Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Turbofan said:
various words barely staying within the forum rules but amounting to nothing but more hot air
Click to expand...

Yawn. Hey Turbo, at this point rather than put you on ignore, I'll just keep posting this until you realize what a fool you look like:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT/PFT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."
 
Turbofan said:
Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!
Click to expand...

You think the poles were designed for aircraft impact, just not this specific kind? That's rather contradictory.

In any case, show me a post that says the poles were explicitly designed for "that type of aircraft impact," or any aircraft impact at all? Try not to confuse this with posts stating that the forces involving an aircraft impact on the light poles would simply exceed the base's capabilities.
 
Turbofan said:
No, I'm not.

Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!

You guys kill me. :D

P.S. It's not a dodge. Why is my opinion so important? Is that going to
solve your mystery? If we had a full investigation, I wouldn't have to guess
what happened.

History's worst 'attack' and nobody wants to investigate? I love your
government. They can't even prove Bin Laden was behind 9/11! :rolleyes:

Keep bending over guys...you must like it.
Click to expand...

You are saying that no plane hit those light poles. I am asking what you think did hit the light poles. Your opinion is important because it helps show yet another truther who cannot connect the dots on their theories.

So just give me your opinion on how the light poles got like that.

If you think it was a plant and was done to make it look like a plane went through there, just say it.
 
Turbofan said:
I didnt say "a" plane could not knock down a light pole.

I asked to see a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole.

In other words, I don't believe AA77 hit the pole. Understand?
Click to expand...

If someone were to provide to you a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole, what would that prove, exactly, that hasn't been proven already with the previously-posted math. In other words...if you currently believe that a plane could knock down a light pole, there is no need to provide such a photo. (if one exists)

Turbofan said:
That's what a new investigation is for.
Click to expand...

It's been 7 years since 9/11...how many more DVDs do you have to sell before you start your "new investigation"?
 
So using Turbos logic we can conclude:

Unless a picture is provided of a plane hitting a light pole, a plane is not capable of knocking down a light pole.

Anything that is not designed to be hit by a plane, is indestructible by a plane. This goes right alone with his logic of how FDRs work.
 
Right Clueless...just keep on twisting my words. Yup, I believe a plane
can't knock over a light post :rolleyes:

A massive commercial airliner can't knock over a tiny light pole.
Oh..u..got..me...that's exactly what I believe LMAO!

Sometimes I really do wonder how old you are, and how well you understand
the English language.

Hey 16.5 IQ, I don't believe that flight path is accurate. There's nothing in
the flight data that shows a dip below tress, or anything you are claiming.

I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use
the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.

Sweet dreams everyone. I can't wait to read the next spin on my posts.
 
I don't know if anybody remembers, but this NTSB video looks similar to the animation PfT did when they got the FDR info. The plane's path in the PfT video looks just about the same as the NTSB video. I even got the two videos confused together over at Loose Change.

The guys at frustrating Fraud discovered that PfT made the mistake of not aligning the map correctly.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/08/ntsb-animation-internal-geography-part.html
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/05/ntsb-animation-is-flat-wrong.html

It would seem that whoever did the animation at NTSB made the same mistake.
 
uruk said:
I don't know if anybody remembers, but this NTSB video looks similar to the animation PfT did when they got the FDR info. The plane's path in the PfT video looks just about the same as the NTSB video. I even got the two videos confused together over at Loose Change.

The guys at frustrating Fraud discovered that PfT made the mistake of not aligning the map correctly.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/08/ntsb-animation-internal-geography-part.html
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/05/ntsb-animation-is-flat-wrong.html

It would seem that whoever did the animation at NTSB made the same mistake.
Click to expand...

Haha! Those guys are me. Bobert got mixed up too at ATS, citing my old stuff. The error there is the *apparent* approach is all NTSB. PffT error was in pretending not to realize this and calling "north plot data" real. This case is different - it's got a swerve from north to south path, which cannot be explained the same way. The right maneuver over a wrongly rotated map is one thing, a whole nonexistent maneuver that's been shown improbable after CIT proposed about the same thing, that's a diff story. Check Celestrin's post a ways back for the best explanation yet.
 
Turbofan said:
Hey 16.5 IQ (I cannot tell you how many times Truthers have said this, sigh), I don't believe that flight path is accurate. There's nothing in
the flight data that shows a dip below tress, or anything you are claiming.

I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use
the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.
Click to expand...

Interesting choice of words! The witness accounts! You might be wondering where I got that bit about the plane dipping below the tree line (and you are the first Truther to mention it and only after posting it so many times that I lost count).

Well, you see, I got that from a CIT witness: Terry Morin's testimony that he saw the plane almost totally disappear below the trees, trees that were downslope from the Annex into that famous Pentagon bowl that Pft and Cit keep mentioning.

So after hand waving my question away so many times, you appear to have finally read it! Awesome! In fact everything in that question is based on CIT's witnesses and CIT's description of the flight path.

Now do the math to prove a plane could do what they say it did, and you have solved 911!

You are SO close!*

*
 
Caustic Logic said:
Haha! Those guys are me. Bobert got mixed up too at ATS, citing my old stuff. The error there is the *apparent* approach is all NTSB. PffT error was in pretending not to realize this and calling "north plot data" real. This case is different - it's got a swerve from north to south path, which cannot be explained the same way. The right maneuver over a wrongly rotated map is one thing, a whole nonexistent maneuver that's been shown improbable after CIT proposed about the same thing, that's a diff story. Check Celestrin's post a ways back for the best explanation yet.
Click to expand...

My apologies for refering to you in the plural. You did great work with the PfT video.

I figgured since the FDR dropped the data a second before the impact, whoever made the animation took "artistic license" with the path.
 
Turbofan said:
Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!
Click to expand...


You are rapidly descending into the realm of being worthy of nothing other than laughter.



Turbofan said:
Right Clueless...just keep on twisting my words. Yup, I believe a plane
can't knock over a light post :rolleyes:

A massive commercial airliner can't knock over a tiny light pole.
Oh..u..got..me...that's exactly what I believe LMAO!
Click to expand...


Oh! So we agree that a plane can knock over a light post!
What about the post above, then?



Turbofan said:
I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.
Click to expand...


Why don't you try considering the evidence without bias, and see where it leads?

I frankly don't give a hoot which side of Citgo the plane went. I follow the evidence, which leads me to conclude a South of Citgo flightpath into the Pentagon.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
So using Turbos logic we can conclude:

Unless a picture is provided of a plane hitting a light pole, a plane is not capable of knocking down a light pole.
Click to expand...


No, no... He's clearly adopted the Internet meme of "pics or it didn't happen" as his standard of evidence.

Uhh... except when it comes to the whole North-of-CITGO thing, of course. Who needs pics of that?
 
Last edited:
Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.

After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce
their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.

Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto
the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Grunion, this isn't worth pursuing, because Turbofan's playing the usual truther game. He's implicitly claiming that something other should have happened than the light poles breaking off when the plane hit them, but refusing to make an explicit claim as to what should have happened. He's then going to point out that you don't have convincing proof that the light poles should have broken off, and suggest that this supports his vague assertion that they therefore shouldn't have broken off. It's a version of the fallacy of denying the antecedent, and it's a classic dishonest debating technique.

Turbofan, either state how the light poles should have behaved when hit by a plane, with evidence; admit that you don't know how they should have behaved, and that therefore you have no position here; or forget about having any credibility.

Dave
Click to expand...

Ok, so the poles break away at the base upon impact.

How, pray tell, would the poles behave after impact? What is the vertical position of the base in relation to the top of the pole as it moves horizontally through space?
More specifically, if the initial position of the base in relation to the top of the pole is -40' (the height of the pole), and the final position is 0 (when the pole is lying on the ground horizontally with both base and top at equal vertical positions in relation to each other), could you complete this graph?

| 40
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------0
|
|
|
| -40
_________________________________________________________________
Time between impact and rest

Note: The Y axis is the position of the base relative to the top. The top of the graph (40) represents a complete 180 degree flip of the pole. In this case, the base would be (positive) 40 feet above the top. In the initial position, the base is 40 feet below the top (represented by -40). 0 represents the final (horizontal) position of the pole. The X axis is the time between impact and final horizontal rest of the pole.
 
Turbofan said:
Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.

After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce
their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.

Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto
the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.
Click to expand...
Turbofan where is 77 when the RADAR altimeter reads 273 feet.
Never will.

Flight 77 is still 6 seconds away from the Pentagon when the data stops. This is something Turbofan and p4t are not able to do; possibly due to bad math and physics on their part.



The FDR shows 77 over 2000 feet off the runway at takeoff with FDR data. The NTSB place the image under the animation of the plane. Turbofan can not comprehend this, neither can p4t! Sad

See, the runway has a heading, and the FDR has a heading that is easy to match up. The FDR shows 77 over 6 seconds away from the Pentagon. Turbofan, give it up, you can’t tell me or anyone where 77 is on the last data point stored in the FDR!


Added insult at the end, a terrorist apologist Balsamo taught trait. You learn well. The lies come from you; you are the one with the lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon. With no evidence.

Turbofan! The runway image was independent of the Pentagon image! Are you having problems understanding the NTSB WORKING COPY? How can you be so ignorant on how an NTSB animation is made with all those expert pilots who make you spew the lie, 77 did not hit the Pentagon? Notice there are no images on the entire animation except take off, and landing.

This is like your 64 w/s error...
 
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin said:
Ok, so the poles break away at the base upon impact.

How, pray tell, would the poles behave after impact? What is the vertical position of the base in relation to the top of the pole as it moves horizontally through space?
More specifically, if the initial position of the base in relation to the top of the pole is -40' (the height of the pole), and the final position is 0 (when the pole is lying on the ground horizontally with both base and top at equal vertical positions in relation to each other), could you complete this graph?

| 40
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------0
|
|
|
| -40
_________________________________________________________________
Time between impact and rest

Note: The Y axis is the position of the base relative to the top. The top of the graph (40) represents a complete 180 degree flip of the pole. In this case, the base would be (positive) 40 feet above the top. In the initial position, the base is 40 feet below the top (represented by -40). 0 represents the final (horizontal) position of the pole. The X axis is the time between impact and final horizontal rest of the pole.
Click to expand...


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]To men who pretend to be real[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
I ask you to listen
Your shallow heart and endless greed
No longer have any effect on me
And thank you
For setting me free to soar
And thank you
For making me realize that I am worth so much more
So I will leave you with your guilt as company
And hopefully one day you’ll think of me
And you’ll wonder what you could have been for the rest of your life
While my happiness will shine

Based on a poem by:
D.P.Fields
[/FONT]
 
Turbofan said:
Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.
Click to expand...

Exactly which parameters would show the strikes? The only ones which might are if the poles damaged the engine. this may show some variances in the engine data. If the data does not show this but if we know the white smoke in the video is created by a damaged engine then this is even more proof that there is data missing from the FDR.

Nothing else would have been picked up by the FDR. So, is the video and smoke fake? Or the FDR?

TF said:
After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.
Click to expand...

I do not debate freaks who threaten people and steal and publish their identities. Balsamo is deranged.

TF said:
Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.
Click to expand...

You should know the answer to this, if you do not then you should not be posting about such matters.
 
Turbofan said:
Right Clueless...just keep on twisting my words. Yup, I believe a plane
can't knock over a light post :rolleyes:

A massive commercial airliner can't knock over a tiny light pole.
Oh..u..got..me...that's exactly what I believe LMAO!

Sometimes I really do wonder how old you are, and how well you understand
the English language.

Hey 16.5 IQ, I don't believe that flight path is accurate. There's nothing in
the flight data that shows a dip below tress, or anything you are claiming.

I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use
the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.

Sweet dreams everyone. I can't wait to read the next spin on my posts.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that we're simply mimicing you and thus all your personal attacks are pretty much just on your own behavior. But go ahead and keep dodging all the problems with your claims. Perhaps they used the Pole downer 2000 machine.

And when you say you'd rather use witness testimony (the most unreliable form of evidence, not used by real investigators unless absolutely nesc), you mean use just the parts of the eyewitness testimony that helps your crackpot theories and discarding the eyewitness testimony that disproves your crackpot theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom