Need help with this argument

[Go_]

How might I tighten up the following?

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

 

[Oliver]

How might I tighten up the following?

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

Conspiracy Theorists will claim it's intentional Disinfo. Or some
Nuts take it for 100% unadulterated and claim the Plane flew
over the Pentagon. So you can take the Data for authentic
of for faked evidence. There is no solution for your Question,
the Conspiracy Theorists will switch between these two
Options in their paranoid minds.

 

[Go_]

Conspiracy Theorists will claim it's intentional Disinfo. Or some
Nuts take it for 100% unadulterated and claim the Plane flew
over the Pentagon. So you can take the Data for authentic
of for faked evidence. There is no solution for your Question,
the Conspiracy Theorists will switch between these two
Options in their paranoid minds.

So you're saying that some CTs will claim that the NTSB intentionally released data that the NTSB knew would disprove the NTSB's own story?

Or have I got that wrong?

The CTs this argument is specifically aimed at, of course, is PFT. They seem to think that they've discovered a smoking gun buried in the FDR data. Since their claim is based on the premise that the released FDR data and animation is accurate, I'm not quite sure how they can say at the same time that the FDR data represents disinformation. They can't have it both ways.

 

[beachnut]

How might I tighten up the following?

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

Your question makes no sense, you need to say what the NTSB said. I do not believe the NTSB said anything more than decode the FDR data.

I would help you to know the data stopped 4 to 5 seconds before impact, or about 3000 or more feet away from impact. The data may of stopped due to power interuption and damage to the FDR system before all the data was stored.

If you are a CTer, then the fact all the DNA and all the parts, and all the witnesses, and all the physical evidence supports 77 hitting the Pentagon.

If you look at the data on the FDR from 77 found in the Pentagon, you will see it supports all the witness statements that talk about the plane, all the radar tapes. The people who have mislead you are liars and are trying to sell DVDs about their non conclusion. If you notices they so not say what happen, they have no conclusion they are too dumb to have a conclusion they just want to mislead others and not have to learn about FDRs. If you got it from PFT the idiots there do not know were the plane is. Why? Because the NAV data with Lat and Long, are not accurate to more that 2000 to 3000 feet.

Also the final heading data and the heading at impact for our terrorist pilot aiming at the Pentagon is 61.2 degrees true track, go get google earth and see if any the hair brain schemes line up with the facts. Plus 77 was on a straight run in to the Pentagon for the last seconds before the data stopped.

Evidence for data damage and lack of storing the final seconds can be seen in the data sets. The truthers actually did some work decoding data from 77 that the NTSB did not do. That data confirms the NTSB data and also confirms the witnesses and radar tapes.

There is a section here talking about the FDR, you could study it for years, the FDR, and not know everything about how it works and what the data on it means. But some of the best data is heading it is the one set of data that can be used to shut down the people trying to tell lies. The final mag headings were all about 70 degree, the magnetic track was 71.4, the true heading was 58.8 and the true track was 61.2.

If you take the winds for 9/11 at the Pentagon area you will see why the plane was drifting to the left. Even the winds on record for 9/11 confirm the FDR was 77s and it was recorded on 9/11, and it was found in the Pentagon.

FDR being in the Pentagon is proof. Unless you have proof some idiots had bags of parts and human remains to spread all over during the fire and rescue recovery your FDR information is wrong and you need to ask the people who told you these things why they are liars? Why are they liars? Plus it would be neat if you would list the data you have a problem with and why?

 

[Go_]

Your question makes no sense, you need to say what the NTSB said. I do not believe the NTSB said anything more than decode the FDR data.

I would help you to know the data stopped 4 to 5 seconds before impact, or about 3000 or more feet away from impact. The data may of stopped due to power interuption and damage to the FDR system before all the data was stored.

If you are a CTer, then the fact all the DNA and all the parts, and all the witnesses, and all the physical evidence supports 77 hitting the Pentagon.

If you look at the data on the FDR from 77 found in the Pentagon, you will see it supports all the witness statements that talk about the plane, all the radar tapes. The people who have mislead you are liars and are trying to sell DVDs about their non conclusion. If you notices they so not say what happen, they have no conclusion they are too dumb to have a conclusion they just want to mislead others and not have to learn about FDRs. If you got it from PFT the idiots there do not know were the plane is. Why? Because the NAV data with Lat and Long, are not accurate to more that 2000 to 3000 feet.

Also the final heading data and the heading at impact for our terrorist pilot aiming at the Pentagon is 61.2 degrees true, go get google earth and see if any the hair brain schemes line up with the facts. Plus 77 was on a straight run in to the Pentagon for the last seconds before the data stopped.

Evidence for data damage and lack of storing the final seconds can be seen in the data sets. The truthers actually did some work decoding data from 77 that the NTSB did not do. That data confirms the NTSB data and also confirms the witnesses and radar tapes.

There is a section here talking about the FDR, you could study it for years, the FDR, and not know everything about how it works and what the data on it means. But some of the best data is heading it is the one set of data that can be used to shut down the people trying to tell lies. The final mag headings were all about 70 degree, the magnetic track was 71.4, the true heading was 58.8 and the true track was 61.2.

If you take the winds for 9/11 at the Pentagon area you will see why the plane was drifting to the left. Even the winds on record for 9/11 confirm the FDR was 77s and it was recorded on 9/11, and it was found in the Pentagon.

FDR being in the Pentagon is proof. Unless you have proof some idiots had bags of parts and human remains to spread all over during the fire and rescue recovery your FDR information is wrong and you need to ask the people who told you these things why they are liars? Why are they liars?

I think, perhaps, you misunderstand the point that I'm trying to make here. (Probably because I've done a poor job of trying to make it.)

What I'm trying to say is that those CT'ers who believe that they've found a smoking gun in the FDR data from flight 77 released by the NTSB are very probably mistaken.

The reason that they are probably mistaken is because it is much more likely that the CT'ers are either misinterpreting the data or that the data is inaccurate or some such than it is that the NTSB would knowingly release data that proves the NTSB's own claim is false.

 

[ref]

What I'm trying to say is that those CT'ers who believe that they've found a smoking gun in the FDR data from flight 77 released by the NTSB are very probably mistaken.

The reason that they are probably mistaken is because it is much more likely that the CT'ers are either misinterpreting the data or that the data is inaccurate or some such than it is that the NTSB would knowingly release data that proves the NTSB's own claim is false.

There is no smoking gun, because the data is in line with all the other evidence. If they find a smoking gun in there, they either misinterpret or lie.

 

[gumboot]

So you're saying that some CTs will claim that the NTSB intentionally released data that the NTSB knew would disprove the NTSB's own story?

Or have I got that wrong?

The CTs this argument is specifically aimed at, of course, is PFT. They seem to think that they've discovered a smoking gun buried in the FDR data. Since their claim is based on the premise that the released FDR data and animation is accurate, I'm not quite sure how they can say at the same time that the FDR data represents disinformation. They can't have it both ways.

Don't forget that the PFT theory is that AA77 did not hit The Pentagon...

They're essentially trying to use something that totally refutes their theory as evidence to support their theory.

-Gumboot

 

[ref]

And further, NTSB didn't claim anything like beachnut said, they just released the data.

There was really no need for any agency to literally claim AA77 hit the Pentagon. It's pretty evident.

 

[beachnut]

I think, perhaps, you misunderstand the point that I'm trying to make here. (Probably because I've done a poor job of trying to make it.)

What I'm trying to say is that those CT'ers who believe that they've found a smoking gun in the FDR data from flight 77 released by the NTSB are very probably mistaken.

The reason that they are probably mistaken is because it is much more likely that the CT'ers are either misinterpreting the data or that the data is inaccurate or some such than it is that the NTSB would knowingly release data that proves the NTSB's own claim is false.

Did you watch the animation? Did you know the map below is not tied to data to the airplane data presented?

The animation ground track has no data to support it location as accurately were flight 77 was. The headings are mismatched, thus the map is off by 20 degrees.

The NTSB animation main goal is to analysis what happens to aircraft before they crash. I think the FBI asked for the data so they could get insight into the terrorist and the hijacking. To learn about the crime.

The NTSB uses data from the plane's FDR to make the plane move. The map below was just arbitrarily placed under the data for the airplane. The Nav data accuracy is in the 3000 foot range. Some data is missing.

The fact comes down to the idiots ignoring that the FDR was found in the Pentagon, it even has previous flights of 77 on it. Sorry, but anyone saying anything about the FDR without months or years of study and experience are bogus. But the small parts I have gone over are accurate and if someone can read they will find the exact same information at the PFT about the animation they just are incapable of thinking and knowing what I said matches their information they have on their web sites and PFTF. Funny you can find all the stuff you need from truthers to see they are messing up the whole story.

 

[Oliver]

So you're saying that some CTs will claim that the NTSB intentionally released data that the NTSB knew would disprove the NTSB's own story?

Or have I got that wrong?

The CTs this argument is specifically aimed at, of course, is PFT. They seem to think that they've discovered a smoking gun buried in the FDR data. Since their claim is based on the premise that the released FDR data and animation is accurate, I'm not quite sure how they can say at the same time that the FDR data represents disinformation. They can't have it both ways.

As far I remember, PFT claimed that the Data is manipulated.
They are just stupid because they can't accept that the plane
crashed there, I mean flight 77. Personally I don't spend time
there, they will never change their paranoia.

And you got it right - they can take the Simulation for real or
faked, the official story for real or faked, the Data for real or
faked. There are no arguments for these people - they simply
choose to believe anything but reality.

 

[Go_]

And further, NTSB didn't claim anything like beachnut said, they just released the data.

There was really no need for any agency to literally claim AA77 hit the Pentagon. It's pretty evident.

Actually, the NTSB does specifically claim in its "Flight Path Study -- American Airlines Flight 77" report that flight 77 impacted the Pentagon even though of course I agree that it is evident.

My argument, the one I wanted help with, is a logical argument. It is obviously not a technical argument about what is contained in the released FDR data.

It is an argument that concludes that, contrary to PFT's claim, it is highly unlikely, based on purely commonsensical premises, that the FDR data and animation, released by the NTSB, contains information that obviously disputes the NTSB's own claim.

 

[beachnut]

How might I tighten up the following?

1. If the FDR data for flight 77 released by the NTSB under the FOIA contained obvious evidence that contradicted the NTSB's own story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB (the world's foremost FDR analyzers) knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its own story about the fate of flight 77.

2. If the NTSB knew that the FDR data contained obvious evidence that contradicted its story about the fate of flight 77, then the NTSB would never have released the FDR data or would have released the FDR data but only after first having amended its story about the fate of flight 7.

3. The NTSB released flight 77's FDR data without amending its story about the fate of flight 77.

Therefore by modus tollens, 4. the FDR data for flight 77 does not contain obvious evidence that contradicts the NTSB's story about the fate of flight 77.

The other thing that does not make sense from the CT world is how they use a time in the report as the time of impact. I do not think the NTSB really did a study to come up with a time of impact, and I am not sure where they got a time of impact, or how they came up with it.

Your 4. would be the best fit. The data in the FDR matches physical data and witnesses.

If you look at the impact study done, the speed they calcualte the plane to make the damage seen matches the speed in the FDR.

The witnesses saying gentle bank are matched by the FDR.

The radar tape flight path matches what the plane was doing on the FDR. The FDR has multiple flight from 77, just like 77 actaully flew days before 9/11.

 

[Go_]

If you accept my conclusion and believe that the argument is valid then you must also believe that all the premises in the argument (#1-#3) are true as well.

 

[Oliver]

If you accept my conclusion and believe that the argument is valid then you must also believe that all the premises in the argument (#1-#3) are true as well.

Try it this way:

Anderson, Steve

I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball.


Anlauf, Deb & Jeff

"Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon.


Battle

"It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."


Bauer, Gary

and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.

"...came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon."


Bell, Mickey

The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building. Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane's wings as it sped by him.


Boger, Sean

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building."


Bouchoux, Donald R.

I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards [should be more than 150 yards from the impact] in front of me and impacted the side of the building. T


Bright, Mark

One, Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon.


Cissell, James R.

In the next blink of an eye, he realized he had a front-row seat to history, as the plane plowed into the Pentagon, sending a fireball exploding into the air and scattering debris - including a tire rim suspected of belonging to the airplane - past his car.


Cleveland, Allen

Allen Cleveland of Woodbridge Virginia looked out from a Metro train going to National Airport, to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. "I thought, 'There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,' " Before he could process that thought, he saw "a huge mushroom cloud.


Creed, Dan

"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," Creed recalls.


Day Wayne T.

"We had one guy who was standing, looking out the window and saw the plane when it was coming in. He was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows,"


DiPaula, Michael

"Suddenly, an airplane roared into view, nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring. 'It sounded like a missile,' DiPaula recalls . . .


Dobbs, Mike

Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building.


Dobbs, Mike

"... we saw a plane coming toward us, for about 10 seconds ... It was like watching a train wreck. I was mesmerized. ... At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level... Everyone said there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we didn't hear it."


Dubill, Bob

" (...) when he saw a jetliner fly over the roadway. It filled his field of vision. The jet was 40-feet off the ground speeding toward the Pentagon. The wheels were up


Eiden, Steve

He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. "You could almost see the people in the windows," he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke.


Elgas, Penny

The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was "Oh My God, this must be World War III!" In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers. In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.


Elliott, Bruce

Elliott, in a phone interview Wednesday, said he had just left the Pentagon and was about to board a shuttle van in a south parking lot when he saw the plane approach and slam into the west side of the structure. I felt it was going to ram the Pentagon," he said. He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit before it crashed into the building and burst into flames.


Evey, Walker Lee

The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building, said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation.


Flyler, Kim

Right before the plane hit the building, you could see the silhouettes of people in the back two rows. You couldn't see if they were male or female, but you could tell there was a human being in there."


Ford, Ken

We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building.



Hagos, Afework

It hit some lampposts on the way in.


Hagos, Asework

He saw a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings. "I thought something was coming down on me. I know this plane is going to crash. I've never seen a plane like this so low." He said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia and when it made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames.


Harrington, Joe

"About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.," Harrington said. "It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something.


Hemphill, Albert

The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.


Kean, Terrance

"I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico.


Lagasse, William

He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon. Initially, he thought the plane was about to drop on top of him -- it was that close.


Liebner, Lincoln

"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low," said Army Captain Lincoln Liebner. "My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I realised what was happening."

"I was close enough that I could see through the windows of the airplane, and watch as it as it hit,"


Liebner, Lincoln

"I saw it hit. The plane completely entered the building," he said.


Leibner, Lincoln

Captain Lincoln Leibner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck.


M. K.

look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next...


Marra, David

"It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.


Martinez, Oscar

``I saw a big jet flying close to the building coming at full speed. There was a big noise when it hit the building,'' said Oscar Martinez, who witnessed the attack.


McCusker, Elaine

...but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash.


McGraw, Stephen

McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building."


Middleton, William Sr.

Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.


Milburn, Kirk

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn.


Morin, Terry

As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.


Mosley, James

"... I looked over and saw this big silver plane run into the side of the Pentagon"


Munsey, Christopher

A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away. It was a nightmare coming to life. The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking "whoomp" as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon.


Narayanan, Vin

"The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately.


Narayanan, Vin

Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon. The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball.


O'Keefe, John

And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass.


Owens, Mary Ann

Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon.


Owens, Mary Ann

when she heard a loud roar overhead and looked up as the plane barely cleared the highway. "Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed," Owens said. "The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."


Patterson, Steve

it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon "at a frightening rate ... just slicing into that building." "Headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ..." He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.


Peterson, Christine

I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, "holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car" (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire.


Probst, Frank

American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon. He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze. "I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'" He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away. The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart. "It was pretty horrible," he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti.


Probst, Frank

"I saw this plane coming right at me at what seemed like 300 miles an hour. I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize," said Frank Probst, a member of the Pentagon renovations crew commented. "It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere."


Ragland, Clyde

"what looked like white confetti raining down everywhere." He said it soon became apparent "that the 'confetti' was little bits of airplane, falling down after being flung high into the bright, blue sky."


Rains, Lon

I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.


Rasmusen, Floyd

"I heard an explosion. All of a sudden I saw all of this flaming debris come flying toward me."


Renzi, Rick

''The plane came in at an incredibly steep angle with incredibly high speed,''... was driving by the Pentagon at the time of the crash about 9:40 a.m. The impact created a huge yellow and orange fireball, he added.


Robbins, James S

I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck.


Ryan, James

At that point the plane was slow, so that happened concurrently with the engines going down. And then straighten up in sort of suddenly and hit full gas.


Sayer, John

"At first I thought an airplane had hit in front of the Pentagon, but when I got closer I saw that it had struck the Pentagon."


Scott, Don

"I had just passed the Pentagon and was near the Macy's store in Crystal City when I noticed a plane making a sharp turn from north of the Pentagon. I had to look back at the road and then back to the plane as it sort of leveled off. I looked back at the road, and when I turned to look again, I felt and heard a terrible explosion. I looked back and saw flames shooting up and smoke starting to climb into the sky."


Sepulveda, Noel

It "flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle", he said. The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher," The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole. "if the airliner had not hit the light poles, it would have slammed into the Pentagon's 9th and 10th corridor "A" ring, and the loss of life would have been greater."

He was standing in the parking lot at the Pentagon when he noticed a jetliner lower its landing gear as if to make a landing an then he realized that the airplane was actually heading towards the southwest wall of the Pentagon; and he was standing only 150 feet from the point of impact and for a brief moment he could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building, followed by an explosion; and the blast of the impact was so tremendous, that from his vantage point, it threw him backward over 100 feet slamming into a light pole causing him internal injuries;


Sheuerman, Philip

Philip Sheuerman, exiting the freeway, turning into the parking lot, of the Pentagon. saw "... a passenger plane ..."


Singleton, Jack

"The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer.


Skarlet

It made no sense. (...) A huge jet. Then it was gone. "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building.


Sucherman, Joel

The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror- struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. "I didn't feel anything coming out of the Pentagon [in terms of debris],"


Sutherland, Jim

a white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon..

when he saw a 737 airplane 50 feet over Interstate 395 heading in a straight line into the side of the Pentagon.


Stephens, Levi

"what looked like a 747" plowed into the south side of the Pentagon, possibly skipping through a heliport before it hit the building.


Thompson, Carla

"I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building," said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. "I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up--red, everything red,"


Thompson, Phillip

And when, on my way to work Sept. 11, I saw an American Airlines jet come overhead and slam into the Pentagon, it all came back.


Ticknor, Henry

Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon.


Timmerman, Tim

it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."

I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible. It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there. (We were told that it was flying so low that it clipped off a couple of light poles as it was coming in) That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded my view. And when it reappeared, it was right before impact, and like I said, it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames.

it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames.


Turner, Ron

He had only to turn to watch the disaster unfold. "There was a huge fireball," he said, "followed by the [usual] black cloud of a fuel burn."


Walter, Mike

I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' "And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.


Winslow, Dave

"I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the Pentagon."


Wright, Don

" .. I watched this ...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... come down from the south real low ... "


Wyatt, Ian

"It was going so fast and it was so low," he said, standing on Army-Navy Drive. "The only intelligent thought that came into my head was, 'Oh my God, they hit the Pentagon.' I could then hear cars squealing all around and people were just stunned." After the plane struck the west side of the famed five-sided building, thick black smoke billowed from a huge crater as fire raged within.


Zakhem, Madelyn

when she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to theground.... I was crying and scared". "If I had been on top of our building, I would have been close enough to reach up and catch it,"

 

[Oliver]

It doesn't really matter what the FDR data and the simulation
shows. It's a waste of time, believe me.

 

[beachnut]

Actually, the NTSB does specifically claim in its "Flight Path Study -- American Airlines Flight 77" report that flight 77 impacted the Pentagon even though of course I agree that it is evident.

My argument, the one I wanted help with, is a logical argument. It is obviously not a technical argument about what is contained in the released FDR data.

It is an argument that concludes that, contrary to PFT's claim, it is highly unlikely, based on purely commonsensical premises, that the FDR data and animation, released by the NTSB, contains information that obviously disputes the NTSB's own claim.

The NTSB did not say 77 impacted the Pentagon due to their own work, they are using the facts we all used, the NTSB did not prove with the FDR that 77 hits the Pentagon, the FBI has proof.

Yes the NTSB says it impacted the Pentagon but they are not proving it with the Flight Path Study. They could have picked the time stamp from the FDR of 9:37:46, but you will not find proof of the impact time. Even that time would be relative. And the PFT will use it as the end of the flight and ignore that the data is stored to the final chip in a serial manner at the speed that makes is impossible to store data in real time. The data is in a pipe line to be stored, how many seconds are missing is unknown.

 

[Go_]

Oliver, what is the relevance of that post to the CT debunking argument that I posited in the OP?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, what is the relevance of that post to the CT debunking argument that I posited in the OP?

My point is that there are no arguments concerning the
FDR-Data. If you read the accounts and you have a
working brain, which Hardcore CT's don't have, then you
will realize that real accounts from real people are much
more relevant then a "simulation" or reading bit by bit
in some Data. There are no arguments because the
will twist it the way they prefer.

But you will see this if you spend some time studying
these people.

 

[beachnut]

If you accept my conclusion and believe that the argument is valid then you must also believe that all the premises in the argument (#1-#3) are true as well.

It is had to follow stuff based on stuff that is lies. Meaning the lies for CT stuff like PFT without explaining all the data and how are not correct to begin with. I am not able to agree with any of the 4 statements yet, I will look again.

The PFT have not proved there are problems with the FDR. Each time they say something they have not presented a solid case for anything.

I meant the data in the FDR supports all the other evidence of 77 on 9/11. It even supports the earlier flights.

Talk and debate is not the issue. The issue is based in facts and evidence not debate talk and since the PFT believe they are right then it is true. The conclusion PFT offer are lies.

PFT efforts to be like LC will fail. LC just talks, the PFT are trying to bend data they do not understand to match a story they can not define.

 

[ref]

Actually, the NTSB does specifically claim in its "Flight Path Study -- American Airlines Flight 77" report that flight 77 impacted the Pentagon even though of course I agree that it is evident.

My argument, the one I wanted help with, is a logical argument. It is obviously not a technical argument about what is contained in the released FDR data.

It is an argument that concludes that, contrary to PFT's claim, it is highly unlikely, based on purely commonsensical premises, that the FDR data and animation, released by the NTSB, contains information that obviously disputes the NTSB's own claim.

It does not contain information that disputes the fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon. The study says AA77 hit the Pentagon, because that's just a universally known fact (except the truthers of course). It also says the FDR was found at the crash scene. I don't consider those as claims. I consider them only as opening paragraphs to a study of AA77 FDR data, rather than specific claims of NTSB.

If you wanted to think this logically, you are correct. Why would they deliberately release something they know to be false, that could be interpreted by any expert to show they conspired and lied?

And to be even more logic. The bigger picture is, everything proves that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Debris, witnesses (don't ask Lyte), damage, DNA, FDR. Why get stuck on a minor single detail when there is all the proof in the world. And even that minor detail proves the same thing.