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.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
heres some of that pilot analysis you seem to be discrediting. its must more detail than you would like to pay attention to i suppose. somehow this is all fake right..even though the data is from flight recorders and official reports?
the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
this is all from the source i already showed you, you know..the one you skipped over just to trash talk about mr top gun pilot.
Originally posted by Reheat
I didn't skip over a damned thing. You were specifically talking about Kolstad's comments not Ballsuckers. This stuff is Ballsucker's garbage and I was very familiar with it. It is not new...
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Radar/Traffic Control: The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Flight Data Recorder: American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment. Also it is very odd that the FDR was missing a serial number used for aircraft identification in the event of an accident.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Wreckage: where are the engines? yes yes ive seen the image of a piece that looks as if one person can pick it up. not only where ARE the engines but why is there no damage to the pentagon caused by the hardest, heaviest part of the aircraft? the pentagon has one small hole where we are to believe the nose hit, where are the other holes from where the engines would have hit, im sure there wouldnt be 3 seperate holes, most likely one BIG hole, but you get the point.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
DNA: i didnt see bodies anywhere, but sure none of the news crews were right up in the action. this plane pretty much disintegrated i mean really nothing left other than a couple pieces you can pick up by hand, but somehow all the bodies were intact and identifiable, highly doubt it.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Light Poles: suprised you didnt notice this but..if you look at these light poles some are facing the wrong way to be knocked down by this plane headed into the pentagon.
Originally posted by Reheat
How do you know which way they were suppose to be laying? Please show physics equations or some other scientifically supportable rationale for this statement. Common Sense won't hack it...
Do you really think you're the only one who's ever looked at the position of those poles?
Next.....
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by comprehension
Do I understand this right, you helped peer-review a document that is used to prove the existence of planes by alleged truthers and trusters alike?
No, I helped peer review a paper that is used to prove AA 77 crashed at the Pentagon by sane, rational people without a debilitating obsession with titillating, sensationalist nonsense caused by an inability to process information properly.
I don't use childish dichotomies like "truthers and trusters", as if "truthers" aren't as gullible and credulous as any.
See example in previous post.
Originally posted by comprehension
Is that really what 9/11 truth research is all about?
Yes.
Originally posted by comprehension
I have yet to find this proof, so I must be one of those truthers in the majority. I feel like such a fool.
Unfortunately, yes.edit on 1-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by comprehension
I know many 9/11 researchers who would disagree, most of it is tedious and boring.
Originally posted by comprehension
Lets say the government DID do the deed (they did). Would they not have a "truth movement" ready to go? You agree with this, right? The truth movement was started as controlled opposition, yes?
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by comprehension
I know many 9/11 researchers who would disagree, most of it is tedious and boring.
You wouldn't know 9/11 research if it jumped up and bit you. You could start reading through my 9/11 research dossier today and you still wouldn't be finished five years from now. So let's dispense with the "tedious and boring" lecture until you actually properly dedicate yourself to 9/11 research, shall we?
The only people who can truly lay claim to being the 911 Truth Movement are the 9/11 victims families who pressed for accountability after 9/11. Fantasists glued to a keyboard promoting hoaxes don't really qualify.
A few posts ago, I posted a comment with testimonial and physical evidence of AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon. You seem more interested in quasi-self deprecating commentary actually intended to inflate your credentials and sharing your machinations about "controlled opposition".
Jon Gold's book about 9/11 is going to come out. When it does, I suggest you read it, so that you may learn from a proto-truther who actually sacrificed nearly ten years of his life supporting the 9/11 families and the 9/11 first responders. He has been continuously forced to battle crackpots who undermine the quest for 9/11 justice and accountability with bad information during that period.
Pentagon no planers are some of the worst liabilities and disruptors in the set.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Since this thread is about the Pentagon, my specialty, why don't you give it your very best shot and see what happens.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
In the mean time:
"The Facts Speak For Themselves"
Originally posted by comprehension
Originally posted by snowcrash911
In the mean time:
"The Facts Speak For Themselves"
Okay...so you seem to be in support of the government-approved stories.
Originally posted by comprehension
Nice video. Is that part of your dossier?
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by comprehension
Originally posted by snowcrash911
In the mean time:
"The Facts Speak For Themselves"
Okay...so you seem to be in support of the government-approved stories.
Try not to trip over your own straw army.
Originally posted by comprehension
Nice video. Is that part of your dossier?
If this is really all you've got, then your initial assessment of yourself was right on the money.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by huh2142
Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.
Just so you know, I get exceedingly annoyed to see "debunker" nitwits cite research such as the recovery and analysis of flight AA 77's final moments, previously unavailable due to a bug in ROSE software, knowing it was prepared by "truthers" and peer reviewed by people like me, and then act as if they don't have "truthers" to thank for the very Pentagon no planer debunking they're citing.
Case in point: the serial number was indeed discovered inside the FDR data, and if you knew anything about Pentagon research justifying your big mouth, any of you omniscient "debunker" warriors would have mentioned that pertinent information to the author of the OP.
None of you have the faintest idea what 9/11 truth (or research) is really about and the same goes for the majority of 9/11 "truthers".edit on 1-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by comprehension
I'm still awaiting your opening argument, or was the "you-tube" it? The question was genuine; is that from your dossier?
Originally posted by comprehension
You don't read much do you?
Originally posted by comprehension
You skipped a few pertinent questions, it must have been when you were gazing in the mirror, or when you were too busy virtually yapping. I'll give you some time to read my comments again, or for the first time.
Originally posted by huh2142
It has been a decade since 9/11 and answers to the questions are widely available. If more "Truthers" behave like you, Legge, Stutte, Jonathan Cole P.E. and did serious research then the discussions would resemble reasonable debate instead of dog piling on the latest "victim".
Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.
Originally posted by Morg234
Funny you choose to start your tirade when faced with the light pole question. Those knocked down don't add up with the plane's official trajectory.