ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags flight 77 , flight recorder data , pentagon

Reply
Old 6th January 2008, 08:51 PM   #1
rsalinger
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 55
FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

I hope these questions are different enough from what's already been posted here to get some good answers. I am new to the JREF forum so my search skills by still need to improve.

1. On the Pilots for Truth forum they have a post (can't post URL's yet)
from February of 2007 in which Rob Balsamo claims to have deciphered the raw FDR data. It shows that two seconds before impact (his analysis) the aircraft was at 288 feet. I can't work out whether there's anything wrong with this analysis (beyond wondering how accurate the translation is from radar altimeter to FDR format to engineering measure (feet i this case)). Comments please.

2. In reading through a lot of old posts here I have the impression that the original csv file which I have is not considered as being usable because the times shown are the time stamp from within the flight recorder rather than the time stamp of the observation. (I know it's a simplification). Are there other reasons for not trusting the numbers - calibration for example?

3. What is the accuracy of this kind of data? I'm trying to work out whether the use of a 12 bit word with some bits used for error correction (256 words per second as I read the specifications) doesn't inherently mean a reading can be easily of by say 100 feet when you could have a value from 0 - 40000. I have the feeling that these readouts cannot be used in isolation partly for this reason as well as the time delay possible. Can anyone comment.

I'm trying to get educated. If someone has threads which will give me some answers, please shoot them over to me.
rsalinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 09:06 PM   #2
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
In depth explanation and discussion of the AA77 FDR Data here.
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 09:19 PM   #3
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
The one thing you need to keep in mind as you examine the technical minutiae is that the FDR Data is NOT NEEDED to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. There is a mountain of evidence that it did.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 09:23 PM   #4
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
1) The FDR data can be several seconds behind the time stamp. Balsamo originally used the pressure altitude which is certainly not meant to work properly at 400 MPH AND at low altitude and is useless.

2) There will be an inherent +/- error in all measurements. The VOR/DME data for instance which Balsamo oddly seems to ignore anyway.

3) See slayhamlet's link
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 09:26 PM   #5
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The VOR/DME data for instance which Balsamo oddly seems to ignore anyway.
That's an easy one. He ignores it because it shows the aircraft where he doesn't want it to be.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 09:29 PM   #6
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by rsalinger View Post
I hope these questions are different enough from what's already been posted here to get some good answers. I am new to the JREF forum so my search skills by still need to improve.

1. On the Pilots for Truth forum they have a post (can't post URL's yet)
from February of 2007 in which Rob Balsamo claims to have deciphered the raw FDR data. It shows that two seconds before impact (his analysis) the aircraft was at 288 feet. I can't work out whether there's anything wrong with this analysis (beyond wondering how accurate the translation is from radar altimeter to FDR format to engineering measure (feet i this case)). Comments please.

2. In reading through a lot of old posts here I have the impression that the original csv file which I have is not considered as being usable because the times shown are the time stamp from within the flight recorder rather than the time stamp of the observation. (I know it's a simplification). Are there other reasons for not trusting the numbers - calibration for example?

3. What is the accuracy of this kind of data? I'm trying to work out whether the use of a 12 bit word with some bits used for error correction (256 words per second as I read the specifications) doesn't inherently mean a reading can be easily of by say 100 feet when you could have a value from 0 - 40000. I have the feeling that these readouts cannot be used in isolation partly for this reason as well as the time delay possible. Can anyone comment.

I'm trying to get educated. If someone has threads which will give me some answers, please shoot them over to me.
There are 4 or more seconds not on the final storage chip! The plane is 2800 feet or so from the Pentagon when the survivable chip data stops.

The pipeline is running at the bits per second, that is one second of data!

The data confirms that the FDR was 77, there are over 24 hours of flight data from previous flights, so all the implications of BS by p4t is false. P4t have the data to prove this.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 09:31 PM   #7
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
The one thing you need to keep in mind as you examine the technical minutiae is that the FDR Data is NOT NEEDED to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. There is a mountain of evidence that it did.
Not to mention no evidence at all that something other than a large fast object hit the Pentagon, not a missile and no bombs either in or outside the building.

For instance, a bomb inside the building would require that the 100 feet of missing ground floor wall be strewn about in front of the building and a bomb just outside the building could not have moved the generator towards the building and could not also confine its effects to the ground floor wall in a 100 foot line. Instead, the damage to the building mimics what one would expect from impact of a 100 foot wide fast projectile.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 09:56 PM   #8
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
 
ktesibios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,493
One might also consider the pure, unadulterated USDA Prime insanity of using the data from an aircraft flight data recorder found in the wreckage at the Pentagon to "prove" that the aircraft it was installed in didn't hit the Pentagon.

Or the notion that if the NWO has it together to plant all that aircraft debris undetected under the noses of a large number of onlookers, and has included an FDR loaded with faked data, they would fake the data in such a way as to prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
__________________
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.
ktesibios is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2008, 10:08 PM   #9
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by ktesibios View Post
One might also consider the pure, unadulterated USDA Prime insanity of using the data from an aircraft flight data recorder found in the wreckage at the Pentagon to "prove" that the aircraft it was installed in didn't hit the Pentagon.

Or the notion that if the NWO has it together to plant all that aircraft debris undetected under the noses of a large number of onlookers, and has included an FDR loaded with faked data, they would fake the data in such a way as to prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
Hey, remember that Balsamo is the one who posited that the Pentagon was attacked by a MOAB dropped from the C-130 overhead, while flight 77 skimmed over the Pentagon, made a "hard left," and escaped up the Potomac. He's the Judy Wood of the air.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 08:06 AM   #10
rsalinger
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 55
I read the material you all kindly posted but I don't think it fully answers my question, so I want to rephrase.

Before I do, I acknowledge that there's a ton of other evidence, but most folks who think there was "no plane" have focused on this item as conclusive scientific proof that either the recording was faked or was from a different aircraft.

My question remains - is any official information regarding the actual accuracy of the altitude data as found in a flight recorder. As a corollary, is there any information regarding how that data might be affected by speed or altitude that's both authoritative and in the public domain?
rsalinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 08:11 AM   #11
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
rsalinger, if I can ask a question, if what Rob Balsamo says about the FDR is correct, what do you think that indicates about what happened at the Pentagon? In particular, how do you think that the FDR came to be found in the wreckage?
maccy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 08:15 AM   #12
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
hi rsalinger

i dont exactly know what you are asking for here

if its about the use of pitot/statics for aircraft instrumentation and how it works and what factors can affect it then here is a link

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSSI.htm
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 08:22 AM   #13
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Just for the heck of it, check out the response by Rob to my "exposed" entry on him.

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic...b513fab7#86434

Originally Posted by Balsamo
We never claimed that the information "proves" anything and have stated as such on many radio/television interviews. What we do "claim" is that the data provided by the govt does not support the govt story of an impact with the pentagon.
Ok, you say that the data does not support the hit, but you say the information proves nothing? Whut?

And of course the usual, commenting my website entry:
Quote:
Folks, the above tactic is typical of govt loyalists and apologists. Spin. obfuscation, strawman arguments and flat out lies to distract you from the real truth.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 7th January 2008 at 08:23 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 08:48 AM   #14
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Has Balsamo been on TV? Real tv?
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 09:30 AM   #15
rsalinger
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 55
Thanks ref. I get it now. All Balsamo is saying is that the FDR doesn't equal the exact flight description contained in the video animation of the crash published by the NTSB. Of course, without any information as to FDR accuracy from anywhere, that's no indication of anything sinister. No one in the US government ever said (?) that it would dovetail to their video precisely.

(Where I think Rob may be out of line is in the video where they clearly cite these discrepancies as "evidence" for a conspiracy. The reason I wanted the information on how accurate FDR data is was that it seems to me that much of this debate is emotionally charged.)

Emotions are great and I have some myself. I'd like to be able to discuss this with anyone I encounter with specific facts and figures. I keep reading statements like "there wasn't enough wreckage", when there is no standard measure for how much airplane wreckage needs to be found to constitute proof that an airplane crashed under a specific set of circumstances. Maybe it's just the way I think, but I've always found avoiding ad hominen attacks and trying to get to the heart of the dispute is the best way to get people to move from one side of the argument to the other. So, in this case, a word from the manufacturer of the hardware/software system about it's accuracy would be useful.

Anyone know why I can't post URL's?
rsalinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 09:33 AM   #16
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by rsalinger View Post
My question remains - is any official information regarding the actual accuracy of the altitude data as found in a flight recorder.
The closest thing you'll get is the official speed/altitudes these items are checked in and what errors are expected.

The conditions on 9/11 were far beyond any combination of speed/altitude that anyone does any testing, certifying, etc, etc.

Quote:
As a corollary, is there any information regarding how that data might be affected by speed or altitude that's both authoritative and in the public domain?
Not really. All we really know is that the altimeter was operating way beyond what it's tested for.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 09:36 AM   #17
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by rsalinger View Post
1. On the Pilots for Truth forum they have a post (can't post URL's yet)
from February of 2007 in which Rob Balsamo claims to have deciphered the raw FDR data. It shows that two seconds before impact (his analysis) the aircraft was at 288 feet. I can't work out whether there's anything wrong with this analysis (beyond wondering how accurate the translation is from radar altimeter to FDR format to engineering measure (feet i this case)). Comments please.
Balasamo seems to focus on debunker arguments related to altimeter lag. He ignores the fact that the data he's looking at appears to be much earlier than he claims.

Quote:
2. In reading through a lot of old posts here I have the impression that the original csv file which I have is not considered as being usable because the times shown are the time stamp from within the flight recorder rather than the time stamp of the observation. (I know it's a simplification). Are there other reasons for not trusting the numbers - calibration for example?
Yes, calibration is an issue. Time is the bigger one, though.

Quote:
3. What is the accuracy of this kind of data? I'm trying to work out whether the use of a 12 bit word with some bits used for error correction (256 words per second as I read the specifications) doesn't inherently mean a reading can be easily of by say 100 feet when you could have a value from 0 - 40000. I have the feeling that these readouts cannot be used in isolation partly for this reason as well as the time delay possible. Can anyone comment.
I don't know the answer to this question. I'm sure you can look at the data in the CSV file and guesstimate the "bit-distance" and figure out how much uncertainty is related to the quantization due to the digital encoding.

My suspicion, though, is that error due to quantization is minimal.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 09:53 AM   #18
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by rsalinger View Post
Anyone know why I can't post URL's?
You can post links after 15 posts.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 10:02 AM   #19
iAmerican
Thinker
 
iAmerican's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 196
Columbia Pike/Pentagon Dead-end: Colinear with Capitol

The FL77/C-130 convoy was seen flying along Columbia Turnpike in Arlington. Many evacuating Capitol Hill heard the explosion at the Pentagon and looked up to witness a large commercial jet sweep up over The Capitol...which is directly in line with the Pentagon and Columbia Pike.

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Retired Air Force crash expert Colonel George Nelson: "And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building."

"If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes."
iAmerican is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 10:08 AM   #20
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Welcome back to 2002 theories, iAmerican.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 10:11 AM   #21
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Good Lord, here we go again.

I predict 10-12 pages of "Looking up a goat's butt with one eyeball" and the Troofers are still "just asking questions". I want my $$ now Randi!

Last edited by Reheat; 7th January 2008 at 10:48 AM. Reason: fixed quote
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 10:17 AM   #22
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
I thought I would not even care to post this. But since we are on the topic, Rob has progressed to flight 93 as well:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html

Quote:
The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 7th January 2008 at 10:18 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 10:22 AM   #23
rsalinger
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by iAmerican View Post
The FL77/C-130 convoy was seen flying along Columbia Turnpike in Arlington. Many evacuating Capitol Hill heard the explosion at the Pentagon and looked up to witness a large commercial jet sweep up over The Capitol...which is directly in line with the Pentagon and Columbia Pike.

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Retired Air Force crash expert Colonel George Nelson: "And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building."

"If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes."
1. When you say "live on CNN" was he actually at the scene? Can you give more context because this could refer to, for example, a second purported incident? How many plane crashes has he been so that we can take him as an expert? We should know this, don't you think. Haven't you taken one quote here, but aren't there hundreds of experienced first responders at the scene who don't say this? (You might want to do some research on eye witness accounts and you'll understand that you can only look at the preponderance of them to insure correctness of interpretation.)

2. While the diameter of the hole may have been 16 feet, there was a horizontal cut made in the building which totaled much more than that. I did the math once before from pictures and drawings and determined it was at least 60 feet in width, remember that the wings aren't all that strong and aren't designed to stand up in a crash. (You need to use the pictures taken before the collapse to see this, which may to be what confuses people.)

3. Where did this quote come from? All the video I've been able to find shows that an airplane will disintegrate when it hits a more or less solid barrier at these speeds. It's important to remember that the speed in this case is some 500mph, as opposed to most crashes we see (which are grazing blows by pilots who are trying NOT to hit the earth). So the energy (proportional to delta v squared) is maybe six times larger than the average plane crash which is surely going to pulverize things more than "usual". The most important point, though is that conservation of momentum is going to put whatever remains INSIDE the building (isn't it?), so we wouldn't expect to see much of a debris field outside the building. Comment?
rsalinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 12:36 PM   #24
Calcas
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,466
rsalinger, pardon most of us for not answering your questions so quickly but we have all "been there done that" so much on the Pentagon that it gets tiring.

Our member "Gravy" has put together links and info on almost anything you want to know. Look around and then come back if you still have specific questions.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911p...videncesummary

P.S. Balsamo will ban you if and when your questions don't fit into his aganda. Simply ask a few tough questions and you're gone. How's that for "truth"?

Last edited by Calcas; 7th January 2008 at 12:40 PM.
Calcas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 12:44 PM   #25
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by iAmerican View Post
Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”
Let's stop being dishonest here. You're misquoting with the intent to mislead people. If you put in the whole quote you would see that Jamie no way thinks that there wasn't a plane there. You're simply taking the part of the quote where he was explaining how much damage there was to the plane. Jamie has also gone live on CNN to talk about how people like you go around mis-quoting him and how there absolutely was a plane and he saw it crash into the building with his own two eyes. Of course anyone who say the interview being referred to above would know that.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 01:20 PM   #26
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by rsalinger View Post
1. When you say "live on CNN" was he actually at the scene? Can you give more context because this could refer to, for example, a second purported incident? How many plane crashes has he been so that we can take him as an expert? We should know this, don't you think. Haven't you taken one quote here, but aren't there hundreds of experienced first responders at the scene who don't say this? (You might want to do some research on eye witness accounts and you'll understand that you can only look at the preponderance of them to insure correctness of interpretation.)

2. While the diameter of the hole may have been 16 feet, there was a horizontal cut made in the building which totaled much more than that. I did the math once before from pictures and drawings and determined it was at least 60 feet in width, remember that the wings aren't all that strong and aren't designed to stand up in a crash. (You need to use the pictures taken before the collapse to see this, which may to be what confuses people.)

3. Where did this quote come from? All the video I've been able to find shows that an airplane will disintegrate when it hits a more or less solid barrier at these speeds. It's important to remember that the speed in this case is some 500mph, as opposed to most crashes we see (which are grazing blows by pilots who are trying NOT to hit the earth). So the energy (proportional to delta v squared) is maybe six times larger than the average plane crash which is surely going to pulverize things more than "usual". The most important point, though is that conservation of momentum is going to put whatever remains INSIDE the building (isn't it?), so we wouldn't expect to see much of a debris field outside the building. Comment?
You are talking to a false idea promoter. Good luck
You need to do some reading, iAmerican advice on the truth is like going to the undertaker to get your heart bypass.

You are correct, the impact at the Pentagon is 10 times more energy than most accidents. There will be few parts that you would recognize. The parts are all there, in small pieces.

Last edited by beachnut; 7th January 2008 at 01:32 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 01:56 PM   #27
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by iAmerican View Post
The FL77/C-130 convoy was seen flying along Columbia Turnpike in Arlington. Many evacuating Capitol Hill heard the explosion at the Pentagon and looked up to witness a large commercial jet sweep up over The Capitol...which is directly in line with the Pentagon and Columbia Pike.

Jamie McIntyre, live on CNN: ”Upon my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of an airplane’s having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Retired Air Force crash expert Colonel George Nelson: "And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building."

"If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes."
holy flippin love of CHR*** dear sweet mother of mary...NOT AGAIN!!!!

Someone else handle this 2nd grade truther stuff please before I blow a gasket or six!!

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 02:10 PM   #28
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Someone busted out the 2004 truther playbook. What's next? Jet fuel can't melt steel?
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 02:12 PM   #29
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by ref View Post
I thought I would not even care to post this. But since we are on the topic, Rob has progressed to flight 93 as well:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html
Oh god. I'm too tired. I can't even go to that site w/o feeling ill. Maybe someone else will watch his incredibly long and boring videos and give me a readers digest version of what needs debunked.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 02:20 PM   #30
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
holy flippin love of CHR*** dear sweet mother of mary...NOT AGAIN!!!!

Someone else handle this 2nd grade truther stuff please before I blow a gasket or six!!

TAM
You need a holiday mate
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 02:23 PM   #31
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I just had one, but you are right, I need a holiday from "the truth".

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 02:52 PM   #32
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
Oh god. I'm too tired. I can't even go to that site w/o feeling ill. Maybe someone else will watch his incredibly long and boring videos and give me a readers digest version of what needs debunked.
He is just pushing his DVD sales. He is in the CT world of making money. His claims are just junk.
Quote:
  1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
  2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
  3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
  4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
  5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.
I agree, who wants to watch(listen) stupid, aka JDX, make up stupid ideas with no conclusions.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2008, 06:02 PM   #33
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by rsalinger View Post
(Where I think Rob may be out of line is in the video where they clearly cite these discrepancies as "evidence" for a conspiracy. The reason I wanted the information on how accurate FDR data is was that it seems to me that much of this debate is emotionally charged.)
If you do your homework you will see is off on pretty much everything. His game is make one unsubstantiated claim after another in order to drum up DVD sales. And when those claims are shown to be lies or distortion of facts he does two things. One, he makes personal attacks and plays games by saying things like the source that debunked him is actually working for him. Then he will move onto the next claim. That's pretty much his MO.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2008, 02:40 PM   #34
wtcconspiracy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 99
Just read something interesting in book called 9-11 coup against america. the pentagon analysis by Pet Tiradera.
The evidence states that flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH. Even though official Pentagon attack time was 9:37 AM based on evidence in the book the probable time of attack is 9:31 AM. Now there is questions also about UA 175 exceeding max flight speed but will discuss that in appropriate thread. The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min.
Even to assume assume the Pentagon was attacked at 9:37 we can still see its not possible as the plane would have to maintain a speed of 486 MPH yet some radar readings say that flight 77 was travelling at between 400 - 480 MPH.
What exactly happened to initially make some people monitoring this aircraft believe it went down in Kentucky. Why was the plane invisible for so long. Is there really no other way to track a plane once the transponder has been turned off. And when this plane was believed to have crashed in Kentucky why did no one react to this. No one was sent to look for this aircraft. No emergency response, as if a downed 757 over kentucky did not constitute emergency response. Then once it was discovered it was not down no action was taken to find out why flight 77 was missing. It can just go untracked, undetected. Fly into the nations most restricted airspace. In then flies past White House and Capitol building to hit an almost empty and reinforced section in the Pentagon. Why did this flight not crash at the White House. Would this not have been a much more devestating blow to the American Government.
And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.
Why will the FBI not show the Hotel Sheraton and CITGO gas station video tapes of what happened at the Pentagon. Some say it because of the trial of the supposed 20th hijacker but can this really be a good enough reason. There was no restriction on the Naudet brothers releasing the footage of a plane hitting the North tower of the WTC which was the only known footage of that attack. Obviously UA 175 Crash was shown on live TV so could not be censored. But why was the only footage taken showing the AA11 Impact allowed to be shown yet the footage of AA77 Impact can not be as its evidence. Could it be more so that one shows a plane crash and one doesnt.
Would appreciate any sensible answer not insults as I got last time I discussed here.

Ben
wtcconspiracy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2008, 03:21 PM   #35
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,689
Ben:
Why don't you put the "skater gun" away and address one point at a time.

If a plane loses it's transponder in an area with no primary radar it is essential lost. This was the case for AA 77
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 15th February 2008 at 03:48 PM. Reason: UAL to AA
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2008, 03:30 PM   #36
wtcconspiracy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Ben:
Why don't you put the "skater gun" away and address one point at a time.

If a plane loses it's transponder in an area with no primary radar it is essential lost. This was the case for UAL 77
what skater gun
wtcconspiracy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2008, 03:31 PM   #37
Magenta
Graduate Poster
 
Magenta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,305
Ben, I would suggest you will develop a better understanding if you research these questions yourself initially, and then come back with more specific questions. Gravy has a web page dedicated to AA77 with links to resources to help you. Also, at the top of this thread you will see tags for AA77, Pentagon and flight data recorder. If you click on those it will take you to threads where these questions have been discussed previously.
Magenta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2008, 03:34 PM   #38
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,689
Originally Posted by wtcconspiracy View Post
what skater gun
It's actually Scatter (I spelled it wrong) It's when you put out more than one issue at a time (usually several). It's a confusing way to discuss anything.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2008, 03:35 PM   #39
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by wtcconspiracy View Post
Just read something interesting in book called 9-11 coup against america. the pentagon analysis by Pet Tiradera.
The evidence states that flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH. Even though official Pentagon attack time was 9:37 AM based on evidence in the book the probable time of attack is 9:31 AM. Now there is questions also about UA 175 exceeding max flight speed but will discuss that in appropriate thread. The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min.
Even to assume assume the Pentagon was attacked at 9:37 we can still see its not possible as the plane would have to maintain a speed of 486 MPH yet some radar readings say that flight 77 was travelling at between 400 - 480 MPH.
What exactly happened to initially make some people monitoring this aircraft believe it went down in Kentucky. Why was the plane invisible for so long. Is there really no other way to track a plane once the transponder has been turned off. And when this plane was believed to have crashed in Kentucky why did no one react to this. No one was sent to look for this aircraft. No emergency response, as if a downed 757 over kentucky did not constitute emergency response. Then once it was discovered it was not down no action was taken to find out why flight 77 was missing. It can just go untracked, undetected. Fly into the nations most restricted airspace. In then flies past White House and Capitol building to hit an almost empty and reinforced section in the Pentagon. Why did this flight not crash at the White House. Would this not have been a much more devestating blow to the American Government.
And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.
Why will the FBI not show the Hotel Sheraton and CITGO gas station video tapes of what happened at the Pentagon. Some say it because of the trial of the supposed 20th hijacker but can this really be a good enough reason. There was no restriction on the Naudet brothers releasing the footage of a plane hitting the North tower of the WTC which was the only known footage of that attack. Obviously UA 175 Crash was shown on live TV so could not be censored. But why was the only footage taken showing the AA11 Impact allowed to be shown yet the footage of AA77 Impact can not be as its evidence. Could it be more so that one shows a plane crash and one doesnt.
Would appreciate any sensible answer not insults as I got last time I discussed here.

Ben
Oops, you do not understand flying. First of all you have to use the correct times. The plane at altitude was going 500 mph. So? So far you have a lot of bs.

Last edited by beachnut; 15th February 2008 at 04:22 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2008, 03:44 PM   #40
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Quote:
Why will the FBI not show the Hotel Sheraton and CITGO gas station video tapes of what happened at the Pentagon.
Actually both of those were released last year. The CITGO tapes show nothing other than a slight reflection of the glow of the fireball. As expected the cameras are aimed at the pumps and at the cash register and not at the Pentagon.
The Sheraton tape,IIRC, does show the plane well back in the background and along the advertised flight path.

Quote:
In then flies past White House and Capitol building to hit an almost empty and reinforced section in the Pentagon.
No it did not fly past the Whitehouse or the Capitol. It was at all times on the opposite side of the Potomac.

Quote:
And the FAA and controllers said they know that in the last moments the flight dived 7000 FT towards pentagon. Only a fully functional transponder would yield a digital display indicating the altitude of the plane. Yet the transponder was said to have been turned off.
There are several ways to determine altitude to some extent. For ATC one way is to notice at what point the aircraft shows up on a primary radar. The lowest altitude at which an individual radar tx/rx can 'see' a plane is a function of the distance from the installation. Thus as a target disappears under the look angle of one site and appears over the look angle of another one can ballpark the altitude within a few hundred feet.
Then there is the fact that we know the altitude of the aircraft as it cruised towards the Pentagon because of the data on the DFDR. During that portion of the flight the altimeter is still fairly accurate. It is only once it is in the situation of being very low and very fast that just how the altimeter would react is an unknown and thus the data unreliable.


Quote:
The evidence states that flight 77 turned back and headed for washington at 9 AM and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:31 AM which means it travelled 300 in 30 min which is about 600 MPH. Even though official Pentagon attack time was 9:37 AM based on evidence in the book the probable time of attack is 9:31 AM. Now there is questions also about UA 175 exceeding max flight speed but will discuss that in appropriate thread. The max speed for 757 at 30,000 ft is 568 mph. The lower altitude would dramatically reduce this speed so it could not achieve even the max speed, so how is it possible it covered 300 miles in 30 min.
Even to assume assume the Pentagon was attacked at 9:37 we can still see its not possible as the plane would have to maintain a speed of 486 MPH yet some radar readings say that flight 77 was travelling at between 400 - 480 MPH.
300 miles in 30 minutes = 600 MPH
extend flight time by 7 minutes and 300 miles in 37 = 487 MPH

So you have noticed that an error in the time of 7 minutes means that the estimated velocity is off by a difference of 113 MPH, right?

Did the plane start its heading at exactly 9 am? No, that's a ballpark figure and if its off by 5 minutes then the flight time is now 42 minutes
,,, that makes it 423 MPH

Was it exactly 300 miles travel distance? No, that's a ballpark figure. If its off by 10% and rounded up then the actual distance is 270 miles
That's 386 MPH

So when you have more accurate information as to the distance and time of travel then re-do the math.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.