Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Jonnyclueless said:
Can someone explain to TC what a stundie is? Keeping in mind that this is a guy who calls people government ops.
Click to expand...

isn't that a stundie?

you don't believe people are capable of acting as agents or operatives for a government therefor they do not exist and it is ridiculous to even think someone might possible be one.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
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?
Click to expand...


hey 'new blood' - how does the plane hit the light poles from that side of the gas station?
 
beachnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey Beachnut, did you see the new PFT video which corrects Mackey's
4.0G error and incorrect math?

Funny how the NTSB, and PFT support a north approach...now this
strange "FAA" video that suddenly surfaces. Hmmm....

So let's say this FAA animation is accurate and authentic.

THat makes PFT, NTSB and FAA a pretty tight analysis wouldn't you say?

Neither analysis shows AA77 hitting the light poles! Uh oh!

The FAA shows a different bank angle than the damage observed at the
Pentacon.

Oh noes!

What the heck is going on? I mean that sincerely. Why does the FAA
have yet another version of the impact? How does this approach make
any sense with the entrance and exit hole?

I hope to god (or what ever is up there) that this animation is authentic.
 
16.5 said:
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."
Click to expand...

didn't the faa just release this via foia showing how a plane came over the navy annex and banked on the NoC and isn't that what this thread is about?
 
TC329 said:
didn't the faa just release this via foia showing how a plane came over the navy annex and banked on the NoC and isn't that what this thread is about?
Click to expand...

Sad for you, but you ain't even good at asking questions!
 
TC329 said:
isn't that a stundie?

you don't believe people are capable of acting as agents or operatives for a government therefor they do not exist and it is ridiculous to even think someone might possible be one.
Click to expand...

I recommend Paxil.
 
Turbofan said:
So let's say this FAA animation is accurate and authentic.

THat makes PFT, NTSB and FAA a pretty tight analysis wouldn't you say?

Neither analysis shows AA77 hitting the light poles! Uh oh!
Click to expand...

And yet it did! The maneuver makes no sense from an aeronatical point of view. It can't have happened. NTSB error + similar "FAA" error + PFT lies = a tight analysis? A tight analysis, like all are looking at the same data and reaching the same conclusions or something? For God's sake, you guys can't even grasp the basics, or refuse to. These animators, they're on crack...

What the heck is going on? I mean that sincerely.
Click to expand...

Thanks for summing it up like that. What I like about this thread is how everyone seems genuinely a bit stumped, so I feel less alone. Oddly enough, only Farmer himself seems unfazed, like he knows what's going on.
 
lie said:
NTSB error + similar "FAA" error + PFT lies = a tight analysis?
Click to expand...

please name the qualified expert who disputes the faa + ntsb + pft.

anonymous unverifiable internet research authoritives are automatically disqualified.

please name real individuals whose credentials can be indepedently confirmed or retract your lie that the ntsb, faa, are both in error and that pft is lying.
 
TC329 said:
please name the qualified expert who disputes the faa + ntsb + pft.
Click to expand...

How could I dispute it?

No, seriously, how could I?

I say this for your benefit, domenick. Please, just slow down. We're all still back here on the plane you left behind, we don't understand your new transdimensional logic. You're gonna have to try to <i>remember</i> to try and make sense in earthspeak.
 
dearest adam,

whenever your tap dancing shoes finally wear out please feel free to tell us who all the experts are that have determined there are errors in the ntsb & faa releases and that pft are lying.

waiting for what will never come,


domenick
 
TC329 said:
hey 'new blood' - how does the plane hit the light poles from that side of the gas station?
Click to expand...

MIT has UA 175 hitting the South Tower at 503 mph. The Royal Aircraft Establishment has it hitting the South Tower at 575 mph. Does this mean that UA 175 didn't hit the South Tower? According to the truthers yes, but in reality no. MIT and the Royal Aircraft Establishment used different parameters to reach their conclusions. There's always some degree of uncertainty when analyzing data. There might be different data that put AA77 on different flight paths into the pentagon, but how does this help your theory (if you even have one)?
 
TC329 said:
dearest adam,
[...]
waiting for what will never come,
Click to expand...

Dude, that's what I meant. "will never come." Nothing will suffice for the goalpost movers. You're not even worth thinking of anything witty to say here. Ta ta.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
MIT has UA 175 hitting the South Tower at 503 mph. The Royal Aircraft Establishment has it hitting the South Tower at 575 mph. Does this mean that UA 175 didn't hit the South Tower? According to the truthers yes, but in reality no. MIT and the Royal Aircraft Establishment used different parameters to reach their conclusions. There's always some degree of uncertainty when analyzing data. There might be different data that put AA77 on different flight paths into the pentagon, but how does this help your theory (if you even have one)?
Click to expand...


relevance to the pentagon?

none.

thanks for wasting peoples time.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Dude, that's what I meant. "will never come." Nothing will suffice for the goalpost movers. You're not even worth thinking of anything witty to say here. Ta ta.
Click to expand...


tell us who all the experts are that have determined there are errors in the ntsb & faa releases and that pft are lying.
 
Hokulele said:
The point was completely relevant. How do conflicts in data help your theory?
Click to expand...


so the question is how does the government releasing contradictory evidence to an event [when all evidence would match if it were legitimate] help my theory that the government is withholding evidence and fabricating evidence in relation to the 9/11 attacks?

think about it and i'm sure you'll figure it out on your own. just apply your critical thinking cap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom