Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

TC329

Banned
T
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,453
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.
 
TC329 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.
Click to expand...
Your own witness, your own video debunks you. Now you post a turn that is impossible, just like your non turns. Why are you unable to use math and physics to figure this out?

Your Miller video proves your Flt 93 ideas false; why does your lack of knowledge on flying make you immune to reality? http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...y+miller&hl=en
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122665

You have taken the bait, John Farmer is about to release information to expose your ideas. He is teasing you. http://911files.info/blog/index.php

Why are your conclusions false, bad research or bad analysis?

Friday, September 28, 2001, 4:42:20 AM, mod date of the video. lol, old stuff, impossible paths. Good find, you took the bait again.
 
Last edited:
Beachnut said:
Your own witness, your own video debunks you. Now you post a turn that is impossible, just like your non turns. Why are you unable to use math and physics to figure this out?
Click to expand...
Why would the FAA release an animation that is physically impossible?
 
Your first order of business is to provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.
 
Tbone said:
Your first order of business is to provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Just because someone stuck FAA and NORAD logos on it is meaningless. In fact I think the NORAD logo is a bit of a "smoking gun", if you will, because there's no conceivable reason NORAD would be involved in such a video. And finally, the data to produce such a flight path would come from the NTSB not the FAA, and the NTSB's flightpath is markedly different.

So in a word, I call BS.
 
TC329 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.
Click to expand...

this video is a fake.
 
it's funny its almost like you question its authenticity but don't exactly have the cajones to call it a fake.
 
I've never understood this controversy...

So the guv faked a plane crash and then released data that showed their own fake crash didn't happen???
 
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.
 
Yes. Will someone please explain to us why the govt. would provide a black box with data that would go against their fake flight path?

Is the NWO suicidal or something? Do 9-11 Sheepers have any sense of logic left?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Why are they doing this?

No one cares about CIT.
 
TC329 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.
Click to expand...

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.

BUT it does match, almost to a T, the flight path your buddies made up to fuse some aberrant accounts together, again in impossibility. Therefore, they must have some magical connection to the *truly true truth* that transcends all evidence to the contrary.

Maybe they interviewed witnesses, and ignored those like Morin, Elgas, Hemphill, Riskus, Mcgraw, England, Timmerman, Vignola, Zakhem, Wheelhouse, Wallace, Stephens, Roberts, NEIT 405, etc, who place the plane on the damage path. Maybe they interviewed the same aberrant set CIT got their hands on?

Maybe they didn't know what to do with the final moments and copied the NTSB's erred north path, deducing the swerve in a similar way to what your buddies would later do, to connect error and reality.

It is weird, and quite so. What do YOU think it's based on, TC?
 
gumboot said:
Indeed. Just because someone stuck FAA and NORAD logos on it is meaningless. In fact I think the NORAD logo is a bit of a "smoking gun", if you will, because there's no conceivable reason NORAD would be involved in such a video. And finally, the data to produce such a flight path would come from the NTSB not the FAA, and the NTSB's flightpath is markedly different.

So in a word, I call BS.
Click to expand...

Word. I was going to ask about this. It's just too weird, and that was my first hunch.
 
gumboot said:
It's funny because the actual letter makes no mention of a video - the letter from the FAA cites radar data and audio recordings.
Click to expand...
there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg

same one thats on youtube (now why TV couldnt just link to that first, or at all, is beyond me)

as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI
 
defaultdotxbe said:
there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg

same one thats on youtube (now why TV couldnt just link to that first, or at all, is beyond me)

as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI
Click to expand...

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?
 
Alright, it's all still new I only learn at medium speed, but...

The FAA letter does mention a video - they're alphabetical, Farmer lists the file at his site as 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg, which is there.
http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/sept09122008cover.pdf
Does that mean this IS that very file?

This is kinda deja vu for me, since the NTSB's release letter in fact did not mention it, I suspected forgery, but then later letters did say 'oh and here's a DVD with the animation...' I'm not convinced yet this is truly FAA/NORAD/whatever, but I'm fine with ambiguity, and sorta presume it's legit. The first case turned out that way, so...

TheLoneBedouin said:
Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg[/qimg]


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?
Click to expand...

My guesses for why are above. There are other possibilities as well. I haven't checked that roation issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's right. Did you notice the 330 degree diamond loop? It's all wacked yo. Did you notice the remarkable irony of your question however? They released an animation that shows your flight path almost to a "T". First words you utter describe this as "physically impossible."
FAA_wrong_path_1.jpg

Where's the dog, it's time... oh, I can't get the dog to laugh?
 
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin said:
Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13796http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?
Click to expand...
yes, thats the NTSB data, however it is not the NTSB animation

the animation was corrected improperly for true north, and showed a NOC flightpath
 
defaultdotxbe said:
there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg
Click to expand...

It's listed on the second page of the PDF that is just a list of included files without an FAA header or anything else in sight. It is not mentioned in the actual FAA letter (page one) nor could anything in the letter refer to the video.

Given past "Truther" behaviour, it would not be beneath them to fake the second page.

We don't know anything about the video - what it was made for, what its purpose is, how it was created, when it was created, or anything else.


defaultdotxbe said:
as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI
Click to expand...

The flight paths are totally different. I'm not talking the final line up and impact (although that alone is wrong, showing a hard starboard turn at the last moment) but the prior part of the flightpath - this new video's flightpath just does not reflect anything every provided by any official data.
 
gumboot said:
We don't know anything about the video - what it was made for, what its purpose is, how it was created, when it was created, or anything else.
Click to expand...
These are all great points (except we know it was created on or prior to 28/09/2001) and this is where the discussion should be at this point.

It exists, it came directly from the FAA and everyone needs to get over that. Immediately labelling this video as "fake" is the kind of behaviour normally associated with denial shown on the other side of the fence.

As John himself says -

FYI you morons! The video is part of a release which is the subject of a Federal Court Case. That means any fakery on mine or the FAA’s part is perjury and criminally punishable. Now I can’t speak for the FAA, but I certainly am not willing to go to jail just to pull a prank on some looney toons like the CIT children. Further, I just go to extreme lengths and expense to get the information while you guys sit in front of your computers and talk trash. So stop making yourselves look like idiots and simply request a copy of the video for yourselves from the FAA.
Click to expand...
http://911files.info/blog/?p=141
 
gumboot said:
It's listed on the second page of the PDF that is just a list of included files without an FAA header or anything else in sight. It is not mentioned in the actual FAA letter (page one) nor could anything in the letter refer to the video.

Given past "Truther" behaviour, it would not be beneath them to fake the second page.
Click to expand...
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
 
defaultdotxbe said:
ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther
Click to expand...

Have you actually read his court filing?


defaultdotxbe said:
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...

I doubt everything when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Specifically, I doubt it is any sort of "official FAA animation". I have offered two key reasons for this:

1) The animation carries both FAA and NORAD graphics, with no explanation for such a thing, despite the fact that neither organisation would have any part in determining AA77s flight path (that being the NTSB's job).

2) The animation flight path varies drastically from the NTSB's official release, not just in the final approach line up but in the turn prior to the line up.

Neither of these two points constitute "personal incredulity". They are facts easily verifiable by watching said video.
 
For the record I didn't claim the video was fake (although I suggested that wasn't beyond the realm of reason). I merely don't believe it is any form of "official" FAA flightpath.
 
bobloblaw said:
How so?
Click to expand...


Firstly, the release in question is a result of a FOIA request, not any sort of court action - the court action is still pending at this time which means it has not been before the court yet.

Secondly, perjury is the act of lying under oath or knowingly presenting false evidence in a court of law. The video in question has not, to the best of my knowledge, been presented in any court of law as an authentic piece of evidence. Faking or modifying a FOIA release may indeed constitute an illegal act (I don't know) but it is not, in any size, shape or form, perjury.
 
gumboot said:
I doubt everything when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Specifically, I doubt it is any sort of "official FAA animation". I have offered two key reasons for this:

1) The animation carries both FAA and NORAD graphics, with no explanation for such a thing, despite the fact that neither organisation would have any part in determining AA77s flight path (that being the NTSB's job).

2) The animation flight path varies drastically from the NTSB's official release, not just in the final approach line up but in the turn prior to the line up.

Neither of these two points constitute "personal incredulity". They are facts easily verifiable by watching said video.
Click to expand...

gumboot said:
For the record I didn't claim the video was fake (although I suggested that wasn't beyond the realm of reason). I merely don't believe it is any form of "official" FAA flightpath.
Click to expand...
your point 1 above would only make sense if you felt the video was created by a third party and attributed to FAA and/or NORAD (IE fake)

ETA: also, i would consider point 1 to be personal incredulity

and as for point 2, the NTSB animation also shows a north of citgo flight path, despite that not being the NTSB's official position, but i dont see anyone claiming the NTSB video is fake, just poorly (and probably hastily) put together, the same can probably be said for this
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
your point 1 above would only make sense if you felt the video was created by a third party and attributed to FAA and/or NORAD (IE fake)
Click to expand...

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.

*shrugs*

Hence why I pointed out we don't know who created, why it was created, or what for.


defaultdotxbe said:
ETA: also, i would consider point 1 to be personal incredulity
Click to expand...

How is acknowledging the official duties of government agencies "incredulity"? If someone presents you an FBI letterhead outlining FBI opinion on the proper cultivation of wheat, would you consider it an argument from personal incredulity to point out that the only "official" position on such a matter should come from the Department of Agriculture?


defaultdotxbe said:
and as for point 2, the NTSB animation also shows a north of citgo flight path, despite that not being the NTSB's official position, but i dont see anyone claiming the NTSB video is fake, just poorly (and probably hastily) put together, the same can probably be said for this
Click to expand...

It is not the map alignment of the flight path that I have issue with. It is the actual flight path itself. The NTSB animation's flightpath is an official representation of AA77s flight as based on the FDR. This FAA animation flightpath does not even remotely reflect that flight path.
 
I've done a bit more investigating now I have the original video downloaded...

The video bears the logos of NORAD and a company called AGI which, according to their website: "provides commercial off-the-shelf software to national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets."

The video is built on air navigation maps, and includes FAA Long Range Radar sites (the big golf ball things). The one in the opening frame is the ARSR-3 at The Plains, VA.

My speculation is that this is a radar-based map for NORAD purposes. This might explain why it was included in a FOIA request relating to radar data. Given the nature of radar, it should therefore not be considered any sort of definitive of official representation of AA77's flightpath, and certainly not as regarded by the FAA.

ETA. It appears to be a radar simulation created using AGI's Satellite Tool Kit (STK) Radar module.
 
Last edited:
Whoever made the video, it's stupid and looks more like some sort of technology demonstration (or conspiracy porn) than anything else. Fast-paced, fancy camera effects, etc, while not providing any useful information about the flight.
 
The real question here isn't why the government would release such damning evidence revealing its own insidious plot, but rather what Truthers are going to do with this smoking gun.

So far we have:
1) Make a Youtube video.
2) Gloat on an Internet message board.

Way to go, freedom fighters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom