lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
The idiot that keeps coming back again and again, opening him/herself to be "attacked."
AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Then ask yourself why it is you come here to argue with people you do not believe have the expertise or training to understand the concepts at hand as well as you? Why do you seemingly concentrate your efforts to illustrate the differences between the FDR data and the physical, empirical evidence of the flight path of the aircraft on internet forums with anonymous self proclaimed experts.
Ask yourself then why you or PfT do not then ask, in proper fashion, the NTSB, ICAO, the pilot's unions to address a technical description of the errors you have found between the FDR data and the physical, empirical evidence of the flight path of the aircraft.
Oh, you don't appreciate my sense of humor, huh? Well, if that takes drink for you, have at it. I've had some V-8 juice, does that bother you?
Oh, so you are Balsamo.
I didn't just try to call in, I did. But, then the MC decided he didn't want anyone disagreeing with his guests and cut me off. Is that the best you can do, accuse me of being drunk? I don't blame you, I'd try to looking for something incriminating to if I was being defeated at every turn like you are.
No one important will pay attention to you, so you have to solicit fringe lunatic sites to get your crap out.
That ought to tell you why everyone here finds you offensive, arrogant, a fraud, and a charlatan, just like every other legitimate organization in the world does.
ETA: I knew if I provoked you you'd slip up again and reveal that you are Balsamo, again. Just need to get you fired up and you'll forget, just like your MO. It worked, didn't it? Hehehehe!
Last edited:
Nice try to backpeddle. But lurkers can read.
More than one person was listening to the radio show Reheat. And you call yourself a "critical thinker"?
No, the next hour was starting under strict time restraints. Thats radio. Then again, we're talking about "critical thiking" here. Why did you refuse to go on Air America? Why did you refuse to use your real name on INN? Really professional there Ace.
Like calling me "Balsamo's lover" or "thrashing Balsamo" througout this thread? There goes that pesky "Critical thinking" thing again...
No one important? I guess the numerous tags to P4T and Balsamo right here on this forum make JREF "unimportant"? Hmmm.. "critical thinking" again...
And i guess all these people "dont pay attention" either...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots
Why do the lists seem to grow? Hmmm... "critical thinking" Reheat.
Our names, credentials and backgrounds can be verified at Faa.gov. Can yours?
ETA: Since you keep evading such issues and repeating lies Reheat. "Rob Balsamo" was never banned at JREF. Lisa Simpson denied his registration under his real name.
Last edited:
hxstamper:
Yes, they can, unfortunately for you. I don't think you're showing yourself in too good a light, but that's only my opinion. It's possible, I suppose, that 1 or 2 readers think the sun shines out of your bottom, but I doubt it.
Bananaman.
Yes, they can, unfortunately for you. I don't think you're showing yourself in too good a light, but that's only my opinion. It's possible, I suppose, that 1 or 2 readers think the sun shines out of your bottom, but I doubt it.
Bananaman.
The above was addressed back on page 34 or something. Further, they arent "my posts".
Here is what is representative of P4T and the pentagon to date.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html
More to come.
Maybe I am, who cares? What's more interesting is this:
I've clicked the links. All they say is that you don't believe the generally accepted sequence of events on 9/11. Now, most people with a brain, reading through the doubts you have, can piece together what you imply REALLY happened.
And then they fall on the floor laughing.
I considered for about 5 seconds taking apart the hilarious P4T mission statement on your front page, but thought it would be unfair. It's funny enough without me pointing out the laugh out loud bits.
Bananaman.
Last edited:
Can you please quote exactly where it says "We dont believe...." and provide the link to such a quote? Thanks..
As far as the "generally accepted", it appears only 16% of the public think the govt is telling the truth and decreasing...
Bananaman, your strawman noted. How does it feel to be in the minority?
You get funnier by the moment.
Honestly, do you really believe you're in the majority? Blimey, you do live in a funny world. Oh well, I expect your enormous movement will show the whole world the troof soon.
It's your site. I'd have to quote the entire site to provide what you apparently can't see. Or perhaps you're saying that when I claim your site doesn't believe the commonly accepted sequence of events I'm wrong.
You don't make much sense, you know.
Bananaman (struggling with himself not to laugh).
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Once again I ask you to narrow down where in the somewhat large faa site one might find a section that concerning how to deal with the FDR data. Perhaps you now wish your suggestion to me to be that I should be looking in the faa site for calculations to convert pressure altitude to 'true' altitude.
I have read this thread but perhaps I missed your, or TF's, or someone else's explanation as to why you will not submit a purely technical paper detailing the discrepancies you have found between the FDR data and the physical, empirical evidence of the flight path of the aircraft.
Please note that I am not asking you to do this for my benefit or for the benefit of any anonymous internet poster whom you and the members of PfT hold such disdain for. I am asking why you do not do so for your own benefit and to the end you often claim you want; answers from the organizations(specifically the NTSB and FBI) who you acknowledge have the expertise to provide those answers.
So far my question has not been answered. Turbofan basically stated that he did not see the value in creating such a paper, that the NTSB probably would not receive it well.
Why the hemming and hawing? What you are doing now clearly is not garnering any action from any organization nor any MSM outlet.
You already claim to have all of the work done that would go into such a paper, a detailed timeline of the position of the aircraft as it approached the Pentagon as determined by the parameters recorded on a flight data recorder purported to have been in the aircraft that also was responsible for the knocked down lamp poles and the damage pattern in the Pentagon. All that remians is for the relatively simple task of putting it all down in a paper, without accusation, and submit it to not only the NTSB but to ICAO and pilot's unions as well as relevent magazines, journals and newspapers.
Phone calls to organizations claiming that this has been proven does not cut it. Your claim ( by 'your' I am refering to PfT) that it has been proven must be backed up by presenting your work and interpretation of the FDR data in written form that will allow an expert to determine if your work is done properly and if not then perhaps even point out where you go wrong.
I do note the fact that no one at PfT noticed immediatly that the calculations done concerning the desent rate of an aircraft coming over the VDOT tower were in error certainly indicates that PfT is quite capable of erring in other technical aspects of the flight of AA 77.
Last edited:
http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3888127&postcount=1304
(i have the above link now saved in my favorite places so each time you ask the same thing over and over, i'll just post the link for you again and again...)
Please understand that one does not write a technical paper based on a report stating 2+2=4. Please understand that you do not have the aeronautical knowledge to determine the simple calcuations made for true altitude based on pressure altitude as plotted by the NTSB. Please understand that we have contacted all of the above with our names, faces and professional reputations on the line (not just a phone call from Jeff Hill, you assume too much). Please understand that the NTSB/FBI refuse to correct, retract, refute, comment to anyone. Even you (if you ever try). This is unprecedented. Please understand the NTSB have also been petitioned through the FOIA by John Farmer why their data does not support the govt story and the NTSB still refuses to comment (i'd post link here but John deleted his blog, feel free to contact him directly for the letters). Please be advised the FBI/NTSB did not document/positively identify any of the 4 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11 as determined through the Freedom Of Information Act via Aidan Monaghan (google it). Please be advised you have asked the same thing over and over and have been told over and over it has been addressed and given links ad naseum. Please understand your circular arguments are getting stale and we are tired of providing you the same exact information you constantly refuse to acknowledge. Please understand that not even Anti-Sophist, Reheat or Beachnut attempt to make your argument because apparently they can determine pressure, true, radar altitude. Please understand why they make excuse for lag, missing seconds, rotated map, sans your argument, when the NTSB makes no such claims.
Actuallly, you're wrong again. Strawman noted. You assume too much as usual. Jeff Latas was the first to point out the errors in the initial calculations.
Please read this page, specifically the updates...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html
I will add by saying we will be exposing R Mackey's intellectual dishonesty along with Myriad. Anti-Sophist, Beachnut, and Reheat dont get much of a mention as they have been thoroughly exposed aready and credibility is shot.
Please understand if you are ignored in the future.
Regards
Last edited:
Dave_46
Graduate Poster
Stop it you two. I'll be getting big headed.
Dave
Still quiet from roundhead aint it?
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Indeed.
So far, they've read that CIT and P4T have refused to provide us with the statements from any of the 1,000+ people who saw, handled, removed , or sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.
You all are completely incapable of describing the wreckage, cavalierly dismissing critical physical evidence. Balsamo banned me from P4T for asking for those statements. He was livid that anyone would dare to ask him the question.
So, hxstamper, don't backpedal, what wreckage did these 1,000+ people see, handle, remove, or sort in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11?
Last edited:
To all those with doubts...answer me this...
What is more likely:
(A) 9/11 was carried out by a group of evildoers at the top levels of the USG and business, but when it came time to plant the "fake evidence", such as the alleged fake FDR, they planted it with info that would prove their own plot INCORRECT.
OR
(B) The "experts" at Pilots For Truth have incorrectly analyzed or interpreted the FDR data.
seriously, answer this question for yourself.
TAM
What is more likely:
(A) 9/11 was carried out by a group of evildoers at the top levels of the USG and business, but when it came time to plant the "fake evidence", such as the alleged fake FDR, they planted it with info that would prove their own plot INCORRECT.
OR
(B) The "experts" at Pilots For Truth have incorrectly analyzed or interpreted the FDR data.
seriously, answer this question for yourself.
TAM
(B) The "experts" at Pilots For Truth have incorrectly analyzed or interpreted the FDR data.
seriously, answer this question for yourself.
TAM
In that case, perhaps you would like to use the "interpretation" of your own "expert" (albeit anonymous) who started this thread?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3896061&postcount=1554
seriously, answer this question for yourself...
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
TF and myself have proved that Dennis Cimino is a liar. As far as I can recall he is the only FDR "expert" you have.
yes?
If you really are Balsamo then you really should say or you look like a hypocrite calling out people here for being faceless and nameless.
Mackey's intellectual honesty is beyond question. Anti-Sophist, Beachnut, and Reheat have completely destroyed the baseless Pentagon fantasies promoted by pft.