IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757, PilotsFor911Truth.org

Rating 5 V
 
amazed!
post Mar 13 2011, 03:45 PM
Post #81





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Fascinating bio there on MJBooth. Sounds like a CIA asset to me.... whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
juxtaposition
post Mar 15 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #82





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 4-March 11
Member No.: 5,700



Hi!

Maybe I missed it in this discussion, but what about the height discrepancies regarding the transition altitude not being reset on the way down? Has that been explained now, otherwise I think it should be on the list that the plane according to the data was too high for impact. Or is this list maybe just an addendum.

This post has been edited by juxtaposition: Mar 15 2011, 11:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 16 2011, 08:22 AM
Post #83



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (juxtaposition @ Mar 15 2011, 12:16 PM) *
Hi!

Maybe I missed it in this discussion, but what about the height discrepancies regarding the transition altitude not being reset on the way down? Has that been explained now, otherwise I think it should be on the list that the plane according to the data was too high for impact. Or is this list maybe just an addendum.



Hi juxtaposition,

This thread isnt about whether or not the data supports an impact. There is plenty of analysis showing that it doesnt support an impact, at our main website and this forum.

This thread is about whether or not the data itself could have been generated by an American Airlines 757. First, there is no evidence linking the data to N644AA (Flight 77), and further overwhelming evidence that the data could have not come from an aircraft operated in revenue service for American Airlines.

For those who wish to research the information regarding altimeter settings, see "Flight Of American 77" at our main website... and the step by step analysis here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...st&p=992727

hope this helps...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
juxtaposition
post Mar 16 2011, 07:34 PM
Post #84





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 4-March 11
Member No.: 5,700



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 16 2011, 08:22 AM) *
Hi juxtaposition,

This thread isnt about whether or not the data supports an impact. There is plenty of analysis showing that it doesnt support an impact, at our main website and this forum.

This thread is about whether or not the data itself could have been generated by an American Airlines 757. First, there is no evidence linking the data to N644AA (Flight 77), and further overwhelming evidence that the data could have not come from an aircraft operated in revenue service for American Airlines...


Rob I see, thank you very much for explaining.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Apr 4 2011, 02:11 PM
Post #85





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



From the 757 - 200/300 Flight Crew Operations Manual :

QUOTE
The IRS consists of three Inertial Reference Units (IRUs) and the IRS Mode Selector Panel. (for the 200-series)

Fast Alignment

Following operation in the navigation mode and with the airplane parked, performing a fast alignment removes accumulated track, ground speed, and attitude errors, levels the system, and updates present position. This is accomplished by positioning selectors to ALIGN, entering present position, and repositioning selectors to NAV. Fast alignment completes in approximately 30 seconds.

Fast alignment can be accomplished without entering present position. However, greater navigational accuracy is attained by entering present position.

A full alignment must be accomplished when the time from the last full alignment to the to the completion of the next flight exceeds 18 hours.


The pilot should shift all 3 mode selector switches to ALIGN, then enter the present position, and switch all 3 back to NAV. If he does not enter the present position, but keeps it to the earlier, before the last engines-off position, f.ex. the main airport position which could have been entered after landing the last flight, that position would still hang in the IRS memory.
That position is very near to that gate, AA 77 has departed from, as officials tell us.

I do not believe in that scenario, but we have to look at all possible explanations, to be prepared for further back-tracking from the opposition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 4 2011, 02:17 PM
Post #86



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Apr 4 2011, 03:11 PM) *
From the 757 - 200/300 Flight Crew Operations Manual :


From the American Airlines 757/767 Pre-Flight Checklist (and sourced in the Original post/article of this thread)



A FULL alignment is required prior to ALL flights.



QUOTE
That position is very near to that gate, AA 77 has departed from, as officials tell us.


No... it isnt "very near to the gate". It is more than 3000 feet in error. There has yet to be one verified pilot willing to come forward and say that he/she is willing to depart with an IRS having more than a 3,000 foot error. Every pilot i have spoken to would never have left the gate with such a large error, nor will I. Let us know when you find one that will. Those who claim to be pilots and make excuse for the govt story, arent even willing to put their name on such an absurd claim of departing with an IRS more than a half mile out of positional alignment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Apr 4 2011, 02:39 PM
Post #87





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



I am with you on this subject, don't worry, we are not all your enemies.
But always be prepared for any new arguments. Better from us, than from them.

Here are three screen shots from the IRS page in the FCOM :

Part one :


Part two :


Part three :


I thought I read somewhere in this thread that the airport long/lat definition was very near that gate, I'll gonna check it, and find that post.
Probably that poster was in error then, or worded it a bit too broad.


QUOTE
Rob : ""A FULL alignment is required prior to ALL flights.
No... it isn't "very near to the gate". It is more than 3000 feet in error. There has yet to be one verified pilot willing to come forward and say that he/she is willing to depart with an IRS having more than a 3,000 foot error. Every pilot i have spoken to would never have left the gate with such a large error. ""


If the last full alignment was within 18 hours after completion of the next (to be flown) flight, a fast alignment seems to be OK.
According to this FCOM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 4 2011, 02:49 PM
Post #88



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Apr 4 2011, 03:39 PM) *
Here are three screen shots from the IRS page in the FCOM :


That is not from American Airlines. It is a generic document. Read, Learn and Study please.

QUOTE
I thought I read somewhere in this thread that the airport long/lat definition was very near that gate, I'll gonna check it, and find that post.
Probably that poster was in error then, or worded it a bit too broad.


Once you shift the error/offset and align the lat/long with runways and taxiways, the plot is then departing a gate which is different than D26, the gate claimed to be used by "Aa77".

Read, study and learn.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21142


QUOTE
If the last full alignment was within 18 hours after completion of the next (to be flown) flight, a fast alignment seems to be OK.
According to this FCOM.


Wrong. A FULL Alignment is required prior to all flights during Pre-Flight Checks on ALL American Airlines 757/767's. Again, your document is not from American Airlines, mine is.

The Pre-Flight Check does not occur "18 hours prior to departure". It occurs when you arrive at the aircraft and provide power with intention to board passengers and then go flying.

Read the American Airlines procedures.

The data is not from an American Airlines 757, nor the aircraft described as "AA77", nor does the data support an impact with the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 4 2011, 11:07 PM
Post #89



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The rest of this "debate" with LaBTop has been moved to our Debate section here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21241
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Apr 5 2011, 01:45 PM
Post #90





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



I think "Disinformation" is a better description for the "starting gate" location, provided by the OCT.
QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 9 2011, 02:52 PM) *
Isn't that usually pronounced "plausible deniability" and "incompetent cock-up," amazed? whistle.gif

The more I study "AA Flight 77", and how that flimsy aircraft supposedly penetrated BLAST RESISTANT concrete walls to "punch out" of the 3rd "ring" at the Pentagon; the more DIFFICULT it becomes to believe this kind of BS.

Am I supposed to believe a Boeing 757 penetrated deeply into the Pentagon, like a "MAGIC BULLET"? If so, where have I heard the term "MAGIC BULLET", before?? dunno.gif

AHA! BINGO! idea.gif
The "original" MAGIC BULLET "scheme" was developed for an earlier OCT, to "explain away" troublesome evidence in the Kennedy Assination. There are more similarities to these "Magic Bullet" fabrications, than you may realize.

Please, let me explain:
According to the OCT Kennedy Assination "Plot"; Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly acted "ALONE", in killing President Kennedy. It is still unclear, exactly how many shots LHO "could" have fired, within the "time frame" involved.
Although "a fusilade" (multiple shots in rapid succession) of shots was reported by several witnesses in the Plaza area, the ONLY physical evidence that could be linked to LHO and "a" murder weapon, were "TWO empty shells" and ONE unused bullet.
[The "story changed" to THREE empty shells, AFTER the discovery of evidence for a 3rd shot that "missed" and ricocheted off of a roadside curb, to strike an innocent bystander][imagine that?]

At any rate: The OCT was left with only TWO BULLETS to explain 4 "entry wounds" and 2, or 3 "exit wounds" in the bodies of President Kennedy and Governor John Connely. OK, so ONE bullet hit Kennedy in the head and killed him. But the OTHER "MAGIC" BULLET had to penetrate Kennedy's body, so it could also penetrate Connely's shoulder and enter his opposite knee.

YUP, that was ONE MAGIC BULLET for sure! It "burrowed" its way through a maze of flesh and bone in one person, with enough energy to pass through another maze of flesh and bone, and an additional layer of flesh in another person. Both of these people were actually "fully clothed" at the time; wearing suitcoats, shirts, and undershirts, too. (BTW: This "magic bullet", was hardly deformed, and looked almost "new".)

The "AA77 Magic Bullet" went through several Blastproof CONCRETE walls at the Pentagon, without losing energy; just like "Kennedy's Magic Bullet" went in and out of "bodies" back in Dallas.

But there were "problems" with both Magic Bullet theories; as big as "Real Estate", having to do with "LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION":
For either "Magic Bullet" theory to "work", some "revisions" were necessary:
In the case of Kennedy's Magic Bullet, the actual "bullet holes" in his body and his clothing, would NOT ALLOW the "trajectory" the Magic Bullet was supposed to have taken. This problem was easily "solved" by Warren Commissioner, Mr. Gerald Ford; who simply "moved" the "location" of the bullet's physical evidence, several inches "UPWARD", to "fit" the Magic Bullet Theory, which was then published in the "OFFICIAL Warren Commission Report".

From this example; it's easy to see when the USG "develops" an "Official Theory" about something; it really doesn't matter if the Physical Evidence or Available Data, supports their "Theory" or not. If they "have to"; they'll CHANGE the "data or evidence" before they'll change Their "Theory", every time!
Note:[And, if the "physical evidence" can't be changed, those who point out the discrepancies; will be silenced, if people start paying attention to the "noise" they're making.]
Conversly:[If you are willing to "support" an "Official Theory" by "changing" some "troublesome physical evidence"; you get to become the (puppet) "President of the United States"! How Kool is that?]

The "starting gate" location for the "AA77 Magic Bullet" at the Pentagon, is just as "suspicious" as the physical bullethole location in Kennedy's body, for the "Magic Bullet" that passed through him and Governor Connely. It's an "Extraordinary Coincidence", to say the least IMO. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 5 2011, 02:27 PM
Post #91





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks IP, fascinating information there. I can just see old Jerry Ford... laughing1.gif

dMole

Yes, plausible deniability it is! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 12 2011, 08:18 AM
Post #92



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Apr 5 2011, 02:45 PM) *
I think "Disinformation" is a better description for the "starting gate" location, provided by the OCT.


I disagree.

There is ample evidence that an aircraft described as "AA77" departed Gate D26 from IAD (keeping in mind, this does not link tail number N644AA to "AA77", nor does it validate "AA77" navigated to and caused the damage at the Pentagon).

Unfortunately for the OCT, the data being discussed here in the OP as provided by govt agencies, data which is admissible in a court of law, does not support a departure from Gate D26, nor does it support an impact with the Pentagon. As stated, there is no evidence linking the data to "AA77" nor N644AA. Matter of fact, there is now overwhelming evidence that the data could not have come from N644AA nor any aircraft described as "AA77", nor any aircraft which pushed from Gate D26.

So, the question remains, what 'aircraft' generated the data.... and why are govt agencies claiming the data comes from "AA77" when no evidence exists to link the data to such a claim, with growing evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, what happened to the airplane which departed Gate D26 and where is the data from that airplane?

If I were to speculate, it appears a whistleblower is among their ranks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 8 2011, 02:54 AM
Post #93



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Im bumping this as some people have contacted me having questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lipsmalloy
post Aug 22 2011, 06:26 AM
Post #94





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 7
Joined: 29-September 07
Member No.: 2,279



QUOTE (paranoia @ Mar 11 2011, 06:49 AM) *
since we are on the topic of:

a- dulles airport
b- american airlines
c- 9/11

-i'd like to include a footnote about one of the alleged victims of that day:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/mjbooth.htm



so her boss at the time, and general manager for american airlines at dulles was Dennis Hazell. since no one else is providing answers, maybe someone can give him a call and see what he is willing to share about that day? things like gates and manifests should have fallen under his jurisidiction if not directly his responsibilities/duties, right?


also, maybe someone (here at the forum) familiar with airport operations can elaborate expertly on the things mrs.booth could or would have been privy to specifically with regard to boarding gates or boarding in general, and specifically for american airlines. to a layman like me - based on her title and the descriptions attributed to her as "all knowing" at dulles - i would say that its probable she would have to have either been complicit (doubtful), or high on the list of liabilities / obstacles requiring containment or neutralization (more likely the case since she has disappeared).


I'd like to know why, if her boss was the general manager of AA and she'd worked there for 45 years, she didn't take a direct flight to Las Vegas. She could fly free anywhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DAV_Pilot
post Aug 22 2011, 01:46 PM
Post #95





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 30-January 07
Member No.: 524



Great analysis (as usual), but there are a few minor grammatical errors:

"...American Airlines provided it's own custom made Data Frame Layout..." should read "American Airlines provided its own custom made Data Frame Layout"

"The aircraft should have never left the gate with such a large error within it's navigational system." should read "The aircraft should have never left the gate with such a large error within its navigational system."

"Although some aircraft have the ability to update it's position in flight..." should read "Although some aircraft have the ability to update its position in flight..."

"...and an IRS as it's primary source for navigation." should read "...and an IRS as its primary source for navigation."

Only if you mean "it is" should you add an apostrophe to "its." Otherwise treat it like you would "his" and "hers" and omit the apostrophe. Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 22 2011, 03:50 PM
Post #96





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Welcome DAV Pilot!

I love having another English major here, or at least one who knows his grammar and punctuation!

salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SeniorTrend
post Sep 20 2011, 12:34 PM
Post #97





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 15-September 11
Member No.: 6,275



DATA FRAME LAYOUT

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been provided several files through the FOIA. One file in particular, a raw Flight Data Recorder file which is described as a direct download from the FDR, contains binary code which needs to be decoded for a proper readout in a spreadsheet such as Excel. In order to decode such data, a Data Frame Layout is required. Derived from a generic Boeing Data Frame Layout, American Airlines provided it's own custom made Data Frame Layout which was designed for decoding data from aircraft within the American Airlines fleet, based on airline needs exclusive to American Airlines (AAL). The custom made AAL Data Frame Layout was unable to decode the data in full, and in some instances, neither the AAL Data Frame Layoyut nor the generic Boeing Data Frame Layout were able to be utilized in decoding the data(3). Why would American Airlines design their own custom Data Frame Layout if it cannot decode data from their aircraft? Or perhaps the data being provided is not from an American Airlines jet?

Re: Data Frame Layout:
Rob; you may have mentioned it and I didn't see it - were you able to ascertain what the data frame layout did conform to? Without knowing the data (telemetry) key, you have alot of interpolation of data, and missing pieces - If not Boeing... maybe Lockheed, Northrop?? Grumman? The list goes on.... but if it were discoverable - hooo boy - another wooden stake in the heart of this ugly beast. This smells pretty fishy - ok, it stinks on ice!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 20 2011, 09:46 PM
Post #98





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (SeniorTrend @ Sep 21 2011, 03:04 AM) *
DATA FRAME LAYOUT

Re: Data Frame Layout:
Rob; you may have mentioned it and I didn't see it - were you able to ascertain what the data frame layout did conform to? Without knowing the data (telemetry) key, you have alot of interpolation of data, and missing pieces - If not Boeing... maybe Lockheed, Northrop?? Grumman? The list goes on.... but if it were discoverable - hooo boy - another wooden stake in the heart of this ugly beast. This smells pretty fishy - ok, it stinks on ice!!


Dear Senior Friend

It seems you are well equipped to raise some serious considerations.

Hope you do

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 23 2011, 02:57 AM
Post #99





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 21 2011, 12:16 PM) *
Dear Senior Friend

It seems you are well equipped to raise some serious considerations.

Hope you do

Robert


Dear SeniorTrend

Fixing my mistake, sorry for that.
Riterating my hope, of what you have to offer.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 23 2011, 08:10 PM
Post #100





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 23 2011, 05:27 PM) *
Dear SeniorTrend

Fixing my mistake, sorry for that.
Riterating my hope, of what you have to offer.

Robert


Dear SeniorTrend.

Would you know if 'remote controlled aircraft', such as the Global Hawk (GH), would be required to carry a Flight Data Recorder.

There has been a lot written about the considerations of such aircraft having access to 'normal commercial airspace', even as far back as 2001.
In fact a (GH) flew to South Australia in April 2001, virtually over the roof of my house.
If it had come to grief here, I would most certainly have expected that the aircraft had the latest data recording aboard, to make sure it did not happen again.

Other articles have indicated that within the design criteria of the (GH), it was to be built using as much commercially (proprietry) equipment available, especially in respect to the electronics.

Whilst it has been suggested that another type of aircraft was set up to be remote controlled and used against the Pentagon building, there is considerable evidence to suggest otherwise, as what debris has been 'photographed, videoed', in the immediate period after the impact, is much more like components of a (GH).
In fact more and more is coming to light, as more and better images become available.

Don't know how you go about finding this 'key' you have spoken of, but my effort would certainly be in looking at anything connected with the Global Hawk.

You gotta start somewhere, may as well be there, could save a lot of walks around the block.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th December 2017 - 07:30 PM