9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Is there a link to the video on Youtube or Google? I will not go to that website for a variety of reasons.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt Is there a link to the video on Youtube or Google? I will not go to that website for a variety of reasons.

So you think Youtube or Google is more trustworthy then 9PFT?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 *sighs* Do you know if the video is on you tube?? Thats all

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt Do you know if the video is on you tube?? Thats all

Yes it is, but its edited. www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Thank you Ultima. I just watched a little bit of it. I have some questions. I will ask a friend of mine. I appreciate the link. I did find the animation interesting with the light poles. EDIT TO ADD: I found several threads about this on other forums... probably already here.

According to this new NTSB document (shown here) and Mr Murru's statements, the animation is indeed NTSB material (contrary to some allegations), but is a "working copy" which was "never used for an official purpose". The animation also contains at least one significant error: the indication of EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) instead of UTC, as noted by the NTSB

undicisettembre.blogspot.com... forums.randi.org... [edit on 20-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Haha, that's great. Thanks Ultima, I was unaware of this and I find it very intriguing that the NTSB shows the flight supporting CIT's north of Citgo flight path when the Commission shows it taking the south path. I wonder which is right, the crash investigating agency or the politically motivated 9.11 Commission report?

Good arguement but where are the impact marks on the wall here the engines hit?. Looking at those pictures, seems that the winds didn't penetrate. There should also be some form of impact marks and the wings and tail must be outside. More confusion but im using conventional logic to try to understand the obvious signs of impact. 'Mach'

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt I just watched a little bit of it. I have some questions. I will ask a friend of mine. I appreciate the link. I did find the animation interesting with the light poles.

Well there are several questions the FDR brings up. 1. Why did the hijackers reset the altimeters and how did the know what to set them to? 2. Why does the altimeter say the plane was well above the Pentagon at the time of impact? 3. The security camera video shows an object coming in straight and level the FDR shows the plane had a nose down angle. 4. How did the hijackers make a 270% turn with no corrections that experienced pilots stated would be hard for them let alone someone with just a few hours of flight training.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA.....my god, I go away for two weeks, and nothing changes!!!!! I have explained, at length, will not repeat (I invite you to go look) about altimeter settings. I have also explained it isn't difficult to turn an airplane. I've also, repeatedly, pointed out the discrepancies that you, and others, seem to cling to in the FDR data are red herrings. You may continue to ignore educated analyses, and stick to your un-educated opinions....mostly based on your in-experience with real commercial jet airplanes, and how they really operate. So sorry, so sad for you.....

reply to post by weedwhacker So, what are your thoughts on the FDR showing the plane descending when at the Pentagon when the DOD video shows something level with the Lawn? What is the explanation for the NTSB flight path in-line with CIT's noth of Citgo witnesses and far from the downed light poles when the Commission report shows the plane hitting the poles and on the south of Citgo? Have you bothered hearing the testimony of the man who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion? He is not a new witness, CIT just interviewed him recently to clarify what he saw...

reply to post by ULTIMA1 1: As to why they reset the altimeters, it's standard procedure for a pilot to do that isn't it. It would also help in setting yourself up to aim at a ground level target. 2 & 3: The answer to the altitude discrepancy may be in the recording method which consisted of 4 second frames so at least the final 4 seconds is missing due to loss of sync in the final data frame which would put that last recorded altitude more than 1/2 mile away from the Pentagon wall (attitude discrepancy for the same reason). 4: 270 degree turn with no corrections? Here's that plot of control parameters during that turn of almost 360 degrees For the north/south path argument I marked up this aerial pic of the area which is oriented to true north. The FDR final bearing of 70 degrees is a magnetic bearing and magnetic north in DC is 11 degrees west of true north. The 70 degree magnetic recorded final bearing just happens to coincide with the poles that were knocked down. They used the raw magnetic bearing on a map oriented to true north, it's as simple as that and it wasn't the only error (EDT vs Zulu time problem as well). The big question is why the NTSB released an obviously incorrect simulation way back in 2002 IE were they trying to fuel a conspiracy or is it an honest mistake (not correcting for true north). I heard they released some updated info on DVDs last year and I'd be keen to know if anyone has viewed the flight path they arrived at in that (updated) data study. Maybe they've been laughing ever since 2002 while watching the conspiracies thrive [edit on 23/7/2008 by Pilgrum]

ph.groups.yahoo.com... It doesn't matter which color of avocado the primer was, since before Porter is asked the question, before he received his subpoena, he'd be Guaca Mole In The CIA, like Barry Seal, like KSM guacamole in Guantanamo, like Monzer Al Kasser the Lockerbie bomber in lower right of above photo(see Trail of the Octopus), like Rodney Dickens at lower left in photo, one of the victims on AA77. We knew Rodney. His mother ought to get a check for life, her son is guacamole in the CIA, worse than slavery. Angie has a mole, Guaca Mole in the CIA, check it out at the above link. -Bob

reply to post by PplVSNWO I think Pilgrum takes care of your question quite well. All it takes is a last-second dive to ground level, just before impact. The DFDR doesn't update on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis, by the way. The parking lot video was not a continuous film.....ever seen video survelliance of other sites?? To save film, it takes a pic every other frame, more than enough for normally expected security reasons, such as a car or truck bomb. NOT a jet moving at over 500 MPH!!!! I mean, we all are on camera, almost every time we step outside our door and into the public areas of any major city. Do you really think they record it the same as your video camera would?? If so, you are just naive. Maybe in Las Vegas casinos, but they want to catch cheaters.....not bombers.

reply to post by Pilgrum I wish to second to add, after seeing Pilgrum's second aerial view of the Pentagon....that wall that was hit was hard to see from I-95/I-395 when driving from DC to Virginia....but it WAS visible. The photo that Pilgrum provided doesn't show the infrastructure, such as the various roadways, that I am referring to. But, I saw, for nearly a year, the incredible damage there.....and it wasn't just a little hole a few meters wide, as some would have you believe!!!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker I don't think that does take care of the question, that still doesn't explain why a witness saw the plane after the explosion and why the DOD video shows something moving parallel to the ground when the FDR says it's descending. Also did not address the NOC witnesses, if the NTSB animation was incorrect, did these people just halucinate a flight path that supports it?

reply to post by PplVSNWO Well....if you think that real NOC witnessess would actually come forward publically, well..... AND, if you had paid attention, the DFDR does NOT update millisecond-by-millisecond. AND, there is a definate lag in the pitot-static system, even as recorded by computers. The 'lag' may just be one-hundredth of a second, or even longer, but as the DFDR is designed it's not significant. See, the reason the CVR and DFDR were/are required equipment is to ascertain the cause of an accident AFTER THE FACT, when the pilots are deceased. The implication was, and always has been, that airplane accidents are caused by a chain of human errors. The data from those unfortunate events could be used to, hopefully, learn and thus prevent future similar accidents. NEVER was an intentional suicidal terrorism event factored in to this concept. Getting it yet???????

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. Are you implying that Hani could have pulled up on the controls and leveled the plane off so quickly that the FDR couldn't record it?

reply to post by PplVSNWO PplVSN... Yes. If you have flown an airplane, then you would know how you can be quite aggressive on the controls, without hurting the airfame. AND, if your intention is to become a guided missile into your target, then you don't care about the airframe anyway.... For professional pilots, the intent is to be as smooth as possible. If you are just aiming at a suicidal outcome, you don't give a crap about passenger comfort, do you??

reply to post by PplVSNWO The final 4 second data frame was scrambled and unreadable due to loss of sync and the time the plane would take from hitting the poles to hitting the building amounts to just a quarter of that - 1 second. That places the plane at over half a mile away from the building when the last valid data was written to the FDR memory. As to the witnesses and who was hallucinating, if anyone, I can't say but remember this event took just seconds until it was all over. Was this scene set up, totally un-noticed, after traffic was stopped? Note the smashed light fitting parts all over the place.

reply to post by Pilgrum OMG!!! That's the view I saw, driving past the Pentagon for the first few weeks after 9/11. Hey!!! It's not just that little hole that so many wish you to believe. See the destruction????? I saw it. Thanks, Pilgrum, for bringing that to this discussion.