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.
Reply
Old 13th September 2008, 08:00 PM   #1
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

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 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 13th September 2008, 08:19 PM   #2
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,635
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
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.
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...d.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 by beachnut; 13th September 2008 at 09:02 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 13th September 2008, 09:02 PM   #3
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by Beachnut
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?
Why would the FAA release an animation that is physically impossible?
TheLoneBedouin 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 13th September 2008, 09:18 PM   #4
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,635
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Why would the FAA release an animation that is physically impossible?
Why can't you, CIT, or p4t expert pilots do math and physics to figure it out? Why can't you do it?
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 13th September 2008, 09:55 PM   #5
Tbone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Your first order of business is to provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.
Tbone 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 13th September 2008, 10:08 PM   #6
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Originally Posted by Tbone View Post
Your first order of business is to provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.

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.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 13th September 2008, 10:10 PM   #7
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
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.
this video is a fake.
Thunder 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 13th September 2008, 10:13 PM   #8
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Note who posted it to youtube...
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 13th September 2008, 10:15 PM   #9
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
this video is a fake.
you think?


http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/sept09122008cover.pdf

http://aal77.com/faa/faa_foia.php
TC329 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 13th September 2008, 10:16 PM   #10
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Note who posted it to youtube...
noted.
TC329 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 13th September 2008, 10:23 PM   #11
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post


It's funny because the actual letter makes no mention of a video - the letter from the FAA cites radar data and audio recordings.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 13th September 2008, 10:26 PM   #12
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
it's funny its almost like you question its authenticity but don't exactly have the cajones to call it a fake.
TC329 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 13th September 2008, 10:29 PM   #13
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,000
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
it's funny its almost like you question its authenticity but don't exactly have the cajones to call it a fake.

Are you paying any attention to anything at all? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it...

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
So in a word, I call BS.

Focus, TC329... Focus...

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 13th September 2008 at 10:31 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd 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 13th September 2008, 10:32 PM   #14
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
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???
CHF 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 13th September 2008, 10:37 PM   #15
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
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.
TC329 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 13th September 2008, 10:48 PM   #16
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
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?
Thunder 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 13th September 2008, 10:54 PM   #17
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
no.

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

No one cares about CIT.
CHF 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 13th September 2008, 10:57 PM   #18
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,290
The stupid... it burns.
LashL 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 13th September 2008, 10:57 PM   #19
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,000
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact.

That's retarded, no matter which way you look at it.
Cl1mh4224rd 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 13th September 2008, 10:58 PM   #20
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
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.
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?
Caustic Logic 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 13th September 2008, 11:00 PM   #21
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
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.
Word. I was going to ask about this. It's just too weird, and that was my first hunch.
Caustic Logic 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 13th September 2008, 11:19 PM   #22
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
It's funny because the actual letter makes no mention of a video - the letter from the FAA cites radar data and audio recordings.
there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fad...agon_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
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 13th September 2008, 11:37 PM   #23
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fad...agon_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
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?
TheLoneBedouin 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 14th September 2008, 12:03 AM   #24
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
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...

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...cb0f067e39.jpg


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

Where's the dog, it's time... oh, I can't get the dog to laugh?

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 14th September 2008 at 12:04 AM. Reason: removed name calling
Caustic Logic 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 14th September 2008, 12:22 AM   #25
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...cb0f067e39.jpg


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?
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
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 14th September 2008, 01:15 AM   #26
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fad...agon_more2.mpg
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.


Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
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
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.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 14th September 2008, 02:52 AM   #27
bobloblaw
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
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.
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 -

Quote:
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.
http://911files.info/blog/?p=141
bobloblaw 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 14th September 2008, 02:55 AM   #28
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,548
And how exactly do we know this is the video that came from the FAA?
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 14th September 2008, 03:15 AM   #29
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
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.
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
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 14th September 2008, 03:28 AM   #30
bobloblaw
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
And how exactly do we know this is the video that came from the FAA?
I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Farmer's work.

www.aal77.com
911files.info
bobloblaw 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 14th September 2008, 04:24 AM   #31
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Originally Posted by bobloblaw View Post
As John himself says -


http://911files.info/blog/?p=141


What he's says does not make logical sense.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 14th September 2008, 04:40 AM   #32
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther
Have you actually read his court filing?


Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
the video seems a bit theatrical for a government work, but i dont see any reason to doubt its source other than personal incredulity
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.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 14th September 2008, 04:43 AM   #33
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
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.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 14th September 2008, 04:43 AM   #34
bobloblaw
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
What he's says does not make logical sense.
How so?
bobloblaw 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 14th September 2008, 04:52 AM   #35
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Originally Posted by bobloblaw View Post
How so?

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.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 14th September 2008, 05:03 AM   #36
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
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.
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
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.
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
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

Last edited by defaultdotxbe; 14th September 2008 at 05:07 AM.
defaultdotxbe 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 14th September 2008, 05:21 AM   #37
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
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)
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.


Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
ETA: also, i would consider point 1 to be personal incredulity
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?


Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
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
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.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 14th September 2008, 05:57 AM   #38
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,329
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.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

Last edited by gumboot; 14th September 2008 at 06:08 AM.
gumboot 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 14th September 2008, 10:36 AM   #39
jsiv
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,374
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.
jsiv 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 14th September 2008, 10:45 AM   #40
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,064
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.
johnny karate 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 11:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.