NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Yellow line is the starboard engine track ?

You did notice that it does go right through that tree.


Oh my, isn't that the VSP/VDOT antenna that the Paik brothers said had a bent antenna? Looks like one of the wings go right over the top of it. You don't reckon .... ? Nah, we all know that didn't happen. But seeing as how that is what both Paik brothers thought did happen, then Edward must have thought he saw the plane pass right over it or else why would he believe it hit the antenna?

Isn't it cool how things just fit together when you don't try to force them into something else?

I just recalled, that path matches pretty much with this one that the Fairfax County Police helicopter flew the next day (might have been that afternoon, I forget and don't feel like reading his statement again) based on the Reagan National ASR track and eyewitness accounts.


Image taken by FCPD pilot as he retraced the flight path and given by him to the Army Center for Military History.

How about that!
edit on 19-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by waypastvne
Yellow line is the starboard engine track ?

You did notice that it does go right through that tree.


Oh my, isn't that the VSP/VDOT antenna that the Paik brothers said had a bent antenna? Looks like one of the wings go right over the top of it. You don't reckon .... ? Nah, we all know that didn't happen. But seeing as how that is what both Paik brothers thought did happen, then Edward must have thought he saw the plane pass right over it or else why would he believe it hit the antenna?

Isn't it cool how things just fit together when you don't try to force them into something else?

I just recalled, that path matches pretty much with this one that the Fairfax County Police helicopter flew the next day (might have been that afternoon, I forget and don't feel like reading his statement again) based on the Reagan National ASR track and eyewitness accounts.


Image taken by FCPD pilot as he retraced the flight path and given by him to the Army Center for Military History.

How about that!
edit on 19-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)


Hmmmm! That's suspicious. The Army Center for Military History did an interview of all of those NOC witnesses, yet they arrived at the same conclusion as was eventually determined by investigators and as shown by the FDR..... The Army Center for Military History is obviously involved in on it and are covering up of the "truth". Inside job!!!1111!!!!



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



I hope this thread at least is of good use for anyone trying to explain to other hardheads like me, that Flight AA 77 its fuselage, when flying along a FDR deduced 61.2° attack angle flight path, did clear the huge traffic board, and the corner of the fence around the generator trailer.

You do realize, of course, that planes do not fly in perfectly straight lines with the wings and tails always perfectly aligned and/or perpendicular to the flight path, right?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com...

This is a Army History man of the 305th Military History Detachment, interviewing two helicopter pilots (# 748) and [# 749, civilian pilot] from Fairfax County Police Helicopter Unit, on 29 April 2002.
Note thus that you see "..names.." from three men in this interview.


Page 19 : "..name.. Our return time back here was -- and we flew pretty much direct back -- was 1401."
-snip-
Page 20 : "..name.. And it was just pretty much a wait game for the rest of the day.
We did end up taking some FAA officials up to survey the scene. We tried to like simulate the flight path of the striking aircraft."
"..name.. And how did you do that? How did you know the path? "
"..name.. One of the gentlemen we flew had spoken with someone on the ground and he had said that they had flown over this building, there was a little office building there, and they had come from the west. So we went out to the west --."
"..name... Where did you pick up the route outbound? "
"..name.. Pardon me? "
"..name.. Where did you pick up their incoming flight at? "
"..name.. Just west of this office building he had told us about."
Page 21 : "..name.. And that was -- where was that office building? "
"..name.. I guess you'd call it a little southwest of the Pentagon. Not far. ..name.. Yeah. Not even a mile".
"..name..Okay. So about a mile out is where you picked it up ? "
"..name.. Yeah. Yeah. So then we just sort of flew over that building, and there were light poles that had been knocked down. So from that office building, going right toward the Pentagon, we were sort of simulating where they would come in."
"..name.. Did you fly over the Navy -- you know what the Navy Annex is, next to the Pentagon, do you know what that is?N "
"..name.. No, not really. Not too familiar with (inaudible). [talk over] "
"..name.. (Inaudible) probably would have (inaudible) right by the gas station."
"..name.. Yeah, next to the gas station, the Navy has a large office building up on the hill."
Page 22. "..name.. That's what it was."
"..name.. Did you fly over that? "
"..name..It was over the Annex, yeah. That's where I was -- it was right by the gas station."

(LT: I have a photo of him standing beside his helicopter that stood parked on the grassy slope about 100 meters southeast behind the eastern side of the CITGO gas station, and his helicopter stood to the right of the gas station southern canopy-corner, when looked at it from its eastern, Pentagon side, and that grass it stood on sloped down to the last part of the Pike, that part of it just before it goes under the Route 27 overpass to the South Parking Lot) .)

"..name.. Mm-hmm. "
"..name.. As you look at it from where we were to the right,


(LT: above text. "it" is the CITGO gas station, since he just said to the interviewer : "where I was" ! "it was right by the gas station"., Them two ("we") were there, the pilot and his flight officer, who was also a licensed pilot, but a civilian. And they "were to the right" of the CITGO, when looked from it towards them, at about 100 meters away eastwards, and also a 100 meters to the right.)

(LT: below text. They were 100 meters to the right of, and in the same time 100 meters behind the gas station. He stood in that photo at the ANC side of his helicopter, so, if he turned his back to the Pentagon, to look at "it" (CITGO) he would look diagonally towards the CITGO gas station's east, Pentagon, side.
And thus the Annex was from his position behind the CITGO gas station, OFF TO THE RIGHT, while standing with his back to the Pentagon and trying to get a good look at the Annex, standing beside his parked helicopter, (on its northern side).)


the Pentagon would be to your back, so it would be off to the right. So yeah, IT WAS OVER THAT BUILDING.

(LT : With "it" and "that building" he now meant the Annex. And not the small office building the used as reference point for the recall of the flight path of AA 77, based on the info of one of those FAA men.)

Then when they were satisfied, we landed, and then we went up a little bit later, taking video footage and downlinking it to the command center."
"..name.. That was -- what did they call that system? "
"..name.. The go box? "
"..name.. Yes."


911files, John Farmer. First thanks very much for this to me unknown link.

You must realize by now, that these two pilots are most definite NoC witnesses..!

They are professional pilots with years of experience as you can read, and can not be accused of mixing things up, or being fooled by perspective errors.
They both place the attack plane over the Annex building based on a reference point, the little office building, less than a mile away from the Pentagon and southwest of it, and the impact point. I get also the impression of their own flight description, that they flew straight from begin of flight-over that little office building indicated by one of the FAA men, to above the impact point.

I suggest you file a new FOIA request for the video shot in the afternoon (later than 14:05PM) of 9/11/2001 by these FAA people from inside that Fairfax County Police helicopter.

A second FOIA request should go out to the Helicopter Unit of the Fairfax County Police, regarding all the photo's shot by them on 9/11/2001 and in the days after, and for the series of photo's handed over to them by the person the two pilots mentioned in the interview who has shown very much interest in all airborne and parked airplanes and helicopters, and who handed them copies of all his material from the day and days after 9/11/2001.

And it should be fairly easy to find at least the first pilot interviewed. He gave such a wealth of information of his carreer and other details, that you could locate him and ask him if he wants to answer a few very detailed questions, together with his colleague from the same 2002 interview by the 305th MHD.

Thank you again, very much for this very detailed NoC report.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


John, you can see his colleagues helicopter nr 2 already parked in that grass southeast of the CITGO gas station.
In your own linked to picture :

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Now imagine you yourself standing on the left side of that helicopter, turning your back now, to the Pentagon, then the CITGO and the Annex, both are to your right !

And that is how those two pilots described their position, and then stated in April 2002, that AA 77 or whatever attack plane else, did come over the Navy Annex !
Just use your ruler, and see for yourself in your own posted picture, that EVERY flight position of the attack plane over the Annex roofs, crosses over the CITGO gas station whitish canopy, and impacts the west wall at column nr 14.........

And if AA 77 was with its FDR box fit in its tail section, flying over the roofs of the Navy Annex, it immediately nullifies the whole official 9/11 Pentagon story........



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Where's the rest of the plane? Looks like it's missing quite a few parts.


Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by LaBTop


And the three trees would have blocked part of his sight on the impact.



Did you know that the earth is not flat and over passes go over things. If he was on the over pass maybe he could see over the trees.

One of your trees can be seen way down there on the right.



What the plane actually did clip was the dot pole seen in the lower left of that picture with its starboard wing tip.



It also took off the top of a tree to make it easier to see over ( this is a joke, I know the tree is on the other side of the road)

Penny has a piece of the starboard wing tip.



All of the physical evidence fits together.



edit on 19-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
To repeat my stand point now for you, the readers, I still believe strongly in the NoC witnesses, but I am now quite sure that the FDR data as found in the FOIA requested material, is showing an attack path that does cover the proposed official flight path, with the plane's right wing tip passing just on the left top corner side of the huge traffic sign board situated 50 meters in front of the Pike overpass bridge in Route 27.
And the same right wing tip going just with its first few meters over the generator trailer.

However, seeing the now 25 NoC witness statements, videos, audio recordings and emails and online forum activities in the last 11 years ( especially these two new NoC witnesses, the Fairfax County Police Helicopter Unit's two pilots flying on 9/11/2001 in their Fairfax County helicopter nr 1), my conclusion still is that the FDR must have been tampered with.

The data in the FDR however, do fit a "possible" flight path. While I first was convinced that it was an impossible path, impacting the camera mast, part of the huge traffic sign board and the generator trailer's left side panels, now I am reasonable convinced that the last data-frames that were probably planted in that "recovered" FDR, are not so stupidly constructed that I could easily "prove" that its deducted flight path would make it an impossible one.
On the contrary, they did a clever job, its path fits the obstacles in its path.

And thus the generator roof gouge could have been made by one of the flap guard rails housings under the right wing, or even the right wing tip as Frank Probst said he saw it do.
Which is quite a strong counter-evidence for the FDR indeed being true.
It is quite illogical that black ops planners would make a gouge in the generator roof IN ADVANCE, to cover up for a falsified last few seconds of a recovered FDR of Flight AA 77 that they falsified FAR AFTER IMPACT.

So, I am still stuck with a few very difficult discrepancies in the official 9/11 story.
Let's see if we can find a solution that fits all the facts.

If these two pilots do confirm in much broader form, while offering better, more explicit and exact descriptions of the AA 77 flight path as re-constructed together with these FAA men in the afternoon of 9/11 with their helicopter, then I am leaning to a conclusion that these FAA men were covering their beloved institution up, for eventual repercussions after 9/11.
They probably already were warned by some of their controllers, that something was fishy.

They were collecting evidence that 9/11 was a black operation, to use as a political pressure instrument if the blame would be thrown in their FAA camp.
And they really tried to blame the FAA, but all efforts died down, with no real reason given.

They based their collection of a black-operation on evidence of an appearance of Flight AA 77 above the Navy Annex, which immediately shows that those 5 cut down light poles was a staged event.
A B757-223 can not return to the exact official angle of impact, while still cutting with its wings through those 5 light poles, after having flown over the roofs of the Navy Annex.

After having read myriads of B757 manual and technical information pages, and studying online flight courses and mechanical courses for the on 9/11 used passenger planes, and studying university courses on flight mechanics characteristics, that is one thing that is fully clear to me :


When AA 77 was above the Annex roofs, the whole Official Story is a farce.
And the last seconds at least, from that FDR , are thus false.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Reheat, I once, a few month ago, said that I found a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth post that explained that there were far more military planes in the sky around the Pentagon on 9/11 than told to us officially.

And since John Farmer (911files) a few posts back said that there are no mystery planes anymore, except perhaps one, I have dived in my once written and then lost in my post mess pool, not yet posted posts, and I found it by pure luck back, when I was rearranging my directories. Here is it :


This is a remarkable highlight from a tumetuestumefaisdubien post in his thread "Andrews Fighters? Tracked In 84rades" here :
pilotsfor911truth.org...


All the 84rades 9/11 radar data files I've downloaded via soon then defunct John Farmer's 84 Rades forum site.
-- snip --
Please note that I, nor Pilots for 911 Truth assert the 84Rades data are authentic and/or unmodified. On the other hand I don't assert they're fabricated - I can hardly imagine somebody would completely fabricate many hours of airtraffic record at the east and southwest coast of the USA comprising of literally millions of radar message records and many thousands of planes. It would somehow defy my imagination and I certainly would not see a sense of something like that taking place, because something like that would be easily debunkable if one would find out it doesn't correspond to the actual airtraffic on 9/11 traceable from records of other agencies, by witness accounts etc.
Nevertheless I can confirm the data contain false targets, illogically scattered throughout the airspace until like 10:00 EDT, not forming any logical tracks, reportedly injected there for exercise purposes; multiple sets from the data files contain corrupted data, for example duplicite records; the 84Rades product from the data (the derived "UA93" flightpath) omits some key blips - where the radar shows two separate flying objects in the air just before the "UA93" allegedly crashed - which suggests that at least the products from the data were wittingly manipulated to conceal something.
But the data clearly contain a record of a really vast military airtraffic. So far I've found and catalogized hundreds of planes which either openly transpond military M2 codes or they do not transpond M2 codes, but take off or land at various military airbases. What is for example very startling is that there are numerous military planes circling in the area of Chesapeake Bay just minutes of flight from Washington D.C.. For an idea so looks the military traffic there 9:00-9:30 EDT I've found so far:



(lightgreen transponding M2, dark-green not transponding M2 but bound to an military airbase, the red marker is Pentagon and the red trace is "AA77") It certainly looks like the Pentagon guys not just lied to 911Omission but by far didn't tell us everything concerning 9/11...


Anyone can shine his professional or studied light on this?
Is that radar specialist still onboard? Forgot his name, otherwise I would sent him a board-PM.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   



I based all my former years investigations on this GE map posted by someone else, unknown to me. So I could not check with the "Heading" function in the "Ruler" window, if he drew that attack line "TRACK 60.25° TRUE NORTH" perfectly exact. It does look so, as if he did a good job, however. My graduated arc says it is really a 60.25° track line true north.

The angle from the not shown in the above map, thus virtual "normal"line, drawn to the west wall line under an angle of 90°; towards that 60.25° TRUE NORTH line is about a 38° angle to the "normal" drawn on the west wall, which is a 56° angle to true north .
Which should be 42° to the "normal" on the west wall, according to the conclusion of the ASCE report's researchers who concluded that from the internal damage path.
Which 42° still does not add up with the 60.25° angle of attack deducted by him, from that AA 77's recovered FDR (Flight Data Recorder).
Since 42.0° is not 38.0° on the west wall direction.
And 60.25° is not 56.25° on true north direction.
There's still a considerable 4° error margin which I can not explain away by saying that the plane was pushed 4° around his longitudinal axis, caused by the sharp angle of impact.
I do not believe, when I have to accept such a crazy high end speed as found in that FDR (825 km/hr), that this so extremely (at sea level in dense air) fast moving plane could have been pushed aside over a 4° angle.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Where's the rest of the plane? Looks like it's missing quite a few parts.



We have more than enough parts to identify it as an American Airlines 757.

What have you got ?
edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   


If you observe this ASCE report picture, one thing is clear, that physically present, photographed gouge in the generator trailer roof can in this case only have been made by the bottom of the right jet engine's nacelle, which is however a very smooth surface, to reduce drag.
And the vertical angle of attack must have been more than 8°, to be able to just clear that generator trailer roof, but still impact at the second floor slab at column 14 in the west wall.

How can that smooth jet engine nacelle-surface make such a deep, sharp gouge?
In my opinion, only a sharp bottom as from a flap guard rail, could cause such a gouge.

Another question still nagging me. Where is the first floor (bottom floor) row of windows starting?
Between which columns? Here they show impact straight on column 14.

Since I think this drawing's facade from shortly after 9/11, and the GE-3D drawing's facade I used in my above post to show that AA 77 FDR shows the fuselage cleared well away from the fence corner, is quite different from the facade from this ASCE report pictured facade. This one is a straight line from where the protruding part start, all the way to the end of that long part.

While the GE-3D version shows another, next protruding part, and also a part with no windows between the corridor entrances and the second protruding portion of the facade. And that second part, is not shown in this ASCE drawing !

This is also the only drawing from the ASCE report where they show you the 42° angle to the normal on the west wall.
Why on earth they chose such a difficult measurement, I do not understand. What could be the reason behind that?
Normally you choose the angle to be measured against the longest visible line.
Here they however chose to do it the other way round, to make things more complicated, an angle to an invisible, virtual line, the normal which stands perpendicular on the west wall, which is the longest straight line in the picture.

Note also that when you draw a line along the center of the pictured plane, that line ends a few meters to the right of that so called exit hole..! Check it with a long ruler !

And when I check that drawn-in 42° angle, it is in fact a 44° angle.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

Anyone can shine his professional or studied light on this?
Is that radar specialist still onboard? Forgot his name, otherwise I would sent him a board-PM.


Why certainly, it would be my pleasure. His name (when it comes to 911 radar data) is 911files. He posts at JREF under the moniker BCR. Now I say he is an "expert", not because he is that wonderful of an engineer, but because he works with a team of some of the finest radar guys in the world on a whole host of radar issues. So why don't you check out this post he did and then we'll talk PIT radar until the cows come home.

UAL93 Encounter With PIT

Oh, and read all the way to the end of the thread. It will save you a lot of questions.
edit on 20-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
John, thanks very much, now I can read up on that subject without getting interrupted by many baseless posts.

To remind us to the assumed NoC witness positions on one map :


What is your opinion on the eventual cause of these last AA 77's FDR decoded 4 seconds, by Warren Stutt?
One opinion I have is that in case that plane really accelerated up to 825 KM/hr in that dense air at nearly ground level, already 36 seconds before impact, when the throttles were set on full power as shown in the FDR, severe fluttering could have played a role.
That could cause break-offs of thinner wing and/or tail parts. I think that has a very low chance of having occurred in reality.

And did anybody ever check in that huge mess, that a raw FDR's immense row of data frames is, what probes started to fail and when?
And if that could be connected to a row of slow fails of many probes that were in flutter dangered regions?
I realize that many important probes stick out of the fuselage and wings surfaces, thus can break off earlier than interior probes.

Otherwise I still have doubts about those extra 4 seconds, whether they are real or artificially inserted.
I repeat, I am convinced that Warren really did find these 4 seconds worth of data.
But how do we know if they were inserted after impact, or really belonged to the whole FDR until impact?

I enjoy communicating with people who show their expertise.
You have all been a great help in this thread.
And please get used to it, my modus operandi in forums like this is "thinking out loud", that way you get the most and best contra expertise, and things go much faster then when you stubbornly lay your thesis out, and cling to it forever. A result is that you see me sometimes making erratic conclusions, which turn out to be wrong.
I have no problem to admit it, when proven to me by facts that I was wrong.
All my work is only for the benefit of women- and men-kind.

I await their answers on my last row of posts.
Reheat, John Farmer, waypastvne, any others I did not include but added logic and expertise to this thread.
Thank you all for leading me to the inevitable conclusion.

I still believe in most NoC witnesses, but I am always open for very good opposition.
See you in about 5 hours.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Otherwise I still have doubts about those extra 4 seconds, whether they are real or artificially inserted.
I repeat, I am convinced that Warren really did find these 4 seconds worth of data.
But how do we know if they were inserted after impact, or really belonged to the whole FDR until impact?


You forget, I am the one who discovered the 4 seconds missing (more specifically 6 +/- 2 seconds). It is called the scientific method. I analyzed the data from the FDR and RADES. Created a hypothesis based on the data. Tested it against the DME data. Then made a prediction based on the hypothesis. I went on Coast-to-Coast AM in 2007 to announce the hypothesis and prediction.

I worked with Warren for over a year trying to figure out how to decompress the raw fdr file. We kept working because we had a solid data-based hypothesis. Finally, Warren (the programming genius that he is) "cracked" the Hoffman compression algorithm. Low and behold, there was the data (one frame) that was predicted to exist. That is how science works. Nothing unusual about the missing frame.

The reason the frame was "missing" (it was there all along) was that the parity codes required for the decompression algorithm's to work properly (there were two of them as I recall) were "zero'd out", or set to NULL (a better term). The software (ROSE) used by the NTSB will not process a frame without those parity codes and will instead return "ERROR" (as you see in the CSV files released by the NTSB). Why they were like that is anyone's guess. Could have been a technical glitch or intentional tampering. No way to determine which. But a conspiracy minded person might suggest that the government did it intentionally just to seed some of the crazy stuff we are seeing with the NoC nonsense.

At any rate, there is nothing suspicious about recovering the missing frame of data. It had to be there. The radar data said it had to be there. And sure enough, there it was.

edit on 20-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTopI still believe in most NoC witnesses, but I am always open for very good opposition.


There is nothing not to believe. It is not their accounts that are at issue. It is the abuse of their statements that is the problem. As every cop is aware, eyewitnesses give you their RECALL and PERCEPTION of events, not what actually transpired. If a cop ever gets two witnesses telling him exactly the same thing, he knows they are giving him a prepared statement (lying).

I know early on that CIT claimed vigorously that the Citgo video had been faked because it devastated Turcios's account. However, in their "star witness" cross-examination, they challenged him with his location and he confirmed that the video had it right and his recall was wrong. All three of the Citgo witnesses were at different locations than what they recalled as confirmed by the Citgo videos. I will not rehash that now because it is moot. One of them said it was an American (Lagasse), another a United (Brooks) and another something different (Turcios). That is normal. Their brains registered a very fast and traumatic event in a way that best fit with their life experience. Some described the plane as very fast (a few seconds to impact), while others described it as very slow (ten or more seconds to impact). All of that is normal. People also used personal experience to express locations and other characteristics, such as it was "right over" the road, or "right over" I-395, or "right over" the Navy Annex, or "right over" some tree; with as much variance as there are individuals.

That does not mean any of them were lying. Just means different people perceive and recall the same event differently. The details they miss, their brain fills in with details familiar to it so that it can make sense of what happened. However, it is a statistical "fact" that if you limit your witness set to one side of an events location (north side of the flight path for example), the described path will shift in that same direction. If you excluded the NoC eyewitnesses and only included the people on the other side of I-395, we would be arguing No395 or So395.

So there is nothing to "believe" or "disbelieve" about the NoC eyewitnesses. They recall what they saw in a very fragmented way, and what they saw is what their brains perceived that they saw, not what actually happened.

Which by the way, that last paragraph is EXACTLY what CIT claims happened at the Pentagon. They claim the eyewitnesses were the victims of an "illusion" when they ALL claim the plane hit the Pentagon. And yet, people still "believe" the NoC nonsense when the very premise of the hypothesis makes it invalid.
edit on 20-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Digging through your jumbled mess of walls of text is almost more than I can stomach this morning. However, I do have some questions that I can't resolve.

Why do you classify two helicopter pilots who attempted to replicate the flight path after the event as "witnesses"? Witnesses to what?

How does a SMALL Office building suddenly turn into a LARGE Office Building such as the Navy Annex? Your interpretation of what was being referred to as a small office building seems predicated on your interpretation of a couple of pronouns.

How do you know a helicopter you think you've found in a photo (I don't see it) is the same as the one flown by the two pilots being interviewed?

Your Title and OP indicates this is a thread to establish facts. We're up to 8 pages now and I don't see any facts you've established yet. All I see from you is a continuation of a jumbled up mess constituting walls of text full of errors same as all of your previous stuff. How long do we have to wait to see some facts from you?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Very well stated, John... I'm afraid your excellent analysis of witnesses and their stories will fall on deaf conspiracy minded ears just as all other attempts to explain witness perception has in the past.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by 911files
 


Very well stated, John... I'm afraid your excellent analysis of witnesses and their stories will fall on deaf conspiracy minded ears just as all other attempts to explain witness perception has in the past.


Well, you did very well yourself. I did not even try to keep up with some of his posts. Not sure how the FCPD pilots helped convince him the FDR path was wrong. They took a picture out of the front of the helicopter as they flew their reconstruction path. Unless I'm missing something, the picture has the helicopter aligned with the FDR path. Now the two "pilots" are witnesses to the event? More than I can keep up with. Sorry.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Who is "we"? Quite odd that you come to a web site that is dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and you spend your time solely on 911, using all effort in attempting to debunk alternate theories and attacking people in the process. This comes off as your personal crusade. But I guess if that's what you get paid for while sitting in your parent's basement ...........


Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22
Where's the rest of the plane? Looks like it's missing quite a few parts.



We have more than enough parts to identify it as an American Airlines 757.

What have you got ?
edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Who is "we"? Quite odd that you come to a web site that is dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and you spend your time solely on 911, using all effort in attempting to debunk alternate theories and attacking people in the process. This comes off as your personal crusade. But I guess if that's what you get paid for while sitting in your parent's basement ...........


Maybe he is simply living up to the website's motto ... deny ignorance?





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join