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.

 

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

page: 11
83
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Doesn't look like all gates have the same long/lat to me weed..





posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Thats because the windows on this side of the Pentagon had been replaced with blast resistant windows to
prevent shattering in case of truck bomb blast outside

911research.wtc7.net...
ok.. Ok... Lemme get this straight... You show pics from the day it happened, you have no hole because the window casings withstood the impact with windows gone - and claim the "hole" still has casings intact because of blast-resistant windows.

I'm guessing either you're pulling things out of your tail end - or I misunderstood.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Doesn't look like all gates have the same long/lat to me weed..



The worst part of it all is that someone on their side claims to be an avionics tech, and also claims that only one lat/long is published for a given airport. This same avionics tech claims to work for a major carrier out of a major hub. If you click the link sourced at P4T, you'll read the argument. Of course the guy who claims to work or the major carrier refuses to put his name to his claims as does weedwhacker et al. so lets hope he doesn't work for that major carrier he claims, as being an avionics tech and not knowing gates have lat/longs published, is quite alarming.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Can everyone see, there? In case you didn't know, ONE minute of latitude is just about equal to ONE nautical mile....about 6,076 feet. The IRS coordinates are just "roughly" to rounded tenths of a minute. Every tenth of a minute, is about 600-610 feet.


Going by your own words then. I'd expect a maximum error of 300'....
Not the 3600' recorded...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


this seems like a well thought out, well argued response and I'm thinking maybe you actually believe there's that much inaccuracy and drift, so I'll take from your response that the numbers are in fact from the NTSB and from AA 77.

Given that, what do you say about the GPS showing "OPER" and an inflight alignment even though it wasn't available on N644AA.


N644AA (American Airlines Flight 77) was not equipped with a GPS. However, when one looks through the data, it shows a GPS as "OPERational"(12) and an airborne auto-alignment. How can a GPS be "OPER" if the data is reported to come from an aircraft which doesn't have a GPS? The data shows that the Lat/Long plots auto-aligned with Radar plots in flight after departure(9)

Auto-Alignment and GPS based on NTSB provided data.

This question goes for anyone, I wouldn't want to single out Weedwhacker on this.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The U.S. Government, via NTSB, says they have the flight data for AA 77

The NTSB hands over this data because of a FOIA request

The FOIA flight data has been proven accurate based on emails, available files, and FOIA number

The flight data shows an "airborne auto-alignment"

The airborne auto-alignment was not available on AA 77 (N644AA)

Therefore, the data was not from AA 77 (N644AA)

Therefore, the United States Government has committed fraud, quod erat demonstrandum



I don't actually use that QED thing but it was just too good to pass up



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


this seems like a well thought out, well argued response


Actually, it wasn't. And it all started when weedwhacker attempted technobable with "10-9/9A" to support his argument regarding Gate lat/long. Any real pilot who has flown Domestically would have never confused published lat/long Gate coordinates with a "10-9/9A" Plate for Washington Dulles Gate coordinates.

First, 10-9 is the Airport diagram for Reagan National (DCA), 10-9A is the back of that chart showing runway information and Take-off mins. Every real Domestic USA pilot knows this based on the Jepp Chart code alone.

I'm sure Weedwhacker will do his best to try and spin his errors, but any real pilot knows that IAD is the second airport in the line-up for Jepp charts in the DC Area, and has been that way for decades. Therefore without even looking up the charts, real pilots will know weedwhacker is full of crap when he requests Gate lat/long coordinates on a "10-9/9A" Jepp plate published for IAD. It doesn't exist and never has.

This is getting highly technical (and I will be glad to spell it out if people ask), but it is part of the reason weedwhacker will never confront a real pilot and remains here to only dupe those who have no aircraft training whatsoever, while real verified pilots from P4T, actually place their name to their claims, and the list grows.

weedwhacker is the "aviation king" at ATS. I will never dispute that as most of his opposition is banned (and I probably will be as well, eventually). But he will never be the Aviation King in a real court of law or a face to face debate, or even "Hangar Flying", with a real pilot.

He will run and hide when the time comes to face the music. Mark my words.
edit on 5-3-2011 by rjh01a because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Playing the devil's advocate here, can someone supply some forensic data that places flight 77 at the Pentagon?

Shouldn't we prove the existence of an aircraft before arguing about the details of the flight of the aircraft?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Playing the devil's advocate here, can someone supply some forensic data that places flight 77 at the Pentagon?

Shouldn't we prove the existence of an aircraft before arguing about the details of the flight of the aircraft?





Such evidence does not exist, and as a matter of fact, an overwhelming amount of evidence has been uncovered which disputes such a theory.

Read the article linked in the OP. I also highly recommend reading through the sources/footnotes of that article.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rjh01a
 


I totally agree, and would like to point out that well thought out and well argued do not imply accuracy (especially the whole bait n switch no paper exists thing!).

(just giving the man a way out of the hole so we could question him on other stuff
)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by rjh01a
 


First.....do you have the ACTUAL Jeppesen 10-9/9A....




Since I been feeling a bit 'frisky' tonight, and we are all having a huge laugh at his expense... I decided to provide the "Jeppesen 10-9/9A" weedwhacker has asked for...



weedy, is that what you wanted in order to determine proper alignment for an IRS at IAD?




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rjh01a
 


Figures Washington airport would have runways configured in a masonic shape..


BTW, that's not the info weedy wanted..
Did weedy make a mistake and ask for the wrong data sheet.??



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by rjh01a
 


Figures Washington airport would have runways configured in a masonic shape..


BTW, that's not the info weedy wanted..
Did weedy make a mistake and ask for the wrong data sheet.??


weedy asked for a "10-9/9A" chart for Gate Coordinates so he can cross-check the IAD data. I initially corrected him that it's actually "20-9C" which contain the Lat/Long Coordinates for IAD Gates. (and most real pilots know this).

The number codes for the Jepp charts have a specific layout. It is relatively easy to understand once you understand the codes. It's even more simple if one is a real pilot using the Jepp plates daily.

Just google 'Jeppesen Legend' if you wish to learn how weedy is full of BS and technobabble, and the reason he will never confront a real pilot.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Here, this might help....

Especially weedy...

www.jeppesen.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rjh01a

Originally posted by Yankee451

Playing the devil's advocate here, can someone supply some forensic data that places flight 77 at the Pentagon?

Shouldn't we prove the existence of an aircraft before arguing about the details of the flight of the aircraft?





Such evidence does not exist, and as a matter of fact, an overwhelming amount of evidence has been uncovered which disputes such a theory.

Read the article linked in the OP. I also highly recommend reading through the sources/footnotes of that article.


Ah, thanks...I skim too much.

But back to my original question, this time directed at Weed and the lads...guys, please provide some forensic evidence of flight 77 at the Pentagon. Weedwhacker, remember me learning all that contrail stuff? That is called forensic evidence. If you can't provide the same for the existence of flight 77, what are you arguing about?

Man up and admit your mistake.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



The primary structure of the Pentagon is 42,420 steel-reinforced concrete columns. Of these, only 32 were destroyed and 15 seriously damaged. As recovery efforts continue, the structure is being shored up with pressure-treated wood posts to protect against further collapses.


As part of exterior wall there are steel reinforced columns supporting the structure. Between each column is a brick infill wall. On the outside limestone casing stone was installed .

The kevlar anti fragmentation liner was placed between each column to prevebt wall from shattering during bomb blast



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rjh01a
Just google 'Jeppesen Legend' if you wish to learn how weedy is full of BS and technobabble, and the reason he will never confront a real pilot.


Again, the only real pilots in this thread pilotsfor911truth.org...

Debunkers wrong again



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The Lat/Longs of all the runways are in the database, just for that quick "update"....




"There is a big difference between updating a position.. ok..., which is not a problem at all, and Re-Aligning an IRS in flight which is not possible :=."




"If the Present Position is incorrect when the INS is initialized, it will NOT "re-align" itself! It should be shut down and re-initialized with the correct Present Position."



"No IRS realign in flight, ... alignement realign requires the platform to be stable. no acceleration, no movement, sometimes the movement created by loading container is enough to screw up the align process, on a modern Airliner."



"When you start in the morning, you tell it where it is. Either by telling it the gate position or by giving it the GPS position."


Source - www.pprune.org...



BUT, it doesn't immediately "re-set" the displayed/recorded POS info!!! The computer "keeps" that in its memory, and uses it to gradually refine the POS data....along with the normal "radio updating" that goes on, transparent to the crew, whenever the EHSI switches are NOT in VOR or ILS selections:



I hope this clears up a thing or two......


Actually, it may "clear up a thing or two" for those you attempt to fool here on ATS daily, but it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about to any real pilot reading your BS.




Tell us weedy, where are the selectors from the 757/767 Operations Manual Pre-Flight Checklist which is linked above, located on your jpeg? Let me guess, the 757/767 FOM Checks are also "fabricated" by P4T? Just as you claimed the data provided by the NTSB was also a complete fabrication from P4T?



weedy, did you ever depart with your IR showing a more than 3000 foot error?

What a joke...
edit on 6-3-2011 by rjh01a because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rjh01a

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


this seems like a well thought out, well argued response


Actually, it wasn't. And it all started when weedwhacker attempted technobable with "10-9/9A" to support his argument regarding Gate lat/long. Any real pilot who has flown Domestically would have never confused published lat/long Gate coordinates with a "10-9/9A" Plate for Washington Dulles Gate coordinates.

First, 10-9 is the Airport diagram for Reagan National (DCA), 10-9A is the back of that chart showing runway information and Take-off mins. Every real Domestic USA pilot knows this based on the Jepp Chart code alone.

I'm sure Weedwhacker will do his best to try and spin his errors, but any real pilot knows that IAD is the second airport in the line-up for Jepp charts in the DC Area, and has been that way for decades. Therefore without even looking up the charts, real pilots will know weedwhacker is full of crap when he requests Gate lat/long coordinates on a "10-9/9A" Jepp plate published for IAD. It doesn't exist and never has.

This is getting highly technical (and I will be glad to spell it out if people ask), but it is part of the reason weedwhacker will never confront a real pilot and remains here to only dupe those who have no aircraft training whatsoever, while real verified pilots from P4T, actually place their name to their claims, and the list grows.

weedwhacker is the "aviation king" at ATS. I will never dispute that as most of his opposition is banned (and I probably will be as well, eventually). But he will never be the Aviation King in a real court of law or a face to face debate, or even "Hangar Flying", with a real pilot.

He will run and hide when the time comes to face the music. Mark my words.
edit on 5-3-2011 by rjh01a because: (no reason given)






This is getting highly technical (and I will be glad to spell it out if people ask), but it is part of the reason weedwhacker will never confront a real pilot and remains here to only dupe those who have no aircraft training whatsoever, while real verified pilots from P4T, actually place their name to their claims, and the list grows.


Sounds to me like tactic number two of DISINFORMATION




Type 2: Introduce irrelevant & dead-end confusion Whenever possible, the disinformant will introduce new facts or clues designed to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution to establishing the whole truth. These may bring in new doubts, purposely fuel confusion, or send followers after red-herrings on a path of endless information which leads nowhere important. All the time spent investigating the dead-end, is time NOT spent investigating the critical topics.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rjh01a

Tell us weedy,

weedy,

What a joke.


Indeed it is a joke that the obsessive mentally disturbed Boob Balsamo created yet another sock.




top topics



 
83
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join