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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Aa77 Animation Released By Faa Supports North Side

rob balsamo
post Sep 13 2008, 01:36 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Wow,

Craig just notified me of this... this is almost exactly what i animated for the flight path in our new film based on witness statements filmed by CIT. The govt is really throwing those "duhbunkers" under the bus.. .huh? First the NTSB data shows too high.., then the NIST reports says damage wasnt a factor for WTC 7... now this, a flight animation released by the FAA through a court appeal supporting the north side, opposite the light pole physical damage! Too funny... Wish i knew of this prior to our release.... i would have delayed release and included this...

Note the plane transition from south to north path over the Navy Annex, North of the Citgo, completely missing the light poles...




(although my animation and render is much more detailed and polished wink.gif)


ETA: Keep in mind, the above is according to a YT poster (animation source being the FAA). I have asked them to post the documentation confirming the source is the FAA... in the comments section.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Sep 13 2008, 02:01 PM
Reason for edit: noted above
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 13 2008, 02:04 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Just got this reply from the YT member who uploaded the above animation in response to my request for documentation...

QUOTE
Posted at the site. It will take some time to get all of the files uploaded, but the cover letter, index, and original mpg are in the FAA folder now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthseekers
post Sep 13 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Outside the sheep pen.
Member No.: 66



Rob, looking at that abit more closely, it does appear the plane way to high at the point of the impact to me. Does this look the same way to you?

edit, I think at either 26 and a half second or possibly 10ths of a second, will show the impact is below the plane. It looks that way to me, it was indeed (as CIT have investigated) a flyover judging by this FAA animation.

This post has been edited by Truthseekers: Sep 13 2008, 02:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Sep 13 2008, 02:14 PM
Post #4


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Wow, indeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
georgie101
post Sep 13 2008, 02:21 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 20-October 06
From: south london, uk
Member No.: 114



eek2.gif I don't know whether to be shocked, or not. You would think they would cover their asses wouldn't you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Sep 13 2008, 02:39 PM
Post #6


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



WTF? Dang.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Sep 13 2008, 02:51 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Sep 13 2008, 01:07 PM) *
Rob, looking at that abit more closely, it does appear the plane way to high at the point of the impact to me. Does this look the same way to you?

edit, I think at either 26 and a half second or possibly 10ths of a second, will show the impact is below the plane. It looks that way to me, it was indeed (as CIT have investigated) a flyover judging by this FAA animation.


I was thinking the exact same thing....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 13 2008, 03:54 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I've been looking at those 2 large, raw?? .TXT files. I wouldn't get too excited about those three 13xx.CSV files just yet.

This is all polar location data- we'll need the lat/lon locations of those FAA sites to make sense of it, and I didn't see that anywhere in the .PDF "FOIA" documentation. There are about 4 single-spaced pages of files listed too- take a look at: "sept09122008cover.pdf"

I'd also like to find whatever codes the FAA is using for those headers (it well could be in "Pinnacle's" 4 pages of files, but I haven't seen it). This FAA data only has about 4 or so columns in common with the RADES data format (time, range, azimuth, etc.), and I believe there are many aircraft jumbled together in the .TXT files. It looks to be a mess to sort out- we might need our computer programmer friend(s).

I've got software that will handle these "large" .TXT files, but it might be a LOT of manual cut/paste, moving, etc. to get usable data. Then comes the trigonometry...

I'll post something on the file format/headers very shortly- just need to upload my screencaps.

From the 'first' 21MB file "1 DCA 113 tg911 from CD.txt"

Top


Tail


------------------------------------------
From the 2nd 64MB file "1 DCA 113 CDRTM AAL77 9.11(2) from CD.txt"

Top


Tail
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ungari
post Sep 13 2008, 04:09 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 3,785



This is a huge development!
Perhaps the Truthers can keep shaming various government agencies into concurring with all of the findings.

I do think it is suspicious in the way this was released on YT, with no official statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 13 2008, 04:18 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



We are going to need some volunteers to dig into those 4 (or more) air traffic control recordings too. It's not all that technical listening to the .WAV files, but it would be a good idea to take excellent notes with the timestamp.

The files are too big for my file server space, but I've got them downloaded already.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 13 2008, 04:52 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



We say proceed with caution.

All data solely controlled and supplied by the suspect should be automatically considered invalid.

We can't all of the sudden accept it just because it may seem to tell us what we want.

Witnesses further back in the flight path tell a different story, particularly Jamal and Steve Chaconas on the river who has teh plane coming from east of the river.

There is actually a huge amount of evidence for the DC flight path and that is NOT what this animation shows.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 13 2008, 05:18 PM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



I uploaded it to youtube myself in case people want to link to it without linking to Farmer's account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 13 2008, 05:35 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Ok.....what this data means is that people who DO accept government data as valid evidence are now forced to move towards believing the north side approach.

If you put the evidence in a "statistical process control" chart it would be off the hook in favor of north side.

But WE do not have to embrace it since the witnesses already prove the north side approach anyway.

So in essence it gives us more fire to throw in their faces while we can remain as non-committal on it as we want.

Yeah! I like the sounds of that!

biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 13 2008, 05:52 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Sep 13 2008, 04:52 PM) *
We say proceed with caution.

All data solely controlled and supplied by the suspect should be automatically considered invalid.

We can't all of the sudden accept it just because it may seem to tell us what we want.



Well wait,... im a bit confused. The FAA distributed data which confirms north of citgo flight path which CIT confirmed by filming witnesses on location. Is this invalid?

I can understand the whole flight path may not be valid based on ALL witnesses filmed by CIT. But is it possible that a whistleblower in the FAA and NTSB made these paths so more people look at the "North Side"? Even if not 100% accurate?

If im confused... i can imagine what the passer by must feel like.

Is the data invalid or not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 13 2008, 06:09 PM
Post #15





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 13 2008, 10:52 PM) *
Well wait,... im a bit confused. The FAA distributed data which confirms north of citgo flight path which CIT confirmed by filming witnesses on location. Is this invalid?


All data provided for by the suspect should be automatically considered invalid but we have a significant amount of evidence proving the DC/east of the river approach which direclty proves this data is invalid.


QUOTE
I can understand the whole flight path may not be valid based on ALL witnesses filmed by CIT. But is it possible that a whistleblower in the FAA and NTSB made these paths so more people look at the "North Side"? Even if not 100% accurate?


Sure it's "possible" but unprovable.

And it doesn't change the fact that they would have deliberately altered already fraudulent data in order to do so.

QUOTE
If im confused... i can imagine what the passer by must feel like.

Is the data invalid or not?


It is invalid.

They WANT it to be confusing.

That is the entire point.

It is our responsibility to NOT embrace this information to fight that confusion.

We have to stay consistent and it's clear we have plenty enough evidence already proving this new data fraudulent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 13 2008, 06:23 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Baby steps my friend...

The FAA Data supports a north of citgo approach... you are telling people "Nothing to see here folks.. move along.. dont try to call the FAA upon this release.... it doesnt support the entire flight path".
You are confusing the reader.


Craig.. im sorry buddy.. but i disagree with you here... The FAA will be called on this even if you think we should look the other way... (and P4T have FAA Certificate's on the line).

One great thing about our "movement", "organization".. whatever... is that we can disagree. You'll never see that coming from "duhbunkers". They actually encourage deceit and never disagree. lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 13 2008, 06:23 PM
Post #17





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Again.....this makes it harder for the duhbunkers no matter what....but it is only an issue for us if we embrace it.

We can ONLY accept independent verifiable evidence as valid.

We must never stray from that.

We are better off pointing out why this animation is fraudulent rather than falling into their trap of embracing it as valid.

The fact that they keep releasing fraudulent data at blatantly strategic moments IS evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 13 2008, 06:27 PM
Post #18





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 13 2008, 11:23 PM) *
Baby steps my friend...

The FAA Data supports a north of citgo approach... you are telling people "Nothing to see here folks.. move along.. dont try to call the FAA upon this release.... it doesnt support the entire filght path".

You are confusing the reader.


Craig.. im sorry buddy.. but i disagree with you here... The FAA will be called on this even if you think we should look the other way...


We are not saying "nothing to see here look the other way".

If it doesn't support the proper flight path, it is fraudulent.

The fact that they keep releasing fraudulent data at blatantly strategic moments IS evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.


We are better off pointing out why this animation is fraudulent rather than falling into their trap of embracing it as valid.

But of course attempt to force THEM to answer WHY their data is irreconcilable with all physical damage.

But we already know what their answer will be.

Silence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Sep 13 2008, 06:31 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



Big news if they had suddenly released this. After 7 years.

Banking steeply to the right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Sep 13 2008, 06:44 PM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Sep 13 2008, 06:23 PM) *
The fact that they keep releasing fraudulent data at blatantly strategic moments IS evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.


i hear that!

I'm confused with the fact that, how could they release data back in 2006 and then few years later, release a different flight path for the same aircraft?!

Unless I'm understanding this wrong?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th August 2018 - 11:28 AM