"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" It's not rocket science-COMMON SENSE!! VS DENIAL!!

a reply to: wildb

There is a difference between an aircraft striking the ground at high velocity or not. Another case in point.

Photo: Belview Airlines Jet

Photo: Belview Airlines Crash Site

Photo: PSA Jet

Photo: PSA 1771 Crash Site

If you knew anytning about aircraft crash sites, you would have thought twice before posting photos of crash sites of aircraft whose dynamics were nowhere near those of the 9/11 airliners

This photo was taken from your link.

Photo: Tail Section at Crash Site

Now, let's add the caption that goes with that photo.

Libyan security forces and rescue teams inspect the debris of an Afriqiyah Airways passenger plane which crashed during landing at Tripoli airport on May 12, 2010. An eight-year-old Dutch boy was the sole survivor when a Libyan plane arriving from South Africa exploded on landing at the Libyan capital's airport, killing more than 100 people, officials said.

In other words, the airliner crashed on landing and at no time slammed into the ground nor into a building at over 500 mph, unlike the 9/11 airliners.

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006


Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

www.washingtonpost.com...

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.

A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.

In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks....

Thanks for confirming that 9/11 was a terrorist act, a fact found in numerous intelligence warnings issued to the United States from countries around the world, intelligence warnings that revealed Osama bin Laden's plan to attack America with hijacked airliners, which is exactly what occurred on 9/11/2001.

The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report

Arrogant Deception
- Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?

This article looks at The Pentagon Building Performance Report (January 2003) by the American Society of Civil Engineers (available on the internet). The key conclusion reached is that the Report fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. The main purpose of the Report seems therefore to be to back the official, untruthful story about the events of 9/11. However, part of the inconsistencies are so glaring that an intention of sabotaging the said main purpose cannot be excluded.

The key conclusion is based on nine observations which can be divided into two categories based on whether they concern events prior to or during the crash of the aircraft. As regards the first group, the overall conclusion is that the approach of the aircraft and its being damaged cannot have taken place in the the manner put forward in the Report. This conclusion is supported by the following observations:

the aircraft's reported 42º approach angle is not possible for a B-757; >>
the aircraft's right wing's hitting a generator cannot account for the narrowness and discontinuity of the damage to the facade as proposed by the Report; >>
the intact cable spools in the trajectory of the aircaft are incompatible with the information on the impact contained in the Report; >> and,
there is no evidence to support the claim of the left engine having hit a vent structure; such a hit would also not explain the narrowness of the damage to the facade. >>
For the second group, the overall conclusion is that the Report's description of the impact of the plane and of the damage caused manifestly contradicts photographic evidence from the scene. The description includes impossible, contradictory and unexplained phenomena:

the allegation of the aircraft's fuselage sliding into the first floor has no physical credibility; >>
the facade damage on the right side of the opening in the outer wall does not correspond to the shape, size and reported position of the alleged B-757; >>
the facade damage on the left side of the opening are not suggestive of the proposed impact of a B-757; >>
the tail of the aircraft left no visible marks on the facade while the Report in no way explains this; and, >>
the Report fails to provide any kind of explanation for the hole in the wall of Ring C. >>
The uncertainties related to the alleged point of impact as well as the approach angle, vertical position and inclination of the aircraft do not weaken the conclusion presented herein that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a Boeing 757 in the manner described in the report. This is because changing one of these factors to allow the better explanation of a particular damage (or the lack of it) renders the other damage even less comprehensible.

NB. This author is aware of theories promoted to suggest that the Pentagon was indeed hit by a Boeing 757 which was destroyed before it (or all of it) hit the building. While this possibility cannot be excluded offhand - and the conclusions about the impossibility of a B-757's crash reached in this article may not be directly applicable to such a case - no substantial evidence has so far been produced to back up such a theory.

www.kolumbus.fi...

a reply to: Informer1958

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

All he had to do was to do some homework.

NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization before United 93 crashed.

------------------------------------------------

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.
NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?
FAA: Yeah, he's down.
NEADS: He's down?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...
FAA: He did not land.
NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?
FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.
NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.
FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

The NEADS air defenders never located the flight or followed it on their radar scopes. The flight had already crashed by the time they learned it was hijacked.

10:17 Command Center advised headquarters of its conclusion that United 93 had indeed crashed.

-------------------------------------------------------------

9-11 Fighter Pilot: We Wouldn't Have Shot Down Hijackers

The pilot of one of two U.S. military jets that were scrambled on 9-11 moments after kamikaze hijacker Mohamed Atta slammed American Airlines Flight 11 into Tower One of the World Trade Center said Wednesday that he wouldn't have been able to stop the attack even if he intercepted the plane.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," the pilot, identified only by his military codename "Nasty," told the Cape Cod Times. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down)."

As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base.

Coincidentally, at the very moment, the plane slammed into Tower One.

"We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," the pilot told the Times. "We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."

www.freerepublic.com...


113th Wing, Andrews AFB

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise...

Chief of Safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.


The Fighter pilots

"The fighter pilots do not know if they have permission to shoot down planes. A commander tells them they do not. (Warning: profanity at the end of the clip)"

www.nytimes.com...

Final Conclusion

The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Belief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically impossible and inexplicable phenomena. More generally, no proof of the return of Flight 77 to the Washington area has been presented. On the contrary, e.g. any security camera recordings that would really show what hit the Pentagon have not been made public. (In May 2006, two series of still photos from security cameras were released, but they contain no evidence of a Boeing 757. See www.flight77.info and www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml.)

The most natural explanation for the numerous errors in the Report is that it is a part of the disinformation campaign by the US authorities - the purpose of which is to prevent the truth regarding 9/11 from being revealed and thus to protect the perpetrators of those atrocities.

www.kolumbus.fi...

There is no evidence to support the OS that an airplane hit the Pentagon, including the phony flight data.

Folks, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I do not believe anything the government tells me today. They have been caught lying so many times about 911 that they cannot talk about it anymore, because they are tripping over their lies and cant remember who said what.

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's

Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II
11/30/07 - Many may recall an article we published regarding location of American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (AA 77 FDR) in which we expose the govt story of the flight data recorder being found at the entrance hole and exit hole. Since the article has been published, the MSNBC article we sourced (www.msnbc.msn.com...) no longer exists and now redirects to an irrelevant Newsweek page (www.newsweek.com...). Why would MSNBC want to remove a page which explains the recovery of AA 77 FDR? Is it because we exposed the conflicting reports of location? It gets deeper.

Popular Mechanics sources a quote from Allyn E. Kilsheimer who states;

QUOTE
"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

www.popularmechanics.com...
(bottom of page)



The first statement which may stand out to many is how can any human hold a whole 757 tail section in their hands? Where are the photographs of this tail section? But that is not the most puzzling excerpt from his statement. The most interesting piece from his statement lies in the fact Allyn says he found the black box.

The original MSNBC excerpt we sourced in our article states;

QUOTE
Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. “We wanted to find live victims,” says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. “Finding the black box gave us a little boost,” he says.

—Debra Rosenberg


As shown, the original article at MSNBC which contained this report has been redirected to an irrelevant Newsweek page (msnbc.msn.com...). However, the archives can be found here (scroll to bottom 20% of page, just above portion titled: ‘WE DO WHAT WE DO BECAUSE THAT’S OUR JOB’).

Allyn E. Kilsheimer put together a very emotional story regarding his time spent inside the pentagon on the days surrounding September 11, 2001. Popular Mechanics found the story so compelling as to use it in their "Debunking" piece. Although, it appears Popular Mechanics didn't take the time to research this story thoroughly. A human who can hold a whole 757 tail section in his hands who also found the "3rd Black box". Could this be the black box found at the exit hole? Last we checked, the 757 only holds two black boxes. Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight?. Is this the reason the original MSNBC article reporting individuals other than Allyn as finding the Black Boxes is now missing? We find it puzzling that the MSNBC article was availble for years after Sept 11, only to have disappeared after we published our "Location" article.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth received data and information from the National Transportation Safety Board claimed to be from American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder through Freedom Of Information Act requests. Analysis of the Flight Data Recorder does not support the govt story of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the pentagon. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment (Pilots For 9/11 Truth Press Release).

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Here is more information that proves the OS of the Pentagon crash and and data is false. I do not have to sit here and debate OS supporters, when I can easily find evidence from credible people who have studied the OS data.

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews).

One file in particular, the compressed binary raw file alleged to be a direct data dump from the Flight Data Recorder, was recently analyzed by an alleged computer expert. He has claimed to decode 4 more seconds worth of data, above and beyond the NTSB decode, although the "additional" data has not been verified by anyone. The claim was made that the reason the NTSB did not decode this "additional" data is because the software used by the NTSB, along with the software used by the manufacturer of the FDR (L3 Communications), has an alleged "bug". If correct, this has grave consequences for Flight Safety as Flight Data is used in the promotion of safe flight through changes in regulation and procedure. The NTSB and L3 have been contacted, along with an Aviation Safety Report being filed with NASA. There hasn't been any reply confirming such a "bug".

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.

It is interesting that the authors, editors and Journal in which the above mentioned paper is published is highly critical and skeptical of the National Institute Of Standards And Technology (NIST) data and reports with respect to the collapse of the World Trade Center, yet is now attempting to use unverified data from another government agency to support the government story regarding a Pentagon impact. Motives are even more puzzling especially when the NTSB data in fact does not support an impact while exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, by a wide margin. This is also corroborated by precedent. It is also clear the paper was not reviewed by any aviation expert prior to publish, as it is littered with speculation and gross errors. For more information regarding this paper and the numerous errors it contains, please see the discussion at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum(4).

pilotsfor911truth.org...

FDR Expert Dennis Cimino further goes on to state:

[I]t just all comes down to two data fields being zeroed out. no tickee, no laundry. without those, there can... never be any linkage of the FDR to an 'N' number in the F.A.A. registry. not because the 'N' number is in the AC ID field, but the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to.

[T]hose missing, that [data] could come from anywhere...


[N]obody flies boxes with that data zero'ed out or missing. without this data in the CPM [Crash Protected Memory], in the preamble, there can be no linkage to an aircraft N-Number.

I saw that on the first look.... the test person who extracted that data should have seen the NO ACFT ID and NO FLEET ID and said; "oh, this is such bull#" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULL#.

Dennis Cimino experience and qualifications:

Electrical Engineer
Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981
Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications
Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial
Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973
Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ):
long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network,
and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR



Further confirmation that there isn't any evidence linking the FDR data to "American 77", tail number N644AA is discussed here:

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Interview With Flight Data Recorder Expert

So, if the data is not from N644AA, does not support an impact at the Pentagon, and in fact exceeds the capabilities and performance of a standard 757, what caused the damage at the Pentagon? That is exactly what Pilots For 9/11 Truth are trying figure out and the reason there needs to be a new and truly independent investigation. Some wish to ignore this data, some without expertise attempt to analyze it while attempting to say, "nothing to see here folks, move along..". Please write your Congressional Representatives and Senators. Call into talk shows, tell them there is a growing list of aviation professionals who question the government version of events on 9/11. Tell them the data being provided through the FOIA does not support the government story.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

OS supporters will not touch this data or information because it comes from creditably experts in their field of expertise.
I hear crickets...

a reply to: Informer1958

From your link.

The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft.

Now, for the rest of the story because it will become evident that you just posted another piece of disinformation that I have consistently warned truthers about.

Let's hear what the American Society of Civil Engineers really had to say in its report.

THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT
American Society of Civil Engineers Report

Through observations at the crash site and approximate analyses, the team determined that the direct impact of the aircraft destroyed the load capacity of about 30 first-floor columns and significantly impaired that of about 20 others along a diagonal path that extended along a swath that was approximately 75 ft wide by 230 ft long through the first floor.

This impact may also have destroyed the load capacity of about six second-floorcolumns adjacent to the exterior wall.While the impact scoured the cover of around 30 other columns, their spiral reinforcementconspicuously preserved some of their load capacity.The impactfurther destroyed the load capacity of the second-floor system
adjoining the exterior wall.

The subsequent fire fed by the aircraft fuel, the aircraft contents, and the building contents caused damage throughout a very large area of the first story, a significant area of the second, a small part of the third, and only in the stairwells above. This fire caused serious spalling of the reinforced-concrete frame only in a few, small, isolated areas on the first and second stories. Subsequent petrographic examination showed more widespread heat damage to the concrete.

www.twf.org...

I have warned OS supporters to stop posting yellow journalism reports, that are opinionated and based on false data.

THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT

American Society of Civil Engineers Report

Has been proven a lie.
There is no credible evidence that supports such data and their improbable science. It is a fabrication to support another fabrication of the OS.

Yet, I don't see any OS supporters debating the hard core facts that I just posted in the above thread.

a reply to: Informer1958

The following is from your link.

[I]t just all comes down to two data fields being zeroed out. no tickee, no laundry. without those, there can... never be any linkage of the FDR to an 'N' number in the F.A.A. registry. not because the 'N' number is in the AC ID field, but the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to.

Now, for the rest of the story.

Type Reservation Fee Paid
Mode S Code 52072030
Reserved Date 09/15/2006
Renewal Date 09/11/2015
Purge Date 10/15/2016
Pending Number Change None
Date Change Authorized None
Reserving Party Name GREENWAY JONATHAN JAMES
Street PO BOX 714
City FREDERICK
State MARYLAND
Zip Code 21705-0714
County FREDERICK
Country UNITED STATES
Deregistered Aircraft
Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 24602 Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991
Manufacturer Name BOEING Mode S Code (base 8 / oct) 52072030
Model 757-223 Mode S Code (base 16 / hex) A87418
Year Manufacturer 1991 Cancel Date 01/14/2002
Reason for Cancellation Destroyed Export To None
Type Registration Corporation

Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration
Name WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY TRUSTEE
Street RODNEY SQ NORTH ATTN CORP TRT ADM
City WILMINGTON
State DELAWARE Zip Code 19890
County NEW CASTLE
Country UNITED STATES

Deregistered Airworthiness
Engine Manufacturer ROLLS-ROYC Classification Standard
Engine Model 54555 Category Transport
A/W Date 05/08/1991

registry.faa.gov...

I might add that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR for the airframe of American 77.

In addition, the conversion formulas pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77 and no other aircraft.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

www.journalof911studies.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Has been proven a lie.

Your comment doesn't mean anything considering that you are caught posting more disinformation, which was debunked by the American Society of Civil Engineers own report.

a reply to: Informer1958

FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon

Considering that radar tracked American 77 to the Pentagon as confirmed by FDR data and eyewitness accounts, you have no case. Just to let you know that aircraft can exceed its red-line speed and stay intact and in fact, the first DC-8 ever build exceeded the speed of sound and stayed intact.

Douglas DC-8 Test Flight

Over the testing range at Edwards Air Force Base, a four-engined Douglas DC-8 was put into a shallow dive from 52,090 feet (which incidentally was an altitude record for a passenger aircraft) at a speed of around mach 0.8 (80% of the 'local' speed of sound), followed by F-100 and F-104 chase planes to test the flight characteristics of a new wing design. By just over 41,000ft it had broken the sound barrier - the first time this had been done by a passenger aircraft.

www.airliners.net...

Even TWA Flight 841, a B-727, exceeded the speed of sound and landed safely.

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA.

Just to let you know that 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth" is a major source of disinformation. Its founder, Rob Balsamo, and I, have gone head-to-head when I caught him posting false and misleading information.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Your comment doesn't mean anything considering that you are caught posting more disinformation, which was debunked by the American Society of Civil Engineers own report.

That is an out right lie.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Report has been DEBUNKED by experts in their own fields.
I have posted all the evidence and you cannot debunk any of it, but to keep reposting over and over I have posted disinformation, yet you do not prove anything I have posted is disinformation.

The fact is, The American Society of Civil Engineers Report does not stand up to any known science. It is another fallacy to support the OS lies.

In order to support the OS, one MUST post disinformation because the truth doesn't stand up to pseudo reports that defies real science.

The OS is dying in a river of lies.

a reply to: Informer1958

Has been proven a lie.

Your post does not mean a thing considering that the American Society of Civil Engineers Report debunks your claim.

a reply to: Informer1958

The American Society of Civil Engineers Report has been DEBUNKED by experts in their own fields.

That is false. Let's look at the numbers.

120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

wtf?

Still the same people defending the same OS crapola on here after all these years?

Give it up already will you?

Your evidence and proof have just become a joke , I can't believe none of you have moved on to better jobs by now.

Oh my you do look silly trying to defend a ridiculous story that defies physics and logic

The OP is spot on, the only difference with me was it took me as it happened to know it was BS and not 10 mins but otherwise we see the same...yet we still have OS believers...tell me what's going on?

a reply to: zerozero00

Still the same people defending the same OS crapola on here after all these years?

After 14 years, still no evidence of demo explosives nor thermite.