Pilots For 911 Truth RO2 Flight Path Verified

[Grimstad]

What are they?

The holes are between the samples. Take a look at the 2nd overhead in the OP. It's not a solid line. I'm not saying theres holes in the logic, just the data. And what about that blip at the NW corner. We both know (I assume) it didn't hit there and the explosion was 600 feet south. Holes.

Look. I know you guys are used to these twerps trying to sneak in here and look for any weakness in the OS. Thats not me. If you want to know exactly where I stand go over to ATS and look up my screen name. I thought I had found like minded people here but I'm really sensing a little hostility. There is only a couple things that are incontrovertible (sp?). Thats a line of downed poles and a big ass flaming hole in the wall. Oh, and Lloyde's taxi.

 

[beachnut]

The holes are between the samples. Take a look at the 2nd overhead in the OP. It's not a solid line. I'm not saying theres holes in the logic, just the data. And what about that blip at the NW corner. We both know (I assume) it didn't hit there and the explosion was 600 feet south. Holes.

Look. I know you guys are used to these twerps trying to sneak in here and look for any weakness in the OS. Thats not me. If you want to know exactly where I stand go over to ATS and look up my screen name. I thought I had found like minded people here but I'm really sensing a little hostility. There is only a couple things that are incontrovertible (sp?). Thats a line of downed poles and a big ass flaming hole in the wall. Oh, and Lloyde's taxi.

The overhead is a study; No holes, I see data compared.

The last RADAR return? Is not a hole, it is a RADAR return after 77 impacted the Pentagon. There are more returns around the Pentagon not plotted. 783 feet/second is the speed in that last segment.

What was the hole in the FDR? The FDR data stops seconds before impact. The true track was 61.2 degrees going 780 f/s.

... FDR and ground radar has obvious holes ...

No the FDR and RADAR support reality.

 

[tsig]

The holes are between the samples. Take a look at the 2nd overhead in the OP. It's not a solid line. I'm not saying theres holes in the logic, just the data. And what about that blip at the NW corner. We both know (I assume) it didn't hit there and the explosion was 600 feet south. Holes.

Look. I know you guys are used to these twerps trying to sneak in here and look for any weakness in the OS. Thats not me. If you want to know exactly where I stand go over to ATS and look up my screen name. I thought I had found like minded people here but I'm really sensing a little hostility. There is only a couple things that are incontrovertible (sp?). Thats a line of downed poles and a big ass flaming hole in the wall. Oh, and Lloyde's taxi.

Well there is all those dead people who were last seen boarding the plane.

ETA: I form my opinions about posters by what is posted here not somewhere else.

 

[Grimstad]

The overhead is a study; No holes, I see data compared.

The last RADAR return? Is not a hole, it is a RADAR return after 77 impacted the Pentagon. There are more returns around the Pentagon not plotted. 783 feet/second is the speed in that last segment.

What was the hole in the FDR? The FDR data stops seconds before impact. The true track was 61.2 degrees going 780 f/s.

No the FDR and RADAR support reality.

OMFG. Is that really the way this is going to go? Why bother to reply to something that you didn't actually read? Go ahead. You may now have the last word.

 

[Grimstad]

Well there is all those dead people who were last seen boarding the plane.

ETA: I form my opinions about posters by what is posted here not somewhere else.

Point taken.
Since this is only my 13th post it's still a little hard to get a read on me. I offered a better reference. If you looked at ATS you'd see that my single most active thread is going toe to toe with CIT. And though it looks like I have dropped out of the fight, I am merely researching my next reply. I have only taken interest in this subject in the last month so I have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[apathoid]

Point taken.
Since this is only my 13th post it's still a little hard to get a read on me. I offered a better reference. If you looked at ATS you'd see that my single most active thread is going toe to toe with CIT. And though it looks like I have dropped out of the fight, I am merely researching my next reply. I have only taken interest in this subject in the last month so I have a lot of catching up to do.

You have to realize that many of us have been debating this subject for years and some are getting a bit battle weary. We've also had countless new members appear here with seemingly innocuous questions about 9/11 who seem to "graduate" to full-fledged trutherdom within days. This subforum has a name for this phenomena, but it escapes me now. Don't give up on us. The amount of information, resources, and expertise here truly astounds me.

 

[Grimstad]

You have to realize that many of us have been debating this subject for years and some are getting a bit battle weary. We've also had countless new members appear here with seemingly innocuous questions about 9/11 who seem to "graduate" to full-fledged trutherdom within days. This subforum has a name for this phenomena, but it escapes me now. Don't give up on us. The amount of information, resources, and expertise here truly astounds me.

I do appreciate your position and I think post #61 shows that. I did detect a certain level of expertise around here and have asked a couple technical questions that have been met with pretty much a slap down. I have also offered up my own expertise over in the Pentagon Cameras thread which was actually met with some appreciation as in that particular subject I can add to the conversation. I also recognize that no matter what side of what topic, classic web personalities can be found and some I have absolutely no patience for. The bulk of my "patience reserves" are pretty much dedicated to my GF

 

[BCR]

I do appreciate your position and I think post #61 shows that. I did detect a certain level of expertise around here and have asked a couple technical questions that have been met with pretty much a slap down. I have also offered up my own expertise over in the Pentagon Cameras thread which was actually met with some appreciation as in that particular subject I can add to the conversation. I also recognize that no matter what side of what topic, classic web personalities can be found and some I have absolutely no patience for. The bulk of my "patience reserves" are pretty much dedicated to my GF

Grim, I went through the same process when I first stopped by and that was with a lot of the folks knowing who I was (tough crowd). I think you are getting hung up on terminology. What you call a 'hole' and what we call a 'hole' is two different animals when talking about the radar data. The ARSR's sweep every 12.4 seconds, so as long as there is a return for each sweep interval, we do not consider it a 'hole'. It is not uncommon in the ARSR data to miss a sweep when the topography and distance from the antenna are considered, so at extreme range (from the antenna) we don't consider it a 'hole' until 2 or more sweeps fail to return a target.

In the case of the ASR's (used by the TRACON's, or airports), the sweep interval is 4.7 seconds and in the case of the Pentagon, there are 4 covering the area (DCA, BWI, IAD, ADW). Due to the topography (the Pentagon is in a 'bowl') each ASR is limited to how low it can detect a target. In the case of AAL77, the last ASR return was from DCA (Reagan National) as the plane approached the Sheraton Hotel along Columbia Pike. Since it did not reappear on DCA, BWI or ADW ASR's at any time after being 'lost' by DCA, it is reasonable to deduce that the target ended at the Pentagon. After a great deal of analysis by myself and others, there is no return for anything in the Pentagon area during the next sweep interval. After this, the ASR's pick up a significant debris cloud over the Pentagon. One piece of debris was significant enough to be detected on the PLA ARSR in the area between the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery. The ASR's also pick up the debris pattern in this area and over time, it drifts back over the Pentagon. This pattern of debris scatter is exactly what would be expected and corresponds to the debris pattern on the ground.

So, from a purely radar viewpoint, there are no 'holes' in the radar data.

 

[beachnut]

Point taken.
Since this is only my 13th post it's still a little hard to get a read on me. I offered a better reference. If you looked at ATS you'd see that my single most active thread is going toe to toe with CIT. And though it looks like I have dropped out of the fight, I am merely researching my next reply. I have only taken interest in this subject in the last month so I have a lot of catching up to do.

You said hole, I have not heard of any holes in data I was asking what holes. You said holes, I said show me.
The overhead slide is not full of holes. 911files was relating data sets together to see if they support each other, the graph look funny because (i think) the DME is from different stations at different times; so the data seems to jump and you see "holes". 911files did it, he can explain exactly.

I am skeptical of the holes you talk about; there are no holes I can find in any data that would lead to the idiotic lies people make up about 911. To me you are repeating what the liars say about 911, and doing it without evidence. You looked at a graph and you have no idea what is about; holes. You never did tell me the hole in the FDR.

You are repeating what sound like the key phrases of those who make up lies about 911; and they do so without evidence; they just say it. You show up repeating some 911liars key ideas and what can you expect.

We are not the ones who fooled you once; we are not telling you lies; you said holes, I said show me. You may of misinterpreted the second overhead; ask 911files what it is about; we can all understand it better and you will see it is not about "holes" it is about investigating and learning about flight, navigation, and how things work. I know a lot about flying but have learned the details from people who are studying 911 issues.

Welcome to the forum; if you talk like those who make up lies about 911 expect some questions; What do you expect at a forum with "skepticism" looming in the heading.

 

[Grimstad]

And if you weren’t so locked on to those “catch phrases” and actually paid attention to what I said there wouldn’t be any confusion. Based on your style of attack I could easily assume that you are a typical toofer but since I actually read what you said I won’t be making that mistake.

Main Entry: skep•ti•cism
Pronunciation: \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

You seem very certain to me.
And if you want to get technical, what I referred to as a hole is actually a 4600 ft gap in the data. Call it whatever the hell you want but to deny it’s existence makes you no better than the entire truther religion.

I am not here to debate anyone. I would prefer to do that where no one can claim a home field advantage. For me to debate a toofer here would give me that advantage since I seem to be in agreement with the general consensus here.
Debating you over interpretations and meaningless details (sound familiar?) is really stupid

Would someone please tell me where I can find the JREF dictionary because I am obviously going to need it.

Actually never mind. Beachnut, you have made it very clear to me why I should just stay out of it. I should not get involved in some one elses religious war. It was fun for a while. I do enjoy doing research and compiling data and examining it (call me weird) but I am now taking friendly fire from someone who is indiscriminately shooting at whatever moves. I really intended on going back to ATS and figuratively kicking Craig’s ass because he frankly pissed me off. I’ll get over it. My girlfriend thanks you. I have been ignoring her a bit the last month.
I’ll leave 9/11 to those that “know it all”.

 

[beachnut]

...

... Beachnut, you have made it very clear ....


... religious war. ...

No one has ever said that; thank you very much

The religious war is CIT and Balsamo spewing their gospel.

4600 foot gap is where?

There is nothing wrong with you having holes but you need to explain why you are repeating the lies of 911liars. I have never seen any holes in 19 terrorists kill people in 4 jets on 911. It happened, no holes.

Bye, but you can't leave until you point out the holes in the FDR. I have treated you much better than I would my brother; I would be banned here for what I would say to my brother if he launched unprepared saying there are holes in the 19 terrorist killed people on 911. Admitting there are holes in the events of 911 is proof of limited knowledge. There may be holes in what you know about 911; so fill them in. 911files is filling them in and his work closes down the made up "gaps and holes" the 911liars talk about.

please don't go

here would give me that advantage since I seem to be in agreement with the general consensus here.

No the facts, evidence and logical conclusions give you the advantage not saying holes are in the story. The 911liars don't use facts or evidence them make up "holes" and false ideas to fool others.

This is not religion, it is an event. 911liars have no evidence you can't argue with them you can only post the evidence.

 

[Grimstad]

You are a waste of bandwidth. And so far the only two civil people willing to chime in are more intent on explaining why the dog bites than putting the dog on a leash. Tsig even pointed out some data that I neglected which I was quite happy to acknowledge, though it had nothing to do with what I was talking about (the flight data). I clearly described where the hole is. I even measured it for you. But you are more interested in defending your right to be a hole yourself than what the actual OP was representing and what I was actually talking about. There are obviously holes on both sides of this fence.
I never said anything about people (which is why Tsig’s comment was a little off topic but I acknowledged it out of respect for the lives lost), I was talking specifically about flight data.
**snap, snap** Over here. The topic is flight data. Stay on it.
In post # 68 911files clearly defined where the holes are in the sampling rates of the various signals and the Nap of Earth loss. Why don’t you bark at him for a while.

 

[beachnut]

You are a waste of bandwidth. And so far the only two civil people willing to chime in are more intent on explaining why the dog bites than putting the dog on a leash. Tsig even pointed out some data that I neglected which I was quite happy to acknowledge, though it had nothing to do with what I was talking about (the flight data). I clearly described where the hole is. I even measured it for you. But you are more interested in defending your right to be a hole yourself than what the actual OP was representing and what I was actually talking about. There are obviously holes on both sides of this fence.
I never said anything about people (which is why Tsig’s comment was a little off topic but I acknowledged it out of respect for the lives lost), I was talking specifically about flight data.
**snap, snap** Over here. The topic is flight data. Stay on it.
In post # 68 911files clearly defined where the holes are in the sampling rates of the various signals and the Nap of Earth loss. Why don’t you bark at him for a while.

Those are not holes that is how RADAR works. 911files explained how RADAR works we can learn from him; I understand how RADAR works but I can learn from 911files. There are no holes in RADAR that 911liars can use to make up their delusions. If you want to call the way RADAR works a hole I suggest you stop flying because that is how RADAR works to keep you from being smashed by other planes. If you use holes with CIT and Balsamo they will quote-mine you to death.

to be a hole yourself

Now that is more like it. Good job you need to stand up for your holes. And you have added me to your "waste of bandwidth list" and your "holes" list; outstanding.

I don't care if you call how RADAR works holes. CIT will eat you up if they have not already cherry-picked and quote-mined your holes to use in their next DVD of stupid delusions on 911.

It would be difficult to get pilots and passengers to fly if they thought there were holes in how RADAR works. Think about this hard before you call RADAR function full of holes. Damn you listen to mp3, CD, DVDs and they have big holes too if you want to call them such.

Damn, my CD is missing infinite music. Darn. All those holes and even the data not missing is holes. "Holes" I think even Disney made a movie on holes but not on RADAR.

The sad part if you leave; you will never learn you were wrong to imply I think I know everything. There are infinite things I will never know; I learned to fly but don't know everything about flying.

I was wrong, you meant the second GooleEarth image, I thought you were talking about the second image in the OP. You are already ahead of me. Yet you are doing exactly what you think I am doing; whatever that is.

My waste of bandwidth would be real bad if I could not type faster than I can think; see no wonder I messed up on the image you posted; the second overhead, and stupid me thinking slides; too many briefings to General, and staff. bye, you said you were leaving to go bash your head against CIT dolts; good luck!

 

[T.A.M.]

Grim:

Beachnut has always been this way. He has his opinions, and views, and if you do not fall in line with them, well he lets you have it. He really is harmless enough, bark much worse than bite.

As for what you are doing, etc...

Despite what truthers will tell you, people here are simply ordinary people. We are not right or left wing zealots. We are not "cointelpro" or "Psy-ops" or any other such silliness. We are simply a bunch of, in my opinion, well educated, concerned internet surfers who hate, with a passion, people pushing the 9/11 truth snake oil.

I for one welcome your HONEST attempt to analyze the data.

That said, people here will pull no punches if they feel you are wrong on anything...but that is the way it should be.

TAM

 

[Grimstad]

Please. Go back and read post 54. That’s my first post in this thread. It ended with a simple technical question and includes exactly why I’m looking for that answer. One I have searched the internet for and haven’t been able to find. I have seen enough video to indicate that turn is possible but no hard technical data. I know all too well that NOTHING can be left open to interpretation and must be backed by cold hard facts. I’m not about to step into a debate without having them. I have spent the last 2 weeks researching just one reply to that whiney little poser Craig.

And what do I get for my one simple question? A snippy reply from reheat followed by a totally wrong assumption about the poles.
And when I reply to that in #57 my very first word is “sorry” explaining that I’m new to the debate. And when I mention the “holes in the data” that 911files has spent several posts explaining all of a sudden I’m accused of imagining holes that aren’t there by beachnut.

At this point, I am very through being polite.
And though I will occasionally take a couple laps with someone like BN, I’m simply not in the mood for it. That’s not why I came here. And if any of those CIT worshippers had said anything about this forum I probably would have taken it as a good referral.

And there’s no need to emphasize the word “honest”. I do understand where you’re coming from and I choose not to take offense, this time. As I had to explain to several truthers, as much as I would love to see the Bush admin up on charges of treason, I’m not about to sacrifice my honor to do so. I then had to explain the whole concept of personal honor. I hope to god it sunk in.

And while I’m new to this topic, I’m certainly not new to the internet so pulling punches is not what I expect. Though what I didn’t expect was the unadulterated mugging that I have received. Not due to anything I have said that was wrong but due to other peoples insecurities and paranoia. And still you guys pretty much just stand there and watch. You know if you guys would slap him down when he is being a bad dog you wouldn’t have to make excuses for him, thereby making you ALL look bad.

I had absolutely no preconceptions about this group as you were all unknown to me except for a couple of names that are familiar, probably from youtube or other debunker sites. But I gotta tell you, you guys have made one hell of an impression over the last 2 days.

 

[Dog Town]

I had absolutely no preconceptions about this group as you were all unknown to me...

WoW... that's a new one!

 

[BCR]

Please. Go back and read post 54. That’s my first post in this thread. It ended with a simple technical question and includes exactly why I’m looking for that answer. One I have searched the internet for and haven’t been able to find. I have seen enough video to indicate that turn is possible but no hard technical data. I know all too well that NOTHING can be left open to interpretation and must be backed by cold hard facts. I’m not about to step into a debate without having them. I have spent the last 2 weeks researching just one reply to that whiney little poser Craig.

And what do I get for my one simple question? A snippy reply from reheat followed by a totally wrong assumption about the poles.
And when I reply to that in #57 my very first word is “sorry” explaining that I’m new to the debate. And when I mention the “holes in the data” that 911files has spent several posts explaining all of a sudden I’m accused of imagining holes that aren’t there by beachnut.

At this point, I am very through being polite.
And though I will occasionally take a couple laps with someone like BN, I’m simply not in the mood for it. That’s not why I came here. And if any of those CIT worshippers had said anything about this forum I probably would have taken it as a good referral.

And there’s no need to emphasize the word “honest”. I do understand where you’re coming from and I choose not to take offense, this time. As I had to explain to several truthers, as much as I would love to see the Bush admin up on charges of treason, I’m not about to sacrifice my honor to do so. I then had to explain the whole concept of personal honor. I hope to god it sunk in.

And while I’m new to this topic, I’m certainly not new to the internet so pulling punches is not what I expect. Though what I didn’t expect was the unadulterated mugging that I have received. Not due to anything I have said that was wrong but due to other peoples insecurities and paranoia. And still you guys pretty much just stand there and watch. You know if you guys would slap him down when he is being a bad dog you wouldn’t have to make excuses for him, thereby making you ALL look bad.

I had absolutely no preconceptions about this group as you were all unknown to me except for a couple of names that are familiar, probably from youtube or other debunker sites. But I gotta tell you, you guys have made one hell of an impression over the last 2 days.

Grim, me thinks you are being a little thin-skinned. Relax and go with the flow. Beach is a wonderful research resource and he used to think I was an 'evil terrorist apologist'. The wonderful thing about this forum, which will take time for you to learn, is that you have some of the best and brightest minds on the planet at your disposal. When I decided to shut down my blog and post here exclusively, it was because of that talent pool. Right here you will find the single largest repository of data and resources on 9/11. Whether active posters or 'advisors' who passively review the posts, you will find the best. Regardless of the problem, there will be someone with the skill set necessary to make progress on an issue.

But, keep in mind that these folks have seen it all in the way of 'sock puppets' and 'trollers'. It will take some time for them to be comfortable that you are not in that category.

 

[apathoid]

Can a 757 change it's heading by about 12 to 15 degrees in 1/3 mile (1700 ft)? Of course thats assuming that Paik and Brooks are on the money.

IIRC, AA77 was moving over 700 ft/sec. So you are talking about a turn rate of 5-6 degrees a sec, or a 360 turn in 65 seconds. According to this calculator, that gives us a bank angle of 62 degrees at 400 knots.

 

[Reheat]

And what do I get for my one simple question? A snippy reply from reheat followed by a totally wrong assumption about the poles.

Please, tell me what was "snippy" about my reply?

Yes, I did assume you were forgetting about the poles. Apparently, I was wrong about that. I referred you to a long thread that WILL answer your question, did you find it?

Quite frankly, I'm quite disgusted with CIT just as most others here are to include beachnut. It will do no good to argue with any of them. They are a cult, pure and simple.

They have been defeated on at least 6 different issues regarding their theory, yet they keep lying and conniving their way to survive and continue their fraud. I just don't want to deal with them or their delusions. It will do absolutely no good to continue engaging them on any issue, period.

They are isolated as a cult and have no impact on anything other than being annoying to honest people. My advice is to let them be and move on to other things....

 

[tsig]

Please. Go back and read post 54. That’s my first post in this thread. It ended with a simple technical question and includes exactly why I’m looking for that answer. One I have searched the internet for and haven’t been able to find. I have seen enough video to indicate that turn is possible but no hard technical data. I know all too well that NOTHING can be left open to interpretation and must be backed by cold hard facts. I’m not about to step into a debate without having them. I have spent the last 2 weeks researching just one reply to that whiney little poser Craig.

And what do I get for my one simple question? A snippy reply from reheat followed by a totally wrong assumption about the poles.
And when I reply to that in #57 my very first word is “sorry” explaining that I’m new to the debate. And when I mention the “holes in the data” that 911files has spent several posts explaining all of a sudden I’m accused of imagining holes that aren’t there by beachnut.

At this point, I am very through being polite.
And though I will occasionally take a couple laps with someone like BN, I’m simply not in the mood for it. That’s not why I came here. And if any of those CIT worshippers had said anything about this forum I probably would have taken it as a good referral.

And there’s no need to emphasize the word “honest”. I do understand where you’re coming from and I choose not to take offense, this time. As I had to explain to several truthers, as much as I would love to see the Bush admin up on charges of treason, I’m not about to sacrifice my honor to do so. I then had to explain the whole concept of personal honor. I hope to god it sunk in.

And while I’m new to this topic, I’m certainly not new to the internet so pulling punches is not what I expect. Though what I didn’t expect was the unadulterated mugging that I have received. Not due to anything I have said that was wrong but due to other peoples insecurities and paranoia. And still you guys pretty much just stand there and watch. You know if you guys would slap him down when he is being a bad dog you wouldn’t have to make excuses for him, thereby making you ALL look bad.

I had absolutely no preconceptions about this group as you were all unknown to me except for a couple of names that are familiar, probably from youtube or other debunker sites. But I gotta tell you, you guys have made one hell of an impression over the last 2 days.

Beechnut tried to answer your question and you turned defensive. It's gone downhill from there.