American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data

Cross-post and discussion here.... http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=10751

I've been meaning to put this together for awhile now as there has been alot of disinfo out there regarding AA77 FDR positional data. I was finally able to finish it up today and upload it during the Super Bowl (Yeah Giants!).

So here it is....

American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data

Description:

Please view Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77 prior to watching this clip to get a better understanding of what is analyzed here.

Addressing common arguments of those who make excuses regarding altitude, vertical speed and position conflicts between American Airlines Flight 77 Data Recorder (Black Box) and the Govt story. The Flight Data Recorder information provided by The National Transportation Safety Board through the Freedom Of Information Act does not support the govt story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for more details.

For higher quality download, please download from google page http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947. Also be sure to rate it and leave comments. Thank you.

Thanks for taking the time

Thanks for taking the time to explain this technical data in detail.

Great presentation

As usual the Official Conspiracy Theory is lacking any credibility at all.
It seems quite clear at this point with all the data that Pilotsfor9/11truth & all the excellent eyewitness testimony gathered by Craig Ranke CIT that no plane actually "hit" the Pentagon.
The Plane that was seen by so many flew over the Pentagon at the same time the explosives or missile went off.

I don't beleive that a plane

I don't beleive that a plane did not hit the Pentagon....... Just that flight 77 did not.

There WERE parts from a plane there......... There was not time to plant those parts, so this gives PROOF that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, just no proof that it was flight 77.

This is the type of things that the OCT's use to call the "truth" movement "crazy"......

Just like I don't believe that the planes that hit the WTC were the planes listed, but that does not mean that the planes flew over the towers and a missle hit the buildings........

Please stop with these type of comments, without supporting evidence. The evidence does show, and support, that a plane did hit the Pentagon.

The best explaination to support the data that exists is that this plane was flown remotely and before it hit the Pentagon, it fied a missile into the Pentagon.

But even this is a guess, but this "theory" is supported by the evidence. Your "theory" is NOT. Unless you can explain the many plane parts that WERE found and photographed that day with hundreds of people around during this.

Thanks in advance.

Plane/no-plane debate

6 years later, people are still telling us about the bombs in WTC 7, explosions in the lobby of the WTC but not one single person has told us a commercial airliner flew over the Pentagon or anything else for that matter.

One motorist recorded the attack 15 seconds later on his camcorder. It's pretty obvious that If the plane flew over he would have pointed his camera at it. No government agency can control who drives on a highway or who takes photographs or recordings. It's also obvious that there would have been hundreds of witnesses to any funny business, but there isn't anything noteworthy. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html Someone else took photographs one minute after the impact from the highway about 500 feet away from the Pentagon. None of the released videos reveal a flyover. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-flyover-theory-rip.html

A plane impact has no impact whatsoever on 9/11 being an inside job. It was flown by remote. They knew the plane was coming. Andrews Airforce Base: 1 minute away.

I support an investigation to get the videos and end the controversy once and for all. Making conclusions based on incomplete, innaccurate, ambiguous, or partial data is impossible.

That being said, I'd like to see an official explanation for why the flight data says what it does. What happened to the missing data? Where would the data come from if the plane did not impact the Pentagon as we are told?
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Arab wrote -

"Making conclusions based on incomplete, innaccurate [sic], ambiguous, or partial data is impossible. "

right after he wrote...

"It was flown by remote"

Do you have any data to back this up? Any at all? Perhaps provided through FOIA?

Our conclusions are based on data provided by the US Govt through the FOIA, our decades of experience in Aviation, Aircraft Accident Investigation and FDR Experts. Remember, we do not offer theory. What do you base your conclusions on? Pictures and MSM published witness lists you found on the net? (Which have been proven to be dubious at best...) http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=10632

As for your "15 seconds" and "1 min" claims. Do you realize how far away the aircraft would be at that time based on speed? Also, didnt CIT already debunk the "15 seconds" claim?

Further, arent there witnesses who speak of "shadowing" (impossible based on speeds), "Second plane 'peeling' away at time of explosion"... etc etc...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Positive ID and nothing less will do for Pilots For 9/11 Truth. So far US Govt agencies refuse to comment regarding the FDR conflicts and use unlawful excuse to avoid establishing positive ID through FOIA.

Unlike you Arab, we put our faces, names and professional reputations on the line with our "conclusions".
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Regards,
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

Remote Control

The fact that the plane must have hit the ground floor without impacting the ground is pretty much a smoking gun by the odds it was flown by remote.

The fact that the Pentagon was hit on the renovated side is further evidence to suggest this.

Yes, this is not a "fact", but based on these series of facts we can pretty much make the assumption it was flown by remote. Proving it will require an investigation.

The fact that there were war games with live fly aircraft taking place on 9/11 is strong evidence to suggest it happened.

As for the video, you can see that the smoke has NOT reached the top of the video frame. It is basic common sense that if this motorist saw the plane fly over the Pentagon, he would have pointed his camera at it. Instead he pointed it at the C-130.

http://aal77.com/movies/pentagon.i395.smoke.c130.mov
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Facts

Hand flying an aircraft by an experineced pilot is much more accurate and effective than any remote guidance. This coming from a pilot who has thousands of hours flying both Full scale with my ass in the seat and RC Aircraft with my feet on the ground.

Now, i can sit here and speculate how it could have been done by remote. But it would be just that... speculation. Until then, we are trying to get Govt agencies to explain the fact their data does not support their own story. We dont make excuses for it.... unlike others. There is no excuse for it. Even if you feel an aircraft hit the pentagon with the FDR provided, everyone should be highly concerned as this is also a flight safety issue. FDR's are not supposed to be flawed. FDR data is studied to prevent the next accident. If you accept the FDR as being flawed, enjoy your next flight. :-)

I will say our country does have very sophisticated remote guidance technology. But there is a reason why so many pilots, aviation professionals, Aircraft Accident Investigators, Military Drivers, and FDR Experts are putting their name and professional reputations on the line regarding this work instead of making excuses.

Just the facts...

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

I agree...

with your point that it is "speculation" that the plane was flown by remote control. However, I believe that the factors I mention make it the most plausible explanation--far more plausible than Hani Hanjour. Yes, this is not proof. The plausible reasons to believe remote control was used include

1. Remote control ensured the Pentagon was hit
2 Remote control ensured that high level officials survived the attack without evacuation. [a very critical point]
3. Remote control ensured the plane effectively hit the Pentagon.
4. Professional maneuvers needed to hit the Pentagon far exceed Hanjour's ability

If the hypothesis is a plane impact, the remote control theory is far more plausible than the hijacker theory for all of these combined reasons.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Its not up to us...

Its not up to us to come up with a "plausible explanation". It is up to the govt to explain theirs.... all the conflicts, cover-ups.. etc etc. That is what some in this "movement" have to start to realize. And if we all put our energy into that instead of bickering about which "theory" is more plausible, perhaps many of us wouldnt be spinning our wheels. Perhaps it is that way by design.. who knows.

In my professional opinion (and others in our organization), the yoke movement during the last leg accelerating towards the pentagon was done by someone highly experienced and sitting in the seat, not by remote. I have explained this on a few media interviews. Feel free to download them...

However, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. We disagree with you.

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

Incorrect on all counts

1. A plane flying OVER the Pentagon right as it was blown up with planted explosives (or maybe a missile) ensures 100% the Pentagon "appearing" to be hit.

2. So does blowing it up with planted explosives

3. Planted explosives or a missile is clearly more accurate and much easier.

4. Hanjour wasn't the pilot.

The hypothesis that fits the only data we have is that a plane of some sort flew OVER the Pentagon right when it blew or missile hit.

The CIT eyewitnesses all corroborate each other and all say the plane flew along the Northern route which means what these witnesses saw did NOT knock down any light post, that would be 100% impossible. They all say they saw the plane "hit" the Pentagon however from the angle they were at and with the high berm in front of them they couldn't actually see the hit just the explosion.
If the plane flew just over the Pentagon right as it exploded that is exactly what it would look like, that the plane hit the Pentagon and when the smoke cleared the plane would be long gone.

So between the several witnesses and the FDR which clearly says the plane could not pull such a maneuver, plus the fact that the hole was far smaller than a 757 would have made etc then I really have to agree that no plane hit the Pentagon, SOMETHING DID, but seems pretty clear that a 757 did not and no way was it Flight 77 piloted by Hanjour.

3/4 CIT witnesses: Plane hit Pentagon

The CIT witnesses (and all others) said the plane flew into the Pentagon. They didn't say it flew over, they said it hit the Pentagon. One of them got the location of the light poles wrong to the point of denying their actual location.

Lagasse: “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down

That's significant because if he can't remember where the light poles were knocked down, why can we TRUST his flight path. Of course, that's not what CIT will say:

“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.” http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286140/pg9

That's right. They (absurdly) claim that the fact he got the light pole location wrong makes his testimony more credible?

Common sense dictates that if a witness gives false data, it makes us question his entire testimony. CIT on the other hand, claims it makes his testimony more credible. That's far from the only problem of course.

The light pole damage lines up with the structural damage inside of the Pentagon. That is compelling physical evidence (barring some convincing and provable explanation i.e. not "speculation" to show otherwise) that a plane impacted the Pentagon. The plane parts tell us what kind of plane.

I respect the right of people to disagree with what happened, but I don't understand some of the hostility, ad hominem attacks towards talking about the facts.

Being afraid to discuss the facts in a civil tone is a sign of something.

Especially when a plane impact has no bearing on 9/11 being an inside job.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

You aren't very bright

are ya?

Agreed...

Apparently, some are more interested in attacking me than having a discusison, so in that sense, yes I'm not very bright for spending my energy on this.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

No, you either aren't very

No, you either aren't very bright or very honest.

You do realize that right? We can and have proved it numerous times.

You should read what you write sometimes.

You're taking a break from the site.

Now, that is uncalled for.

Keep it civil.

You're taking a break from the site.

Come back when you cool off.

Cool off from what?

saying someone that clearly isn't very bright, that "You aren't very bright?"

Me thinks you should be the one taking a break

Sock puppetry?

If I needed any confirmation that handing out a few speeding tickets today was warranted, I just got it.

with your point that it is

with your point that it is "speculation" that the plane was flown by remote control. However, I believe that the factors I mention make it the most plausible explanation--far more plausible than Hani Hanjour. Yes, this is not proof. The plausible reasons to believe remote control was used include

I'd say the plane approaching from the east side of the potomac, being on the north side of the Citgo, pulling up, not looking like AA, and producing an FDR that does not match it's official flight path and attack video are some plausible reasons to suggest it was remoted guided also. Don't ya think?

1. Remote control ensured the Pentagon was hit

No, not from the side it actually approached on. That DOES NOT "ensure" that the Pentagon is hit the way they wanted. Diving a plane into the middle of the Pentagon would "ensure" that the Pentagon was hit and would "ensure" "diligent" "researchers" like yourself would be none the wiser to remote guidance. No, but clearly they left all these clues for you to figure out or "suggest" it was remoted guided

2 Remote control ensured that high level officials survived the attack without evacuation. [a very critical point]

No. It does not "ensure" that., because they could not "ensure" a successful impact. Controlled and strategic explosions throughout one side of the Pentagon would "ensure" that "high level officials survived the attack without evacuation".

3. Remote control ensured the plane effectively hit the Pentagon.

You can't just say that, "Arabesque", and make it true. A dive straight down into the Pentagon would "ensure" the plane effectively hit the Pentagon. Flying the plane past/over a very tall VDOT antenna, barely missing the VDOT camera mast and overhead sign, and hitting 5 light poles DOES NOT "ensure" that the plane would effectively hit the Pentagon.

4. Professional maneuvers needed to hit the Pentagon far exceed Hanjour's ability

Agreed.

If the hypothesis is a plane impact, the remote control theory is far more plausible than the hijacker theory for all of these combined reasons.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the FDR is irreconcilable with the low and level approach across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video which would indicate it AND the surveillance video are fraudelant, which in turn would "suggest" that the plane DID NOT hit the building?

The fact that the plane must

The fact that the plane must have hit the ground floor without impacting the ground is pretty much a smoking gun by the odds it was flown by remote.

This is not a fact. This is part of the problem. Why are you ignoring this?

1. The FDR that allegedly came from the plane DOES NOT SUPPORT it "hitting the ground floor without impacting the ground". This is what PFT established.

2 The lack of ground floor slab damage and significant damage/movement to the spools DOES NOT SUPPORT it "hitting the ground floor without impacting the ground"

Remote guidance is obvious, but not proveable, and using that reasoning is not logical nor will it suffice.

The fact that the Pentagon was hit on the renovated side is further evidence to suggest this.

How so? Is that the only thing the "renovated side strike" suggests?

Tell me, so are you suggesting that the perps specifically chose that side to "crash" their remoted guided jet simply because it was renovated? Did they also choose that side because there was a huge VDOT antenna was in the way too? Did they also choose that side because they wanted the plane to fly through 5 light poles?

Did the remote controllers cross their fingers and hope that 757's wings would stay intact after striking 5 light poles completing a successful impact and penetration into the building? Do you think they were worried about the overhead sign or any obstacles at all? Do you think a large jet hitting 5 light poles would impede a successful impact and penetration into the building?

Yes, this is not a "fact", but based on these series of facts we can pretty much make the assumption it was flown by remote. Proving it will require an investigation.

An investigation? You mean like the one we conducted where we spoke with witnesses who were there that day to gauge a simple detail, like oh, which side of the gas station the plane was on? Oh I would love to see Arabesque's definiton of an "investigation". I would love to see how remote guidance would be proved through this "investigation". In fact, I would love to see how you could get an investigation using your anonymous, unqualified, OPINIONS on remoted guided 9/11 planes.

The fact that there were war games with live fly aircraft taking place on 9/11 is strong evidence to suggest it happened.

Oh that is "strong evidence to suggest that"? Tell me, what would be considered "strong evidence to sugggest" that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo? LOL.

As for the video, you can see that the smoke has NOT reached the top of the video frame. It is basic common sense that if this motorist saw the plane fly over the Pentagon, he would have pointed his camera at it. Instead he pointed it at the C-130.

http://aal77.com/movies/pentagon.i395.smoke.c130.mov

Common sense would tell you not to use the "smoke against video frame" "measurement tool" to gauge the timeline of the video. Common sense would tell that you should speak with the person who filmed it. Common sense would tell you that the plane would have already been gone. Common sense would tell you that he simply missed it and you are merely guessing, and dishonestly, at that.

You said 15 seconds and as it turns out, by your own admission, you have NOTHING solid to back that up.

nonsense

>>>>>One motorist recorded the attack 15 seconds later on his camcorder. It's pretty obvious that If the plane flew over he would have pointed his camera at it.

You have ZERO proof that video was taken "15 seconds" after the event and the plane would be long gone by then anyway.

Furthermore planes are flying over the river from Reagan every 2 to 4 minutes 24 hours a day so locals are quite used to it.

There is no logic in suggesting they would have pulled out their camera and pointed it at a plane flying away in the distance EVEN IF they could still see it.

They were trying to video tape the massive smoke plume coming from the Pentagon that they had NO CLUE what the cause was.

>>>>>>>>>>None of the released videos reveal a flyover. I support an investigation to get the videos and end the controversy once and for all.

Then you are barking up the wrong tree. Why on earth would you suggest data that has been confiscated, controlled, and released by the government could be valid proof of ANYTHING?

That is sheer idiocy.

You might as well simply ask Bush (or Clinton for that matter) if 9/11was an inside job.

"They said no everyone! We can all go home now!"

Why do you trust the government to tell you the truth about 9/11 while dedicating your energies to attacking the research of people in the 9/11 truth movement?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Answer that one Mr. Anonymous.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Conflating critique with

Conflating critique with attack is a straw-man. Ad hominem attacks belong on Bill O'Reilly's show, not 911blogger.

Unless you believe your theory is beyond criticism... As you say:

"We can all go home now!"

Or maybe not...
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

You are taking a break from the site.

Why not just a calm factual rebuttal? Why throw in "idiocy" to flame up the thread?

Have we gone back

to this childish "go sit in the corner" crap? or banning people for no reason? When did this happen?

I see nothing whatsoever in any post in this thread that should warrant any banning, that is totally ridiculous.

This is a sock-puppet.

Now that's childish.

Why won't Arabesque comment on the presentation?

Or the anomalous FDR?

He shirks the issue in favor of spin and doubt casting as a means to support the official narrative.

How does that help the movement in the least?

It does not.

It is HARMFUL to the movement.

You don't see CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth running around attacking other people in the movement.

We defend ourselves harshly from baseless and unwarranted attacks but we do NOT focus on truth movement politics and divisive "critiques".

www.ThePentaCon.com

Craig good to hear from you

I haven't seen you around lately. But then again I don't get around much!

Looking forward to your presentation later this month!

Leo

Ad Hominem Attacks

"You don't see CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth running around attacking other people in the movement."

(meanwhile.. in this same thread and elsewhere)

"That is sheer idiocy."

“Mr. Anonymous”
http://911blogger.com/node/13724#comment-176562

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

Asking for an official explanation for the data and asking for another investigation is not "supporting the official narrative".
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Show "Why do you remain anonymous, Arabesque?" by Dwightvw

"They knew the plane was coming."

How do you know that? Mineta? Please.

Flight 77 vs Something else debate

The evidence regarding what happened at the Pentagon is to ambiguous for anyone to have a perfectly clear idea of what happened. Since the evidence is unclear, no one should become dogmatic over the topic. I don't know if a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and I don't know if there was a fly over. People becoming dogmatic over the Pentagon attack creates unnecessary divisions within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

We have a perfectly clear

We have a perfectly clear idea what happened at the pentagon. The witnesses told us after we interviewed them and forced out the details that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo.

This is enough to prove an inside job and a pretty good indication that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

If the FDR don't fit.....

....you must acquit (Al Qaeda).

You can't say that the FDR proves a plane hit when it simply makes NO SENSE with the physical damage or perfectly level "object" in the clearly manipulated pentagon security video.

The official data MUST add up perfectly with the physical damage and the security video.

If it does not it is clear there are signs of manipulation.

If the evidence was manipulated it implicates a cover-up.

If a cover-up is proven 9/11 is shown to be an inside job.

Between the anomalous FDR, eyewitness accounts, and admittedly "counter-intuitive" physical evidence a deception is clear.

There is zero logic for someone who looks at the entire body of evidence objectively to conclude that a plane hit that building.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Clarification on agencies ...

Rob, I was under the impression that the NTSB was not allowed to investigate because the events were considered a crime scene, therefore, the FBI and CIA took control. Could you clear that up for me?

Hi joann

When an aircraft accident is determined to be of a criminal nature, the FBI has jurisdiction and may task the NTSB for analysis. Also check here....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00105&key=1

Its the same for all 4 flights.... hope this helps...

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

Email

Also joann, i never received your email through our forums but i was able to see it in the admin control panel. It probably didnt send because you need to have a return address? Dont know... but to answer your question, it wasnt due to you... never saw the comment actually.. it is others.. :-)

Regards,
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

OK

Thax for the additional clarification.

Do you know if there are any treaty obligations

to provide an accident investigation? I've heard there are but don't know for sure. Not that our government considers international law binding.

Also, if I recall correctly, the law was changed after Flight 800 to remove NTSB accident investigation authority if FBI asserted criminal investigation authority. Before that, NTSB was primary or co-equal, if I recall correctly.

"Arabesque"Dwight makes some

"Arabesque"Dwight makes some good points. What do you think?

As for your "15 seconds", you get a raspberry. There is NO documentation backing up this 15 seconds.

Anthony Tribby is unreachable by phone, linked to several disconnected numbers that I could find. My guess is the e-mail is the same.

This 15 seconds was conjured up by John Farmer/Russell Pickering and you are perpetuating it. I want to force you to now provide documentation for this 15 seconds.

Tribby claims he was at his location at *9:35*... where_I_was_09.11.01.935am.jpg
http://www.tribby.net/pentagon/

Where does that indicate that he started filming at 9:38:00, 15 seconds after the explosion? Besides the plane would have been gone by then.

I am saddened by the fact that DZ or whoever still allows Arabesque to subvert these blogs/threads with nonsense. Rob has raw evidence illustratinga cover-up and yet we are reduced to battling with Arabesque and beeing buried by page after page.

If the FDR is faked or fudged then the plane did not hit the building.

"I am saddened by the fact

"I am saddened by the fact that DZ or whoever still allows Arabesque to subvert these blogs/threads with nonsense. Rob has raw evidence illustratinga cover-up and yet we are reduced to battling with Arabesque and beeing buried by page after page."

Man I feel for you. It's hard fighting for truth and justice these days, huh?

- Maintain vigilance and calm

You wouldn't know anything

You wouldn't know anything about that, Adam.

Below viewing Threshold

How is it that every CIT point gets to be visible while every anti-one is 'below viewing threshhold.' Who are these people that know which commnts to read and which to ignore? Why should I bother leaving comments at all if they're all gonna be shrunk like this? Why does Merc's RESPONSE to my invisible post get to be viewable?

My bad - some of mine are visible. Like this one so far.

- Maintain vigilance and calm

15 seconds

Sorry to burst your parade, but anyone can see with their own eyes that the smoke has not even reached the top of the video screen in the first frames.

http://aal77.com/movies/pentagon.i395.smoke.c130.mov

Yes, 15 seconds is an estimation. But it's very simple. If a plane is flying in your direction over the PENTAGON, you point your camera at it. In fact, according to your theory, the plane would have been headed in his direction. He pointed at the C-130.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Speed based on time

15 seconds based FDR speed of 781 f/s = 11715/5280 per mile = 2.2 miles away that aircraft would have been when this person decided to film the area where the large explosion came from. I assure you, even if he did catch the "flyover" aircraft at the exact moment he turned on the cam, you would see perhaps a small black dot, if anything at all. Especially being shot at the tail (flying away). Extreme low profile.

The above numbers do not account for any possible acceleration during the time, the fact Reagan National was departing North all morning (and happens daily) and explosions at the pentagon do not...

Where would you focus your camera? At an explosion at the pentagon you dont see everyday? Or a large aircraft 2.2 miles north which looks like it just departed Reagan...

Anything else...?

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

It seems to me that I would

It seems to me that I would make an effort to point my camera at a plane if it flew over the Pentagon... sorry, but someone would have seen it. That's a fact. Objects appear to move slower the farther away you are from them.

Russell Pickering: “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. [see photo above] NOTHING flew over according to them.”
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Pickering?

Who is Pickering? Does he have source names? According to Wheelhouse and Knowles and a few others im sure CIT could provide... a plane was "shadowing" almost to cover it on radar. Impossible based on speed. Someone else saw an aircraft "peel away at time of explosion".

Why hasnt any of Pickerings "sources" seen that? Does Pickerering have a website with source? Or did he take it down.

Think.. you're driving on 395.. listening to NY events on the radio.. you hear a loud BOOM!. You turn your head to see a plane perhaps fly by fast climbing out from what appears Reagan as you turn your head to see what the loud boom was.... you going to point the cam at the plane? Or the smoking pentagon. I may like airplanes alot my friend... but i know where i would point the cam.

Again, agree to disagree i guess...

edit to add: Even if this person on 395 pointed the cam at an aircraft (read:black dot) at 2.2 miles away and climbing away... tell me you guys wouldnt make the argument it just departed Reagan...?

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

It seems to me that I would

It seems to me that I would make an effort to point my camera at a plane if it flew over the Pentagon...

Sure if you had your camera out at exactly at 9:37, powered up, with the lens cover off, and was waiting for it.

Watch this Arabesque, watch:

It seems to me that I would make an effort to point my camera at a plane if it flew over my house...

It seems to me that I would make an effort to point my camera at a plane if it flew over my school...

It seems to me that I would make an effort to point my camera at a plane if it flew over my car.

It seems to me that I would make an effort to point my camera at a plane if it flew over my office building...

So where are all the pics Arabesque? Surely the plane flew over people's houses, schools, cars, and office buildings. So where are all the pics of the plane? Does this mean there wasn't a plane?

Ya see where I'm goin' with this Arab?

sorry, but someone would have seen it.

Sorry but someone did. Could ya tell me where they would report that at? Could ya tell me what would have been going through their mind or how much they saw? Where would these witnesses call? Is there a flyover witness coalition? Is there a support group where they all meet and compare stories? Would witnesses be reluctant or enthusiastic about what they saw? Could ya tell me which story news casters would report based on the fact that the USwas attacked by two planes? Would they report an impact or would their phone screeners be able to persuade news directors to cover the witnesses who saw a plane fly away.

Have you been there yet, Arab? Have you seen the topography yet? Have you seen all the jets ascending over the Pentagon/Potomac coming from Reagan ever 3 minutes?

Let me know when you have.

That's a fact. Objects appear to move slower the farther away you are from them.

Really? Farther or higher? What if you missed it due to the fact that you were distracted fby a big ass fireball. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gigantic fireballs rising from the Pentagon are not as common as jets ascending over the Potomac/Pentagon are they?

Russell Pickering: “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. [see photo above] NOTHING flew over according to them.”

This is what makes me think you are a disgusting human being. This is one of the reasons why people believed Pickering was an infiltrator.

Let me spell it out for you one more time since you are either not intelligent enough or not honest enough to retain this.

THERE ARE NO PICKERING WITNESSES ACROSS THE RIVER. NONE. THEY DO NOT EXIST.

THEY ONLY EXIST IN PARAGRAPH FORM. THE VERY PARAGRAPH YOU COPIED AND PASTED.

Answer me this Arab,

Can you name those witnesses? Have you spoke with those witnesses? Do those witnesses actually exist? Is it safe to say that you are using unverified and anonymous sources, essentially words in a post as proof?

Sorry to burst your

Sorry to burst your parade,

Well I don't mean to "rain on your bubble".

but anyone can see with their own eyes that the smoke has not even reached the top of the video screen in the first frames.

Soooooo!??!?! Did you consider the zoom in or out, foreshortening? Do you have another video to compare it with? Did you ever stop and think that you could contact Anthony Tribby? This is nowhere near accurate. Not to mention, Tribby can't even get his time right. He claims he was on the highway at 9:35 not 9:38.

Yes, 15 seconds is an estimation.

Ahhh, that is a far cry from...

One motorist recorded the attack 15 seconds later on his camcorder..

you didn't even signify that it was an estimation ( a poor one at that), you just said it with confidence as if it were a matter of fact. Not "approximately 15 seconds later" or "based on my estimation". According to you, it WAS 15 seconds after. Would you agree that you were not being entriely truthful?

But it's very simple.

No it's not. Clearly you don't get this.

If a plane is flying in your direction over the PENTAGON, you point your camera at it.

Oh so tell me. So he had the camera out at the EXACT moment the plane would have flown over? Really? You confirmed this? Is this how you confirmed your 15 seconds? Oh no wait that was an estimation and at "15 seconds AFTER" the plane the plane would have already have been gone. So explain to me again how he would point his camera, that he turned on at 15 seconds after mind you, at the plane.

It was not flying in his direction, it would have been flying AWAY from him. And 757 sized planes that take off over the river all the time, would very small compared to the Pentagon and easily blends into the blue sky.

In fact, according to your theory, the plane would have been headed in his direction. He pointed at the C-130.

No disinfobot. The plane was NOT headed in his direction. It would have flown up river and near the monument/DC that is not headed in that direction.

He pointed his camera at a UFO. That has no bearing on the fact that he missed the flyover and still can't debunk the north side approach.

Have a nice day : )

Previous location findings

Okay Rob, I don't know anything about DMEs or lag or whatever effecting positional readings, but what I am noticing is what SEEMS a sudden interest in the positional data/missing frames issue once others have pointed it out. Previously it was all 'oh it's on the wrong path, its too high, the pitchs is too steep...' ONE SECOND OR LESS before impact. And not once that I've seen did you mention all these readings were listed as much as 1.3 miles back until now. Please, feel free to prove me wrong with links to where you have previously addressed the last recorded position of N38°51’43” W77°4’48” and what that might mean for your findings. I'm not saying there was no discussion but I'm curious how thoroughly you explored the issue before Farmer started making a deal of it.

Also, the one second before claim is based on the official story of impact at 9:37:45. What evidence do we have that this is REALLY the precise impact time? I mean besides the FDR ending right before that. How do we know it wasn't 9:37:50 or later? Are you hip to some info I'm missing?

- Maintain vigilance and calm

Adam/Caustic Logic

These issues were addressed last year.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5388
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4620&vie...

I have always been meaning to put together a more comprehensive presentation and finally was able to finish it up the other day. Like everything else you do Adam, you're always a day late and a dollar short because you dont look around. Farmer and I went round an round on this when he posted his analysis. I tried to educate him on DME till i was banned, and then Farmer took down his analysis after he no doubt realized he was wrong. Where have you been? Now you know why i ignore most of your arguments Adam. As i said at ATS, stick to being a janitor my friend. You only make yourself a fool when dabbling in aviation. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread331754/pg1

edit to add: Its 1.5 DME (not 1.3), based on speed and time places this position less than 1/4 mile from the wall.. Pay attention Adam.

Regards,
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

1.3 MILES I said, as much

1.3 MILES I said, as much as, according to the lat/long data. Thanks for the links, some good tips by your FDR expert and some stellar reasoning on your part. So it could be lag OR a military data shift. I'll look it over more closely sometime soon. Got this bookmarked.

- Maintain vigilance and calm

FDR Expert

I dont think the FDR Expert was aware the plane was equipped with INS when he made that statement. Although he made the statement regarding GPS vs. DME, GPS is more accurate than INS as its not prone to the same errors.

As for "lag", im not too sure what type of lag you are referring to...

If you are referring to Altimeter lag.. please read this...
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801
(this explanation will serve its purpose here as i dont really feel like giving a ground school on pneumatic lag and how its removed during certification).

If you are referring to FDR buffer lag... read this...
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7152

When you're done with all of that... read and study this...
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7163

We went over all this before Adam, however i have some free time to repeat the links for you. The invitation is still open to email us with any questions you may have prior to publishing any pieces you may want to publish. However, it seems "critical thinking" is checked at the door by some people when they run across anything which supports the govt story. Unfortunately, they usually get burned by same.

Regards,
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

15 seconds

And regarding Arabesque's 15 second video claim - true this is plenty of time for a plane to have scrammed far from the scene, however, I'd like to see Rob or CIT offer an alternate time of their own.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/395...
Given smoke rise rate, how long after the explosion do you think this first frame was recorded? No exact time - just a range. 10-30 seconds? Ten-fifteen minutes? Two hours plus? Or just 'nobody can know?'

BTW my own take is a range from 10-30 seconds, most likely 15-20. Estimate only, based on subsequent smoke rise rate and minus a few seconds for the fact that it rose explosively at first to well above the roof in like 1 second. .

- Maintain vigilance and calm

Wow.

Craig Ranke destroys his own case, without even so much as the awareness of what he is saying:

"Why on earth would you suggest data that has been confiscated, controlled, and released by the government could be valid proof of ANYTHING? That is sheer idiocy."

Gee, guys, I think I'll just hold you to that standard.

Your flight data could have been manufactured by anyone.

And, I have no idea if anything you say about it is true, either.

It strikes me as an interesting lead, and so I alerted the 911 journal people about it when you first brought it up.

But it certainly proves nothing about anything, as your own admissions clearly show.

You sure are pushing hard to get Arabeseque to divulge his actual identity. Going so far as racist headlines like "Arab."

Charming. And shill-like behavior. It doesn't matter who is saying it. It matters if the evidence supports what is said.

I like corroboration. And your theory lacks it. On top of that, it's not all that important, in light of massive amounts of other corroborated evidence. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree over the importance of your project.

Bottom line, I don't trust you guys, and I'm not likely to start anytime soon. Not sure how much it matters anyway.

Too funny...

"Going so far as racist headlines like "Arab.""

Thats like saying people are accusing me of being a thief because they address me as "Rob". (and some do try believe it or not...)

Nice try though... i'll give you a D- for effort.

Once a JREFer accused me of being a racist because i called people from Mexico.. "Mexicans". Although, i expect such rhetoric from JREFers. Are you a JREFer john? (and im not trying to refer to you as a toilet or one who picks up prostitutes.. :rolleyes:)

"One doesnt attract flak unless he is over the target..." ... Truer words have never been spoken...

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

how does that destroy my case?

>>>>>>Craig Ranke destroys his own case, without even so much as the awareness of what he is saying

Government supplied data is not valid evidence in support of the government story.

This is a fact that anyone who questions 9/11 should fully understand.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is not the government and they are not suggesting that the FDR supports the government story. Quite the contrary.

Citizen Investigation Team is not the government.

Calling for the release of videos or ANY information by the government is not a valid means to solve this crime.

It is imperative that we seek out and provide independent information but of course it's perfectly fine to demand answers to clear anomalies that exist in the data that they HAVE provided.

What about any of that is hard for you to understand?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Tell me if I'm wrong

but I thought you were arguing that it matches the flight path witnesses described to you. If it was just the FDR, I would say it is not evidence of anything except that the government's FDR doesn't match its story. Which is of course very significant, especially since the eyewitness accounts supporting it are less reliable than actual interviews as you seem to have done right. But even your FDR is not authenticated, is it?

I haven't followed all this too closely, but giving stronger weight to actual interviews, during which you can confirm that a witness could have seen what they claimed to have seen, seems very sound. The effect on memory of post-event misinformation is also a factor, but no hard to account for. Have you thought about that or tried to account for it at all? Not saying you have to - like I say it's hard.

Recommended reading

The Pentagon Attack Frame-Up
Exposing the fraud of the government's story
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html