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.

 

It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 19
15
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by unknOWNmirAGE
 


And since there isnt one, for the rest of your life you will not accept what the facts show? That is amazing.




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by unknOWNmirAGE
 


And since there isnt one, for the rest of your life you will not accept what the facts show? That is amazing.





Fact is, there is one. You're telling me that the PENTAGON, only has that one security video?

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.


edit on 3/24/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bitbytebit
hey weedwacker,

You were asked a question, a very good question. Can you answer it?

What are your major proof points that lead you to believe a 757 crashed into the pentagon?


I'm not weedwacker, but someone else asked for a summary of my paper posted earlier. Since it is related, here goes. A 757 departed from Dulles at 8:20 on the morning of 9/11 (even P4T does not dispute this). It was seen by air traffic controllers and their conversations with the pilots are publicly available. From the moment that aircraft took off, it was under surveillance by multiple independent measurement systems, primarily ARSR radar facilities, ASR radar facilities, with a complete record of it's own measurement of VOR DME and INS. When all of these multiple data sets are aligned in time, they correspond with a plane observed by first a C-130 pilot and then ACPD officers. These conversations and observations are also recorded independently from separate sources. The aligned position of this aircraft corresponds to events captured as they occurred by the Citgo and Doubletree security videos. That same 757 was not seen either on radar or visually by the air traffic controllers who had a full view of the Potomac and landing/take-off corridor, neither was it observed beyond this point by anyone or captured on any of the ASR facilities covering it (4 of them actually).

Hence, any credible argument which asserts that no plane (or 757) hit the Pentagon has to successfully account for the 757 headed into the Pentagon. You cannot dismiss it and no rational human being can deny that it was there at the moment of the event. As I stated earlier, not even P4T and CIT assert that the plane was not there. Their argument currently is that the plane was not AAL77 if I understand them correctly.

So, where is da plane?

Whoops, wrong thread ... oh well, gotta hit the sack so I'll catch up with the other thread tomorrow evening

edit on 19-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by unknOWNmirAGE
 


Well, since Ive seen two videos from Pentagon cameras.....kinda makes your last post moot. By the way, neither of the two give a clear view because the refresh rate was too slow to capture Flight 77.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


wrong thread, but I found it anyway


If all you say is true, and basically lines up to what I've heard... then how can you account for the NTSB held Flight Data Recorder data that shows the plane NEVER stopped at IAD gate D-26.

You may have just argued a very good fight for saying this was not AA 77 commercial plane with passengers... that being said, how can the rest make sense!!? I'm using the EXACT same data as you to come up with my assertian, the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon was never at the departure gate.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by 911files
 


wrong thread, but I found it anyway


If all you say is true, and basically lines up to what I've heard... then how can you account for the NTSB held Flight Data Recorder data that shows the plane NEVER stopped at IAD gate D-26.

You may have just argued a very good fight for saying this was not AA 77 commercial plane with passengers... that being said, how can the rest make sense!!? I'm using the EXACT same data as you to come up with my assertian, the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon was never at the departure gate.


Why are you spreading this stuff in the wrong thread. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that AA 77 departed from anything other than Gate D-26 at IAD. There is PROOF that it did. Why do you ignore it?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Why are you spreading this stuff in the wrong thread.



Originally posted by 911files
Whoops, wrong thread ... oh well, gotta hit the sack so I'll catch up with the other thread tomorrow evening



reheat - why don't you ask 911files.

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that AA 77 departed from anything other than Gate D-26 at IAD. There is PROOF that it did. Why do you ignore it?

Why do you waste all our time...
the FDR shows it was at IAD, but that it didn't ever stop at D 26. Your common tactic of saying something isn't true, only works for people who don't take the time to prove you wrong again



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


The question is still - where is that tail section, obviously not in the original hole and obviously not on the ground.
How can a plane fly at 500mph at ground level, it cannot have been descending as it hit , else it surely would have dived partially into the ground at ground level when it entered the building as per the original hole.
Just like why did everything "vaporise" but a small piece of "completely unaffected by fire" fuselage. It did not even have burnt edges.
As I said just a question or two.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Sailor Sam because: spelling errors



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
Why are you spreading this stuff in the wrong thread.



Originally posted by 911files
Whoops, wrong thread ... oh well, gotta hit the sack so I'll catch up with the other thread tomorrow evening



reheat - why don't you ask 911files.

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that AA 77 departed from anything other than Gate D-26 at IAD. There is PROOF that it did. Why do you ignore it?


Why do you waste all our time...
the FDR shows it was at IAD, but that it didn't ever stop at D 26. Your common tactic of saying something isn't true, only works for people who don't take the time to prove you wrong again




You got that from the boys at P4T. All you just demonstrated is that you like them don't understand the data. Don't plot data of an in-flight system for a plane on the ground silly.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
Why are you spreading this stuff in the wrong thread.



Originally posted by 911files
Whoops, wrong thread ... oh well, gotta hit the sack so I'll catch up with the other thread tomorrow evening




Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reheat - why don't you ask 911files.



Originally posted by Reheat
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that AA 77 departed from anything other than Gate D-26 at IAD. There is PROOF that it did. Why do you ignore it?


Why should I ask 911Files where the aircraft was parked as it loaded passengers and then departed. He knows already. Apparently, you don't but are willing to accept the word of a group of complete maroons who you want to agree with.


Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Why do you waste all our time...
the FDR shows it was at IAD, but that it didn't ever stop at D 26. Your common tactic of saying something isn't true, only works for people who don't take the time to prove you wrong again


So, asking questions that you can't answer and pointing out false information you're posting is wasting your time? So, the aircraft parked in the grass in the middle of nowhere near a gate at all. Is that your contention? I Guess the ever widening conspiracy includes all of the ground support personnel at Dulles who launched AA 77 from gate D-26. And it includes the pilot (RIP) that called ramp control for taxi and then called Ground Control specifying the departure gate of D-26. Did they all lie, just as you've accused Lt Col Steve O'Brien of lying in another thread. The list of liars is growing rapidly and we aren't even half finished yet. Of course, you have ZERO evidence to call any of these people liars. What does that say about you?
edit on 20-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I'm curious how accurate those points are anyway? Could we compare this to other airplanes and see if their data accurately shows where they stop?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Reheat
 


I'm curious how accurate those points are anyway? Could we compare this to other airplanes and see if their data accurately shows where they stop?


We can compare the plots to the previous history of the AA 77 aircraft only. It was significantly in error ON THE GROUND on two previous flights that have been decoded for that specific aircraft. The FDR has some 25 hours of previous flight hours and only a portion of those hours have been decoded.

It would be virtually impossible to obtain FDR data from other aircraft as that is not routinely looked at, except for accidents. In a few rare cases the data has been pulled to determine if a pilot violated either FAA Regulations or Company Policies.

The IRU/INS/FMC was not very accurate on the ground during that period of use. They are much more accurate now with GPS updates. GPS was not installed in 2001.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Years ago I was very intrigued by the whole "plane didn't hit pentagon" thing but nowadays it just makes me shake my head and facepalm. It's not scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon because a plane hit the Pentagon. An American Airlines Boeing 757 flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is far more evidence to support this than there is to not support it. If you truly believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, in order to arrive at such a conclusion you have to dismiss evidence. When you dismiss evidence to reach a bizarre conclusion you are delusional and nobody will believe a word you say even if you are telling the truth about something else.

The 'troofers' who continue to support these bizarre claims are the equivalent of trolls - they are trolling disinformation whether they believe it or not. It is very difficult for legitimate truthers to bring up the subject of questioning the OS because more often than not those on the receiving end don't want to hear a word you are saying. They immediately think of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists talking about the Illuminati and reptile people or the morons who seriously believe that no planes hit the WTC. I really wish that in the interest of making truthers more credible in the minds of the public that we ban this nonsense about no planes.

If you want to debate the plane's angle of approach, why it hit the side being renovated, whether or not it was controlled via remote, that's all fine with me. Those are all legitimate questions. Endlessly debating that it wasn't a plane isn't helping the cause. There are way cooler holes in the OS that we should be more concerned about.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Reheat
 


I'm curious how accurate those points are anyway? Could we compare this to other airplanes and see if their data accurately shows where they stop?


We can compare the plots to the previous history of the AA 77 aircraft only. It was significantly in error ON THE GROUND on two previous flights that have been decoded for that specific aircraft. The FDR has some 25 hours of previous flight hours and only a portion of those hours have been decoded.

It would be virtually impossible to obtain FDR data from other aircraft as that is not routinely looked at, except for accidents. In a few rare cases the data has been pulled to determine if a pilot violated either FAA Regulations or Company Policies.

The IRU/INS/FMC was not very accurate on the ground during that period of use. They are much more accurate now with GPS updates. GPS was not installed in 2001.


Actually all 12 recorded flights have been decoded. All show the same poor accuracy on the ground. Even the FDR data from UAL93 exhibits the same poor performance on the ground, but corrects once airborne with the VOR DME. In other words, the onboard INS was working exactly as it is designed to, provide in-flight positional information.


UAL93 Newark Take-off


UAL93 In-Flight Correction



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Your links (images?) didn't work (at least, for me).....

BUT, the point in general is VALID. The IRS is NOT "accurate" on the ground. Surely, this is obvious to most people....?

As has been discussed in related threads that specifically addressed this issue, AND American 77 in particular. Any and all "arguments" to this, based on the individual (from the SSFDR) data point info plots, on the ground segments are IRRELEVANT!

Irrelevant to the overall performance of the three IRS's .... lay people are being fed a load of nonsense by some "sources" on the Internetz....the ones who claim to all be "Pilots" (
)

OTHERS use that same baloney, and continue to expound the garbage pile of disinformation....layer upon layer.


Summary (rather than linking to the other thread):

The three (independent) IRS's (Inertial Reference Systems) each, once aligned, do "their thing" based on the initial state of positional reference, and then subsequent accelerometer measurements to ascertain their movements from initial position. The THREE (as long as are in reasonable agreement with each other) are combined into a "triple mix" position reference. THIS is used mostly by the airplane's navigation systems as the "primary" position....but ONLY when relying on this sort of system for positional reference. (There are OTHER ways to determine position, of course. The TRULY primary method? Human eyesight....where appropriate, or course. In other situations, there are differing methods, and EACH as its own known value, margin for error, and limitations. The HUMANS utilize ALL of these various tools at their disposal, accordingly).

BACK to the inertial refernce platforms.....they are prone to many errors, due to "precession" and just built-in imprecision....(ALL prior to the much, much more accurate GPS updating technology, which is ever more common nowadays).

On the ground, the accuracy of the IRS was of no concern....a few MILES was close enough, since it was never designed for anything more precise than that!! After takeoff, the systems could utilize various radio sources, based on ground-based sites, to refine their "calculated" positions....and that was used, in algorithms, to re-define that "triple-mix" position reference. (Also called the "FMC Position", in case you run across that in online research).



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I don't care if they work for you or not. The data and both UAL93 and AAL77 exhibited the same data shifts once airborne. Both exhibited highly inaccurate positional data while on the ground. Data is data and it really does not care if it works for you or not.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


OK!!!!

Slow down!!!!

I think you misinterpreted my points???

In a nutshell:

A slew of "conspiracy" sites have tried to bamboozle the lay public by cofusing them with information that is misrepresented....and REAL pilots know that what these "conspiracy" sites spew out is garbage.

READ me again.......



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


911Files was addressing your comment about the videos.

I don't believe he was referring to any other part of your post.....



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Oh, well I was biased by your last comment when you saw a similar plot made by me. You said, "That picture seems to indicate a hot mess of a fertile imagination...."

My bad.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Actually all 12 recorded flights have been decoded. All show the same poor accuracy on the ground. Even the FDR data from UAL93 exhibits the same poor performance on the ground, but corrects once airborne with the VOR DME. In other words, the onboard INS was working exactly as it is designed to, provide in-flight positional information.


Thanks for that updated info. I did not know all had been decoded, but I have looked at enough them to know what we've all been saying for multiple posts now has been either ignored or hand waved away.
edit on 24-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join