AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Baylor]

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.

They're moving on to a more "workable" theory. The paper airplane flyover.

 

[Bobert]

The NWO could VERY EASILY have an invisible jet!
I mean WONDER WOMAN does!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?











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.!

10 people didn't make up a fake story, they simply recalled what they thought they saw, combined with interviewers who try to lead people on. But you bring up a good point. So again, how do you explain those people seeing the plane hit the building?

No, George does not tell me this, YOUR witnesses do. YOUR data is conflicting. Only you cherry pick it and dismiss the parts that don't support your baseless fantasy. But continue with the Ad Hom arguments to overlook that part.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am not ignoring.
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!

In other words you ignored all the posts that showed how this happened. Got it. LOL.

 

[funk de fino]

If any of the "techs" here have had the opportunity to work on consumer product vs. high end military grade devices, they will know the difference.

Strange then when I said I was military you said that was not good enough because they were different?

I have worked with mil spec all my career, even now in the oil industry my equipment uses mil spec equipment.

Show me one career avionics technician or engineer that worked on military or commercial aircraft from your list. Not guys who flew planes or sat on boards, guys who actually serviced these things everyday for 10 or more years.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap3.jpg[/qimg]

I do note that every single path ends at the same spot, go figure eh!

BTW does Mr. England spell his first name with a final 'e'?

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

Did someone suggest they 'made it up'? I would assume that they were mistaken but then I do not suspect everyone who disagrees with me of subterfuge. That's just the way I roll.

 

[bje]

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?

Given that both CIT and P4T admit on video that there are no eyewitnesses to any actual flyover, you're up a creek, Turbofan.

You'd better catch up with what your buddies are saying, don't you think?

 

[Turbofan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE&feature=PlayList&p=BE6770F6AF5D4E8C&index=8

Stop twisting witness testimony.

Watch the video. No coaching whatsoever.

The flight paths drawn by the officers are no where near the light poles!
ETA: Lagasse admits on video he did not see the light poles get impacted,
nor could he seem the light poles from this location.

Nice lies guys.

MacGyver, you have a PM.

Smell that coffee boys. 13 witness accounts disconnected from each other
all draw a similar path.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah, just rely on eyewitness testimony to try and dismiss real evidence.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/eyewitness.htm

“Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.”








The one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. So going and weeding through the least reliable source of evidence to cherry pick the most unreliable reports is not honest research.

 

[Turbofan]

Yeah, just rely on eyewitness testimony to try and dismiss real evidence.

We don't JUST rely on witness testimony. The witness testimony supports
all other research.

What real evidence? Are you guys on meds?

All you have is an official BS story told by the government.

You don't have an investigation

You don't have any video showing AA77.

Impact damage is not consistent with a 757-200

Your own government agencies conflict

The FDR data conflicts

You lie about Lagasse - I just prove you wrong with video testimony

You can't explain light poles entering the cab due to the angle,
distance and speed.

Lloyd has been exposed

How much more BS do you need to swallow before you wake up?

Unreal guys.

 

[nicepants]

Smell that coffee boys. 13 witness accounts disconnected from each other
all draw a similar path.

The only point that EVERY path agrees on is the plane impacting the pentagon.

How much more BS do you need to swallow before you wake up?

Unreal guys.

Oh, the irony. Does it bother you in the least that CIT has been unable to provide the calculations to prove that their made-up "flyover" theory is even aerodynamically possible? (And yet you accuse US of swallowing BS....)

 

[Turbofan]

The only point that EVERY path agrees on is the plane impacting the pentagon.

You forget easily. Remember, "BIG PICTURE"

What hit the lights poles Nicepants? Explain it.

Oh, the irony. Does it bother you in the least that CIT has been unable to provide the calculations to prove that their made-up "flyover" theory is even aerodynamically possible? (And yet you accuse US of swallowing BS....)

YOu need to get up to speed, or stop spreading the lies.

Read here to get educated:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=372

It's no wonder you guys believe the official conspiracy theory. You don't
pay attention to the independent research.

 

[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.

So Turbo, what's going on? I am looking forward to hearing on the news about how you and your friends have proved that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. Why hasn't it happened yet?

 

[bje]

We don't JUST rely on witness testimony. The witness testimony supports all other research.

And both Rob Balsamo and Craig Ranke admit on film that NONE of their eyewitnesses ever saw any jet fly over the Pentagon.

We all know you're a 9/11 Denier, but how can a True Believer like you deny what your good buddies have already told you and us, Turbofan? It's all right here on video, in their own words:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037&hl=en

 

[beachnut]

We don't JUST rely on witness testimony. The witness testimony supports
all other research.

What real evidence? Are you guys on meds?

All you have is an official BS story told by the government.

You don't have an investigation

You don't have any video showing AA77.

Impact damage is not consistent with a 757-200

Your own government agencies conflict

The FDR data conflicts

You lie about Lagasse - I just prove you wrong with video testimony

You can't explain light poles entering the cab due to the angle,
distance and speed.

Lloyd has been exposed

How much more BS do you need to swallow before you wake up?

Unreal guys.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building."
[/quote] refutes your conclusion, as do all your witnesses who will say 77 hit the Pentagon. A CIT witness who refutes your ideas without knowing a thing about the FDR which you also don't understand because you have not designed FDR systems or worked with people who design aircraft systems. You should have worked at AFWAL with me.

Meds, and you have always attacked others like Balsamo does. How do you post exactly like Balsamo? You even mention how Balsamo thinks I erase stuff, yet he boosts he has all my posts. When the sock puppets of Balsamo show up, editing posts drives him nuts. Has he learned how many feet are in a Nautical mile yet, or the frequency range of the RADAR Altimeter? The 32 G video is pure stupid. And, Balsamo also lacks any skill at understanding the FDR; you definitely have a problem finding people with real knowledge on the FDR who will support you ideas on 9/11.

I doubt you can post the government story, or understand it since you persist the FDR supports your lie 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Post some evidence so you can show me up on this single point. When will you understand DME storage and accuracy?

Oops, there are hundreds if not thousands of investigations on 9/11, you are not being truthful.

The FDR data does not conflict, only people who lack knowledge and evidence on many topics would say this. The 500 ms gambit is a lost cause, doubt you can define it again to tie it to your 77 over flight fantasy.

Lagasse refutes your ideas just after 9/11, over 5 years before CIT perverted his information with a 5 year after the fact interview. Failure to make progress since his testimony in 2001 and 2002 refutes all your believe on 9/11.

You can't tell me which lamppost entered the cab in the first place. And there is no way to fake a lamppost hit by a plane on a busy street on 9/11. Sorry, you fantasy attempt fails due to hundreds of witnesses. The streets were public, real people were there, you have failed to understand physics before with the 11 G fiasco, why would you understand lamppost hit and damaging a cab? Your proven propensity for fantasy make your ideas on the cab pure junk.

Lloyd was not exposed, CIT was exposed as the worse investigators in the world.

How many 50 G turns do you have to push and 30 G stupid videos from p4t before you wake up?

You may want to stop posting reference to the people at Patriots for 9/11 truth who have no evidence to prove anything and only have nut case ideas on 9/11. Proven fantasy mongers, the only thing you do by citing them is diminish your own failed fantasy ideas on 9/11.

Your primary idea on the FDR is that data can not be missing, un-decodable, lost, not recorded, corrupted, stopped due to aircraft system malfunctions, delay in the pipeline due to legacy equipment which new specs were set in place to stop, etc, etc, etc. Fact is FDRs can be missing data. Even the experts at p4t failed to decode all the data in the FDR in various areas of the data!

You also have no scenario for 77 at the Pentagon which explains why the FDR and passengers bodies were discovered in the Pentagon while your fantasy has 77 not hitting the Pentagon. And not one of your experts has a clue to help your nonsensical idea.

The only thing unreal is your failed Pentagon ideas based on your lack of knowledge in FDR systems. Gee, the data show 77 flight path matches the impact, and the damage is exactly what a 757 would do at 530 mph, looks like your experts lack skills in the areas needed to understand 9/11 and have used pure paranoid anti-government junk ideas to replace rational thought and logic.

Bring on your next attempt at the FDR research to prove your point. What was your point in the first place?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

 

[Baylor]

The flight paths drawn by the officers are no where near the light poles!
ETA: Lagasse admits on video he did not see the light poles get impacted,
nor could he seem [sic] the light poles from this location.

Why would Lagasse say he didn't see the poles get hit 3 years after he specifically said he saw them get hit, and when he had a great view of the lightpoles?

He didn't want to add any fuel to the conspiracy theorists fire. He expresses how disgusted he is with you "people."

-LAGASSE- I swear to god you people piss me off to no end......I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker.

Now we know he hates conspiracy theories, we know why he lied about not seeing the light poles get hit, and his not having a view of them. What was the old "proof" that 77 didn't hit the pentagon? There's no way a Boeing 757 can fly through 5 lightpoles, the aluminum wings would break apart. He didn't want to talk about the lightpoles, so he dismissed it and only discussed the plane, thinking he gave the CTists one less talking point. Lagasse never could have imagined something as stupid as "IT WAS A DECOY/FLYOVER PLANE!!!!"

Now, I'm getting pretty impatient.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS MULTIPLE EYEWITNESSES ARE LYING ABOUT SEEING THE LIGHT POLES GET HIT BY THE PLANE?

I tried to butter you up last time with some smilies, but that didn't work, so I won't waste my time. Can you guys at pfffft and comedy improv team stop trying to figure out what % means for two seconds and answer this question for me?

 

[bje]

WHAT ARE THE ODDS MULTIPLE EYEWITNESSES ARE LYING ABOUT SEEING THE LIGHT POLES GET HIT BY THE PLANE?

And the other question is: What are the odds that NO ONE would see and report a low flying jet, moving close to 500 mph, flying over and away from the Pentagon in full view of motorists on the freeways, bridges, roads, and parking lots around the Pentagon loud as hell, looking and sounding something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19KMLpc5Uu8

 

[TjW]

Slightly off topic, I'm starting to see the title of this thread as "AAH Data, Explained".

I guess my eyes are going bad.

 

[Bobert]

I still see the frauds are DOING NOTHING with their evidence except CRYING about it on internet forums.
OOOOOOH CIT you have the NWO RUNNING SCARED!!!!