How did Atta's passport actually survive?

Pilgrum Can you post a source for where you got that information about an 11-degree error?

a reply to: Jesushere

It must be about 10 years or more now but it was a subject of much discussion here on ATS at the time so perhaps you could still find something in this forum. I've studied the FDR data and the compass heading in the 757 was magnetic back then (2001 pre GPS). I noticed that the map overlay was actually aligned to geographic north and a check confirmed that the declination for Washington DC in 2001 was approx 11 degrees and that almost perfectly corrected for the discrepancy.

The animation for public consumption used the raw numbers out of the FDR without accounting for declination by adjusting the map accordingly but I wouldn't think it was intended to be a precise representation, just a visual aid to show the final movements of the plane.

All I could find right now is this pic I marked up long ago which should be self-explainatory.

Pilgrum Correct me if am wrong on this? You subtract degrees from your true course if you heading NE? SW direction you add degrees to your heading to get your magnetic course? The compass is showing NE position at 70 degrees (true course position) so would it not be subtracting instead of adding degrees?

Pilgrum Is this the thread you are talking about?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Caustic logic is claiming the 70-degree heading is a magnetic heading does that prove the plane was flying NE and not SW. Has the compass not already adjusted for the discrepancy?

80 degrees SW course the magnetic value would lead to a decrease in degrees? Maybe I misunderstood his points?

a reply to: Jesushere

Yes Caustic Logic was right and the compass data point in the FDR data is magnetic but you could take that issue up with someone in the aircraft industry from pre 911.
We're only talking about 11 degrees so, either way, the plane was still headed ENE wasn't it (never SW). We have 2 possible approach paths and only 1 of them accounts for all the physical evidence so which of the 2 would it be reasonable to consider the correct one?

people just don't understand the physics of a crash on this scale. first even before the plane touched the building there was a "crash" of sorts. the plane is pushing forward huge amounts of air. this force is huge! you don't believe me? stay in the break down/emergency lane on the high way and completely stop. and let a car pass you at only 60 mph. tell me how much you move just from a regular car passing by. this is the regular car not even hitting you 100% with the air its pushing. (note im not saying your being hit by the actual car, just the amount of air it can push), your getting at most just half the energy of the wind the car is producing, im assuming that because the car hasnt clip or hit you in anyway.

imagine a plane as huge as the plane that hit the tower that day. yes its aerodynamic but its still pushing a huge amount of air force ahead of it, i would say even before the plane touched the building the compression of air and the pressure generated blew out some windows or caused some damage.

now we have Atta flying up front as the "pilot" he's gonna be the first to experience the deceleration of his 600 mph plane or so crashing or in physics terms "stopping suddenly"

i have to imagine hes strapped in with a seat belt. even if not, Atta (and the plane) is still following behind the force and destructive nature of the "air" it was pushing ahead.

this "air force" is enough to blow a hole out through the building, an escape route if you will.

the plane doesn't "explode" the raw plane fuel mixes with the air and ignites, but the plane doesn't "explode" there was no dentition of such

given the fact the fuel sits behind the pilots it impossible for the fuel source to out accelerate the pilot that was further ahead. unless it exploded with outside forces.

Atta and his passports could easily have been propelled out of the tower and survived the fireball .

Pilgrim I think we are lied to and the plane hit the Pentagon from an NE position. The plane kept straight and just hit it there. The damage to the facade matches up with the plane coming straight in not at an angle.

I firmly believe the SW position is part of the cover-up. 5 light poles too part of the cover-up they need them to come down for some reason? Another event earlier or just after the plane hit?

a reply to: Jesushere

You know you are ignoring the other contact damage, radar data, and over a hundred documented accounts, and the tens of hundreds undocumented accounts?

And you have not done the prescribed calculations to prove Pilgrim wrong?

neutronflux. I not ignoring the damage. The damage to the west part of the Pentagon is consistent a plane hit the building straight on. Even the damage to the second floor on E ring is consistent with a plane upper plane fuselage striking the wall there.

FDR Flight data placed a plane on the North-Est bound path going pass the Navy Annex
Eyewitnesses accounts place a plane heading North-Est bound past the Navy Annex
Gopher 6 spotted the plane in last minute of its flight heading North Eastbound.

a reply to: jgarc028


Atta was not the character supposedly flying the airplane that supposedly struck the pentagon, AA77. Hanjour was the character in that myth, and the FDR for 77 was bogus.

AA77 did not hit the pentagon.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: jgarc028


Atta was not the character supposedly flying the airplane that supposedly struck the pentagon, AA77. Hanjour was the character in that myth, and the FDR for 77 was bogus.

AA77 did not hit the pentagon.

As in the money spent by Middle Eastern sources to train the terrorists is a myth? As in the individuals documented classes, flight time, and simulator hours are a myth?

As in the instructors that stated the terrorists had the skills to crash the jets once the jets were in the air?

Nice false arguments by you....

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: jgarc028


Atta was not the character supposedly flying the airplane that supposedly struck the pentagon, AA77. Hanjour was the character in that myth, and the FDR for 77 was bogus.

AA77 did not hit the pentagon.

As in the money spent by Middle Eastern sources to train the terrorists is a myth? As in the individuals documented classes, flight time, and simulator hours are a myth?

As in the instructors that stated the terrorists had the skills to crash the jets once the jets were in the air?

Nice false arguments by you....

The west took care of funding the terrorists, and still are!

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: jgarc028


Atta was not the character supposedly flying the airplane that supposedly struck the pentagon, AA77. Hanjour was the character in that myth, and the FDR for 77 was bogus.

AA77 did not hit the pentagon.

As in the money spent by Middle Eastern sources to train the terrorists is a myth? As in the individuals documented classes, flight time, and simulator hours are a myth?

As in the instructors that stated the terrorists had the skills to crash the jets once the jets were in the air?

Nice false arguments by you....

The west took care of funding the terrorists, and still are!

Can you cite the evidence and a source?

So there never has been and not now terrorists being funded by Middle Eastern oil money?

What would the motivation be for the “west” funding the 9/11 terrorists when rich Middle Eastern interests fund terrorists on their own? Middle Eastern interests that wage a terrorist war on the west?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: jgarc028


Atta was not the character supposedly flying the airplane that supposedly struck the pentagon, AA77. Hanjour was the character in that myth, and the FDR for 77 was bogus.

AA77 did not hit the pentagon.

As in the money spent by Middle Eastern sources to train the terrorists is a myth? As in the individuals documented classes, flight time, and simulator hours are a myth?

As in the instructors that stated the terrorists had the skills to crash the jets once the jets were in the air?

Nice false arguments by you....

The west took care of funding the terrorists, and still are!

Can you cite the evidence and a source?

So there never has been and not now terrorists being funded by Middle Eastern oil money?

What would the motivation be for the “west” funding the 9/11 terrorists when rich Middle Eastern interests fund terrorists on their own? Middle Eastern interests that wage a terrorist war on the west?

We are funding rebels in Syria (terrorists ) The west funded rebels in Libya ( terrorists) that is just nameing two.

Do you see your government as mini Gods, here to keep you safe?

The one trick pony is seriously deluded.

a reply to: Jay-morris

We are funding rebels in Syria (terrorists ) The west funded rebels in Libya ( terrorists) that is just nameing two.

That is vastly different than saying TPTB paid to start 911.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jay-morris

We are funding rebels in Syria (terrorists ) The west funded rebels in Libya ( terrorists) that is just nameing two.

That is vastly different than saying TPTB paid to start 911.

Not saying they did, but we have and still are funding terrorists. Been doing this for years.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jay-morris

We are funding rebels in Syria (terrorists ) The west funded rebels in Libya ( terrorists) that is just nameing two.

That is vastly different than saying TPTB paid to start 911.

Not saying they did, but we have and still are funding terrorists. Been doing this for years.

Again, prove that it wasn’t Middle Eastern interests that have a history of funding terrorists to wage a terror war against the west?

By the way, is the Obama administration on the hook for the next big terror attack? By releasing millions to Iran?

By the way? Where does your gas money go? Do you support terrorists?

www.politifact.com...

Back in January, Iran released five American prisoners back to the United States. On the same day, the United States transferred $400 million in cash to Iran, holding onto the money until three of the freed Americans were in the air, on their way home.

nypost.com...

In other words, the cash is being used to arm Iran’s terrorist clients, like Hezbollah, and to fund its war for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jay-morris

We are funding rebels in Syria (terrorists ) The west funded rebels in Libya ( terrorists) that is just nameing two.

That is vastly different than saying TPTB paid to start 911.

Not saying they did, but we have and still are funding terrorists. Been doing this for years.

Again, prove that it wasn’t Middle Eastern interests that have a history of funding terrorists to wage a terror war against the west?

By the way, is the Obama administration on the hook for the next big terror attack? By releasing millions to Iran?

By the way? Where does your gas money go? Do you support terrorists?

www.politifact.com...

Back in January, Iran released five American prisoners back to the United States. On the same day, the United States transferred $400 million in cash to Iran, holding onto the money until three of the freed Americans were in the air, on their way home.

nypost.com...

In other words, the cash is being used to arm Iran’s terrorist clients, like Hezbollah, and to fund its war for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

You are not listening!!!!

The west funded rebels ( terrorists) in Libya to overthrow their government. The west is funding rebels (terrorists) in Syria, to overthrown the government.

The west has a history of doing this. Over and over again, but as long as they have people like you, who actually look up to them like a God, it will never change!

As for 9/11 I would not put it passed these sociopaths to do something like this.!

a reply to: Jay-morris

As you the same effect as USA buying middle Eastern oil?

So you have no citable proof then?

And you did not answer “By the way, is the Obama administration on the hook for the next big terror attack? By releasing millions to Iran? ”

Why do conspiracists always throw little rants asking questions and demanding evidence, but never practice intellectual honesty by answering questions leveled at the? By not providing evidence?

Because it not about truth, it’s about pushing innuendo.