Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 




Or do you now believe that those two DoD parking boot camera's did not record what the DoD wants us to believe ?
Or are those two video's genuine, and what we see in there is one or more Tomahawks or such, approaching the Pentagon its west wall ?

I guess you don't remember the slow scan security cameras of old.
We repaired them up until a couple years ago.




posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
No thats ok, I'll still believe the actual evidence of actual 757 debris inside the Pentagon, the countless people that actually saw the plane plummet into the Pentagon, and the flight data recorders, radar returns, oh, and the 757 aircraft debris inside! Oh and the dead passenger remains and dna.



LT : So, do you still believe that a 757 flew towards the Pentagon west wall ?
Or do you now believe that those two DoD parking boot camera's did not record what the DoD wants us to believe ?
Or are those two video's genuine, and what we see in there is one or more Tomahawks or such, approaching the Pentagon its west wall ? They reportedly flew with spiralling smoke exhausts trailing them. See the ship launches in the Persian Gulf at night from the two Gulf wars.


It should be no surprise to you. Since you read and reacted on nearly all my posts.

I also strongly believe exactly that, as evidenced by hundreds of posts by me regarding the witnesses that all saw a big plane, likely a 757, plunge into that west wall of the Pentagon on 9/112001.

So what conclusions can you come up with regarding this impossible low and long HORIZONTALLY STRAIGHT flightpath at 8 meters and down to 3 meters high above a perfectly flat grassy lawn, now you know that that is an impossible feature for a wide winged plane like a 757 ?

One possible explanation :
After all those years that the US military had, to come up with some fake CGI videos, combined with all the US three letter agencies brainpower, they managed to come up with some shoddy pictures of a spiralling cloud at a very low and constant horizontal level above the west wall front lawn, that ended in that huge red and white hot fireball.

Were they honestly believing that smoke trail depicted an incoming 757 ?
Did that colonel that ran off to the securuty video room beside the River Entrance directly after the first impact, who rewound the west wall's security camera's recorders (right above the incoming flightpath of that object trailing that smoke spiral), really watched a 757 coming in,
or,
in fact a pack of cruise missile bunker busters first, that cleared the way for the following 757 and which missiles in fact made that 52 degrees demolition path inside Wings 1 and 2 and their Rings E, D and C ?
To wipe out the only left honest defenders of the US Constitution within the Armed Forces, the ONI offices and their just recently relocated main frame computers. And wipe out also all the auditors that were checking the Pentagon's bookkeeping from the past years, as Rumsfeld told the press the day before. The not accounted for, trillions of dollars.

There once was an interesting thread here about a flock of geese, flying above the Iraky dessert, that turned out to be a launched attack from the air by a B 52 of a whole pack of JDAMS aimed at Bagdad, and filmed from that B 52 from such a long distance that it really looked at first glance as a flock of geese flying closely together.
That missile pack was lead by a guidance one that had the aiming software aboard, that one also steered all the others that flew along with it.

The story about that colonel came out one day after 9/11, to be never heard about anymore. Scrubbed from the Internet as so many other stories that did not fit the official line. Luckily I picked it up and read it.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by LaBTop
 




Or do you now believe that those two DoD parking boot camera's did not record what the DoD wants us to believe ?
Or are those two video's genuine, and what we see in there is one or more Tomahawks or such, approaching the Pentagon its west wall ?

I guess you don't remember the slow scan security cameras of old.
We repaired them up until a couple years ago.


I remember that great president Roosevelt still walking and standing upright and later in his wheelchair, then that nasty little critter Truman and the honest Dwight Eisenhower.
Which one is your first?

I had in 1997 already top notch security camera's around my compound, and the recorders already saved up to 14 days of records. I could set the intervals to whatever I liked, from real life records up to 1 pic/minute, or only recording when the infra red or motion detectors registered movements above a certain threshold of bio-kilograms I could pre-set first.
The video's were picture perfect and I could read the number plates of passing cars off them, day and night.

So don't try to sell me that BS about the Pentagon not possessing in september 2001 the same top notch video equipment I had already in 1997.

Yes, some salesman tried to sell me that #ty kind of equipment you refer to first. I let the dogs show him the entrance again.

I also possessed already in 1997 a Sony mini laptop model I could carry in the inside pockets of my suite, could make phonecalls with, record my business meetings with, and it was equipped with a full working version of Windows and a small build-in keyboard. It played music too, had an attached camara, etcetera. Not a cheap one, 6,500 dollars at Zuerich Airport, but worth all that money for sure.

And you think the Pentagon went for less ? Wake up.

By the way, when is one of you, oficial liners, at last reacting on this long list of evidence of wrongdoing by the US government and its Institutions? :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You suspiciously avoid to address anything on my list as the Plague.
edit on 23/8/13 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Compare these two You Tube video's :

WTC 7 - Incriminating evidence



Listen carefully to what these men say, who walk away from WTC 7 its North facade !
''It's going to come down''.
Were these men part of the "secret" demolition crew, or just ...what exactly.? They do not look like firefighters either.
NIST says that all emergency personnel and firefighters were ordered away from WTC 7 already, around 14:00 hrs.
Police? Doesn't look like it, in plain clothes and coveralls.
Police was ordered at 14:00 hrs already to forcefully move all personnel found near it, away from WTC 7 to a perimeter line of 3 blocks away, for their own safety.
So, what exactly were these men doing there, just a few minutes or seconds before it collapsed ???
And why said the policeman : ''The building is about to blow up, move it back''.?

After we can hear a heavy explosion sound at 0:06 into this video, just before he says that, followed by a lot of smoke bulging up between the nearby buildings? The men all looked back over their shoulders after they all heard it too.
An unseen person repeats it in the background again.


WTC 7 Explosion sound



I have added a few viewer-comments on this video :

-The explosion is heard at 0:11 and the east-penthouse starts dropping at about 0:13. However, the camera appears to have been 1000 to 1800 feet north and west of WTC 7. Thus, the rumble and the penthouse collapse actually happened at about the same time. (LT : NO, wrong! ) Sound travels at about 1100 feet per second. Can anyone identify the red brick building in the viewer's left foreground? Is it Borough of Manhattan Community College?

( LT : No, then the camera its microphone picked up that sound at 0:11, after it originated at WTC 7 about 2 seconds earlier at 0:09, (caused by the delay of 2 seconds in 24 Celsius warm air of 333 meter/sec (1100 feet/sec) for the explosion sound) and traveled over that distance of about 666 meters (2200 feet).
Thus, the actual very deep rumble originating in WTC 7 and its roof-penthouse collapse in fact happened spaced apart for about 4 seconds in real time.
)

-I have been saying this for years now - if the Penthouse collapsed first, then how the heck do you consider that being due to fire with low probability. All of the windows blowing out at one time are the support column(s) being blown. Can a fire do that?

-If one of the buildings were rigged, then they were all rigged.
Keep repeating this to everyone you know.

-I couldn't hear it until I used headphones. The times is perfect with the collapse of the east penthouse.

-The explosion can be heard at 0:09 not at 0:11. The east-penthouse starts to collapse at about 0:11.

-I have built a lot of large buildings, none this large. But they all share the same basic design ideas from basement to rooftop. I want to point out the left side of the building first of all. None of the windows are broken out on the side that faces the camera. The penthouse falls in and the windows start to bust out directly below it for several floors! You don't see it fall all the way down to street level. It stops about half way. Next all of a sudden the right side "center girder" just falls out! Then you see all the windows in that general area pop out. That girder fell straight down and that supports "50%" of the building. Now im just using that for simple lingo. After that goes its game over! Everything from the center of the building over is tied to it and having it "fall" takes care of the right side! Pretty simple. I would like to see more videos on this from all sides and put together a final verdict. Not a ton shown here, but????

-Interesting that the delay of the boom indicates it took the penthouse even a couple of seconds after the explosives blew.

-Question: I downloaded the mp4 from you tube's servers and separated the audio file for analysis.
Upon doing so I happened to notice that all frequencies below 40Hz were completely removed.
While it is normal for encoding software to have a discard point on the low shelf, this is usually around 20Hz not 40Hz. (from what I have seen at least...)
Do you happen to have the original of this anywhere to be downloaded without You Tube's re-encoding? I would like to test that too. Thanks!

-Not only is the explosion heard, but all throughout the building you can see small explosions breaking windows before it collapses.

-more-
edit on 25/8/13 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
-Yes - an invisible fire caused this building to collapse at the rate of theoretical gravity - that is - gravity in a vacuum - that is to say ZERO RESISTANCE - a 47 storey building with 24 core columns and 58 perimeter columns decided to all fail at the same moment in time creating a symmetrical collapse - this was all done by the organic process of fire and thermal expansion - the invisible inferno did it - tho visible inferno's don't cause collapses - this invisible one did. (sarcasm.)

-This is the explosion what they edited out from 2 other videos that you have uploaded, it must be a really loud one because this is quite far away and behind many buildings but still you can hear it.

( LT : Also no real loud sound of the following collapse can be heard in this video obtained from NIST after a lengthy FOIA procedure, that fact even more indicates how strong that explosion sound in reality was, when recorded with that camera if it would have been situated beside the WTC 7 demolition instead of circa 666 meters away from it.
Like Craig Bartmer and Kevin McPadden stood beside it.
)

WTC7 in 7 Minutes - 9/11 Explosions not Fire


-The center columns were broken a millisecond before the perimeter. Pause at 0:21 and 0:22 - it's clear. Digital timing.

-If you fast forward this video, you can see that the building shakes from side to side several times between when the explosion is heard and when the building collapses. It appears as though a huge shockwave passed through the building. The only explanation for this that I can find is that there was indeed an explosion that was used to level the seventh world trade center.
edit on 25/8/13 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
To understand the reasoning for what I typed and copy/pasted there in my last 3 (now removed) posts, back at the bottom of this thread its page 7, review this last post and all the others regarding that subject in that other, now closed 27 pages long 911 thread, about the important subject of the IMPOSSIBILITY of flying perfectly HORIZONTALLY but lower than half the wingspan of a B 757 at 400-plus knots above the Pentagon lawn :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Much shorter said in that last post than all my copy/paste activities in those 3 removed, I must admit, a tad bit lengthy posts :


Zaphod58 :
-more- you're not going to stall in ground effect by pushing the nose down (pushing, not pulling). You're going to bounce around, due to having to keep the aircraft level, but you're not going to stall the wing.

pinkbirdatabase (probably Rob Balsamo, from his Pilots for 911 Truth forum) :
-more- you cannot fly horizontally at 30 ft. altitude. You'd approach like a ship in a storm, nose up and down. But then you can do that only if you're an excellent and experienced pilot.


After a lot of misunderstanding each other, both experienced aeronautically schooled men, reached at last a consensus about that subject :

YOU CAN NOT FLY all the way HORIZONTALLY above that PENTAGON LAWN over a stretch of at least 150 meters at a speed of 400-plus knots at a wing-height of 8 meters and lower and lower up to the impact point at 3 meters high.

That plane its pilot (remote or in person in the cockpit) would had to have flown that plane bumping up and down to avoid crashing immediately after cutting (flying at 8 meters height) with its left wing that first light pole beside the bridge/underpass along Washington Boulevard (Route 27).
All caused by its own flying within at least half of its own ground-effect region of at least 16 meters (half its wingspan of 32 meters wide), since it cut that first light pole at 8 meters high. With its left wing tip.

And that we do not see in both DoD videos, only released several years after 911 by the US DoD.
Just a straight HORIZONTAL stretch of spiraling smoke leading to the impact fireball.
Which is aeronautically impossible for a B 757, so that object must have been something else than a 757.

Perhaps one or more supersonic missiles, that came just after the impact of that B 757 seen by a whole bunch of reliable people along and on Route 27. Launched to be sure that the mission to wreck the ONI offices and the auditing offices would be achieved?
The chance to be seen by already shocked witnesses for such a supersonic flying, small missile is bleak. And we have that photo with that white hot fireball spitting out of the impact hole. Taken as the photographer said, just a minute after the plane he saw impacted. Could that have been the bunker-buster-"to be sure"-missile..?
But why did they then photo-shop such a missile together with the original plane impact fireball that spit out at least 100 meters high?
Perhaps to convince the original witnesses, who all saw that huge fireball and smoke column.

Another dilemma:
When we believe the two DoD videos, with that horizontal smoke stretch, then according to both above pilots / aeronautical engineers it can not depict a 757 flying so low at more than 400 knots, so, at less than 8 meters above that lawn.
That is a quite serious problem with the official story.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

That is a quite serious problem with the official story.


The plane spent less than 2 seconds in ground effect.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Perhaps one or more supersonic missiles, that came just after the impact of that B 757 seen by a whole bunch of reliable people along and on Route 27.


You really do not stop and think before posting your rubbish, do you.... So now you claim they have silent supersonic missiles.... they must be silent as no one heard the sonic boom!



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LaBTop
Perhaps one or more supersonic missiles, that came just after the impact of that B 757 seen by a whole bunch of reliable people along and on Route 27.


You really do not stop and think before posting your rubbish, do you.... So now you claim they have silent supersonic missiles.... they must be silent as no one heard the sonic boom!


You are right (and rude).
I again forgot the sonic boom problem in contemplating on (not claiming) eventual solutions for that straight line of smoke above that lawn.
New contemplation : Missile(s) flying just under their sound barrier speed?

To be clear, it would have been a lot easier for the DoD to just photoshop that perfectly horizontal spiraling stretch of smoke into those two parking boot video's.

May I ask you to, at last, seriously react on my long list of evidences..?
You thus have a perfect chance to expose that as "rubbish" too.

I'm curious to find out if you can find equally obvious mistakes in those lines of thought.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by LaBTop

That is a quite serious problem with the official story.


The plane spent less than 2 seconds in ground effect.


You do understand of course that that plane did not fall as a brick from above 16 meters (half its wingspan) to 8 meters, to be able to cut that first lamp pole.
There must have been a much longer stretch than about 150 meters of its flight path, while already flying dangerously low and within its own ground effect, to have been able to end up with its wings at 8 meter high above that bridge in Route 27. Crossing that bridge at about a 30 to 40 degrees sharp angle to that Route 27.
So it came flying over the broad grassy area beside that road.

And a lot of that stretch was downsloping terrain from the hillside ridge where the Navy Annex was situated on. It followed that downslope to be able to end up cutting that first light pole.
After it passed just over the roof of Wing 8 of that Annex, with a clearance of just a few meters, as a few people witnessed. Boger, Hemphill, etc.

All assuming it really flew on a south of CITGO flight path, as the FDR shows.
Thus we still have all the 20 plus witnesses who saw the plane at a totally different spot, north of the CITGO gas station. How are you waving all those people away? They were there, saw it. Were you?



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
. How are you waving all those people away? They were there, saw it. Were you?


They saw a plane hit the pentagon. The plane spent less than 2 seconds in ground effect.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


If you are so sure of that, will you be able to prove those 2 seconds maximum inside ground effect, by offering us evidence for that, from the last TEN seconds of the 'recovered' FDR ?

There's a column with Radar Alt height above ground level in there. Better use the barometric pressure or Baro Alt height column which is more reliable at the speed of 400+ Knots that that FDR gives for those final recorded seconds.
That should give you a nice row of heights above ground for those last recorded 10 seconds, combined with the plane's two longitude and latitude coordinates columns in there, which you can plot into a Google History map from 9/11/2001.
Then you'll also see the terrain that plane flew over before it cut that first light pole. And how many meters it was, exactly from that pole to the impact point.

You could use the recovered extra 6 seconds of data from the 'recovered' FDR that was sent by the NTSB or the FBI to one of the two Australian 9/11 researchers in response to his FOIA application for Flight 77 its FDR data (that was Warren Stutt).
Warren discovered those extra 6 seconds by implementing his own software to decode that FDR, he is however not in possession of an official airliner software packet to decode such an FDR.
Those 6 extra seconds found by him by using his own developed FDR-data-decoding software program, no one from the NTSB or the airline involved acknowledged those extra seconds up till yet.

Fill in " Warren Stutt 9/11 " in a Google Search, and you should find enough links to get to those extra FDR data discovered by Warren Stutt.

For example this one :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Title : Flight AA77 on 9/11: Real FDR Analysis: Frank Legge / Warren Stutt

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

etcetera.

edit on 27/8/13 by LaBTop because: Another link added.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Now you probably at first glance get excited about the chance to setting me straight, when reading this publication :

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect :
www.aerospaceweb.org...

I challenge you to find out the reason why this competent aeronautically trained writer is totally mistaken regarding that approach at low altitude towards the Pentagon West wall. In his and his experienced colleagues opinions it could have easily been done.
The sad thing is, they all were totally wrong.

Here's the relevant part of his well written piece, but he is totally mistaken in his and his colleagues conclusions, because of one quite important thing he did not know and thus couldn't take in account in 2006 about that approach :


This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006.


So, what's the grave mistake they all made?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Answer : They all assumed that the autopilot functions were activated, as Boeing strongly advices to use at all times.
Those were however disengaged already a few miles before the plane started its long spiral down back to the Pentagon, which it passed just south of, before it decided to circle back to its west wall. Its autopilot functions were never re-engaged again !
Read and check that 'recovered' FDR's data....!

Several very experienced airline pilots with thousands of hours time in 757's all tried this same circle down maneuver at the same Flight 77 'recovered' FDR recorded speeds WITHOUT AUTOPILOT FUNCTION APPLIED in a paid flight simulator session, they all failed and ended up in a crash and/or a dutch roll first, then crashed, when coming out of that spiral at that speed. None of them could handle that specific circling down with those parameters from that FDR, and were unable to line up that simulated 757 towards the Pentagon's west wall again !
Look that up in that You Tube video, where Captain Krongard, an experienced 757 pilot let a young pilot try to recreate that same FDR spiraling down, with the same parameters inserted in the professional 757-simulator software at an airport or other flight training facility.
And WITHOUT the autopilot function applied.!
He himself tried several times, always failed coming out of that spiraling-down trajectory at those relatively high speeds and banks in level flight mode again.

And it is totally impossible to fly a clean B 757 at heights of 8 meters to 3 meters above that Pentagon lawn without being aided by the autopilot software, without either being forcefully lifted to more than 16 meters (half its wingspan) above ground, or immediately crash into that ground when overcompensating too much with the flight stick.

Conclusion : since we have rows of witnesses on record who ALL saw a 757 fly into the west wall, that means that the 'recovered' FDR is a false one.

Because it shows autopilot functions being switched off long before the plane was able to reach anywhere near and low enough to hit that west wall. And it was never again switched on again after it was switched off, as can be seen in that FDR.!
Any human pilot in that cockpit or from a remote control position would have necessarily left those functions on, without them it was totally impossible to even get in and maintain, or even get out of that spiraling down maneuver in any kind of level flight at those registered speeds. Let it be, that he could even get near to the Pentagon lawns at those high speeds and extremely low flight heights.

Since all those eyewitnesses all saw a 757 hit, it means that that plane must have been flown either with full autopilot functions turned on, by a pilot in the cockpit, or, it was flown from a remote place by an ace pilot, also with autopilot on till the impact.
Or a small computer that was totally disconnected from all flight control recording systems was used to break-in into the flight controls just before the real pilot reached the west side of the Pentagon at a mile high, then switched itself in and started that downward spiral using small electrical powered motors to operate the ailerons, rudder and the tail elevators.
And now all further possible scenarios are wide open.


Why would they falsify that FDR?
Easy answer : to get rid of all those 20plus, annoying to their official theory, north of CITGO flight path witnesses.

Who saw that 757 fly at totally different positions than that FDR depicts, thus, another falsification in that FDR. Longitudes and latitudes were thus also falsification, speeds for sure too. The speed must have been a lot lower than 400 to 483 Knots in those last 5 seconds, to have been able to fly north of CITGO in such a long slow turn from the Annex roofs, then north of the CITGO and back towards that impact point at the west wall.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
This is Warren Stutt's AAL77 FDR Decoder page at his warenstutt.com website :
warrenstutt.com...

It decodes almost 4 more seconds worth of lots of data than what appears at the end of the officially decoded NTSB CSV file, which ends roughly 150 meters in front of the west side of Route 27.
( Warren Stutt : Estimated distance along the plane’s centerline from the Pentagon to the third light pole hit, about 692 feet (211 meters). See fig 8 page 8 for their estimated distance to the Pentagon, from pole 1 to pole 3, to end at the impact point)


The program allows you to selectively decode parts of the FDR file and generate a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file containing the selected information. The first line of the CSV file contains the parameter names and it can be opened by various programs including Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access.


It works fine with Mozilla Firefox also. Just fill the data obtained from Warren's work into that browser.

He explained a lot at a thread at PfT, untill he got banned by Balsamo for not staying in line with Balsamo's fly-over theory. Everyone who does not agree with Balsamo's fly-over theory gets banned and bad-named, early or later, but inevitably :
pilotsfor911truth.org...

You can find four altitudes per data frame second, from raw barometer readings (uncorrected yet) for the final 10 seconds of the AAL 77 flight path here :
warrenstutt.com...
Open that file in a Firefox browser window, that's the safest and it's simple to do :

Subframe Counter,PRES POSN LAT (DEG),PRES POSN LONG (DEG),ALTITUDE (1013.25mB) (FEET),GMT HOURS,GMT MINUTES,GMT SECONDS

151359,38.86105,-77.08317,592,,,
151360,38.86208,-77.08094,496,,,
151361,38.86293,-77.07853,399,13,37,45
151362,38.86396,-77.07630,307,,,
151363,38.86499,-77.07390,239,,,
151364,38.86602,-77.07150,173,,,
151365,38.86705,-77.06892,106,13,37,49
151366,38.86808,-77.06652,35,,,
151367,38.86911,-77.06394,-40,,,
151368,38.87032,-77.06154,-99,,,

The last above second, of its row of 10 flight timestamps, recorded at the end of those 4 seconds of extra flight time, uncovered by Warren Stutt as undecoded data frames and neglected by the NTSB (since it had damaged sub-frames without error-correcting data in them), is thus 13:37:52 GMT.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   
At an uncorrected barometer read-out of -99 feet and at a presetting of that barometer of 1013.25 millibar. If you correct those millibars in the right way, you end up at the precise heights above ground during those last ten seconds of flight, unhindered by eventual high obstacles.

Where another height read-out device like the RadAlt (radio altitude) would record all obstacles under the airplane, like trees, bushes, bridges, light poles, cars, people and buildings and will come up with erratic readings. That's why the non-flying second pilot reads/speaks out the heights above the runway approach during landing procedure, from the pressure barometer, with a keen eye on the radar altitude meter, but he will always prefer pressure reading above radio reading. For its build-in safety tendency of ignoring obstacles under the plane's belly.

When we can find now also the parameters for the vertical acceleration every eighth of a second; longitudinal acceleration, roll angle and pitch every quarter of a second; air speed, ground speed, pressure altitude, radio height, heading and position every second; all finishing at points within the last second of that FDR's last data frame, then we can construct a corrected flightpath line above the ground in a 9/11/2001 historical Google map of the terrain in front of the west wall of the Pentagon, up to the first cut light pole and even to the Navy Annex.

This line ending at the impact point, will however be about 108.84 feet off from reality at impact, since we know the height of the impact point as being about 3 meters high (9.84 feet) above ground level there, at the second floor slab of that west wall (-99 + 9.84 feet).

Warren Stutt took the time to calculate the precise parameters for such a line going through the cut through parts of the light poles and ending at the impact point. See his PDF.
So all you have to do is lifting up the endpoint of that line you constructed according to the uncorrected raw altitudes data from that FDR in the above last ten seconds of the FDR, perpendicular to the rest of that raw data line. And starting that line exactly in the impact point on that 2001 Google Map. Instead of that line ending about 108.84 feet lower, where the raw uncorrected data line ends.

Then you should have the real now corrected heights during every second of those last 10 FDR data frames seconds.
You have to correct for distance of the center of the nose cone to the pressure device position, presumably somewhere in the belly plating of that Boeing 757-200.
Stutt & Legge did so.

My question is :
Are both lines indeed PERPENDICULAR ?
The correlation between the line drawn using the raw pressure-height read-outs, and the line constructed by Warren Stutt and Frank Legge, from pole 1 to pole 3 to the impact point of the nose cone at about 3 meter high, covering about 1.3 last flight seconds.
Their fig 8 on page 8 of 16 of the Stutt & Legge PDF below.

I am afraid not. I expect the raw pressure heights data line from the FDR data, to pass way over those light poles. And being not perpendicular to a straight line through the point where pole nr 1 was cut, towards the impact point on that west wall, about 3 meter high.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
We can find all these other parameters and the data to be collected as I described above, here :

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon :
Written by Frank Legge & Warren Stutt.


We can get a full description of ground effects at high speed, low angle of attack and small vortices's at both wingtips, here :

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect.
Written by Jeff Scott, Aerospace Engineer. Jeff is the chief editor of Aerospaceweb.org.
www.aerospaceweb.org...


The amount of influence that trailing vortices's have on the aerodynamic behavior of a wing depends on a number of factors. One of these is the distance of the wing from the ground. When operating very close to the ground
, the vortices's can become partially blocked and prevented from fully forming. This disruption of the trailing vortices's reduces the magnitude of the down-wash they create. A reduction in down-wash results in higher lift and lower induced drag for a given angle of attack. As a result, ground effect increases the aerodynamic efficiency of a wing.
-snip-
In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.

And thus lifts the whole plane a bit upwards at speeds up to 483 Knots in the last 4 seconds. Then the pilot has to compensate for this small but noticeable ground effect, when he wants to maintain a horizontal flight path aimed at the Pentagon's west wall, by pushing his control yoke forward, a bit down, which pushes the elevator located on the horizontal stabilizer a bit down, which action forces the nose of the plane back down again.

And this compensating of loss of vortices's at very near-to-ground effect resulting in a small lift, by pitching its nose down has to be done in an impossible for humans, fast repetition of moves, to keep that plane's flight path smoothly aimed and horizontal, instead of hopping in and out of its ground effect.

And lo and behold, what graph does express exactly this behavior :
A smooth horizontal acceleration flight path, and a see-saw behavior of that plane in the last 4 seconds.
This graph in fig 14, at page 12 of this publication :
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, by Frank Legge and Warren Stutt.

Jeff Scott : "Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth". Comment to be found just under his "Probable path of Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon" diagram near the bottom of his "Groundeffect" article I linked to above.
By the way, that's a very bad choice of words, he should have wrote "up and down", as expressed by the blue, vertical acceleration line in that fig 14 graph.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Scroll to page 12 its fig 14.
files.abovetopsecret.com...




The vertical acceleration shows a curious pattern. It is not possible for the plane to be
controlled in such a way as to produce a motion with the observed high frequency of
reversal.


"Controlled in such a way ", by a human pilot ! But a Boeing autopilot flight controll computer could. However, the FDR shows that that one was switched off when passing somewhere south from and about 1 km above the Pentagon west side, before the spiralling down was started.

It looks as if we see here FDR-evidence for a secret flight control mechanism that was built in that plane to aid for a level flight path in those last 3.75 crucial seconds before impact.

Or the handling of a very experienced pilot, who knows he is not the one who's gonna die, 3 seconds later.? It is extremely difficult to stay on such a perfectly leveled longitudinal acceleration, while working your flight stick within such high frequency movements.
Only a computer could do this, is my impression.
Let's ask the real pilots, shall we.?

Or is this just a mistake (or inserted to show readers the falseness of this FDR) made by the person who created this FDR on a workbench? As that FDR read-out expert (former military)so vehemently defended over at the Pilots for Truth forum. And at the 2012 Vancouver Hearings about 9/11. (I forgot his name, not his texts! ).

PS : This high up do the wings of a Boeing 757 already FLEX UP at landing speeds.
How far do you think they will flex up at 487 KNOTS...?
You will have to include that height difference also in your nose cone and longitudinal-beam its flight line coverage from cut-light pole 1 to 3 to impact point at 3 meters high (9.84 feet).
Since the wingtips supposedly cut those poles at those recorded heights...Has that plane belly kissed the lawn much earlier.?
files.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 4/9/13 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
For much more condemning evidence that the officially pushed theory for what really happened on 9/11 is at least flawed, at worse a clever falsification, and this behavior is unfolding on an ongoing daily basis :

The Basement Explosions (authors : NK-44 + chopoz).

It's an excellent research work of 4 pages long, worth every minute of your time.
All doubting questions got cleverly answered, with accompanying evidence.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I remembered the name of the former airline captain wrong, the one that tried to recreate the spiraling down of Flight 77 onwards to the Pentagon's west wall. As laid out in the 'recovered' FDR, found in the Pentagon rubble. While flying with the A/P L/C/R functions all three in the OFF positions. (A/P = Autopilot)
It wasn't "Buzzy" Krongard (a former third director of the CIA), but airline captain Rusty Aimer :
Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility
www.youtube.com...




Pilots For 9/11 Truth Co-Founder Rob Balsamo along with Core Members Captain Rusty Aimer and Dwain Deets were recently invited by Gov. Jesse Ventura to discuss and attempt to recreate the attack on the Pentagon for the lastest investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. Unlike outdated simulator recreations offered by others, this attempt is based on the actual data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act. For a more detailed analysis based on data and precedent along with interviews of numerous experts, please see Pilots For 9/11 Truth presentations "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available at pilotsfor911truth.org.


Watch the A/P its three L/C/R non-engaged blocks (= white) on that NTSB Flight 77 flight path recreation in that video, at 4:34 in that 4:56 minutes long video....
That A/P was already disengaged about 30 minutes earlier on, and never activated again during that spiralling down and in the last stretch flown by AAL 77.

As can be seen in that FOIA freed full NTSB simulation from the Flight 77 FDR data, posted by Kevin Smith :

NTSB AA77 Animation 9/11 Pentagon
www.youtube.com...



Members and Pilots at Pf911Truth say :
IT IS UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to fly that circular pattern above Virginia and west of the Pentagon at those speeds and banks as extracted from that FDR, without the aid of the autopilot software functions !





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join