Pilots for Truth animation - What is it?

[gumboot]

1) They tried to interpret the "raw" data the NTSB provided as best they could...the point is; Why did the NTSB not do a real investigation and try to piece together every single scrap of metal to figure out why things happened the way they did in all 4 incidents on 9/11? They claim on their site (NTSB) that the investigation was officially turned over to the FBI...Where is their NTSB equivalent investigation? Still ongoing? No. the FBI Pentbomm team has apparently been disbanded. Where is their report? Anyone with a link or more enlightenment on this would be greatly appreciated.

It was handed to the FBI because it was a criminal investigation. The NTSB only investigates accidents. The NTSB thus only provides such expertise as the FBI asked for. Clearly the FBI did not require the NTSB to rebuild the aircraft in order to determine what happened to each. (After all, it was pretty straight forward what actually happened to each airframe).

C. The rate of descent. As I understand the contention of PFT - it is that rate of descent was too great to allow that big airplane to be in descent and then find itself in a low altitude flight path parallel to the ground as would seem to be indicated by the felled light poles and smoke trail in the pentagon video. It's like saying plane could rapidly descend at 10,000 ft/sec and then in a matter of a few seconds find itself low and parallel to the ground.

AA77 only descended at a rate of about 1900ft per minute, or 30 feet per second; well within the aircraft's design limits. It also did not level out right at ground level - it levelled out at 2,200ft, and gradually descended up until impact. It did not fly parallel to the ground for any length of time at all.

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...

Because they were too high. I find it laughable that people think the turn AA77 made was impossible, but expect the same pilot to nose-dive the Pentagon, which would be far more difficult. Controlling an airliner in a flat out dive would be next to impossible, and there would be a much higher risk of missing the target completely, as well as the potential risk of the airliner itself breaking apart during the dive.

why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

None of the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 entered protected airspace at any point.

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters?

Because they were dead.

Evidence that the hijackers were "loudmouthed"? The information available about them suggest most of them were quite the opposite.

So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily?

It's quite hard to think when there's a knife in your throat. For what it's worth, the pilot of UA93 got off a "mayday" call before he was slaughtered.

Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation?

Should this have happened before or after the hijackers announced their presence by sticking a knife in the pilots' throats?

Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

Common sense dictates that people who have just been stabbed in the throat tend to be primarily concerned with the following:

1) Dying

-Gumboot

 

[jackchit]

I believe it was recieved by a member called Undertow.

I think I can remember him stating that he had got it back in the LC days.

It was received by "snowygrouch" aka Callum Douglas from 911.co.uk and pretend pilots for truth.
I wanted to prove his gullability so I invented a story and fed it to him, Low and behold the "scoop" made front page news on prison planet without a shred of evidence.
This was the first time I had real doubts about the truth industry, they printed a story that I had completely made up and preached it as gospel.

Here is Mr Douglas, proudly posing with the fdr animation.

 

[uk_dave]

I
I wanted to prove his gullability so I invented a story and fed it to him, Low and behold the "scoop" made front page news on prison planet without a shred of evidence.

You really do crave attention don't you?

 

[jackchit]

You really do crave attention don't you?

Yes, thats why this happened months ago and this is the first time i've mentioned it.

 

[T.A.M.]

jackchit;

so now that you realize that the 9/11 truth movement is more about press and pennies, do you still believe the 9/11 Inside Job Conspiracy?

TAM

 

[jackchit]

jackchit;

so now that you realize that the 9/11 truth movement is more about press and pennies, do you still believe the 9/11 Inside Job Conspiracy?

TAM

No, but i believe there was inside help.
My mind is open, this issue polarises opinion i want to stay in the middle not blinded by the conspiracies or the official version.

 

[T.A.M.]

so you think there were elements of "Allowing things to happen" (LIHOP), or elements that actually plotted the acts of 9/11 (which is in facts still Inside Job/MIHOP)? Sorry to press, just want clarification.

TAM

 

[jackchit]

so you think there were elements of "Allowing things to happen" (LIHOP), or elements that actually plotted the acts of 9/11 (which is in facts still Inside Job/MIHOP)? Sorry to press, just want clarification.

TAM

LIHOP

 

[T.A.M.]

jackchit:

Thanks for answering my questions.

My personal view on the issues believes the official story, as a whole, but I think there was alot of cover-up. The difference in I and the CT, is that I believe the cover-up was to cover-up mistakes, not a plot to allow things to happen, or to make the attacks happen.

TAM

 

[Calcas]

jackchit:

Thanks for answering my questions.

My personal view on the issues believes the official story, as a whole, but I think there was alot of cover-up. The difference in I and the CT, is that I believe the cover-up was to cover-up mistakes, not a plot to allow things to happen, or to make the attacks happen.

TAM

Bingo.

But, then again, ANYTIME something tragic like this happens there will be people scrambling around to cover up any mistakes or things that may have been overlooked.

I have served in the US Military and worked for the FAA. The art of CYA (cover your ass) is a daily occurance and as natural as breathing.

 

[beachnut]

I think you all are missing some points in the PFT message. What I got out of their site/data/animation was the following:

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters? So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily? Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation? Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

Anyway, I eagerly await anyone's reply. Thanks.

PFT? Should be ILFT. But then who am I?

Singled out, when others do so much better.

1. Why did Hani pass up the straight in from 7000 feet 24 to 45 degree dive? Not one of us has ever been in a airliner that has done a 25 to 45 degree dive. Anyone? Okay, I lied, someone could of been, but they will have a story of a life time. Best angle of descent and living is about 10 degrees, 15 degrees for a short period. Why? Because planes go too fast when you point them at the ground and the plane will not correctly operate at supersonic speeds (airliners designed for subsonic flight). Now why did Hani not point and shoot from 7000 feet? You are asking why a trained pilot does something he never practiced? Are you nuts? The big slow turn was used to loose altitude, it took a few minutes to finish and them Hani lined up and went with a 6 to 4 degree attack descent, more in his bag of flying tricks. But the dive bomber approach was never practiced, why not try it on FS. Go ahead see if you can hit the Pentagon from 7000 feet with flight simulator. BTW, it is hard to see below you at angles of 25 to 45 degrees. There are many reasons why Hani does not do what our PFT make up, to make you think they have something. What angle would you pick to hit the Pentagon, an angle you have never practiced: or an angle you have flown? Not a thing that happen with flight 77 was hard for a kid off the street to do, let alone a pilot with some training.

2. They had to be killed. I think the key to 9/11 is killing the pilots without thinking about it. They had to kill the pilots, the pilots could render the planes as gliders in seconds, they had to kill the pilots in seconds or risk not having the planes. The pilots had to be dead, or they would have set the emergency codes on the transponders. The pilots were dead or they would have turned the transponders back on. If I was going to take a plane and be sure there was never a problem from the pilots, the guys in charge, I would kill them. The pilots had to be killed right away. If I was not dead, I would have disabled my plane if asked to leave the seat. It is my jet, no one is taking my jet from me. Kill me or face the glider pilot problem. Want to go fly? How long can you do something with warm blood flowing down from your neck? It is too bad pilots face forward and are strapped in. It would be so much better for attacks to be in a line backer stance and ready to fight off throat cutting terrorist head on. Next time you are driving and pick up a hitch hiker put them in the back seat and relax.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

OK Slob.

I've filed a FOIA request too and I've receveid just a week ago a letter from NTSB confirming the request and assigning FOIA request number.

I've requested all the documents and animations, specifically mentioning United 93 too.

When I'll get that, I'll put it online for downloading.

Great to hear, post in this thread when you get it!

Oh, and Im off seeding the torrents - since no clients were any longer connected. Let me know in this thread if you want me to re-open, or if you want the files some other way.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[Thunder]

Did the NTSB actually provide this animation or did they simply provide the data was turned into this animation?

 

[beachnut]

Did the NTSB actually provide this animation or did they simply provide the data was turned into this animation?

The NTSB did a working copy of 77 flight data. PFT added stupid comments.

The aircraft animation is not tied to the ground with accurate data. The animation is derived from FDR data, and not navigation data. The map is arbitrary placed under the plane. The pentagon is rotated 20 degrees in the wrong direction from the real headings of fligth 77. The headings are some of the most accurate data from the FDR (+-2 degrees). Navigation data is off 1500 to 3000 feet, and that is acceptable. PFT even decode the VOR data which shows flight 77 over 2800 feet from the Pentagon based on heading and VOR data. And that position is south of the CITGO station on course to hit the poles and the Pentagon. The not so truthful PFT make up stuff, and they appear to be challenged on the facts. Poor paranoid PFT lead by the censor nazi Paranoid Robert Balsamo.

The NTSB even said it was a working copy and therefore it has no value to make conclusions from. And since the PFT think 77 missed the Pentagon they need to stop using the FDR data. Don't you think?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Prisonplanet has just published a video with some guy going thru this animation, again. Some brit called Calum Douglas apparently. Doesnt seem to add anything new.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/170607Investigation.htm

Cheers,
S

 

[lapman]

Does the PFT or anybody have a "working copy" of another crash that's dead-on accurate to use as a comparison?

 

[Anti-sophist]

The problem with this "Why didn't the NTSB conduct a 'real' investigation" nonsense is the fact that the NTSB is in possession of flight data that crashed into the pentagon. The external evidence that AA77 crashed into the pentagon is overwhelming. It'd be a complete and total waste of government resources to examine the FDR that crashed into the pentagon in order to determine IF it crashed into the pentagon.

The arguments that PFT brings up regarding the FDR is fundamentally flawed at every single level. Their analysis is based flawed methods, is often wrong, and is universally completely and totally superficial. It lacks a tremendous amount of rigor and commits -numerous- statistical fallacies of false precision and the like. They cherry pick data and combine it with numerous (incorrect) assumptions they can't back up. Their "justifications" are almost always either completely wrong or completely fallacious. They -often- make ridiculous assumptions and conclude there are contradictions in the data. The contradictions universally come from flawed assumptions.

I'll be happy to go through any and all of those issues in detail, again, with anyone who has the intellectual honesty to discuss the issues as opposed to push their silly agenda. PFT is about driving -agenda-. Their goal is talking points not science. They have short, terse (and almost always wrong, flawed, and oversimplified) 'retorts' to every valid scientific counter-argument. Their responses are not correct and do not hold up under scrutiny but they don't care. For them, it's about the appearance of validity more so then the validity of their arguments. They are playing to the crowd, only. It is their goal to win over "supporters" with scientific-sounding arguments. It's sophistry from top to bottom. It's psuedoscience, too.

 

[Henry62]

Here I'm...

Hi guys,
I'm Henry62 from Italy and I'm a newby on JRef Forum.

I'm a friend of JohnCrono and Paolo Attivissimo and I'm the author of the articles about thermal cutting of steel and about WTC blueprints.

I want to say my "THANK YOU" for your kind words about my articles.

I'm a member of Italian Debunker "Undicisettembre Group"; I'm a ballistic expert and I was an artillery officer in Italian Army.

I have a technical background and I studied mechanical engineering.

I began studying 9/11 on 2002, and then I was consultant and guest during two tv transmissions about 9/11 attacks on Italian national broadcasting corporation RAI, channel 1 (the show was "Speciale TG1").


Now I'm studying "ups" in the 81 floor of WTC2, where we saw the melted metal.

According to the forum rules, I cannot post the link to the English section of my blog, but you can find it simply with Google researching "Henry62".

I hope I can contribute to our common effort for Truth.

Best wishes from Italy,
"ciao",
Enrico (Henry62)

 

[Henry62]

Error in posting - sorry!

Error in posting - sorry!

How can I remove this post, please? Thanks.

 

[Henry62]

Error in posting, sorry!

error in posting - sorry!

How can I remove this post, please? Thanks.