American 77 Flight Path In 3d

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

The last 600 feet is all the CCTV camera would've caught, and it was low but not necessarily level at that point. So agreed we need a downward angle. Is it recorded wrong or something?

The security camera definitively shows the "object" and smoke plume 100% level with zero descent angle.



I'm glad you agree this is in contradiction with physical reality.

Add that together with the fact that the odd "smoke plume" that is not corroborated by a single witness doesn't even cast a shadow and the implications are clear.

The security video was manipulated and the FDR is a forgery.

hmm caustic after reading that analysis it seems there was a flyover, perhaps dropping a missile?

No, that isnt right according to the videos released...

Good of them to give me 8 choices, its like reading one of those 'twistaplot' books from elementary school...

if you think it was aa flight 77, turn to page 95...
if you think it was a global hawk, page 88...

[edit on 29-8-2007 by jprophet420]

The videos mean nothing as they are dubious data controlled and supplied by the perpetrators.

There is no evidence for a missile of any sort and since the plane was on the north side of the citgo station the physical damage does not line up with any sort of projectile coming from that approach.

Flyover is the only logical alternative unless you are willing to assert that the plane was "disappeared" via exotic weaponry or that it hit the building from the north side and that the ASCE report is a complete fraud.

CIT will stick with the flyover.

Originally posted by jprophet420
hmm caustic after reading that analysis it seems there was a flyover, perhaps dropping a missile?

No, that isnt right according to the videos released...

Good of them to give me 8 choices, its like reading one of those 'twistaplot' books from elementary school...

if you think it was aa flight 77, turn to page 95...
if you think it was a global hawk, page 88...

[edit on 29-8-2007 by jprophet420]

That's good. I dug those books way back. Just remember I'm the one who counted the choices offered, not wrote them.

Craig: Again, that's only 600 feet there or so by my mapping. The smoke trail does appear level for that span. Either the slope had just shallowed enough to appear level, or perhaps that's not really the plane and smoke at all but doctored video after all. Either is possible IMO. FDR data too could fe fake in whole or part. Nat'l security, right? I just look for things that line up, which is I guess where they get me. If I could just cross over to the side where only the weak links matter...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I just look for things that line up, which is I guess where they get me. If I could just cross over to the side where only the weak links matter...

What did you mean by that?

Virtually every category of evidence that exists points to a military deception and a cover-up regarding something physically quite different from the official story happening that day.

FDR, video tape (released and not), eyewitnesses, AND the questionable and admittedly "counter-intuitive" physical damage.

Yet you continue with these convoluted, complex, seemingly technical but usually quite hollow blogs that mostly end up supporting the official version of the event and typically attack others in the movement who don't.

The Pentagon attack IS the weak link for the perpetrators in the 9/11 operation.

Check out my new thread in regards to the generator trailer damage:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

What did you mean by that?

hint: use context clues.

Virtually every category of evidence that exists points to a military deception and a cover-up regarding something physically quite different from the official story happening that day.

I simply disagree. So where does that leave us?

Yet you continue with these convoluted, complex, seemingly technical but usually quite hollow blogs that mostly end up supporting the official version of the event and typically attack others in the movement who don't.

Yeah lately my posts have gotten more tedious, more technical (and hence more goofed), and less relevant. It's a phase. I come out supporting the official story at the Pentagon because that's what the facts seem to be saying. And for my inter-party sniping and disinfo accusations etc. Sorry, just claiming the "truth" flag doesn't get you a free ride. I attack those who should know better and seem to be pushing a fraud on purpose with the intent to decieve. It's not a matter of different opinions but of intelectual honnesty, at least from my vantage point.

The Pentagon attack IS the weak link for the perpetrators in the 9/11 operation.

Yeah. I've heard that theory around a lot. Anyway, we've gotten off-subject. More directly relating to the findings of Rob's vid:

Check out my new thread in regards to the generator trailer damage:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good stuff. I haven't decided what I think cause the gouge. I agree flap track seems implausible ... I'd have to think on it more.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I simply disagree. So where does that leave us?

In disagreement of course but it's clear who has done the real homework here.

Yeah lately my posts have gotten more tedious, more technical (and hence more goofed), and less relevant. It's a phase. I come out supporting the official story at the Pentagon because that's what the facts seem to be saying. And for my inter-party sniping and disinfo accusations etc. Sorry, just claiming the "truth" flag doesn't get you a free ride. I attack those who should know better and seem to be pushing a fraud on purpose with the intent to decieve. It's not a matter of different opinions but of intelectual honnesty, at least from my vantage point.

Well the fact that you erroneously went off on us personally and then retracted it demonstrates how your attacks can be just as "goofed" as your admitted "tedious" technical blogs.

That doesn't help us get to the bottom of "truth" but it does a great job sewing confusion and doubt.

Yeah. I've heard that theory around a lot. Anyway, we've gotten off-subject. More directly relating to the findings of Rob's vid:

Check out my new thread in regards to the generator trailer damage:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good stuff. I haven't decided what I think cause the gouge. I agree flap track seems implausible ... I'd have to think on it more.

You concede an awful lot during forum discussion which is in stark contrast to your dogmatic blog.

It seems to me that because of this you should know better. This contradictory behavior creates the impression that your blog pushes a fraud on purpose with the intent to deceive. It's not a matter of different opinions but of intellectual honesty, at least from my vantage point.

Just an observation based on opinion of course.

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

www.youtube.com...

At least you can see this animation.....and it provides a much better explanation.

I agree that's a good vid, Ferretman, tho it's got a serious mistake or two and had been widely criticized (and we know why.) Difference is, this one was designed to "offer explanations when a particular incident has a counter-intuitive outcome." His presumption of what "incident" happened is what ties it all together. And it fits.

Balsamo's 3D vid seeks to sow doubt on things by essentially offering contradictions to heighten the counter-intuitive outcome to the point where maybe people will ignore how well things all line up and create suspicions of massive fakery just becuase they were too cheap/stupid to just use a real plane on the "real" flightpath and do it all in one fell swoop. Of course Rob would say he's just using real numbers, no filter... and at least he HAS the real numbers, which I can attest are off on at least some things, whereas Wilson's vid is just from photos and official graphics amd stuff... But at any rate there are filters involved on both sides, and their nature is known.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You concede an awful lot during forum discussion which is in stark contrast to your dogmatic blog.

It seems to me that because of this you should know better. This contradictory behavior creates the impression that your blog pushes a fraud on purpose with the intent to deceive. It's not a matter of different opinions but of intellectual honesty, at least from my vantage point.

Just an observation based on opinion of course.

Slight co-option of my mirrorin style. I'll let you have that no fight. You've got your stance and have to defend it. Just so you know I have mine too.

I concede more when people are confronting me with stuff they've thought about more than I have. I'm in public and interacting, basically, while at home, on my blog, I pick and choose, go with what I've got down most solid. I'm pretty sure I could find an explanation for the gouge and the trailer damage in general if I really tried. It's on my to-do list, but for now just lettin' you know hey, good one.

Only partly by coincidence, I'm reviving the Citgo flash (in video) and may have an answer for the undamaged foundation (forthcoming).

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I agree that's a good vid, Ferretman, tho it's got a serious mistake or two and had been widely criticized (and we know why.) Difference is, this one was designed to "offer explanations when a particular incident has a counter-intuitive outcome." His presumption of what "incident" happened is what ties it all together. And it fits.

No it does not fit. Plus you just conceded that there would have to be a descent angle yet none whatsoever is depicted in this animation.

This is why your "concessions" in the forum are hollow. You ignore them as the discussion progresses as well as on your blog.

Obviously this animation shows a wider area than the security video since it goes all the way back to the light poles. So where is the descent angle that you conceded must exist? This is NOT a real world animation that is to any sort of scale so it is completely non-scientific and essentially worthless. And I would LOVE to see someone animate pole #1 spearing Lloyd's hood.

Balsamo's 3D vid seeks to sow doubt on things by essentially offering contradictions to heighten the counter-intuitive outcome to the point where maybe people will ignore how well things all line up and create suspicions of massive fakery just becuase they were too cheap/stupid to just use a real plane on the "real" flightpath and do it all in one fell swoop. Of course Rob would say he's just using real numbers, no filter... and at least he HAS the real numbers, which I can attest are off on at least some things, whereas Wilson's vid is just from photos and official graphics amd stuff... But at any rate there are filters involved on both sides, and their nature is known.

PFT's animation is based on actual data. Integrated Consultant's is based on speculation. PFT's animation considers how a real plane would behave with the real topography. IC's is a cartoon that ignores these pertinent values.

To use language attempting to make them seem equally flawed is more than a bit disingenuous.

Slight co-option of my mirrorin style. I'll let you have that no fight. You've got your stance and have to defend it. Just so you know I have mine too.

I concede more when people are confronting me with stuff they've thought about more than I have. I'm in public and interacting, basically, while at home, on my blog, I pick and choose, go with what I've got down most solid. I'm pretty sure I could find an explanation for the gouge and the trailer damage in general if I really tried. It's on my to-do list, but for now just lettin' you know hey, good one.

Only partly by coincidence, I'm reviving the Citgo flash (in video) and may have an answer for the undamaged foundation (forthcoming).

The citgo video has already been proven to be manipulated to remove the critical views but I know that won't stop you.

I look forward to your responses regarding the absurd groove in the trailer (don't forget descent angle!) and lack of damage to the foundation.

Funny how you simply state that you are "pretty sure" that you "could" come up with an explanation for things you don't have an explanation for and that you "may" have an answer for the undamaged foundation.

Why do you insist on forcing yourself to make things up to justify clear discrepancies in the official story?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

PFT's animation is based on actual data. Integrated Consultant's is based on speculation. PFT's animation considers how a real plane would behave with the real topography. IC's is a cartoon that ignores these pertinent values.

To use language attempting to make them seem equally flawed is more than a bit disingenuous.

Guess what? Another concession!
I have no counter at the moment to those good points about missing descent angle. Maybe I will later...

The citgo video has already been proven to be manipulated to remove the critical views but I know that won't stop you.

Oh I know not all the cameras are there. Did they alter it to insert the flash, the peoples' reactions? It better be staged 'cause if not...

I look forward to your responses regarding the absurd groove in the trailer (don't forget descent angle!) and lack of damage to the foundation.

Funny how you simply state that you are "pretty sure" that you "could" come up with an explanation for things you don't have an explanation for and that you "may" have an answer for the undamaged foundation.

Why do you insist on forcing yourself to make things up to justify clear discrepancies in the official story?

here

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Guess what? Another concession!
I have no counter at the moment to those good points about missing descent angle. Maybe I will later...

Uh-huh.

Until you acknowledge it in your blog it will be considered as yet another hollow attempt to manipulate people in the forum to believe you are "fair and balanced.".

But it exposes you more as deceptive as far as I am concerned.

Oh I know not all the cameras are there. Did they alter it to insert the flash, the peoples' reactions? It better be staged 'cause if not...

What a pathetic attempt to shift the discussion.

If the most relevant views are deliberately OMITTED it proves a fabrication.

Do you understand the implications of this or not?

Evidence tampering is a Federal offense and if you insist on supporting this dubious data that is supplied from the very individuals that you accuse of this crime you are just as guilty as they are.

here

Sorry but I do not see this as relevant or supportive of the official story in any way.

See my response in that thread.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Guess what? Another concession!
I have no counter at the moment to those good points about missing descent angle. Maybe I will later...

Uh-huh.

Until you acknowledge it in your blog it will be considered as yet another hollow attempt to manipulate people in the forum to believe you are "fair and balanced.".

But it exposes you more as deceptive as far as I am concerned.

I cede when I don't know enough to agree or disagree. Like the foundation - now I have something to add. You need me to post "for the moment I'm stumped by this or that?" Or form oppinions instantly on everything that crosses my desk

Oh I know not all the cameras are there. Did they alter it to insert the flash, the peoples' reactions? It better be staged 'cause if not...

What a pathetic attempt to shift the discussion.

If the most relevant views are deliberately OMITTED it proves a fabrication. Do you understand the implications of this or not?

Fabrication: contructed, made-up, invented - applies to info and to construction
omition = fabrication... not.
The omission of key views is interesting but it does not prove in the slightest that the clues remaining of the plane's trajectory (south of the Citgo) are fake. I can sell you a Hemmingway novel with pages torn out and that doesn't mean I made the book up or inserted stuff now does it?

Evidence tampering is a Federal offense and if you insist on supporting this dubious data that is supplied from the very individuals that you accuse of this crime you are just as guilty as they are.

Wow, that's pretty guilty, and a federal crime no less. So I take it you don't like the flash... go ahead and turn me in.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Fabrication: contructed, made-up, invented - applies to info and to construction
omition = fabrication... not.
The omission of key views is interesting but it does not prove in the slightest that the clues remaining of the plane's trajectory (south of the Citgo) are fake. I can sell you a Hemmingway novel with pages torn out and that doesn't mean I made the book up or inserted stuff now does it?

Ok you don't get it.

The evidence in question is a recorded feed from a multiplex system that displays all the views.

That recorded feed had to have been MANIPULATED to remove those views from the final data.

This is fact.

Since this manipulation and complete control of this data was by the very individuals that you accuse of this crime there is zero logic in accepting it as valid evidence to support their story in any way.

OF COURSE they could have added a flash or two and of course there would be no way to prove this.

But we don't have to because the data has already been proven tampered with.

Since you accuse them of being the perpetrators and admit that they have manipulated this data to remove the most relevant views that would have proven or disproven their case then it would be beyond contradictory to cite less obvious "clues" in the same admittedly manipulated data to support their case.

The fact that you don't understand this as you move to use this data to prove the perpetrators case for them is utterly mind boggling.



[edit on 1-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Fair enough. I see what you mean by manipulated. And video is much easier to fake - behind closed doors and over years of custody - than the real-time fakery you're seeing elsewhere. It is quite possible the flash is inserted, and its worth looking at either way. Evidence of a plane or evidence of fakery. I'd guess the former, but I try to be fair

Yet another issue I'll have to look at closer and form an opinion on. Multiplexing for me is another blind-spot. On the to-do list!

Anyone any explanations for how the videos show Sept. 12th, 2001 at 17:37 in the evening???? After the mistake was found, even the FBI said "oops" and removed it from the video.

WHY WAS IT WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE???? Security videos are date and time stamped for a reason. I can't believe for a millisecond that the Pentagon of all places would get this screwed up!

[edit on 1-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Anyone any explanations for how the videos show Sept. 12th, 2001 at 17:37 in the evening???? After the mistake was found, even the FBI said "oops" and removed it from the video.

WHY WAS IT WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE???? Security videos are date and time stamped for a reason. I can't believe for a millisecond that the Pentagon of all places would get this screwed up!

[edit on 1-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I don't know that it's wrong MOD. I don't know what the procedure is, but always just presumed they stamped it after reviewing it - for a day and a half I guess. Some think 9/12 is when they faked/altered it, but don't they also have the ability to stamp the "right" date and time? Wouldn't be a very good fakery system if it couldn't even conceal its own footprint...