Flight 77 FDR Data created before black boxes were recovered

[Jonnyclueless]

So to rehash, the evidence that the FDR data is fake is that the modification date on someones personal computer does not fit the time given in a press release?

So basically one non-accurate time stamp does not agree with another non-accurate time stamp.

I think this should be taken to court! Please, let us know how it goes.

 

[lapman]

Lapman are you claiming that the FBI and CIa was enough and that no general overarching political investigation was required?

No, but you're basically stating that there were no other investigations other than NIST and the commission. Can you provide any evidence that all of the various investigations were not thorough?

 

[theauthor]

No, but you're basically stating that there were no other investigations other than NIST and the commission. Can you provide any evidence that all of the various investigations were not thorough?

I am not talking about the criminal investigation. that may have been thorough. I am talking about the 911 commission. It wasn't thorough by the admission of its own commissioners.

 

[lapman]

I am not talking about the criminal investigation. that may have been thorough. I am talking about the 911 commission. It wasn't thorough by the admission of its own commissioners.

I'm glad that you somewhat recognize the difference between what the commission was trying to accomplish and what a criminal investigation is. However, far too much emphasis is being placed on the commission report. As stated by one or more of the commission members, they did a reasonable job and was a success. Could they have found more info if they has the money, time and it not being an election year? Yeah, I can agree with that. However, it's the twoofers that requires the report to be 1000% accurate in every syllable that was in it and completely ignore everything else.

 

[theauthor]

I'm glad that you somewhat recognize the difference between what the commission was trying to accomplish and what a criminal investigation is. However, far too much emphasis is being placed on the commission report. As stated by one or more of the commission members, they did a reasonable job and was a success. Could they have found more info if they has the money, time and it not being an election year? Yeah, I can agree with that. However, it's the twoofers that requires the report to be 1000% accurate in every syllable that was in it and completely ignore everything else.

Accuracy is not the problem I have.

I have a problem with them saying that the source of funding was of "little practical significance".

I have a problem with them dismissing the put options on the basis that the investors had no concievable ties to al queda.

Are you happy with those things?

 

[Obviousman]

This has probably been raised, but why not the files for all the FDRs / CVRs being created in prepartion for their recovery? I don't know how the FDR files work, but in a number of systems I use, a blank file has to be created before you download data into it.

Just a thought.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

This has probably been raised, but why not the files for all the FDRs / CVRs being created in prepartion for their recovery? I don't know how the FDR files work, but in a number of systems I use, a blank file has to be created before you download data into it.

Just a thought.

that would account for the created on date, but not the last modified date

i think the most likely explanation is simply a workstation used in the transfer process had it clock or timezone set wrong

 

[gnome]

By itself, this discrepancy doesn't prove anything; however, when you consider it along with all the other evidence, it's just one more reason to doubt the US Government's story.

You guys like to take problems like this, say, "it doesn't definitively prove anything on its own, because there are other possible explanations for it -- debunked", and then completely disregard it from that point forward. In other words, you fail to examine the entire body of evidence.

Take, for instance, a murder trial. The prosecution has multiple eye-witnesses, as well as physical evidence to support their case. You can look at the eye-witnesses and say, "there's a possibility that they're lying". You can look at the physical evidence and say, "there's a possibility that the police are framing the defendant". When you consider everything together, there just isn't much of a chance that both of those scenarios are true.

So, yes, you guys are correct - when you isolate this latest problem, it doesn't definitively prove anything. Add it to the list of other problems, and it's just another reason why a new investigation is absolutely necessary. If you don't think so, I suggest you ask yourself why you're so opposed to a new investigation if you're so sure about what happened.

This is your argument, that where there's smoke, there's fire.

The problem is it's in question whether there's even smoke. A bunch of issues that individually aren't good evidence don't suddenly become good evidence when you put them together.

 

[gumboot]

Let's face it, if the "evidence" was faked, it wouldn't be the first time the 9/11 Truth Movement had fabricated or manipulated evidence to support their claims, is it?

 

[pomeroo]

That's a silly requirement. It doesn't matter who conducts it, as long as it's a thorough and 100% transparent investigation. Remember, NIST ignored the most puzzling parts of the WTC1/2 collapse (e.g., dust, collapse time, molten steel), and completely ignored WTC7 at first (it remains to be seen if their eventual report will address the partially evaporated steel members).

So basically, they should investigate 9/11 like they would any other murder.

In other words, you don't really want an investiagtion. You want like-minded crackpots to form a lynch mob and convict innocent people of crimes they didn't commit. NIST ignored nothing. The silly canards you mention have been debunked to death.

Yes, the jihadists committed murders. Agenda-driven fools and liars want to exonerate them.

 

[pomeroo]

Accuracy is not the problem I have.

I have a problem with them saying that the source of funding was of "little practical significance".

I have a problem with them dismissing the put options on the basis that the investors had no concievable ties to al queda.

Are you happy with those things?

P-doh, how many times have you been told to check out the discusion on 911myths.com?

http://911myths.com/html/put_options.html

 

[CurtC]

This just in...

OMG, look what I came across...

The flight data recorder file was saved exactly at the moment when I was getting married. I must be in on the conspiracy.

 

[Burrell]

I agree, obviously fake. There is no way that anyone at any form of Wedding that I have ever been invited to would be sober enough to say "I do" at 7:30 at night. This proves that such an event could not happen! Lol.

 

[Burrell]

All jokes aside, as previously pointed out by many different posts on this page alone, there are a number of us that are frustrated by the lack of detail, both here and in other areas of the ‘evidence’ provided to date. Please do not mistake this frustration for a reluctance to be open minded, it is quite the reverse, I for one am willing to be convinced however I am not willing to become an unpaid researcher for you or for anyone else on this forum in order to become convinced.

From what I have gathered so far it is your belief Author that the time listed for the creation for the file is legitimate, despite the ease in which others have shown it could be altered, and I believe that it is your contention Deep44 that this points, in conjunction with other evidence, to wider actions by persons unknown to murder innocent people.

If I have mistaken your points of view then please clarify them. If those views stated above are yours then currently I am far from convinced that either of you is correct.

 

[qarnos]

This whole argument is silly. There are so many benign ways this timestamp could come about, it is a complete non issue.

Yet, there are some who wish to believe that not only is this proof that NIST forged the black box data, but they did it just hours beforehand?