AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

When it comes to eyewitness testimony? The odds are very good.

The odds are very good that 10+ people who don't know each other, and
are at different locations can make up the same story about a fake event?

I guess it seems pretty suspicious until you remember that you are cherry picking information and dismissing far more evidence than you are accepting.

Really? Where are your witness video accounts?

You're just grasping on what George tells you huh?

Gotta love when your own government agencies release conflicting data,
but you all just bend over and smile to George and co.!

 

[jaydeehess]

The odds are very good that 10+ people who don't know each other, and
are at different locations can make up the same story about a fake event?

Actually you have 10+ people with varying stories that all have the identical ending, "The plane hit the building".

Lagasse's description, for instance, of where the plane was differs from Turcois' and from Brooks, and in fact Turcois puts it going over three different paths at the leading of Craigo. But all three end with the aircraft hitting the building. Not flying over, not headed for the top floors even.

 

[dtugg]

When am I going to hear on the news that the courageous patriots of PfffffffT and CIT have proved that no plane hit the Pentagon by using the FDR found in the Pentagon and witnesses that say a plane hit the Pentagon?

So? When is this going to happen, Turbo? I assume that you want the rest of the world to know about the crime of the century. Or maybe your heroes, Capt. Bob and CIT are actually frauds?

If you think that the American media is part of the coverup, take your "evidence" to Al Jazeera or something. I am sure that they would love to have proof that the United States government faked AA77 crashing at the Pentagon.

 

[jaydeehess]

Who says we don't have a paper?

You said you did not need one, that the videos and web site presentations were enough. Should I search for that post?

Now, if there is a consise, technical paper outlining how PfT arrives at the conclusion that the FDR data does not reveal a flight path that is consistent with the one described by the physical evidence of the knocked down lap posts then by all means after you have finished submitting it to all relevent and concerned parties then let the internet denizens who might also be interested in it have a look-see.

BTW have you ever answered the question of why you (that's PfT) choose to concentrate on argueing points on the internet with people you do not feel are capable of understanding the concepts?

Oh yeah, Jaydee...have you found that tech paper yet?

Sorry, was I to look something up and forgot about it? Refresjh my memory if so.

If there is a tech paper from PfT then no I have not seen it yet and by the sound of it no one else here has either. got a a link?

 

[double_o]

Proven wrong huh?

Why don't you tell me the odds of 5 people (disconnected) drawing and
describing a north flight path?

What are the odds when 10 people do the same thing? How about 11, 12, 13, etc?

Try an experiment:

Go talk to 10 people around your city (who are not familiar with each other)
about a FAKE event.

Get them on video describing what they saw.

What are the chances that your ten testimonies will be able to tell you
the exact same thing?

What are the chances that these people could MAKE UP the same story
if it were fake?

Use your head.

But you see, what you got wrong is that: CIT didn't interview only 13 people, they interviewed much more. Some of the people they interviewed said they saw the plane on the SoC. CIT simply dismissed them by calling them liars. But you can't count only your hits, you need to count your misses too.

Gravy in his site compiled a list of 136 known pentagon witnesses and there probably more witnesses known today. For example, it has 16 people who have seen the plane hit the light poles, that's more than the NoC witnesses. The fact that in the witnesses' accounts the plane path is varied, some puts it at the damage flight path, some puts it to the north and some puts it to the south. However all the witnesses who were in the position to see the plane hitting the pentagon (a total of 104) said it hit the pentagon and not a single one saw it fly over the pentagon.

So, what are the chances that 104 testimonies will be able to tell you
the exact same thing?

Use your head.

 

[Turbofan]

BTW have you ever answered the question of why you (that's PfT) choose to concentrate on argueing points on the internet with people you do not feel are capable of understanding the concepts?

Concentrate on internet? I've been gone for a month...

have you heard any of the interviews happening on radio talk shows, or
new forum member research?

Sorry, we don't depend solely on this place

Actually you have 10+ people with varying stories that all have the identical ending, "The plane hit the building".

Lagasse's description, for instance, of where the plane was differs from Turcois' and from Brooks, and in fact Turcois puts it going over three different paths at the leading of Craigo. But all three end with the aircraft hitting the building. Not flying over, not headed for the top floors even.

Actually, that's not totally correct. Keep spinning the evidence until it
satisfies your peace of mind though.

Here's a diagram of 13 witness accounts all with similar flight paths. What
are the odds?

P.S. What hit the light poles?

BTW UnLovedRebel: Your analogy isn't accurate. This isn't a case of the
story changing between witness accounts of a scenario.

It 'aint like, "dude wuz wearin' a blue hat"...then by the end the hat is
orange.

This is a bit different. Do you understand? 13 people had to make up the
same flight path.



You would have a better chance at winning the lottery than finding 13 people
who could make up the same story. Gee, what are the 9/11 odds!

 

[jaydeehess]

Really? Where are your witness video accounts?

You're just grasping on what George tells you huh?

Gotta love when your own government agencies release conflicting data,
but you all just bend over and smile to George and co.!

The really odd thing about this line of reasoning is that it has you abandoning the technical topic in favor of an obviously politically driven conclusion. Fact is that many here, myself included, do not like, do not trust, the present POTUS and his neo-con friends. On the other hand you and your friends feel the desparate need to demonize him and anyone who would agree with him that water is wet. Thus Robby's desire to put a bullet in the head of all the "traitors" who support the so called 'official story' of 9/11/01.

 

[Baylor]

You think 13 is a lot. Millions of people swear there are only three fs in this sentence.

 

[Turbofan]

The really odd thing about this line of reasoning is that it has you abandoning the technical topic in favor of an obviously politically driven conclusion. Fact is that many here, myself included, do not like, do not trust, the present POTUS and his neo-con friends. On the other hand you and your friends feel the desparate need to demonize him and anyone who would agree with him that water is wet. Thus Robby's desire to put a bullet in the head of all the "traitors" who support the so called 'official story' of 9/11/01.

Abandoning? Excuse me? Have you not read the callout to Macgyver
just a couple of pages ago?

I'm not letting any of the tech go. As a matter of fact, I may just debate
Macgyver myself with a few new things I've learned.

Am I not allowed to address the other questions and evidence around AA77?

Don't worry Jaydee, I wont ever let the tech. go.

 

[Turbofan]

You think 13 is a lot. Millions of people swear there are only three fs in this sentence.


[qimg]http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/f-test.jpg[/qimg]

The debate skills of some people on this forum are weak at best.

Your analogy is flawed.

Try something like:

13 people were asked to write something on a piece of paper.

They all submitted their paragraph and each person wrote the same thing.

What are the odds?

Again >

 

[Baylor]

The debate skills of some people on this forum are weak at best.

Your analogy is flawed.

Try something like:

13 people were asked to write something on a piece of paper.

They all submitted their paragraph and each person wrote the same thing.

What are the odds?

Again >

The comedic skills of Tino are terrible, at best.

It 'aint like, "dude wuz wearin' a blue hat"...then by the end the hat is
orange.

The racist overtones of this stupid quote are neither entertaining, nor informative.

 

[double_o]

13 people were asked to write something on a piece of paper.

They all submitted their paragraph and each person wrote the same thing.

What are the odds?

Turbofan, it's looks like you are ignoring my previous post so I repeat: CIT interviewed more than 13 people, the exact number isn't known since they didn't publish all of their interviews (which strongly suggest that the interviewees aren't NoC witnesses). Among the witnesses there are many damage path witnesses. Yet you and CIT keeps ignoring them and focus only on the small NoC group. The fact is that your NoC witnesses are a minority. However all of the witnesses (including the NoC) said they saw a plane hit the pentagon and non saw a flyover.

 

[Baylor]

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'[email protected] '"

Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point.

[turbofan] What are the odds Lagasse is lying along with England yada yada I need to add 4 smiles to my posts because I have nothing of substance to say yada yada yada [/turbofan]

 

[Turbofan]

Turbofan, it's looks like you are ignoring my previous post so I repeat:

I am not ignoring. I have since left a message with Craig and will get his
reply concerning your claim.

ULR: What are the chances the plane can make a sharp turn to the right,
dip down and hit the light poles, then swing left to align with the damage
path at the Pentagon at 500+MPH?

Lloyd has already been exposed. Nobody here is able to explain how the
alleged aircraft put a pole into his cab without hitting the roof, or hood
all of while moving at an extreme angle to the direction of impact.

Another 9/11 super story!

 

[jaydeehess]

Abandoning? Excuse me? Have you not read the callout to Macgyver
just a couple of pages ago?

I'm not letting any of the tech go. As a matter of fact, I may just debate
Macgyver myself with a few new things I've learned.

Am I not allowed to address the other questions and evidence around AA77?

Don't worry Jaydee, I wont ever let the tech. go.

You misunderstand my post. I am not stating that you have abandoned technical issues, just that the line of reasoning you expressed in that particular post is one that disregards all technical issues and reveals the underlieing drive responsible for the inability of many in the TM to see the folly of their beliefs concerning 9/11/01. It is a political drive, one that requires demonization of all comers. A cab driver says his cab was hit by a lamp post, must be a covert agent; people argue against the conclusions that PfT arrives at, they must be lovers or admirerers of the administration and deserve death.

By all means debate Macgyvers2000, if he will bother with you any more that is. After all you have continually misrepresented his words and he has pointed that out on many occassions.

Try something like:

13 people were asked to write something on a piece of paper.

They all submitted their paragraph and each person wrote the same thing.

What are the odds?

In this case you have them all saying that the plane hit the building even though their descriptions of other aspects vary. What are the odds that the one thing they all agree on with the most precision is incorrect?

 

[DGM]

Is Turbofan/ CIT now claiming that a helicopter disguised as a jet hit the Pentagon? That's the only thing that could fly any of their flight paths.

Could someone clear this up or explain their mathematics?

 

[jaydeehess]

I am not ignoring. I have since left a message with Craig and will get his
reply concerning your claim.

ULR: What are the chances the plane can make a sharp turn to the right,
dip down and hit the light poles, then swing left to align with the damage
path at the Pentagon at 500+MPH?

Paik and Morin have it over Columbia Pike which would allow it a straight shot over the poles and into the Pentagon, but then you already knew that.

Lloyd has already been exposed. Nobody here is able to explain how the
alleged aircraft put a pole into his cab without hitting the roof, or hood
all of while moving at an extreme angle to the direction of impact.

Instead, you would have us all believe in an fabricated story of mysteriously appearing downed lamp posts brought forth from secret places by unknown agents crawling about the place unseen by all.

So not only do you have witnesses agreeing that the plane hit the building but you also have no witnesses having seen agents scuttling about 'planting' lamp posts and other objects.

Another 9/11 super story!

Irony at its best!

 

[Baylor]

I am not ignoring. I have since left a message with Craig and will get his
reply concerning your claim.

ULR: What are the chances the plane can make a sharp turn to the right,
dip down and hit the light poles, then swing left to align with the damage
path at the Pentagon at 500+MPH?

One more time...... I'll make sure to add smilies at the end of the post this time, because I know how much you like them.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT MULTIPLE EYEWITNESSES ARE LYING ABOUT SEEING THE LIGHTPOLES GET HIT BY THE PLANE?????

 

[beachnut]

Concentrate on internet? I've been gone for a month...

...

Here's a diagram of 13 witness accounts all with similar flight paths. What
are the odds?

P.S. What hit the light poles?
...
This is a bit different. Do you understand? 13 people had to make up the
same flight path.
...
...

77 hit the lampposts, it was seen by witnesses! Even your witnesses support 77 hitting the lampposts. Darn, debunked by your own witnesses. Very poor job

Paths that are not supported by witnesses, physical evidence, and the physics of flight! I like the 50 g path! All the paths are proven wrong by physics or other evidence, and the witnesses who drew the paths pointed to the southern path, not the NoC you false claim as the path. The witnesses also say that 77 hit the lampposts. So far the only thing CIT has done is proven they are paranoid. Far short from the Pulitzer Prize material you claim to have.

All your witnesses say 77 hit the Pentagon. CIT makes up lies, you repeat them. This is your only action, to repeat the lies of CIT and p4t. The poor pilots for truth can’t even fly a simulator into a building. The terrorist apologists p4t can not fly as well as the terrorists.

You have to resort to attacking those who prove you wrong to fight back for your lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon. Ironic as you use the FDR found in the Pentagon (pointed out many times) and fail to muster any support for your own ideas.

 

[jaydeehess]

13 people had to make up the
same flight path.

I see several different flightpaths in orange on the picture TF. Once again, the only thing that those who were in position to see it occur, agree totally on is that the plane hit the building. Still waiting for the witnesses to agents scurrying about with large lamp posts to place carefully on cabs and on the ground. Of course just to mention a few people who would have had a perfect view of an aircraft aiming for the upper floors, but who never mention it, Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois and Morin. But PfT and the CiT ignore these facts.

Where is that consise technical paper we keep asking about, which you suggest has been written?
Where is the debate with recognized experts in the feild?
Where are the endoresments from concerned organizations with access to recognized experts?