AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[WildCat]

All I have to tell you is that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That's proven by the photo links, and FDR.

This part was found in the Pentagon, is it from a missile or a "smaller plane"?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

no, I just choose to ignore quesitons that are asked over and over again
after I've addressed them.

No, you ignore the questions that you can't answer. And you continue to put on your cute little song and dance and pretend that they weren't ever asked. Pretending to have answered them does not mean you actually did kiddo.

All I have to tell you is that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That's proven
by the photo links, and FDR.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. THIS is why you are laughed at. This is why no one will take you seriously. This is why you can't get a court trial or any media outlet beyond your PFT cult to take you seriously.

Unless you can prove that there is no way possible that there could have been any kind of failure, faults, or errors anywhere in the process, the FDR does not prove in any way that the plane didn't hit the building.

And to claim that the pictures also prove the plane didn't hit the building? Well that's just stupidity. I would stick to dancing around the cherry picked FDR evidence and the assumptions you make required to it as well as your continual misunderstanding of how the rough animation is different despite it being explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The quesiton you are asking me...again for the billionth time requires a new
investigation to figure out. Once that happens, you'll get your answer.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's your obligation to investigate since it's only you and the other cult members who seem to have a problem. So don't look at the people who you are flat out accusing of a crime to do your work for you. They did their job. They proved beyond any doubt what happened that day. It's case closed. It's your job to play pretend detective and do your own work.

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.

Here's a thought. If your claims are so proven, then you don't need a new investigation. The fact that you want a new investigation means you can't prove your claims. So it's kind of an oxy moron. Again, you didn't really think this through did you?

For those that think landing gear made that exit hole with a near perfect
cut, yet the entry hole is not defined are foolish.

The fact taht you think the landing gear made a perfect exit hole just further shows how little you know about it. In fact the more you write, the more clear it becomes that you are just a sock puppet who never bothered to investigate anything. if you had bothered to then you would know that the exit hole was enlarged by the rescue teams to allow them to enter and exit through the hole. hence the shape of the hole. But the people at the PFT cult aren't going to mention that because then they wouldn't sell as many Tshirts and DVDs.

Blast resistant windows...enough to withstand a tail section! Oh my!

More idiocy, oh my! Watch the impact video and watch the tail fly over the top of the building as usually happens with plane impacts.

Your replies need to be captured on a comedy video. This is funny stuff!
Blast resistant windows and a magical outer wall that lets plane parts
pass through...

Yes, this coming from a kid who thinks that for 6 years all military employees and contractors went without any pay and never said a word. This coming from a guy who thinks Norman's testimony time table outweighs and entire room full of people, security logs, and phone logs.

And no he doesn't think that the blast proof windows magically let things through. That would be what YOU want to think he thinks because twoofers aren't very bright. Watch the Perdue Univ computer simulation of how the impact affected the building. This isn't bugs bunny where the plane makes a cutout the shape of a plane. And try looking at airplane crash tests videos. Again, the more you type, the more apparent your lack of understanding here is.

Where is that tail section again? Shouldn't it be outside somewhere?
I mean the blast resistant windows didn't break...so the tail must have
stayed out huh?

Again, watch the video and see the tail section fly up and over the building. Also notice that there is no plane flying over the building during the impact. Also, remember this isn't the cartoons. So the results are going to resemble reality, not your warped interpretation of how physics works based on cartoons.

And perhaps you can maybe address some of the repeated questions you keep hiding from.

Please explain what happened.

Does L3 agree with your conclusions?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh yes, and please provide us the evidence of missile parts. And please explain how a missile manages to hit a vent on one side of the impact hole, does a 90 degree turn, hits a trailer on the other side, then does a 180 degree turn, followed by another 90 degree turn and then continues to hit the building. And explain how it manages to cause debris to move toward the impact hole.

 

[OldTigerCub]

no, I just choose to ignore quesitons that are asked over and over again
after I've addressed them.

Translated: I refuse to face facts.

All I have to tell you is that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That's proven
by the photo links, and FDR.

Stop it! My sides can't take much more laughter!

The quesiton you are asking me...again for the billionth time requires a new
investigation to figure out. Once that happens, you'll get your answer.

And you'll still want another investigation after that one...if it's done by competant investigators. (BTW...you are welcome to foot the bill...)

For those that think landing gear made that exit hole with a near perfect
cut, yet the entry hole is not defined are foolish.

The landing gear did NOT make the hole. Not by itself, anyway. Mass and kinetic energy (the combination of: airframe, pasengers, crew, fuel, baggage and everything else that was part of or contained in the fuselage traveling at the speed of a jet that was at full throttle after a rapid descent...) made the hole.

Blast resistant windows...enough to withstand a tail section! Oh my!

I need some of those in my house!

We showed you pictures documenting where the tail struck, but you dismissed and ignored it. Very poor investigative technique to dismiss photographic evidence.

Your replies need to be captured on a comedy video. This is funny stuff!
Blast resistant windows and a magical outer wall that lets plane parts
pass through...

You have no idea how funny that sounds. You are making yourself the butt of your own joke, though.

Where is that tail section again? Shouldn't it be outside somewhere?
I mean the blast resistant windows didn't break...so the tail must have
stayed out huh?

See above. Take a look back at the threads. Pictures! Remember? What you called a "Chalk mark"...

Did the firemen melt it away with the foam? LMAO

No. But firefighters Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace suffered severe burns from the explosion. After they scrambled to keep from being killed by the plane they saw comming...the one you insist didn't hit the Pentagon. They were the first firefighters on the scene, by the way, and fought the fire even after being injured. Are you calling them liars as well?

 

[beachnut]

Like I said, you can't be a pilot...you cannot be a pilot...

Statement in error, like your ideas on 9/11. research...

Again, you can't be a pilot.

Not again, in the same post. Wrong again.

Call up some real ... pilots

Me!

Your statements about me are indicative of your statements on 9/11. All wrong.
Please present some real evidence on the FDR, something not made up by p4t.

 

[cludgie]

Wow! Paper and office parts! They can cut oval holes in steel re-inforced
concrete too!

Can you believe the theories here today people!?

Excuse me while I throw some toilet paper through my walls. I need a new
door way to the living room.

Thats odd, because the wall in that picture looks to be made from bricks.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
Btw, over the weekend, i had a chance to test a question posed on the internet....

I have a steel wheelbarrow...i dumped two gallons of kerosene in it, after throwing a coke can in it i had just drank, and lit it....and let it burn out.

Guess what, the coke can was perfectly intact, except it was fairly hard to tell it was still a coke...could have been a pepsi.

<snip>

You should be careful burning that quantity. What ignition source did you use?

 

[Tweeter]

What do Bush, McCain and beachnut have in common?




They were all Pilots!!!

 

[funk de fino]

What do Bush, McCain and beachnut have in common?

They were all Pilots!!!

You forgot Hani Hanjour was also

 

[Bananaman]

Turbofan has reinforced some ideas of mine that may be old news to you but are fresh to me. The crux can be summed up by this quote:

no, I just choose to ignore quesitons that are asked over and over again
after I've addressed them.

Now to me that sounds more like substance addiction denial than a mature attempt to engage in debate.

And pursuing this analogy explains to me why troofers can have reality presented to them over and over again without them taking the slightest bit of notice. Their behaviour is uncannily similar to an addict who isn't yet ready to give up their drug of choice, in this case 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It shouldn't be a surprise. Their fantasy makes them feel good. To kick their habit means a very painful period of withdrawal/adjustment/facing up to reality/facing up to what a prat they've made of themselves. It's far easier to stay in their fantasy, selectively filtering what they'll take on board. To expect more from them is quite literally like taking a junkie and telling them they can never take heroin again.

No wonder we're bemused by their incoherence, lack of logic and blinkered world view astonishingly married to total arrogance and a surprising viciousness when reality gets a little close to the bone.

Bananaman.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You forgot Hani Hanjour was also

But give him credit for leaving Rob off the list of pilots.

 

[T.A.M.]

They choose to ignore QUESTIONS that are asked over and over, AND, they choose to ignore ANSWERS that are provided to them over and over.

TAM

 

[Turbofan]

Not intended to describe the progression of the plane impact, only what happened to the wings and tail section, since you clearly lack comprehension skills in that area of physics.

...Irrelevant in the context of the point I am making to you.

Translated: grasping and reaching to make a theory make sense.

Not the context for which I posted the video. The nuclear reactor test is 3 to 6 feet of solid concrete. The Pentagon was reinforced masonry construction of approximately 18-inches thickness. The body of the plane had enough mass to penetrate the outer wall, however, the tail section and wing tips did not.

Where is all that mass that didn't make it through the wall? I don't see
it any of the photos. That's important!

The question you should be asking is whether there was anything recognizable left of them. What is your standard of evidence regarding 'left over debris'?

No, the question should be...where is the amount of mass in any picture
to account for a complete tail section, and wings? Do I need to link photos
of the near perfect and relatively clean Pent-a-lawn?

You imply that the entry hole is small? Tell me how big do you think the entry hole was? I'm curious as to your thoughts, give me a rough estimate of the size. And you spelled masonry wrong

Entry hole 18 feet in diameter. Too small to fit the tail section.

Columns to the right and left of the entry hole still intact, and cannot
account for the ASCE column damage beyond those points.

P.S. Since you're such an English major, you should study how other
countries spell their words.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=masonary&start=10&sa=N

 

[cludgie]

You should be careful burning that quantity. What ignition source did you use?

a real man would've used a half-smoked cigarette flicked in ultra-slow motion

 

[jaydeehess]

You forgot Hani Hanjour was also

, and Chuck Yeager, oh, and Don Macdonnell(sp?). Never heard of the last guy? I went to high school with him. He has multi-engine ticket as well though the largest planes he has flown are a Twin Otter and a King Air.

Is there a point to this line of thought? If we start listing all pilots we are going to use a lot of memory space here.

 

[cludgie]

, and Chuck Yeager, oh, and Don Macdonnell(sp?). Never heard of the last guy? I went to high school with him. He has multi-engine ticket as well though the largest planes he has flown are a Twin Otter and a King Air.

Is there a point to this line of thought? If we start listing all pilots we are going to use a lot of memory space here.

Perhaps it'd just be easier to say 99.999% of US active pilots haven't felt sufficiently moved by PfT's arguments to actually sign up to them?

 

[Turbofan]

The animation altitude is exactly the same as the FDR information. You failed to understand my posts. I am a pilot and an engineer, you may not understand me.

Hey Mr. Engineer...

If RAD ALT is showing 273 AGL at 9:37:44, and you know there's an error
with the calibration of the pressure altimeter (not set to local pressure),
how can the plane be 173 feet above sea level?

Now do you understand the plane's altitude , 2 seconds before impact
is too high to hit the light poles, and too high to hit the Pentagon?!

(OMG, if you only knew) The RADALT reads 273 at 1.5 DME, with over 3 seconds left to reach the Pentagon.

WRONG! The last recorded value of DME was 1.5 at 9:37:44

That is already stored in CPM, and shown clearly in the data file!

2 seconds based on the time stamp, DME and speed! Do the math!

The heading important; so take the true track, or mag track and draw a line to the impact point back, place your 1.5 DME on that line you have over 4 seconds or more to go!.

Impossible at 1.5 DME to line up with the light poles. It has already been
proven incorrect!

You forgetting to account for speed in your calculations too! 4 seconds?

With DME error and storage resolutions issues, the DME is not very accurate, and can be off by .3 to .5, maybe more.

Wrong again Mr. Engineer! The tolerance for DME is +/- 0.1 nautical miles.

PLUS, or MINUS....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you have PLUS
0.1 nautical miles.

It still doesn't line up with the official story!

Oops, did someone forget to account for speed in their theory?! LMAO

The terrorist was descending up to 6600 fpm, his last stick input was the greatest down stick than all his other inputs! I fear some of the terrorist not strapped in, took to flying in the cockpit and aisles! Is this a possible time the FDR stopped recording data (it did)? Only a hand full of modern airliners have been at zero G! I recall a flight with a FDR just like 77, it lost 13 seconds, the same time as a major upset occurred.

Too bad the g data doesn't account for your rediculous statement. Remember
Mr. Pilot/Engineer, the stick movements don't relate to the g data for the
body of the plane.

Inertia! Remember that physics term? At 500 MPH, the movement of the
plane is not instantly reflected by the yoke inputs. It takes time for an 80 ton
aircraft to respond at 500 MPH!

We're flying through a gas (air), not mechanically connected to a road surface
with a tire.

Nice try to spin physics there my friend.

You are being literal, at 1.5 DME is very possible to hit the Pentagon from the RADALT at 61.2 true track, 1.5 DME, using your numbers (bet you forgot to plot the true track! You just proved 77 can hit the Pentagon, and previous thread have the math to show you the 11.2 G math/physics error by Balsamo is pure junk! You have debunked yourself. Kids (young men and women), take physics, it may be hard, but you will not regret it (look at Einstein! Truthers seem to quote Hitler, I prefer Einstein.).

Again Mr. Engineer, you are not accounting for g , or speed data with your
true track crap.

All the numbers have to line up...unfortunately, your guesses and theories
expose clearly that you have not thought this through very well.

The rest of your post is garbage and does not need to be addressed.

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

You all will soon see the Beachnut is grasping.

 

[jaydeehess]

We're too busy researching to be posting circular arguements like this thread.

Thank you for taking a moment out of your busy research time to post circular arguements on this thread.

You see, the PFT forum has a debate section which allows poeple to chat about whatever.

You have threads titled " The Pentagon" and similar but if anyone tries to post anything that suggests that it was Flight 77 that hit that building the post is moved to 'debate'.

The other forums are reserved for factual data.

,,, and any and all speculation as long as it includes the idea that '911 was an inside job' as its core.

You know very well that members don't get banned for different opinions.
PFT issues warnings just like here. If people don't adhere to the forum
rules, they get temp suspensions, and rare cases perm. bans.

Rare? Either you are lieing or deluded Turbofan. Maybe now they are rare since no one in their right mind would bother to even register. Those that have, and voiced an opinion that 911 was not and inside job, have been banned.
I was banned for suggesting that Balsamo write up a paper and send it to various mainstream magazines. THAT was my final act on that thread, I had been silent, a lurker only reading posts for months up to that point. I make a few (2 or 3 IIRC) posts and out I go. I e-mailed Balsamo and asked why. He went on a tirade about me being a 'gov't loyalist' and never once commented on what it was I had done to be banned. I am left with no other conclusion than I was banned for my last few posts.

It's up to the user to follow the rules. PFT does not discourage new members.
We are actually calling people out.

Unwritten rule #1 don't say anythjing that will label you as a 'government loyalist', that is banable.

I guess most are just too chicken to debate with experienced industry pros?

Debate there is quickly cut short with a ban hammer so why bother?

Now Turbofan , please, please tell me when a technical paper will be produced by the 'researchers' at Pilot for 911 Truth' and submitted to the NTSB in hard copy, as well as ICAO, L3 Communications and the pilot's unions?

 

[stateofgrace]

Tubro, you have said clearly that the FDR was recovered from the Pentagon, after it was planted there, so it stands to reason that the data that was on it was placed on it prior to 911, correct?

 

[funk de fino]

Entry hole 18 feet in diameter. Too small to fit the tail section.

tail section did not enter building, hole size relevant to size of body

Columns to the right and left of the entry hole still intact, and cannot
account for the ASCE column damage beyond those points.

But badly damaged eh? Wings would not do much damage but more soldi objects like engine which travelled further in would have.

P.S. Since you're such an English major, you should study how other
countries spell their words.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=masonary&start=10&sa=N

How about showing us a dictionary or encyclopedia instead of a google search of spelling mistakes?

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=masonary

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Masonary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonary

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masonary&redirect=no

Foolish much?