and didn't see.

Your evasions are puerile, as always. We don't have to prove anything to you. You have to provide positive evidence to support your claim that a "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon."

That is your claim, not ours.

And you have completely failed to support your claims, Turbofan. Which means you will never get another investigation.

So, Turbofan, please support your claim with positive evidence demonstrating that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon" or admit that you cannot.

I've already listed the proof. All you can do is deny and spin CIT witness
statements and make excuses for avionics that you, and your friends
know nothing about.

When are your smart internet pilots going to figure out the static port question
from six pages ago? How many times have I asked? Are you smart enough to answer?

No one, including you, has posted any positive evidence of a "jet flying over and away from the Pentagon."

Not a single bit of positive evidence. Not a single eyewitness report.

So you can weasel all you want, Turbofan, but you'll never get another investigation, isn't that correct?

Proof?? Does your "proof" include SAM missiles at the Pentagon? Does your "proof" include 15,000 or more people all keeping a lie? Does your "proof" include a C-130 being vectored along the very edge of one of America's most restricted Prohibited Area at 3,000 feet? Does your "proof" include making up simulations for aeronautical events where you don't have the data needed to create a simulation? Does your "proof" include Roosevelt Roberts describing an aircraft over lane 1 of south parking at "50 to less then 100 feet" and headed southwest? (do you have any idea what a 757 would look like at "50 to less than 100 feet" in the Pentagon parking lot? It is clear you don't)? Does your "proof" include nobody - anybody...ANYBODY - seeing a flyover?

I'm not surprised you accuse everyone of "spinning" CIT witness statements. Who cares that the "NOC" witnesses also said they saw the aircraft hit! Its spin!!! Who cares that April Gallop filed the most *absurd* lawsuit in the world and that you guys support it and submitted an affidavit in support of it. Its spin!!!

When you can't argue the facts - resort to frantic accusations of spin - or the old "They're lying!" defense like the radar tapes and ATC transcripts.

I am promoting no theory. All I have said is that the data it is generating is in conflict with the data generated by the other instruments.



Nope. CIT loves me

[edit on 23-11-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 23-11-2009 by 911files]

Shinki Paik

Another

[edit on 23-11-2009 by 911files]

There is only confusion among CT forum 'experts' who have no clue what they are talking about.

reply to post by 911files

---

So if you are not confusd, plot me an exact flight path, in 3-D.

Show me where each light pole was hit.

Take your time to get it correct, but keep me updated.

Better yet, I'll write a book for you.

Your avoidance has been noted.

All I have asked you to do is to plot me the 3-D path, showing where each light pole was hit.

You claim that you are not confused about it, but you won't do it.

Why is that?

What avoidance? You obviously have not idea just how much data there is for the AAL77 flight path, and that is your problem. You want everything put into a nice little YouTube video so you don't have to use your brain. I have spent thousands of dollars collecting the primary evidence (radar, eyewitnesses, atc audio, statements, etc) and years of point-by-point analysis and there is no way it will fit into a forum post (even if it did, you would just turn around and claim it does not 'prove' anything).

No, I don't do made up analysis and slap a few equations I know nothing about to impress people. I will give you exactly what you ask for, a very detailed and established flight path for AAL77 based on ALL of the data, not just a few 'cherry-picked' eyewitness accounts. We have now established around a dozen ARSR radar sites for which we have data, 4 ASR sites in the DC area, a full decode of the FDR, hundreds of eyewitness accounts (some recorded as the event happened, establishing it was an American Airlines plane), ATC audio for event, and thousands of supporting documents.

So yes, it will take a book to go through it all and give you exactly what you are asking for. Then you can make a cartoon from it if you prefer cartoons.

Your avoidance to post the 3-D coordinates of the flight path, only the last few seconds, not the entire flight.


Completely false, I don't know why you would state that.


It doesn't take a book to list the last few seconds worth of 3-D coordinates, with a stated origin.

Do you have co-ordinates of the wing tips and nose, or just a general position of the 'plane'? Which co-ordinate set proves that the plane hit the first light pole?

reply to post by tezzajw

---

tezzajw

I don't think you have a clue how far out of your league you are with 911 files.

I should stop digging your hole if I was you mate.

Thanks for the advice Alfie1.

911files claims that the FDR data supports the light poles being hit, particularly the first light pole. In that case, he should be able to show exactly which part of the pole was hit, with which part of the plane, as claims to know the co-ordinates of the flight path.

He claims there is no confusion, so it should be a piece of cake for him to demonstrate.

Maybe 911files will be able to do what you couldn't do - prove that the first light pole was struck?