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: 13
83
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I'm a novice at reading this stuff (which sorta drives me crazy because I have to trust people on the internet for answers
) so I'd love it if someone could point out specific details of why I should or shouldn't trust P4T's read on this specific NTSB data set. Is there really nothing out of the ordinary with this data?

To me, even the 8,000 foot 35 f/s dive to sea level seems out of line with what we've been told, but I'd really like to see meanings of the NTSB flight data and if anyone thinks this was NOT a Boeing 757.


pffft has a history of promoting misleading and fraudulent "FACTS". Not all of them can be addressed in this thread. B00b Balsamo does not permit the truth to be posted on his site. Anyone who disagrees with him is immediately muzzled and banished. Note, I did not say banned because he hides the banishment, so he can brag that he doesn't ban folks. The banished do not post, so it appears that they simply left in defeat. They don't post because they can't or they get disgusted and don't go back again.

These aeronautical subjects are quite complicated even for the occasional flyer. They are not at all easy to understand for a novice. He capitalizes on that in the promotion of his crap.

To answer your question directly, the only people that believe a B757 namely AA 77 DID NOT impact the Pentagon are a handful of very few deluded souls mostly from pffft amd CIT cult and a few of their supporters.

There are actually a few things out of the ordinary with the data, but it's nothing more than the same type of thing coming out of most aircraft accidents. The difference is a band of frauds who make every attempt to mislead and deceive the un-knowledgeable.
edit on 6-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



To answer your question directly, the only people that believe a B757 namely AA 77 DID NOT impact the Pentagon are a handful of very few deluded souls mostly from pffft amd CIT cult and a few of their supporters.


Your kidding !!!!!
You only have to read through the threads on ATS to know it's certainly more than a handful that don't believe the OS fairytale...
You can't get away with outright lies like that here...



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
 


Here's their report..
www.journalof911studies.com...

Now, even they note that radar is NOT very accurate, especially at low altitudes..
Yet, given the inaccuracy most seem to agree with, they still manage to make it seem like the official flight path IS accurate right down to the light poles being hit..

I just don't see how they can say that with any conviction.......
edit on 6-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


It's not so much that radar is inaccurate at low altitude, it's that because terrain and buildings get in the way of the transmissions. Radar is not precise in terms of "to the foot" accuracy, but it's pretty close or close enough. Given that both the FDR and Radar show AA 77 pretty darn close to the accepted ground track it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking to conclude the rest of the story, particularly in view of the several Books on the Firefighting and Rescue operations conducted both during and after the fire.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that pffft has spent several years "analyzing" the FDR Data in an attempt to find something nefarious. Now that Warren Stutt has decoded the final few seconds and he and Legg corroborated on writing that article you linked pffft is now trying to prove it fake. If you don't smell a rat from that you don't have a nose......



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Bye, you can go back to your "Big Talk" now.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


It's not so much that radar is inaccurate at low altitude, it's that because terrain and buildings get in the way of the transmissions. Radar is not precise in terms of "to the foot" accuracy, but it's pretty close or close enough. Given that both the FDR and Radar show AA 77 pretty darn close to the accepted ground track it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking to conclude the rest of the story, particularly in view of the several Books on the Firefighting and Rescue operations conducted both during and after the fire.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that pffft has spent several years "analyzing" the FDR Data in an attempt to find something nefarious. Now that Warren Stutt has decoded the final few seconds and he and Legg corroborated on writing that article you linked pffft is now trying to prove it fake. If you don't smell a rat from that you don't have a nose......


No, I don't find it odd what P4T have done..
I'd say they didn't speak up because they understand the inaccuracy of the data..
They are questioning now because people are trying to use the data to show things it's not physically possible to do..

OK, two simple questions....

1) How accurate is the radar with a plane at low altitude.? Please state in feet..
2) How accurate would you say the FDR data was in the final seconds, again in feet..?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by backinblack
 


Bye, you can go back to your "Big Talk" now.


lol...too many question with no answers.??
A farewell song...



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Weedwhacker is the most condescending person on ATS.

I love how he has sentences full of BS intended to baffle.For example he says things like " no, because the ESTB had at least three ITK's which , when used by the EEW's will always give that result...."
Of course I am not quoting directly, but those who have been on here for a while will catch my drift.

Anyway, I just wanted to publicly say a Big Thank you to tjh01a.

Havent been on here for a week or so, but boy am I glad i did.....I have been saying publicly that Weedy uses his "BS Baffles" technique on here for years.I have openly questioned his credentials repeatedly, yet he ducks and dives when this happens...which always seemed to add fuel to my belief that he is not what he says he is, even after he tells me stuff like " the Lat/Long tangents use TRN's in binary to overcome the altitude differentials which are flying beyond the GFD....."etc etc


Having read thru all 13 odd pages I have concluded, thanks to tjh01a, that weedy is indeed NOT who he says he is...

Surely any pilot worth his salt would be able to understand and argue intelligently with another pilot the data on the table.

Weedy has not done so, instead using his patented BS Claptrapometer instead of mature debate....something I would not expect from a pilot of 30 odd years standing(or however long he reckons it is..)

Weedy it seems your a fraud.

I am not surprised.

I also enjoyed it when someone pointed out that hooper uses different aliases when posting on the 9/11 forum!! Surprise, surprise hooper...hahahaha!!

You must both be livid and very embarrassed to have been caught out as frauds...

its very ironic that these two frauds spend soooo much time in here accusing all and sundry associated with the socalled Truth Movement as being frauds when the FACT is YOU TWO are CONFIRMED frauds and liars.

Today is a good day.

Two of the biggest advocates on here in support of the OS have been caught out as liars.


I always tell my kids not to tell lies as "...nobody likes or wants to be friends with a liar "

Thank you again good Sir.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
When I write my Congressional representatives I'd like to say _________ was in the NTSB government website flight data and proves the explosion at the Pentagon was NOT due to an American Airlines aircraft.

Someone please fill in the blank! There has to be ONE or a few lines from the NTSB flight data pdf that show this.

I would happily do this myself but the information is full of acronyms and technical pilot lingo,




edit on 6-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
When I write my Congressional representatives I'd like to say _________ was in the NTSB government website flight data and proves the explosion at the Pentagon was NOT due to an American Airlines aircraft.

Someone please fill in the blank! There has to be ONE or a few lines from the NTSB flight data pdf that show this.

I would happily do this myself but the information is full of acronyms and technical pilot lingo,


edit on 6-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)


Personally I don't think there is..
That goes either way..
No proof it hit the Pentagon. No proof it didn't...

IMO everyone is taking little bits ant trying to make it fit their scenario while ignoring all the other bits that don't fit..



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBthaBANK
 


The pilot for truth claims mean the NTSB, FBI, Military, ATC, FAA, and other people faked all the data. Because the RADAR data, FDR data, witnesses, aircraft parts, DNA from dead people who boarded flight 77 and were damaged by a 488 knot impact into the Pentagon, all combine to prove 77 impacted the Pentagon. Those who believe in the fake claims of pilots for truth need to go to the FBI, or the World Court; what is stopping you? Are pilots for truth making up nonsense to sell DVDs filled with moronic nonsense?
Why can't the pilots at pilots for truth hit targets at high speed in simulators? The terrorists on 911 did it on their first real flight in a Boeing jet?

The terrorist pilot on 77, the murderer, put in the VOR DCA, located one mile from the Pentagon. The terrorist had a count down by mile, and they VOR pointed the way; something a basic pilot learns right away. He used his eyes at the end. Flying is easy when the weather is clear and someone else does the takeoff. If you have not flown, go fly. Flying a prop plane is harder than flying a modern Boeing jet. How could a terrorist pilot miss the 900 foot wide Pentagon?

Have you told the family members who lost their loved ones on 77 about your pile of evidence? Taken any action to tell the truth to the people that matter?

Is BobtheBank Balsamo?

No one at pilots for truth have provided technical data and references where FDR, PRES POSN LAT (DEG), comes from? Pilots for Truth have not explained what the accuracy is after alignment. What do the gyros wake up at given a position; when aligned how does the IRUs decide where it is? How does it find it's location from a input position, and why is the location of the IRU after alignment not the position that it was given?

How does the FMC work? www.biggles-software.com...

It is a fact Flight 77's radar altimeter was reading 4 feet and the pressure altitude with corrected raw, reads -277 feet, meaning it hit the Pentagon. Why does pilot for truth not present data they have had for years which prove 77 impacted the Pentagon? Why are pilots for truth keeping data secret, stuff they decoded years ago? Because it refutes their claims, and ruins their DVD sales. Follow the money, use the same skepticism with pilots for truth you turn on your fellow American/World citizens who pilots for truth say faked the data, and killed their own people. Wait, pilots for truth "offer not theory"; Never-mind.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
When I write my Congressional representatives I'd like to say _________ was in the NTSB government website flight data and proves the explosion at the Pentagon was NOT due to an American Airlines aircraft.

Someone please fill in the blank! There has to be ONE or a few lines from the NTSB flight data pdf that show this.


Why do you think there HAS to be such data? As flight 77 hit the Pentagon, of course there is no such data.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
When I write my Congressional representatives I'd like to say _________ was in the NTSB government website flight data and proves the explosion at the Pentagon was NOT due to an American Airlines aircraft.

Someone please fill in the blank! There has to be ONE or a few lines from the NTSB flight data pdf that show this.


Why do you think there HAS to be such data? As flight 77 hit the Pentagon, of course there is no such data.


very fair question Dereks. I already believed long before this thread that no airplane hit the Pentagon. My statement is simply in context of this thread - P4T claimed it, and I just want the final "precise line" factual statement proving their story.

If, as P4T claims, the NTSB flight data is proven as NOT belonging to N644AA then we're talking real, provable, physical evidence of fraud - enough to get subpoena power and bring in a lot more support for finding truth and justice in this mess.



edit on 7-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: removed a line



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Changed mind on posting. Disregard.
edit on 7-3-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
 



To answer your question directly, the only people that believe a B757 namely AA 77 DID NOT impact the Pentagon are a handful of very few deluded souls mostly from pffft amd CIT cult and a few of their supporters.


Your kidding !!!!!
You only have to read through the threads on ATS to know it's certainly more than a handful that don't believe the OS fairytale...
You can't get away with outright lies like that here...


I don't mean to be rude, but do you think that ATS posters represent anything more than a tiny sliver of the population. A statistically skewed and irrelevant slice at that.

One of the dangers of too much internets is that one tends to seek out small subgroups that corroborate one's own prejudices, and then assume that they represent a majority view.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
 



To answer your question directly, the only people that believe a B757 namely AA 77 DID NOT impact the Pentagon are a handful of very few deluded souls mostly from pffft amd CIT cult and a few of their supporters.


Your kidding !!!!!
You only have to read through the threads on ATS to know it's certainly more than a handful that don't believe the OS fairytale...
You can't get away with outright lies like that here...


I don't mean to be rude, but do you think that ATS posters represent anything more than a tiny sliver of the population. A statistically skewed and irrelevant slice at that.

One of the dangers of too much internets is that one tends to seek out small subgroups that corroborate one's own prejudices, and then assume that they represent a majority view.


The vast 'majority' Of Germany 'believed' in Hitler and the Nazis---so whats your point?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



I don't mean to be rude, but do you think that ATS posters represent anything more than a tiny sliver of the population. A statistically skewed and irrelevant slice at that.

One of the dangers of too much internets is that one tends to seek out small subgroups that corroborate one's own prejudices, and then assume that they represent a majority view.


Well I do have a life away from the internet..
Polls and talk clearly show it's a damn sight more than a "handful" that don't buy the OS fairytale..
edit on 7-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I don't mean to be rude, but do you think that ATS posters represent anything more than a tiny sliver of the population. A statistically skewed and irrelevant slice at that.

One of the dangers of too much internets is that one tends to seek out small subgroups that corroborate one's own prejudices, and then assume that they represent a majority view.



Originally posted by backinblack
Well I do have a life away from the internet..


Yes, I suspect that's true. After all it takes quite a bit of time to determine ways to misquote posts and attempt to bait honest posters into making contradictory statements. It's quite obvious that you spend time conniving ways to TROLL. It's quite transparent no matter your moniker or avatar. I'm surprised that you can do that on a dialup connection from Australia.


Originally posted by backinblack
Polls and talk clearly show it's a damn sight more than a "handful" that don't buy the OS fairytale.


Reading comprehension problem? If one looks at truther polls and bases their opinion on the posts at this site or other conspiracy theory sites it's quite easy to reach the that conclusion. However, in the real world that counts among people that count it amounts to nothing more than a fart in a hurricane. That's OK as long as everyone realizes it is no way to "deny ignorance". In fact, it has the exact opposite effect, but doesn't amount to much more than "BIG TALK." But, by all means enjoy your perverted hobby. I suppose it helps to pass time, but doesn't really amount to much in the end.
edit on 7-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Are you actually going to say something or merely rant.??
I'll just stay on my 20MB/s dial up and see if you do..



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Well I do have a life away from the internet..
Polls and talk clearly show it's a damn sight more than a "handful" that don't buy the OS fairytale..
edit on 7-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


I've never seen a poll that suggests that. There are polls that ask whether the respondents believe there is anything at all remotely wrong with what the authorities have told us about 9/11, but they're usually designed to include people who think there may have been intelligence failures, and that the government has covered them up.

I, for example, would agree with this. But I think notions of explosives in the towers or a missile at the Pentagon are ridiculous. So the idea is to get as many people answering that they don't completely trust the government's narrative, and then use that to imply that all those people are entertaining ideas like those ones.

In actual fact, when asked if they think the twin towers were destroyed by explosives (for example) the number that responds yes is small. And when asked to actually do something, like vote on a proposition or turn up to a meeting, the numbers involved are absolutely minuscule.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've never seen a poll that suggests that. There are polls that ask whether the respondents believe there is anything at all remotely wrong with what the authorities have told us about 9/11, but they're usually designed to include people who think there may have been intelligence failures, and that the government has covered them up.


When the U.S. media is as BROKEN as it is, it's no wonder we can't get any poll results. However, if it happens to come up at a party, in a classroom, with neighbors I can tell you I only know a very small handful of people who think it happened as we saw on TV that day.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join