NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

reply to post by pacific_waters

Altitude, altitude, altitude. They cruise at altitude, way up in the sky where the air is thinner. They can move faster there. They have to go slower, lower. The whole thread has been about this. It's even discussed above on the previous page. lol.

(Oops, I think about three people posted at the same time I did.)




[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by earthdude
Dear Tiffany, Do you know how to examine the black box data? Why must I repeat myself.

Sorry, I must have missed your question in previous posts.

Yes, I do know how to interpret Flight Data retrieved from a Flight Data Recorder.

The actual construction of the recorder, how it records, the digital aspects? I don't have much experience with that, but have studied it. I also have access to people that are FDR Experts and work in the industry.

Originally posted by earthdude
Dear Tiffany, Do you know how to examine the black box data? Why must I repeat myself.

Why assume the "data" reading from the black box is from the so called "plane" that crashed?! Don't you think after hiding ALL evidence from public they could have manipulated the data... don't forgot this is nothing new as NASA has been doing it to all moon photos etc... manipulating a data is all for political reasons to outweigh YOUR perspective to their desire intention.

There is ONE simple question you need to ask yourself... with hundreds of camera why is it that they REFUSE to release the rest of the photos, and the ONLY photos available to public to judge this situations are few still images from a bad camera angle and NO PLANE ON SIGHT.... If you or anyone refused to use common sense to understand this situation... my friend your are a Denier!

[edit on 13-7-2010 by freighttrain]

reply to post by pteridine


I asked you what qualifications or experience you have personally to criticize a NASA engineer.

Your response was a drawn-out rant about how you don't understand how he derived some numbers, and how you wonder whether there are formulas for such things. That's why people go to engineering schools, "pteridine", and that's why you aren't qualified to criticize his work.


On one hand you say anyone can review his work, which is an obvious exaggeration, and then you turn around and say you don't even understand it yourself.

I have a feeling I'm going to be reading about you one day in one of these breaking news threads, like the one about 26% of Americans not knowing who they fought for independence. There is something really wrong about the US today, and everybody knows it.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by AquariusDescending]

Originally posted by freighttrain

as NASA has been doing it to all moon photos etc

Hmmm.

Whoever it was that said that CTerz believe in many other CT's, and this is the group that makes up the main body of truthers seems to be spot on.

Originally posted by freighttrain

as NASA has been doing it to all moon photos etc

Hmmm.

Whoever it was that said that CTerz believe in many other CT's, and this is the group that makes up the main body of truthers seems to be spot on.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

I asked you what qualifications or experience you have personally to criticize a NASA engineer.

What quals do you have to determine he and pffffft aren't making stuff up, flinging it against the wall, and seeing what sticks?

Do I need to remind you of the LAST smoking gun from pfffffft, where they claimed the "OS" to be impossible due to the cabin door to be unopened, therefore proving..... something?

Only problem was, their guy that decoded the the data, Warren Stutt, went further than they expected, and decoded the radar altitude data from the plane itself, only to have it show that the plane's last recorded altitude was something like 6 feet, IIRC.

This was quickly followed by pfffffft founder Rob Balsamo bad mouthing Warren, after he volunteered his time to decode this. If that ain't throwing the guy under the bus, then I don't know what is.

And if you try to claim that they don't have a track record of throwing vegetation that's been recycled through a male bovine against a wall and seeing what sticks, then you are blind my friend, and exactly who they are looking for.

So go click on one of "Tiffany's" links, so they can increase their web traffic. I hear they're trying to get Extenze as one of their advertisers. I'm sure all the ****less wonders there could use the help.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Sorry, I got impatient. I found the data for flight 93 online last year and saw how insane it was. To operate any airplane so far outside those safety parameters will almost always cause a catastrophic failure. All it told me is that the pilot had no regard for his or his passengers lives. I was amazed the aircraft even made it any distance at all.
My point is: Why did they not fake the flight recorded data better? Such a complex plan would certainly include blackbox data that could not be refuted.
So, hey, wanna go out some time? I have a place by the beach where we could tell flying stories.

reply to post by JetStream


HELLO???
i was standing right there your conspiracy is so vast it cant possibly hold water to many people to many agencies to many mouths your pulling at straws at best but i know theres no arguing of course that plane was i dunno black ops the government started the war on purpose there was no flight 93 goodluck on your journey ................................................ gna be a long wait for your fictional facts.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


That's great, other than we know what kind of planes they were because it was ON FILM. And they were going as fast as they were going. Perhaps we could charge the terrorists posthumously with speeding 500 in a 400 zone.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

I asked you what qualifications or experience you have personally to criticize a NASA engineer.

What quals do you have to determine he and pffffft aren't making stuff up, flinging it against the wall, and seeing what sticks?

In other words AquariusDescending, Joey has no qualifications whatsoever, and it shows.

Joey also demonstrates his libel and smear campaign against anyone at Pilots For 9/11 Truth each time he posts, making numerous bogus claims, which is why he always fails to provide source.

For example, Balsamo never bad mouthed Warren Stutt, in fact, Warren is still a member at their Forum and posts.

Next, Joey doesn't understand that the additional decode of the data has not been verified by anyone, the NTSB has not decoded it as such themselves, and the altitude still shows too high. In other words, Joey doesn't understand the difference between Pressure and Radar altitude and that Radar altitude can be measuring from any object, including the roof of the Pentagon. Pressure Altitude still shows too high. Joey and his herd have been asked to provide proof of a 150' margin of error. They have failed.

If the aircraft flew over the Pentagon, you would expect to see exactly what is depicted in the "additional" decode by Warren Stutt.

Finally, Joey and his herd have never been able to provide proof the cockpit door was open for a hijack. All the data shows it was closed. This makes it impossible for a hijack to occur.

Joey makes all these off-topic bogus claims, un-sourced, because he cannot debate the OP.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Sorry, I got impatient. I found the data for flight 93 online last year and saw how insane it was. To operate any airplane so far outside those safety parameters will almost always cause a catastrophic failure. All it told me is that the pilot had no regard for his or his passengers lives. I was amazed the aircraft even made it any distance at all.
My point is: Why did they not fake the flight recorded data better? Such a complex plan would certainly include blackbox data that could not be refuted.
So, hey, wanna go out some time? I have a place by the beach where we could tell flying stories.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyze the black box data thoroughly in the Flight Of United 93 presentation.


And sorry, I already have a significant other. But thanks for the offer!

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

I stopped posting in your thread because...
1) I stated I saw the Plane hit Pentagon and you ignored this.
2) you have not stated what your ATS name used to be..
3) You do not allow for oposing views or invite different views.. you simply fall back on 911truther quotes as your "proof"
4)You obviously dr'd your first graph to fit your position on this.. as previous poster pointed out... to then just turn around and accuse him of the same.
5) It is absolute lunacy to disreguard ALL of the proven facts, because a FEW dont add up.
6) You will not come up with a valid reason why the case was thrown out.
7) I feel that you posted this simply for stars and flags.
8) I get an icky feeling from your demeanor and your arrogance!

I understand that I do not matter in the big scheme of things. I know that my post here will be attacked by people that want to believe soooo bad, that all logic is thrown out the door. But, I also know what I saw on sept 11th 2001 ... You truthers think a rocket hit the pentagon... I can assure you with 100% certainty that it was a large plane.. we watched it circle from our 2 oclock ... clock wise behind us all the way to the pentagon.. Living and working in the area.. I met personally 20 to 30 people that SAW with their own eyes.. that plane hit the pentagon.. So if you truthers are wrong about the pentagon..what else are you wrong about.


When a person takes enough time to pick apart the truther version..like you do the official story.. your has more holes! FACT!!!

Why are facts required for the official story.. but your fantasy doesnt fall under the same rules?

Originally posted by earthdudeI found the data for flight 93 online last year and saw how insane it was. To operate any airplane so far outside those safety parameters will almost always cause a catastrophic failure. All it told me is that the pilot had no regard for his or his passengers lives.

So, hijackers would worry about the safety of their passengers?

Go google pilot induced oscillations.

Must have been a wild ride.

reply to post by Mobius1974

If you don't mind my asking, which plane were you on, on 9/11 and where did you land? Were you on approach to Washington National?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I don't understand why you call disagreeing with the OP "derailing".

And I'm sure many don't understand why you seem to think the terms "disagreeing" and "derailing" have the same definition.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Joey also demonstrates his libel and smear campaign against anyone at Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Well, what I'm doing is calling into question, the confidence that everyone should have in anything that comes from pfffft. IMHO, it's not worth a hill of beans.

None of your smoking guns have amounted to anything more than a fart in a hurricane. You cannot deny this.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I can see the diagram quite well thank you. Very pretty colors. However, as you have ignored this time and again, the fact that REALITY makes mincemeat of your idea. Will you address the 747SP and why it managed to survive the 5Gs without falling apart? Will you address the EgyptAir 767 that broke the sound barrier in its plunge before regaining altitude momentarily and not breaking up, before it finally impacted with the ocean?

Also why is so hard to recall in the SHORT time the aircraft that impacted the second tower was descending from 28,500ft within five minutes to 1,000ft. I'm pretty sure aircraft can survive a few minutes of "pushing the envelope". After all, that 747 managed to do it.

Also here is a picture of that 747SP:


Yeah that does not look like half of the tail missing.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You ought really to learn what the "Official Story" is before you try to pick holes in it, don't you think?

LMAO! NO! Leave yarosh alone, I like his versions better...plus, I doubt he'll last through the day on ATS if the mods have anything to say about it.

Originally posted by Mobius1974
I stopped posting in your thread because...
1) I stated I saw the Plane hit Pentagon and you ignored this.
2) you have not stated what your ATS name used to be..
3) You do not allow for oposing views or invite different views.. you simply fall back on 911truther quotes as your "proof"
4)You obviously dr'd your first graph to fit your position on this.. as previous poster pointed out... to then just turn around and accuse him of the same.
5) It is absolute lunacy to disreguard ALL of the proven facts, because a FEW dont add up.
6) You will not come up with a valid reason why the case was thrown out.
7) I feel that you posted this simply for stars and flags.
8) I get an icky feeling from your demeanor and your arrogance!

I understand that I do not matter in the big scheme of things. I know that my post here will be attacked by people that want to believe soooo bad, that all logic is thrown out the door. But, I also know what I saw on sept 11th 2001 ... You truthers think a rocket hit the pentagon... I can assure you with 100% certainty that it was a large plane.. we watched it circle from our 2 oclock ... clock wise behind us all the way to the pentagon.. Living and working in the area.. I met personally 20 to 30 people that SAW with their own eyes.. that plane hit the pentagon.. So if you truthers are wrong about the pentagon..what else are you wrong about.


When a person takes enough time to pick apart the truther version..like you do the official story.. your has more holes! FACT!!!

Why are facts required for the official story.. but your fantasy doesnt fall under the same rules?

Google Citizen Investigation Team - National Security Alert and listen to witnesses interviewed on location in Arlington.