Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

[Hokulele]

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.

Ah, so the government releasing preliminary information, then correcting it at a later point in time, is withholding evidence.



No, that still doesn't make any sense.

 

[Turbofan]

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...



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.

Yeah...only a kid in denial would continue to sweep all of the questionable
events under the "Pentalawn".

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Neither of the animations show the aircraft hitting light poles. All of them
support 'too high to hit poles' and a north approach.

None of the animations support the minimal damage, or damage path within
the Pentagon.

I'll have to dig into this FAA release a little more. I'd like to find out
some information about the reconstruction, and how they arrive at the
final impact leg...because as you say, it doesn't appear to support the
limits of a commerical jet.

 

[WildCat]

I'll have to dig into this FAA release a little more.

Is the FAA in on it or not Turbofan?

 

[funk de fino]

Did someone ever come up for a name for the law when the first truther bot uses loyalist or bushie in a thread? Like the Godwins law but for govt apologists slurs?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did someone ever come up for a name for the law when the first truther bot uses loyalist or bushie in a thread? Like the Godwins law but for govt apologists slurs?

It wouldn't work. A corollary of Godwin's Law states that the first person to compare their opponent to Hitler automatically loses the debate. That implies that there has to have been a significant debate for them to lose.

Dave

 

[Drudgewire]

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Nothing except butterflies. Butterflies scare the living crap out of me.

 

[The Big Dog]

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?

Uh, no: TC said:

"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 ****......."

Anyhow, DODGE NOTED. Now, Dom:

"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."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah...only a kid in denial would continue to sweep all of the questionable
events under the "Pentalawn".

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Neither of the animations show the aircraft hitting light poles. All of them
support 'too high to hit poles' and a north approach.

None of the animations support the minimal damage, or damage path within
the Pentagon.

I'll have to dig into this FAA release a little more. I'd like to find out
some information about the reconstruction, and how they arrive at the
final impact leg...because as you say, it doesn't appear to support the
limits of a commerical jet.

And yet the plane DID hit the light poles and the plane did hit the building, and it DID do the damage in the Pentagon. I bet that really bothers you doesn't it? Please share with us the crackpot POV.

 

[Turbofan]

And yet the plane DID hit the light poles and the plane did hit the building, and it DID do the damage in the Pentagon. I bet that really bothers you doesn't it? Please share with us the crackpot POV.

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

 

[JimBenArm]

Let's see.
My government is so cleverly evil that they can pull off the flyover of the Pentagon with another plane, plane fake debris and body parts unnoticed, make people think they saw a non-existent plane, yet is so stupid they can't fake an FDR and an animation to show this?

Yeah, and we're in denial.

It's amazing to me you can't see how STUPID this is!

Well, actually, it isn't. Not any more.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

Hey, SP! You seem to also be a HUGE CIT fan. Good on ya, mate! Anyhow:

"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?"

Thank god you are here, I expect that you will be able to assist the CIT by fixing the third most glaring problem with their Theory!

Thanks in advance.

 

[Baylor]

relevance to the pentagon?

none.

thanks for wasting peoples time.

So AA77 isn't relevant to the pentagon? I know you feel compelled to get the last word, but please, think before posting something so stupid. This is the JREF, not a nufffrespect video.

 

[Pinch]

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Nope. Nothing fazes me, either.

Unless Captain Kirk pulls out his phaser and THEN I'd be "phased".

Accuracy is crucial to credibility. Using Mr. Big Word in an inapprporiate manner certainly doesn't help anything else you talk about here.

 

[beachnut]

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

“animation” is the key! Funny, you take a graphic to show Pentagon impact possibly produced in September 2001 as confirmation of your fantasy terrorist apologist lie. You say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, the dumbest idea on 9/11, besides nut case beam weapons. Farmer obtained this latest animation to tease you and your CIT/p4t terrorist apologist. It is funny, Farmer even warns it is a tease because he has found more evidence to present in his quest to close what he sees as loose ends.

You now want an animation, but you fail to see there is no RADAR data, or FDR data for the last 4 to 8 seconds.

The biggest red flag! You don’t know the path in the animation is impossible based on 77’s final speed. This is proof you have no clue on flight dynamics or physics. Good job being a terrorist apologist saying Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, disrespectful of the terrible end for those souls on board, and in the Pentagon killed by the people, the terrorist you apologize for due to your lack of evidence and knowledge on 9/11 and all topics needed for understanding. Good job.

 

[Bobert]

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?
.

No 'loyalist" here.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

Yes the NTSB and FAA DO agree with me. You're just trying to pretend that animations are the official declarations of what happened according to the NTSB and FAA.

Please, show us a document with the FAA and NTSB claiming that the plane was not responsible for hitting the light poles. Go right ahead there cowboy. Kinda funny coming form someone who only goes by animations.

 

[Turbofan]

“animation” is the key! Funny, you take a graphic to show Pentagon impact possibly produced in September 2001 as confirmation of your fantasy terrorist apologist lie. You say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, the dumbest idea on 9/11, besides nut case beam weapons. Farmer obtained this latest animation to tease you and your CIT/p4t terrorist apologist. It is funny, Farmer even warns it is a tease because he has found more evidence to present in his quest to close what he sees as loose ends.

You now want an animation, but you fail to see there is no RADAR data, or FDR data for the last 4 to 8 seconds.

The biggest red flag! You don’t know the path in the animation is impossible based on 77’s final speed. This is proof you have no clue on flight dynamics or physics. Good job being a terrorist apologist saying Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, disrespectful of the terrible end for those souls on board, and in the Pentagon killed by the people, the terrorist you apologize for due to your lack of evidence and knowledge on 9/11 and all topics needed for understanding. Good job.

Animations are based on flight data. Too bad you can't grasp that concept.

None of the government supplied animations agree with the OCT. None of them
show an aircraft hitting light poles.

Good job.

 

[beachnut]

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

Sorry, p4t have messed up again. Darn, just when you thought someone might go get a PhD in something to help them break the biggest story, but still are math challenged at 11.2 Gs after 7 years. If Balsamo did not waste time worrying about how to be a better terrorist apologist, he could have had a PhD in math; then he could fix his errors.

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

FDR and RADAR show a direct impact through the lamppost to the Pentagon on a true track of 61.2 degrees. Why are you unable to read the FDR and RADAR data?

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

Why are you unable to do physics? Get help, the G force alone proves the flight path impossible. Why do symbolic animations have you making up lies?

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

No it makes your failed ideas proof you have no clue on flight dynamics. You need to present more EPROM diagrams so I can laugh at your lack of focus. Are you working hard at messing up this stuff?

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

That is due to the fact, there is no data to build the "FAA" animation with any resolution, and the NTSB shows the end of data, and an image on a working copy presenting the data from 77. Why do you fail to grasp reality; you failed to understand the image in the NTSB animation is not orientated to anything? Stop being a terrorist apologist and stop repeating the lie, 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

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

Yes, the witnesses all saw no major bank angle. And the witnesses all saw high speed. We have RADAR showing high speed. We have the FDR showing high speed. Low bank, high speed, the turn on the FAA impossible like your ideas, and the turns on the NTSB animation are exactly what 77 did. Too bad you can't understand, working copy. With some physics you would see the animation is just symbolic of 77 hitting the Pentagon. Need some help on this one.

Oh noes!

Yep, you fail to understand the animations and what they were for.

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?

Another version; it was made in 2001! It is an animation showing a plane hitting the Pentagon. Gee, a plane did hit the Pentagon. But we know the plane was tracking 61.2 degrees true; the heading was 70 magnetic, you get the difference due to variation and drift (as in wind). All the data checks, only p4t, you, and CIT are unable to connect the dots. I like how you take symbolism and try to warp reality. You are not even as rational as the kids I teach in 1st grade, when you keep insisting Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

I hope to god (or what ever is up there) that this animation is authentic.

Why do terrorist apologist, those who deny the terrorist did 9/11, as in your case you say Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, hope their failed opinions will be supported by things they fail to understand?

 

[beachnut]

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

Sorry, p4t have messed up again. Darn, just when you thought someone might go get a PhD in something to help them break the biggest story, but still are math challenged at 11.2 Gs after 7 years. If Balsoma did not waste time worring about how to be a better terrorist apologist he could have had a PhD in math by now.

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

Funny, the FDR and RADAR show a direct impact through the lamppost to the Pentagon on a true track of 61.2 degrees. Why are you unable to read the FDR and RADAR data?

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

Why are you unable to do physics? Get help, the G force alone proves the flight path impossible. Why do sybolic animations have you making up lies?

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

No it makes your failed ideas proof you have no clue on flight dynamics. You need to present more EPROM diagrams so I can laugh at your lack of focus.

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

That is due to the fact, there is no data to build the "FAA" animation with any resolution, and the NTSB shows the end of data, and an image on a working copy presenting the data from 77. Sorry, you fail to grasp reality, you failed to understand the image in the NTSB animation is not orientated to anything. You lost again, try reading and understanding instead of acting like being a terrorist apologist means all you have to is say 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

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

Yes, the witnesses all saw no major bank angle. And the witnesses all saw high speed. We have RADAR showing high speed. We have the FDR showing high speed. Low bank, high speed, the turn on the FAA imposssible like your ideas, and the turns on the NTSB animation are exactly what 77 did. Too bad you can't understand, working copy.

Oh noes!

Yep, you fail to understand the animations and what they were for.

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?

Another version; it was made in 2001! It is an animation showing a plane hitting the Pentagon. Gee, a plane did hit the Pentagon. But we know the plane was tracking 61.2 degrees true; the heading was 70 magnetic, you get the difference due to variation and drift (as in wind). All the data checks, only p4t, you, and CIT are unable to connect the dots. I like how you take smbolism and try to warp reality. You are not even as rational as the kids I teach in 1st grade, when you keep insisting Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

The NTSB animation and the FAA animations expect the audience to understand what the animations are good for. There is no doubt p4t, CIT, and you do not understand.
NTSB animation is used to study flight dynamic, giving the viewer a picture of what the plane was doing. Not anything to do with ground interactions. The proof of this is the data in the FDR can only show Fight 77’s position within 2000 feet, any direction. Thus the p4t, CIT, and your inability to understand a simple point are noted. Does the perfect alignment of the takeoff mystify p4t, CIT, and you? Next time use the data from the FDR and see the NTSB had to move the image under the animation! You really need help, but refuse to use it.

The “FAA” animation shows an aircraft impacting the Pentagon. This is all it was used for. You can check RADAR data and FDR data to see the path is symbolic of one thing; Fight 77 impacting the Pentagon. This you do not understand due to ignorance in many areas related to skills needed to understand 9/11.

 

[Crazytimes]

I would like an explanation from the nuts. If no plane hit the light poles, how did they rip out of the ground ? How did no one notice them being ripped out of the ground by anything other than a plane ? What about the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane ? Liars ?

Again....try connecting the dots. Your theories make no sense.

Where is the plane ?
Where are the people on board ?

How crazy do you have to be to claim the government planted pieces of an airplane around the Pentagon ?