AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

There is no arguing with your kind of logic Turbofan

Only you could ignore the flaws in the FDR data and think AA77 hit the
Pentagon.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove pointless taunting.

Show all of us how you position the plane at 1.5 DME, using speed, altitude,
g, and heading.

 

[Bananaman]

They are all important to determine the distance, position and altitude
with regard to the light poles and impact point of the Pentagon.

What's your take on the points Bananaman?

I think you have to be pretty obtuse to think that anything other than flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I've seen troofers get hung up on odd confused eyewitness accounts and turn a blind eye to the dozens and dozens of eyewitness accounts that said a bloody great passenger jet smacked into the Pentagon.

I've seen troofers get hung up on why a window didn't break adjacent to the entry point even after going quiet on the fact that large parts of a Boeing 757 were recovered from inside the Pentagon.

I've seen troofers insist all the DNA evidence was faked even though all the passengers bar a baby were identified and some passengers even found still strapped into their seats, implying that not only were the labs involved in on the cover-up but also the firemen and police and rescue workers at the scene.

Now we have troofers insisting on a fly-over based solely on some dodgy FDR readings, which would mean a Boeing 757 flew straight at the Pentagon in broad daylight then pulled up and over at the last minute while a bloody great explosion happened simultaneously underneath it in the Pentagon.

It's ludicrous from beginning to end.

Face it, Turbo, what you're advocating is delusional beyond words.

That's my take on it, since you asked.

Bananaman.

 

[bje]

Witnesses...say they saw airplane parts, and pulled bodies from the Pentagon. You can't prove those bodies came from AA77; they were employees, or contract workers at the Pentgon.

No, they weren't.

Since none of those witnesses were qualified airplane investigators, they could have idea whether the parts were from a missile, or smaller aircraft.

You don't know the qualifications of those 1,000+ people who investigated, saw, recovered, or sorted the wreckage. You've already shown that you can't provide any statements from them and you just demonstrated that you didn't know they were not Pentagon workers or "contract" employees.

Nice try guys. Try finding some credible sources to backup your theories.

Nice try, Turbofan. That was supposed to be the mission of your Citizen's Investigation Team. You know you are cornered, Turbofan, and it was of you're own doing.

Keep flailing desperately.

 

[Turbofan]

Since all of you refuse to debate the facts and turn a blind eye, I did the
work for you (especially Beachnut).

Here are some images from Google Earth. FDR data does not support the
official government story. Proove me, and PFT wrong.

Close up of radio beacon
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_beacon.jpg

Close up of light poles on highway
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_light_poles.jpg

Close up of impact area
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_impact_hole.jpg

Position of aircraft at 1.31 Nautical Miles from Beacon
Notes:
Out of range for sensor tolerance.
Altitude too high for RAD ALT, and Pressure Altitude.
Too close for impact time and speed of plane.
Does not line up with flight path, or damage path.

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_1.31_lightpoles.jpg

Position of aircraft at 1.40 Nautical Miles from Beacon
Notes:
Altitude too high for RAD ALT, and Pressure Altitude.
Distance does not equal impact time and speed of plane.
Data inconsistent to allow plane to drop from altitude and hit poles.
Does not line up with flight path, or damage path.
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_1.4_lightpoles.jpg

Position of aircraft at 1.50 Nautical Miles from Beacon
Notes:
Too far for impact time and speed of plane.
3100+ feet from Pentagon impact point.
Data inconsistent to allow plane to drop from altitude and hit poles.
Does not line up with flight path, or damage path.

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_1.5_lightpoles.jpg

Have fun trying to prove otherwise with your excuses and theories.

I'm only going to answer to this specific post information, and get back
on the real topic of this thread.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove pointless taunting.

Anybody good enough to step up to the challenge?

 

[twinstead]

So let me get this straight. Turbofan, are you claiming that every bit of evidence (and you know there a crap load of it) that has any possibility of being contrary to your claims is faked or planted?

 

[DavidJames]

This thread is clearly going nowhere. It's sole function at this point is to provide TurboFan an outlet for his nonsense. This is the only vehicle he has to peddle his delusions. Without this forum PFT sits aside the flat earth society in terms of relevance.

To those "debating" him, what do you hope to accomplish? Provide a balance for the lurkers? If a lurker is pursuaded by the combination of TurboFans evidence and complete lack of desire to vet this "evidence" to anyone who can act on it, is beyond reach.

 

[DavidJames]

dup

 

[Turbofan]

This thread is clearly going nowhere. It's sole function at this point is to provide TurboFan an outlet for his nonsense. This is the only vehicle he has to peddle his delusions. Without this forum PFT sits aside the flat earth society in terms of relevance.

To those "debating" him, what do you hope to accomplish? Provide a balance for the lurkers? If a lurker is pursuaded by the combination of TurboFans evidence and complete lack of desire to vet this "evidence" to anyone who can act on it, is beyond reach.

Sorry DavidJames,

This is not MY evidence.

It was provided by the NTSB! According to their data, AA77 did not
hit the lightpoles, or the Pentagon.

See my images and notes above.

Please prove otherwise.

 

[stateofgrace]

I have already stated three times that it was PLANTED!
.

Yes I understand you said it as planted and I am now asking you whether the data that was on it was on it when it was planted.

See I am actually very interested in what you have to say, hence my line of questioning. By doing so I hope to establish some form of narrative from you as to exactly what you believe happened. I am not in the sightless bit interesting in arguing with you, I am actually for the sake of argument agreeing with everything so you.

So we have established that the FDR was planted, right? So again does it follow that the data that was recovered from it was put into prior to 911? I.e. before somebody planted it at the Pentagon?

 

[funk de fino]

They are trawling for members for their pathetic forum, the one with no action and a lack of rational thinkers. The one where lunatics reside that threaten death to people who do not agree with them and who lie about airphones. The ones who fail to understand what happens to aircraft when they crash at high speed and show an inability to identify the correct engines and other boeing parts when shown.

If someones answer to all physical evidence is to cry fake while relying on witness evidence that is cherry picked and also is in the minority then we are wasting our time.

 

[Turbofan]

Yes I understand you said it as planted and I am now asking you whether the data that was on it was on it when it was planted.

See I am actually very interested in what you have to say, hence my line of questioning. By doing so I hope to establish some form of narrative from you as to exactly what you believe happened. I am not in the sightless bit interesting in arguing with you, I am actually for the sake of argument agreeing with everything so you.

So we have established that the FDR was planted, right? So again does it follow that the data that was recovered from it was put into prior to 911? I.e. before somebody planted it at the Pentagon?

If you really want to know what I think on a sincere basis, that is fine.

I'm not stating this is fact, nor do I want my statement to go off
track from the images and question posted about the NTSB provided files.

What I believe is:

The data released by the NTSB was from an aircraft which flew over the
Pentagon. This data was then pushed as the FDR data from AA77 by the
government's official story.

I therefore believe it was planted evidence because nothing in that file
supports the lightpole, or Pentagon damage.

Maybe it came from the E4-B? Who knows?

All I want to know is why the data doesn't align with the official story.
It would be nice if the NTSB, or FBI, or Pentagon would release more
information and allow a proper investigation.

 

[stateofgrace]

If you really want to know what I think on a sincere basis, that is fine.

I'm not stating this is what is fact, nor do I want my statement to go off
track from the images and question posted about the NTSB provided files.

What I believe is:

The data released by the NTSB was from an aircraft which flew over the
Pentagon. This data was then pushed as the FDR data from AA77 by the
government's official story.

I therefore believe it was planted evidence because nothing in that file
supports the Pentagon damage.

Maybe it came from the E4-B? Who knows?

All I want to know is why the data has errors. It would be nice if the NTSB,
or FBI, or Pentagon would release more information and allow a proper investigation.

So just to be crystal clear the FDR that was planted at the Pentagon, did it have any data on it? Or was it just a fake FDR ?

 

[Matthew Best]

The reason you want a new investigation is because you know very well that the unavoidable results from your claims are simply impossible and if you were to present them you would imediately debunk your own beliefs. And so the best you can do is pretend to simply want some new impossible investigation that you know very well will never happen and will then allow you to prolong your little fantasy under the guise that you simply never got the investigation that would prove what you pretend to know is true.

Brilliant! The only way this paragraph could be improved would be if you took out the full stop and made it all one long sentence.

 

[eeyore1954]

Only you could ignore the flaws in the FDR data and think AA77 hit the
Pentagon.

Calling out Wildcat, Jaydeehess, Stateofgrace, Beachnut, Eeyore and Funk de Fino.

I would say this way. Only you and a few others could overlook the mountains of evidence pointing to flight 77 hitting the pentagon.

You say there are flaws lots of others say there is not. Including the technicians who examined the FDR. I don't know if there any flaws in the FDR data. I am not an expert .But the evidence is so overwhelming that the plane hit the pentagon it makes the point moot to me.

If you really and the folks at PF "Truth" really believe what you claim. Get some unbiased professional confirmation of your beliefs.

 

[Turbofan]

I would say this way. Only you and a few others could overlook the mountains of evidence pointing to flight 77 hitting the pentagon.

You say there are flaws lots of others say there is not. Including the technicians who examined the FDR. I don't know if there any flaws in the FDR data. I am not an expert .But the evidence is so overwhelming that the plane hit the pentagon it makes the point moot to me.

If you really and the folks at PF "Truth" really believe what you claim. Get some unbiased professional confirmation of your beliefs.

You're entitled to your opinion.

If you include the FDR as part of your mountain of evidence (which you should),
then how can you claim AA77 hit the Pentagon?

The very device that is linked to AA77 (being the FDR) doesn't support
the official story.

So you all say, "but what about this...", and "what about that...", but you
are forgetting the single most important piece of information which links
AA77 to the crash site - the flight data recorder.

Do you think PFT would have a problem if the data recorder showed that
AA77 hit the Pentagon? Do you think I would be debating this issue as well?

I don't care about anything else at this point. I want to focus on the data
recorder and figure out how the NTSB could link this data to the crime scene.
Once that has been confirmed, the other details will follow.

 

[WildCat]

The very device that is linked to AA77 (being the FDR) doesn't support the official story.

Only according to the hacks at PfffT, none of which are qualified to analyze data from a FDR.

There is not a single FDR expert in the entire world who thinks the data is inconsistent with Flight 77.

 

[JimBenArm]

Actually, you're forgetting the most important piece of information that links AA77 to the crash site: The DNA and body parts of passengers found there. But, of course, an FDR is far more important than the passengers. After all, it's not like they were real people or anything, right?

 

[WildCat]

Maybe it came from the E4-B? Who knows?

How many engines does an E-4B have? How many does a 757 have? How many engines are represented in the FDR data?

Amazing how dimwitted you guys at PfffT are.

 

[lapman]

The only idiocy here is believing that AA77 produced anything remotely
close to 3400 g's upon impact!

Oh, so an in-flight fire would?

Simply put, you are all hoping to find something that would cause the
power to fail before impact...then run with a weak theory.

What sort of logic is that? Pretending and hoping that everything needed to fail on 9/11 to get your story to pan out?

As opposed to your illogic that everything works to spec 100% of the time no matter what? Yeah, that's a real strong theory. Then again, you think that a working copy of an animation is completely accurate.

 

[Turbofan]

How many engines does an E-4B have? How many does a 757 have? How many engines are represented in the FDR data?

Amazing how dimwitted you guys at PfffT are.

My how simple you are. I guess you can't delete such information, or cut
and paste. Maybe ... strip it from the decode process

That's why I don't bother posting what I think, because it doesn't matter.
MOst of you will just take a single bit of info and spin it (just like Wildcat did).

What matters is why the FDR data doesn't support your theory.

Get a clue Wildcat. Answer my questions . Chicken.


Links and data are still posted above which none of you have tried to answer.

Typical.