Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Caustic Logic said:
Well lemme see... the FDR and radar are both silent about this final stretch, and certainly show nothing like that radical banking maneuver. So they didn't get it from there. As you say, the physical evidence is a definite non-fit, so they didn't deduce this from the damage. Anyone who understands how planes fly and maneuver, like Beachnut here, could have told them it was impossible, so they apparently didn't consult much.
Click to expand...


maybe the FAA and NORAD should consult anonymous internet dwelling armchair research authoritives who hide their identity in the future before releasing information contradictory to the official 9/11 fable is your train of thought, adam?
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:





Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?
Click to expand...
The heading is wrong, the video looks like it was made in september 2001.

Please tell us the g force required to do what no witness saw.

Try using facts, evidence and logic. Return to reality.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther

the video seems a bit theatrical for a government work, but i dont see any reason to doubt its source other than personal incredulity
Click to expand...


john farmer is a government op.

the source you doubt is the enemy of cit and all truthers and revolutionaries. you clowns should be embracing him but that would make this video even more authentic, huh?

and just like lloyd and his cab you're gonna have to make this disappear down the memory hole at some point, huh?

NoC = Flyover
 
gumboot said:
even if it was created by the faa that doesn't mean it's an official faa flightpath animation. For all we know it's an faa animation presenting the cit's stupid flightpath for some reason.
Click to expand...

i call stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
TC329 said:
NoC = Flyover
Click to expand...

NoC = Flyover with no witnesses = Cloaking Device = spending so much time watching Sci-Fi movies and playing video games that you believe they represent reality.
 
TC329 said:
maybe the FAA and NORAD should consult anonymous internet dwelling armchair research authoritives who hide their identity in the future before releasing information contradictory to the official 9/11 fable is your train of thought, adam?
Click to expand...
John Farmer, who presented the "faa" video, also has real hard data on the final Multiple RADAR inputs at the end proving the video false, just a graphic of a plane hitting the Pentagon, before the data was in.
774datapath.jpg

Farmer plotted these RADAR positions and the final FDR point. These points are inline with the real track of 77, 61.2 true. If you want to argue these points you have to bring facts, not failed opinions.

That last DCA radar point kills the speculation. Facts kill the fantasy of 9/11 truth.
 
Last edited:
This thread makes realize how lucky we are that the Internet didn't exist in the early 70's because Nixon would have stayed in power while Woodward and Bernstein were busy pwning debunkers.
 
TC329 said:
no.

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact.

and as soon as you guys put the cats down and erase lloyd from the history books they can get away with their evil plans. oh and that generator. and that tree top russell pickering fell in love with too.
Click to expand...

WOW dude you are in need of intense therapy.
This is a very bizarre statement
erase lloyd from the history books
Click to expand...
After Gary and the incident of attacking a girl in a wheel chair and the kook truther firing off rounds in the streets outside of UCLA who knows what someone would do after reading that kind of remark.
 
TC329 said:
gumboot said:
Even if it was created by the FAA that doesn't mean it's an official FAA flightpath animation. For all we know it's an FAA animation presenting the CIT's stupid flightpath for some reason.
Click to expand...

i call stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Psst! TC329... That thing you just did right there. That's called quote mining. It's not an admirable, honorable, or even honest thing to do.

gumboot said:
Even if it was created by the FAA that doesn't mean it's an official FAA flightpath animation. For all we know it's an FAA animation presenting the CIT's stupid flightpath for some reason. A sort of "look at the stupid crap retards believe" education video.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Psst! TC329... That thing you just did right there. That's called quote mining. It's not an admirable, honorable, or even honest thing to do.
Click to expand...


well then it's even worse......

so now the theory you guys have invented is that the faa and norad are fabricating evidence [illegal last time i checked but perhaps your precious bush has rewritten those laws as well] because of two "morons" in california who invented an "impossible flight path" using "unreliable eyewitness accounts from highly credible sources corroborated 13 times over" ...... :jaw-dropp

wow aldo and craig are so "stupid" and there evidence is so "meaningless" that the faa and norad and now faking evidence for them personally because no one is listening or paying attention to them.

someone get me a tin foil hat the "woo" meter is shooting off the ****ing charts in this thread. i always wondered where all the "hardcore conspiracists" gravitated to. now i know, you're all here............
 
Actually STK is used for coverage simulation and what have you - say assessing what radar coverage a given flight path will pass through.

It's quite possible (although I'm now just speculating) that the simulation was created purely to determine which radar sites AA77 passed through, so that 84th RADES knew which data to collect for their analysis.

In which case this flightpath would be based on any data whatsoever, other than say eye witness testimony.

Just a thought.
 
the faa & norad didn't draw this up off eyewitness accounts, did they?

p.s. i think this is about as authentic as the fdr, 5 frames, citgo video, rades data, etc.
just for the record. its a total fabrication. but then again i'm the one who's been telling you guys the government was fabricating this evidence for years. maybe now you'll come around and admit they just invent this ****.......
 
TC329 said:
the faa & norad didn't draw this up off eyewitness accounts, did they?
Click to expand...


It seems quite possible they did. Although neither the FAA nor NORAD "drew this up". AGI's STK software "drew this up". No one has provided any evidence that the FAA had anything to do with the creation of this simulation.
 
Since it was done on the 28th, just 17 days after the attacks it was done with hardly any information on the actual flight path. That would certainly account for the errors in it, including hitting the Pentagon in the wrong place.
 
TC329 said:
i call stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Oh, hey... here's something else: just as declaring 9/11 an inside job doesn't automatically oust your imagined evil-does, neither does declaring a quote a Stundie automatically nominate it for the Stundie Awards.

Hint: You have to do something.
 
So a CT dude links us to a video of AA77 hitting the pentagon as "proof" of AA77 not hitting the pentagon. What happened to the good old days of the truth movement when the USG was firing missiles at its buildings?
 
TC329 said:
the faa & norad didn't draw this up off eyewitness accounts, did they?

p.s. i think this is about as authentic as the fdr, 5 frames, citgo video, rades data, etc.
Click to expand...

Gee kind of changed your tune in this thread, hey Dommy?

Anyhow, since you are such a huge CIT fan, maybe you can give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site.

Prove that a plane can do what the CIT says it did. We've only been asking for, what, a year? C'mon Dom, step up to the plate, man. Do it, do it now.

Or just go back to your borderline out of control posts about "hardcore conspiracists."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom