The Woolworth Building & 9/11

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ted I assume you have now seen my last post, re: sources.
Fair enough, you found some examples of malfunctioning FDRs I was unaware of. The point is, this was explained, whereas it was not with Flight 77.
Where are the facts that would allay the suspicions of the conspiracists? The lack of evidence does indeed invite suspicion, especially combined with the presence of evidence such as the door data.

But it's not the lack of evidence that leads to these theories. I watched a programme last night where some people were claiming the Elders of the Protocols of Zion were true even though it's been debunked comprehensively. The reality probably is that nothing will convinve the conspiracy theorists. They're picking and choosing what they want to believe, ignoring the lack of credibility of sources whilst sifting through the minutae of official sources. For example, your claim about the unprecedented FDRs - presumably you heard that elsewhere and didn't check to see whether it was true or not?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Most of the info is revealed on the relevant forum thread, including statements by W Stutt.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I looked a bit more at the FDR story - remember, this is flight data analyzed by actual pilots (one of whom flew 757s for AA)

But the fact remains, the data shows the door as closed, the altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, Vertical speed too great for level off as seen in DoD 5 frames video, the list goes on. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on such blatant conflict with the govt story.

So, either they fiddled with the data, or used an FDR from a different plane, or this plane didn't fly into the Pentagon.

All three suggest that "they" don't want to tell "us" what really happened - I can't see any other explanation. Unless all of these pilots have lost their marbles.

The guy you've quoted is actually the guy who co-founded the group. He doesn't need to have lost his marbles. He may well be crazy, although crazy like a fox perhaps.

The big question has to now be: if the FDR is not from a plane which crashed into the Pentagon then where on the CCTV footage is it? It shows that it was extremely close to the crash at the very same time. Why does it not feature in the Doubletree Hotel video?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Re:- your last post - pot calling kettle methinks.
Door data? Missing ID number? Anomalous FDR info courtesy of the NTSB? The films?
It's just the same old line about truthers being self-deluding and locked into the wrong conclusion. What is there to convince the conspiracy theorists with when the evidence for that view continues to mount ?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Most of the info is revealed on the relevant forum thread, including statements by W Stutt.

Sorry but it's not really becoming any clearer from the many pages (23) of banter about it on their forum. It's mostly opinion on the research, not the research. Warren Stutt's research is cited as supporting the official version as I can make out anyway.

That's a couple of hours I won't get back. No wonder the monstrous regiment remain in their diabolical barracks.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I do not actually have the NTSB graphic reconstruction downloaded to check easily but I seem to remember the plane was suposed to have been further left of the Doubletrees camera angle and it would have passed above and behind the security gate CCTv camera.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Re:- your last post - pot calling kettle methinks.
Door data? Missing ID number? Anomalous FDR info courtesy of the NTSB? The films?
It's just the same old line about truthers being self-deluding and locked into the wrong conclusion. What is there to convince the conspiracy theorists with when the evidence for that view continues to mount ?

But it doesn't. It stacks up and then topples over when anyone tries to sift through it. Half an hour ago you believed something to be true even though you obviously had never bothered to try and falsify the source of that belief. You now concede that it might not be true but it doesn't matter, does it?

 

[Bigfoot73]

The last time I looked there was an Excel sheet with all the relevant data and possibly a .pdf too.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I do not actually have the NTSB graphic reconstruction downloaded to check easily but I seem to remember the plane was suposed to have been further left of the Doubletrees camera angle and it would have passed above and behind the security gate CCTv camera.

How convenient.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

The last time I looked there was an Excel sheet with all the relevant data and possibly a .pdf too.

Yip. I keep downloading them, I keep failing to get them to work. Maybe it's just me - I'm not techy.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I assume you mean verify rather than falsify. The NTSB graphic was on YouTube, I don't have to check it anyway, I am familiar with it, and wouldn't it be convenient if you couldn't find that either?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Have you actually got Excel? It doesn't come bundled with Windows, assuming you are using Windows. Adobe Reader or Foxit for pdfs.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I assume you mean verify rather than falsify. The NTSB graphic was on YouTube, I don't have to check it anyway, I am familiar with it, and wouldn't it be convenient if you couldn't find that either?

I was referring to your claim about the unusable CVR and its unique status. Presumably you were familiar with that claim as well?

It would be altogether more convenient if I didn't have to find the sources, though. Simply posting a link to it would remove this convenience. It's inconvenient hunting them down because other people are unsure about their provenance.

What was it about Warren Stutt's work that you agree with, btw?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Have you actually got Excel? It doesn't come bundled with Windows, assuming you are using Windows. Adobe Reader or Foxit for pdfs.

Yip. I've tried Adobe Reader. Still doesn't work.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Could have phrased that better too, couldn't I? I realise you meant the CVR and that there have been 3 other explained instance of them goiung wrong, although none of them occurred on a plane which was allegedly hijacked but apparently wasn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI
One of the YouTube videos about the NTSB film,if that's what you were referring to.
Warren Stutt decoded the data and brought it to the attention of Pilots etc, after they had decoded it but not noticed the door data. Their findings concurred with his, so there isn't much to differentiate them.

 

[Bigfoot73]

With that I'm turning in for the night, and you're supposed to be up for work in the morning!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Could have phrased that better too, couldn't I? I realise you meant the CVR and that there have been 3 other explained instance of them goiung wrong, although none of them occurred on a plane which was allegedly hijacked but apparently wasn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI
One of the YouTube videos about the NTSB film,if that's what you were referring to.
Warren Stutt decoded the data and brought it to the attention of Pilots etc, after they had decoded it but not noticed the door data. Their findings concurred with his, so there isn't much to differentiate them.

Except that he believes the plane was only 4 feet from the ground at the point of impact. That's somewhat at odds with the rest of P4T's claims.

 

[Zilch5]

The guy you've quoted is actually the guy who co-founded the group. He doesn't need to have lost his marbles. He may well be crazy, although crazy like a fox perhaps.

Ted,

You could do worse than to check out the credentials of the pilots that are members there. http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

I don't think these are the Charlie Sheens of the world, if you know what I mean.

I also looked at the NTSB animation - it is excruciating to watch. So this big plane circles for about 4 minutes over the city (a city which has surveillance everywhere) and no camera actually manages to get a good look at it?

PS: I will check out this later today - it looks interesting!

http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Quite right. I'd rather believe these people....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_7 ... sible.html

....who appear to have no other objective than to reach the truth.

They seem pretty keen on reaching their version of the truth. They ignore the fact that Warren Stutt doesn't agree with their interpretation of the data and they ignore anyone that comes up with a plausible explanation for the FDR's seeming failure to record the information regarding the flight deck door. It's been debunked and the debunking's been debunked. Without any kind of expert opinion on this, it's hard to tell who's telling the truth. Given the options that a) the FDR wasn't set to record that particular parameter or b) the US government and military fired a missile at the Pentagon killing many of their own staff, disappeared an entire plane-full of people and the plane and then badly faked the FDR data without a single person spilling the beans, and had all this set-up and ready to be enacted at the same time as three (or perhaps just two if you wish) other planes were hijacked by Saudi terrorists and flown into the WTC...I know which way my opinion leans. I wouldn't deny the possibility, but I certainly question the plausability and the probability. People may think that the official explanation is riddled with inconsistencies but imagine for a moment that the alternative conspiracy theories were the ones presented as the official explanation. How happy would you be that this was "the truth"?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

You could do worse than to check out the credentials of the pilots that are members there. http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

I don't think these are the Charlie Sheens of the world, if you know what I mean.

What about the credentials of the military, government and public officials that must have been involved in any cover-up? Do they count for nothing?

 

[Cavynaut]

What about the credentials of the military, government and public officials that must have been involved in any cover-up? Do they count for nothing?

Of course not. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise.

It's just that while it seems okay to question the motives of groups such as Pilotsfor 911Truth, why is it necessary to take the military, government and public officials word as sacrosanct? If Pilotsfor 911Truth can be villified for flogging DVD's, then surely it's only fair to question the motives of officialdom.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

What about the credentials of the military, government and public officials that must have been involved in any cover-up? Do they count for nothing?

Of course not. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise.

Apart from implying that they're all liars and murderers of course.

It's just that while it seems okay to question the motives of groups such as Pilotsfor 911Truth, why is it necessary to take the military, government and public officials word as sacrosanct? If Pilotsfor 911Truth can be villified for flogging DVD's, then surely it's only fair to question the motives of officialdom.

Equally, while it seems okay to question the motives of groups such as the military, government and public officials, why is it necessary to take the word of Pilotsfor 911Truth as sacrosanct? If the military, government and public officials can be villified for anything anyone cares to make up, then surely it's only fair to question the motives of others?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Ted, I think you might have misread the altitude meter. The data showed that the plane was about 300 feet up 2 seconds flying time from the Pentagon. there was some debate about the accuracy of that - apparently there were issues with the calibration of the instruments - but that would just have introduced variables of not much below 300 to about 100 feet higher.
Dr B, there's a difference between blind obstinacy and justifiable certainty.
As far as I can discern the FDR was set to record the door sensor data. the only attempt at debunking i saw mentioned was the claim that all the other flights recorded also showed the door didn't open , and while pilots commented that this wasn't inconceivable during an ordinary flight, it was for a hijacking.
I haven't checked out 9.11 myths.com or Popular Mechanics ( last heard of getting nicked for driving a 4x4 full of cameras and other UFO detection kit around the Area 51 perimeter) but debunkings of the door data seem a bit thin on the ground.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ted, I think you might have misread the altitude meter. The data showed that the plane was about 300 feet up 2 seconds flying time from the Pentagon. there was some debate about the accuracy of that - apparently there were issues with the calibration of the instruments - but that would just have introduced variables of not much below 300 to about 100 feet higher.

Stutt reported that the last recorded radio height was 4 feet above something (not neccessarily the ground, it could be a tree - or a lampost perhaps). That seems to contradict the notion that it was too high for the impact.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Odd. I hadn't come across that before. My turn to do some trawling.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I've got as far as the "Radar Altitude Confirms True Altitude" thread on the Pilots forum and that seems pretty conclusive, with illustrations of the data.
This has the plane at 273 feet above ground level at the last data entry 2 seconds before'impact'

 

[Cavynaut]

Apart from implying that they're all liars and murderers of course.

I don't think I've said that either.

September 10th 2001- Donald Rumsfeld tells Pentagon staff that certain DoD functions are to be outsourced to private companies, and announces 15% cut in all DoD departments.

September 11th 2001- WTC/Pentagon attacks.

Pretty neat coincidence!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I don't think I've said that either.

September 10th 2001- Donald Rumsfeld tells Pentagon staff that certain DoD functions are to be outsourced to private companies, and announces 15% cut in all DoD departments.

September 11th 2001- WTC/Pentagon attacks.

Pretty neat coincidence!

One would think that if the two events were anything other than coincidental that Rumsfeld would never have bothered making the announcement in the first place, surely? Or are you suggesting that he was trying to make good on his promise by reducing pentagon capacity by roughly 20%?

 

[Bigfoot73]

To go with all the other DoD functions and operations that have been franchised out , giving rise to the claims of corporate involvement in the nuts and bolts of the conspiracy!
This must have been the same speech as that in which he announced 2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the accounts! Very neat coincidence indeed !

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

To go with all the other DoD functions and operations that have been franchised out , giving rise to the claims of corporate involvement in the nuts and bolts of the conspiracy!
This must have been the same speech as that in which he announced 2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the accounts! Very neat coincidence indeed !

Obviously you don't think it's a coincidence so what is it that you find suspicious about it?