IPB




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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Question about the flight 77 video

Sarah
post Mar 18 2008, 01:54 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 3
Joined: 18-March 08
Member No.: 2,978



I was showing my husband the video of Flight 77's flight path (this video), and my husband pointed out that in the bottom right hand corner of the screen, instead of the time numbers showing EDT 09:34:03 (for instance), they show EDT 13:34:03. This would translate to 1:34:03 PM, wouldn't it? I'm having difficulty persuading my husband that the video is of Flight 77, since he knows that the plane was supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon at around 9:30 in the morning and not at around 1:30 in the afternoon. I don't know if the numbers are supposed to represent the actual time that the plane was recording, or if they represent something else.

Neither one of us has any background in this sort of thing, and it's difficult for either of us to debate effectively on this subject without a lot of assistance. Any help anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated.

This post has been edited by Sarah: Mar 18 2008, 01:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 18 2008, 02:18 AM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Sarah @ Mar 17 2008, 10:54 PM) *
I was showing my husband the video of Flight 77's flight path (this video), and my husband pointed out that in the bottom right hand corner of the screen, instead of the time numbers showing EDT 09:34:03 (for instance), they show EDT 13:34:03. This would translate to 1:34:03 PM, wouldn't it? I'm having difficulty persuading my husband that the video is of Flight 77, since he knows that the plane was supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon at around 9:30 in the morning and not at around 1:30 in the afternoon. I don't know if the numbers are supposed to represent the actual time that the plane was recording, or if they represent something else.

Neither one of us has any background in this sort of thing, and it's difficult for either of us to debate effectively on this subject without a lot of assistance. Any help anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated.


I'm not the person to answer your question in specifics unless I do a bit of research. But in general, the answer is that the only thing the NTSB has said was inaccurate about their animation of Flight 77 is the time stamp. I just read the specifics on that recently somewhere but I'm not one to keep those kinds of details in mind. Someone will probably come along at some point and fill them in. But the point is, the time stamp is incorrect and the NTSB has admitted this saying the software that recorded it had not been set to the right time zone when the animation was produced.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 18 2008, 02:25 AM
Post #3


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Excuse me for not welcoming you to the forum on first brush. I was just too eager to let you know what little I know. As for not being an expert, join the club! There are certain things some discuss around here that I have a hard time following. Still, I know a lot more now than I did when this forum started.

Welcome aboard. Always feel free to ask us a question. Be prepared, though, there are some questions we just can't answer because the truth is we don't know the answer ourselves. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2008, 06:10 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Claim 7

Welcome to the forum Sarah. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarah
post Mar 18 2008, 10:13 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 3
Joined: 18-March 08
Member No.: 2,978



Thanks for the welcome and the help! smile.gif

I have been debating this subject for about a year in some other online forums, but there are some aspects of it that I've never been able to debate effectively because of my lack of expertise. I'm glad this forum is here. I imagine it will be a big help when I debate this issue in the future.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 18 2008, 10:13 AM
Post #6





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Sarah!

You asked:

". . . (i)n the bottom right hand corner of the screen, instead of the time numbers showing EDT 09:34:03 (for instance), they show EDT 13:34:03. This would translate to 1:34:03 PM, wouldn't it?"

I think its because the worldwide standard in the airline industry is to use Greenwich Mean Time (aka Zulu Time) in all instruments so that events that occur in various time zones are on the same time line for easily analysis, even if the aircraft flies through several time zones. GMT was four hours ahead of EST on 9-11-01.

The real issue seems to be the veracity of the data and whether the Commission or anyone else can rely on it to support a conclusion. As far as I'm concerned the data does not show:

1. That it came from an instrument used on aircraft.
2. That the instrument was on any plane at all.
3. That the plane the instrument was on was the plane otherwise known as Flight 77.
4. That the plane the instrument was on crashed into the Pentagon.
5. That the instrument the data came from was the same one that someone found laying on the floor of the Pentagon crash site.
6. Other things that I cannot think of right now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 18 2008, 10:28 AM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



I almost forgot the most important one, which is key to my own working hypothesis:

If the data came from an instrument used that is used on aircraft that was on was the same plane that was designated Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon and the data came from the same instrument that was found laying on the floor of the Pentagon crash site, then was the data tampered with and/or altered because the true data would show something else that is incriminating.

That's right, remote guidance instead of Hani flying it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarah
post Mar 18 2008, 12:16 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 3
Joined: 18-March 08
Member No.: 2,978



Thanks, tnemelckram. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2008, 01:38 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Mar 18 2008, 10:13 AM) *
1. That it came from an instrument used on aircraft.
2. That the instrument was on any plane at all.
3. That the plane the instrument was on was the plane otherwise known as Flight 77.
4. That the plane the instrument was on crashed into the Pentagon.
5. That the instrument the data came from was the same one that someone found laying on the floor of the Pentagon crash site.
6. Other things that I cannot think of right now.



Keep in mind none of the above matter as the NTSB themselves claim the data is from AA77. Unfortunately, the data does not support the govt story/claims of AA77 impact with pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 18 2008, 01:51 PM
Post #10





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob!

You said: "Keep in mind none of the above matter as the NTSB themselves claim the data is from AA77. Unfortunately, the data does not support the govt story/claims of AA77 impact with pentagon."

I agree with that 100%, but my point is a lawyerly one. Before the NTSB can use the data from AA77 to make any claim, they have to have some basis for concluding that the data is from AA77. It's called laying an evidentiary foundation - before you can even introduce evidence in court to support whatever story you want to tell, you have to establish that the evidence is what you claim it is. Based on what you guys have developed, I don't think that the government has even reached the point where they can make any claims based on that data, even false ones.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2008, 02:04 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



What about the fact that the claim was made through the Freedom Of Information Act? Isnt their statement of just saying it is from AA77 legally binding in a court of law when provided through the FOIA? False statements on such a federal exchange is a felony no? The FOIA request is a federal document (at least i think it is), making false statements on any federal document is a felony as far as i knew...

In other words, i think there are some provisions in the FOIA that prevent the Federal Govt from providing knowingly false information.


Keep in mind, the FDR serial numbers were not provided in any NTSB report with respect to UA93 and AA77. It is unprecedented. I wonder if that is even lawful since they do not provide "evidentiary foundation" with their claim through an FOIA request... hmmmm..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 18 2008, 02:15 PM
Post #12


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 18 2008, 11:04 AM) *
What about the fact that the claim was made through the Freedom Of Information Act? Isnt their statement of just saying it is from AA77 legally binding in a court of law when provided through the FOIA? False statements on such a federal exchange is a felony no? The FOIA request is a federal document (at least i think it is), making false statements on any federal document is a felony as far as i knew...

In other words, i think there are some provisions in the FOIA that prevent the Federal Govt from providing knowingly false information.


Keep in mind, the FDR serial numbers were not provided in any NTSB report with respect to UA93 and AA77. It is unprecedented. I wonder if that is even lawful since they do not provide "evidentiary foundation" with their claim through an FOIA request... hmmmm..


Given their "clarification" to Aiden's FOIA
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....c=11428&hl=

It appears their reasoning is they have no reason to doubt the identity of the aircraft involved:

After this extensive research, RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request. RIDS' search efforts included verification by the responsible FBIHQ operational division that because the identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA (since other evidence collected after 9/11 has all corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 were the aircraft that were hijacked), no records would have been generated responsive to your request for documents "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage."

Edit, my emphasis
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2008, 02:36 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



yeah, i spoke with one of our guys today who is a former accident investigator, the above statement is also unprecedented, if not illegal.

edit to add: Wasnt it four hijacked airplanes and not three? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 18 2008, 02:55 PM
Post #14


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 18 2008, 12:36 PM) *
yeah, i spoke with one of our guys today who is a former accident investigator, the above statement is also unprecedented, if not illegal.


Yeah, I should hope so. We'd all like to know what all this "other evidence collected after 9/11 [that] has all corroborated . . ." is if it was not positively identified as per the original FOIA.

They are stonewalling the way they always stone wall. It wasn't necessary for the 9/11 Commission Report to investigate what happened and who did it -- that was a fore-gone conclusion based on 'say so'; same with the NIST "investigation" into WTC collapse initiation. They (NTSB/FBI) were not TASKED with identifying the planes any more than NIST was tasked to explain how a building could fall at near free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance after their admittedly "unlikely" collapse initiation hypothesis.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along . . . and stop pestering us with your silly questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 18 2008, 03:09 PM
Post #15





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob:

I have done a few FOIA requests (in tax cases) but I don't recall all of the details of the law. Despite that, I think that I can fairly adequately answer your question.

I read the government FOIA response on another thread where the request was for documents about 9-11 aircraft debris.
The government replies that they did not have any documents responsive to the request. If instead they had documents, they would have replied that documents responsive to the request are enclosed. It seems to be stock language taken directly from the FOIA statute.

I think that the legal standard is that the documents merely have to be responsive to the request. They can be true or false, but still responsive because they concern the subject matter of the request.

On its face, just saying that a document or thing is "responsive to the request" does not mean that they vouch for its truth or its authenticity in their letter. The response letter is not executed under penalty of perjury and I think the statute merely requires them to produce documents, not only the honest ones.

If the response to the request is appealed to court, then things get difficult for them. Now the veracity of the response is subject to scrutiny under oath. If they were examined under oath about the veracity of the response, then they might have to come clean. The trouble would be the compartmentalization of the government. The person writing the letter might honestly think that what was produced was legitimate, while someone else in the government knows that it is false. Thus the person who responded has not made a false statement, but rather someone else in the government has caused him to make a false statement. Then you have to find that person in order to get an honest answer under oath.

AS an aside, if some factions of the government did the monstrous things that suspicions would suggest, a little perjury in an FOIA response would be pretty small beer and hardly enough to prevent them from trying to cover up the real trouble.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2008, 03:52 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 18 2008, 04:52 PM
Post #17





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob!

I went back and found the recorded phone call to Ritter elsewhere in the site. Apparently he signed an NTSB report that was provided to you as one of the "responsive" documents to an FOIA request.

The Ritter Report might be true or false (I agree with you - false.) However, I don't think he signed the boilerplate FOIA response letter that covered the government's provision of the Ritter Report to you. The person who signed the FOIA response letter probably had no idea whether it was true or false. The FOIA response letter was probably true as far as it went - the Ritter Report was a document responsive to the request.

Ritter would be a good guy to put under oath on an Appeal from the FOIA response where you alleged that the government had not fully replied because at the Ritter Report could not possibly be true for the reasons that you have developed here. Given that the government would surely want to produce a true report, there might be some other, yet unproduced Report that sets forth a plausible version of the event.

I think that you have already made effective use of the FOIA regardless of whether their responses were complete or accurate or the information provided was true or false. You have demonstrated to any clear-headed person that the 9-11 Commission Report, which relies on the Ritter Report, cannot possibly be true. Regardless of whether they lied or not, they are hoist on their own petard.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2008, 05:34 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The CSV files and animation both are signed by the NTSB (a govt agency) and both are claimed to be from AA77. Both also do not support the govt story.

I can understand if they reply through the FOIA ignorant of any possible falsehood they may not be held accountable. But if it is sent knowingly, there has to be some type of provision within the FOIA for accountability, or else the FOIA certainly needs to be amended for such a provision. The govt can then provide anything they want.


According to some of our guys who are former accident investigators, the FDR data that we obtained is admissible in a court of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 18 2008, 06:06 PM
Post #19





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



HI Rob!

"The CSV files and animation both are signed by the NTSB (a govt agency) and both are claimed to be from AA77. Both also do not support the govt story." - I agree and they are hoist on their own petard.

"I can understand if they reply through the FOIA ignorant of any possible falsehood they may not be held accountable. But if it is sent knowingly, there has to be some type of provision within the FOIA for accountability, or else the FOIA certainly needs to be amended for such a provision. The govt can then provide anything they want." - I think that appealing the FOIA response to Court is the first step to accountability because it is harder to lie there. Your work shows that they cannot win by sending anything they want - they sent you what they wanted, and it was still enough for you to discredit their entire story. I am sure that the FOIA prohibits the knowing disclosure of false information, but that is why they have a separate FOIA Disclosure office that has no idea whether the information that they are disclosing is true or false and are thus insulated from guilty knowledge.


"According to some of our guys who are former accident investigators, the FDR data that we obtained is admissible in a court of law." - That is correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2008, 06:45 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



thumbsup.gif salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 27th November 2014 - 12:02 PM