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.

 

CIT Takes Pentagon Investigation Worldwide with World Tour!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Alfie1


I don't believe there was a noc approach and Roosevelt Roberts was , if anything, a soc witness.



This is true. In addition, it was confirmed by the "pilots" at PFT4911 Truth that the "fly-over" would not be possible. Ranke even conceded this fact. If Roberts saw flight 11 over the parking lot, it would have had to have taken a path to the RIGHT of the impact point. So the plane's view would not have been impeded by the "timed explosion." This path would also eliminate other NOC witnesses.





edit on 18-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



Should have editted the "Flight 11" remark too mate.


Yeah, and the official flight path taken by "Hani" is totally within the realms of reality?
P4T have shown that the FDR data shows that the aircraft is too high to hit the poles or the Pentagon.
They have also shown that the g forces exceed 10.4 gs.
CIT have shown that the flightpath presented by the FDR/RADES is also fake.

Various witnesses point to a slower speed than presented.
Various witnesses around the lawn and South Parking describe the plane as crossing that area at a higher altitude than seen on the 5 frames and which is necessary to cause the damage presented by the ASCE report.

We don't even know what type of plane was used given that the FBI never released any documentation on "debris" collection and identification.

We don't know the weight of the plane for the reasons above.

We don't know if it was a fixed wing aircraft.

The fact that Roberts saw an aircraft at all after the explosion overrides any "g forces" and calculations you want to draw from a single witness account.

Claims that Roberts saw "Flight 77" on the "SOC path" don't stand to reason as all evidence presented must correlate. The official damage path and facade damage dictate a low level flight at 540mph.

Not a plane "banking", in view for a "quick 5 seconds".

It works both ways.




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Should have editted the "Flight 11" remark too mate.


You're correct! And you should edit the way you spelled edited.



Yeah, and the official flight path taken by "Hani" is totally within the realms of reality?



P4T have shown that the FDR data shows that the aircraft is too high to hit the poles or the Pentagon.
They have also shown that the g forces exceed 10.4 gs.


Actually one of his own members proved just the opposite. Oh, and the 11G's paper was filled with mathematical errors. If you U2U "Tiffany in LA" you can ask Rob Balsamo. That is the name of his latest sock puppet.


CIT have shown that the flightpath presented by the FDR/RADES is also fake.


No, they didn't.


Various witnesses ............


Some saw the plane bounce on the Pentagon lawn. Did that happen?



We don't even know what type of plane was used ........


We... you mean truthers. The rest of the people that live in reality do.




We don't know the weight of the plane for the reasons above.


The sane people, if interested know its about 255,000 pounds (max take-off weight.)


We don't know if it was a fixed wing aircraft.


Really, you should speak for yourself. We do know what aircraft it was. It was American Airlines Flight 77 tail number N644AA.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma



P4T have shown that the FDR data shows that the aircraft is too high to hit the poles or the Pentagon.
They have also shown that the g forces exceed 10.4 gs.



Actually one of his own members proved just the opposite. Oh, and the 11G's paper was filled with mathematical errors. If you U2U "Tiffany in LA" you can ask Rob Balsamo. That is the name of his latest sock puppet.


You wouldn't be talking about Warren Stutt?
I take it by this comment that you reject the NTSB supplied FDR data?

His program is still unverified and unexplained by the NTSB.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

i659.photobucket.com...
i659.photobucket.com...


Warren Stutt's conclusion



What I am quite certain about is that the last recorded ALTITUDE (1013.25mB) (FEET) in the FDR file I have been given is -99 feet (note the minus sign). I appreciate that this figure has to be adjusted to obtain the true altitude, but this adjustment is not something I feel qualified to do.

(...)

I realise that Rob has used an online calculator to show that the true altitude is too high to hit the Pentagon, however I have seen arguments on J.R.E.F. saying that the pressure altitudes can not be relied upon since normally the aircraft would not be flying so fast, so low and the correct compensation has not been applied. The issue of how accurate the pressure altitude is has also been raised.

WStutt




If this value "cannot be relied on", why does the NTSB list Pressure altitude as a Validated Parameter and why are J.REF members cherry picking a "not working or unconfirmed" parameter as holding more weight when they dont even know the object the Radar Altitude is measuring from?

Rob Balsamo




So we have 200/.09 = 2222 ft/sec^2 2222/32 = 69 G Plus 1 for earth - 70 G. Still impossible for anything on earth. Using your formula s - ut = 100 - 60(.3) = 82 2(82)/.09 = 1822 ft/sec^2 1822/32 = 57 G 58 G with earth. Again, impossible, even based on your data.

Rob Balsamo




OK, the math looks good to me now. I'll alert J.R.E.F. that you have fixed the math. I still need to research pressure altitude to true altitude conversions before coming to any conclusions.

Warren.


pilotsfor911truth.org... c=18239&st=0&p=10778240&#entry10778240



IIt's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed. Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.


The "11gs" math errors you refer to has been admitted to and corrected ages ago. It has since been corrected, and the g forces required according to the official FDR data is 34gs.
Rob Balsamo also did the math taking detractor claims into account and arrived at 10.4 gs.

The alleged "debunk" of this math did not use any relevant data.

AWSmith is quoted in his "piece"..



The initial values consist of the aircraft's position and velocity at the end of its data. I took the x-y position to be the origin, and the altitude (z) to be the height of the Pentagon lawn above sea level. The velocity involved a little guesswork: My initial guess came from running the last recorded velocity forward to the end of data as an initial value problem. I then adjusted that guess slightly to improve the match between the shape of the calculated altitude and the shape of the pressure altitude


He needn't have applied "guesswork" as the official speed is recorded as 540mph.



My numerical solution of the initial value problem is inherently unstable for exactly the same reason that dead reckoning becomes inaccurate over long distances: the errors tend to add up over time. The accumulation of error could be corrected using feedback to bring the calculated altitude back into line with the recorded pressure altitude and radio height, but that seems pointless in this case: We already know the recorded pressure altitude and radio height, and we also have radar data that tell us the aircraft's position and altitude up until its radar return disappeared into ground clutter during its final seconds. Since the final seconds were the only ones for which we did not know the altitudes, and my unsophisticated open-loop solution of the initial value problem is adequate for the final seconds, I didn't bother to add a feedback mechanism.


His calculations are now based on radar data which has been debunked according to witnesses and JREFer John Farmer as well as P4911T.
Read his last quote carefully and decipher where he pulled his figures from.

His entire work is based on the non proven, non verified "6 seconds" that he claims were missing even though an FDR expert asserts that the maximum lag is 0.5 seconds.

None of the g forces presented in any calculations presented by JREFers are to be seen anywhere in the FDR data.

Rob Balsamo made his calculations based on the data supplied under FOIA.
Detractors make theirs from ambiguous claims to suit their arguments.



Originally posted by Six Sigma

CIT have shown that the flightpath presented by the FDR/RADES is also fake.


No, they didn't.


Read my previous post. Of course they did.


Some saw the plane bounce on the Pentagon lawn. Did that happen?


No, but the low, level approach depicted on the lawn is obviously being contradicted and it correlates more with people saying that it "skipped up".

That would make the facade damage rather different no?

Oh so you do know of documentation identifying the aircraft. Please share.

"We" don't know what plane was used because "we" haven't seen any documentation. Please don't repeat this unless you can provide a link to it.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
lol ... I think the best strategy to counter the truth is to present crazy ideas, like the ones in the thread on the front page

probably even disinfo agents flag that thing, so, people think thats the image of the people that ask questions



new topics

top topics
 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join