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
Ed Paik And The Truthfaction Disinfo

rob balsamo
post Feb 4 2010, 08:00 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Mod edit: Correct images added with text.

First a bit of background....

As we know, there are some who claim they are searching for the Truth, yet spend most of their days and nights attacking CIT (and P4T) due to our work.

Recently, an individual who constantly spends his time attempting to discredit and attack CIT (and me personally from what i hear) has moved to the DC area from what i understand. I wont mention any names as i refuse to give him and his minions such publicity. But many of you already know who he is and which group of people he travels. It is a group who spend most of their time gossiping and attacking others. This reminds me of an old saying...

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."


With that said, these people have taken a small break in their gossping about others and decided to actually go out and interview witnesses.

A recent paper was published by one of the above mentioned individuals who recently interviewed Ed Paik. This individual thinks he debunked CIT's research and that Paik statements when researched thoroughly support the South Flight Path as required by the govt story and physical damage.

Some excerpts from his paper and interviewing Ed Paik.
(Again, original author name edited due to the fact we wish to give him as little publicity as possible)

QUOTE
III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

Ed Paik’s testimony is consistent from 2006 and 2010 regarding his being in the office when the plane passed by. It’s also consistent in that, in addition to the loud jet sound and his impression that the plane was very low, he clearly recalls seeing a big, black wing (Ed saw the wing from underneath, shadowed from the sun). The only significant difference is that in the 2006 LC/CIT/Pickering interview, he said he saw the body of the plane (perhaps an engine?), which he described as “gray” (similar to an American Airlines plane). Also in the 2006 interview, he said he believed the right wing tip was extending over Columbia Pike- far enough to hit the VDOT tower:

RP: "Did you see anything about the airplane, how many engines, what color, anything about the plane?"

Ed Paik: "Uh, no, I just only- feeling's it looks like a- black wing- very huge, black wing. That's what I saw then."

Aldo Marquis and another person: "Black wings?"

Ed: "Yeah."

Aldo: "Do you remember what color the plane, the body was?"

Ed: "Body's look like gray- kind of gray. And the wing- underneath wing is looked like, uh, black, because I saw it like (turns head, then turns back, motioning with hands, fast). Soon as the uh- passed, away. (Avery 0:56, Larson 5:41)

------

Russell Pickering: "In relation to your street, would you say like here's one wing tip, here's another wing tip- right in the middle of the airplane, where would you put that in relation to the street?"

Ed Paik: "Right wing; right wing is at the end of the street. Left wing, I cannot see the (inaudible). Right wing is at end of street."

Russell: "The right wing was as far out as the tower, so the center of the airplane was near the road."

Ed: "Yeah, on the road, yeah. That's why it hit the antenna." (Avery 2:44, Larson 6:20)

[snip]

In my interview of him, Ed says that he did not see the body, but he describes the wing as a “triangle”. Considering Ed’s 2010 statement describing the wing as a “triangle” in conjunction with his 2006 statement in which he describes the body as gray, it may be that he saw the wing close to the base, and that he got a glimpse of the fuselage in 2001- enough to recall its color, in 2006.

2010.... interview:

EL: "To be clear, when you looked outside, how much of the plane could you see- just the wing part, or could you see any of the body?"

Ed Paik: "No. Just the- body side- [points to his roof] my roof side [places hand above his head] "

E: "OK, so all you saw was the wing."

Ed: "Right hand side, the wing. That is my feeling -because- if I see the one that is left-hand side, then I can see the body, and [inaudible]. But I don't see anything, only kind of a triangle side [makes shape with hands]- kind of an- a wing [motions with right hand, West to East]. One second or two."

E: "What do you mean, 'triangle side'?"

Ed: "Looks like [traces out triangle shape with hands]- right-hand side"

Erik: "It was like the right wing, that you saw?"

Ed: "Right wing, that's right." (4:51 - segment starts at 4:19)


So, it's clear through all interviews that Ed only saw the right wing and perhaps the fuselage.

Some argue that Ed thinks the aircraft was closer to his shop due to the fact the shadow of the aircraft may have passed over his shop with the aircraft still on the south path as needed to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon. This is impossible as demonstrated below.

I have constructed a 3D scale model of the Arlington area as most of you who are familiar with our presentation of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" already know. The software used is able to depict the exact position of the sun and cast shadows during render exactly as positioned on 9/11/01 at 09:37am in Arlington, VA.

(Instructions here on how such sun direction is obtained in 3D Software. Just a quick search i did as i clicked the first hit. You can find much more through google "physical sun and sky").

Without further ado.... i'll let the images speak for themselves.





Altitude for South Path Aircraft based on Flight Data Recorder decode performed by Warren Stutt.

Altitude for North Path Aircraft based on statements made by Ed Paik.

If anyone would like to confirm the Sun data.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altit...h_091101%20.txt
Source based on data obtained from here.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php
Edit to add: Sun data above is in terms of EST time. Please adjust accordingly as 9/11/01 and "impact" time are reported as EDT.

I can also make animations of the above if needed but it will take a very long time due to my machine is a bit ancient and the Arlington 3D region i constructed is very graphics intensive. Please feel free to help us grow and become more efficient by picking up a DVD package or making a contribution through our ChipIn applet at the bottom of the forum.

Conclusion: The latest interview with Ed Paik initiated by our detractors further supports a North Approach as originally reported by CIT. It is physically impossible for an aircraft on the North Approach to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Feb 13 2010, 01:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 4 2010, 09:25 PM
Post #2





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



Thanks for that Rob!

A full response from CIT regarding this "attack" that actually only helped independently confirm that we reported Ed Paik's north side approach description accurately is here:

CIT rebuttal to" Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 4 2010, 09:49 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 4 2010, 09:25 PM) *
Thanks for that Rob!


Anytime bud. Those people are their own worst enemy...lol

FYI, Farmer introduced me to the above software back in 2007. He started learning it before i did.

From what i understand, he still cannot combine poly's properly, hasnt a clue with respect to lighting... the list goes on.

Not surprising considering the idiot couldnt even understand basic G Loading and Vector analysis.

Is it any wonder why he refuses to debate us and instead attacks us daily? (from what im told...)

Whatever..lol

By the way, Will Clinger? Remember that guy? Supposedly an "MIT PhD" who is obsessed with my work but refuses to sign up here or confront us directly? Well, for some reason...(hmmm...lol) ... he is no longer able to keep his libel and defamation filled web pages on his Northeastern University server. He recently was forced to pay a commercial host to upload his bullshit obsession with me.

And from what i understand, he is going to be paying a lot more if he doesnt get his act together.

whistle.gif

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 5 2010, 11:34 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Very nice job Rob, looks like this snakes on the end bite their tail and dust. rolleyes.gif cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sheeplenshills
post Feb 5 2010, 12:41 PM
Post #5





Group: Guest
Posts: 49
Joined: 1-February 10
Member No.: 4,886



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 4 2010, 08:00 PM) *
First a bit of background....

As we know, there are some who claim they are searching for the Truth, yet spend most of their days and nights attacking CIT (and P4T) due to our work.

Recently, an individual who constantly spends his time attempting to discredit and attack CIT (and me personally from what i hear) has moved to the DC area from what i understand. I wont mention any names as i refuse to give him and his minions such publicity. But many of you already know who he is and which group of people he travels. It is a group who spend most of their time gossiping and attacking others. This reminds me of an old saying...

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."


With that said, these people have taken a small break in their gossping about others and decided to actually go out and interview witnesses.

A recent paper was published by one of the above mentioned individuals who recently interviewed Ed Paik. This individual thinks he debunked CIT's research and that Paik statements when researched thoroughly support the South Flight Path as required by the govt story and physical damage.

Some excerpts from his paper and interviewing Ed Paik.
(Again, original author name edited due to the fact we wish to give him as little publicity as possible)



So, it's clear through all interviews that Ed only saw the right wing and perhaps the fuselage.

Some argue that Ed thinks the aircraft was closer to his shop due to the fact the shadow of the aircraft may have passed over his shop with the aircraft still on the south path as needed to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon. This is impossible as demonstrated below.

I have constructed a 3D scale model of the Arlington area as most of you who are familiar with our presentation of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" already know. The software used is able to depict the exact position of the sun and cast shadows during render exactly as positioned on 9/11/01 at 09:37am in Arlington, VA.

(Instructions here on how such sun direction is obtained in 3D Software. Just a quick search i did as i clicked the first hit. You can find much more through google "physical sun and sky").

Without further ado.... i'll let the images speak for themselves.





Altitude for South Path Aircraft based on Flight Data Recorder decode performed by Warren Stutt.

Altitude for North Path Aircraft based on statements made by Ed Paik.

If anyone would like to confirm the Sun data.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altit...h_091101%20.txt
Source based on data obtained from here.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

I can also make animations of the above if needed but it will take a very long time due to my machine is a bit ancient and the Arlington 3D region i constructed is very graphics intensive. Please feel free to help us grow and become more efficient by picking up a DVD package or making a contribution through our ChipIn applet at the bottom of the forum.

Conclusion: The latest interview with Ed Paik initiated by our detractors further supports a North Approach as originally reported by CIT. It is physically impossible for an aircraft on the North Approach to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon.



Rob you only show two routes. one CITs north route (but one could equally turn the aircraft a few degrees and have it parallel to Columbia Pike as at an angle as you have shown it) and there are many other positions and courses the aircraft could have been on for the shadow to have been over his office still well south of the navy annex without hitting the antenna. Its interesting that that account has Paik in an office as this dramatically reduces his view of events and definitely rules out him having any opinion on the route once it flew over him. He would not have had time to get outside and see anything because his own building blocks the view and you cannot even see the Navy Annex from where he is in CITs version.

The other route seems to be the one based on the FDR info but is not really required to be exactly there to match the physical damage as small bank later could have changed the flightpath enogh to get the angle on the Pentagon required to give the reported damage. It would be really useful to see where the shadow fell throughout the flight as I thinks not impossible that people were placing the aircraft over where they saw its shadow not where it actually was to the south and east.

Could you please add a third aircraft to your model flying just to the left of the antenna on a direct line to the Pentagon or even parallel to the Pike and at a height that would pass a shadow over Paiks office?

One further thing.....is sun correct for EST on that date...with all the playing around with time zones and moving the clock forward and back its important to make sure thats right. It looks about right but I just wanted to make sure.

This post has been edited by sheeplenshills: Feb 5 2010, 12:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2010, 12:58 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (sheeplenshills @ Feb 5 2010, 12:41 PM) *
Rob you only show two routes. one CITs north route (but one could equally turn the aircraft a few degrees and have it parallel to Columbia Pike as at an angle as you have shown it) and there are many other positions and courses the aircraft could have been on for the shadow to have been over his office still well south of the navy annex without hitting the antenna.


Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the subject and poor research skills.

The South Flight Path aircraft is based on data provided by the NTSB in which they claim is from the black box of American 77. If you support the govt story, why are you trying to fudge their own data? If you support an impact theory, the heading, course and altitude data cannot be changed just to support your fantasy. Unfortunately for you and your theory, the data conflicts with every single witness along the approach to the Pentagon, and the data also does not support an impact (altitude too high to hit the Pentagon, vertical speeds too great for level off with lawn.. etc).

Again, start here Shill.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

The North path aircraft is based on exactly what Ed describes. You cannot rotate or move the aircraft too much, or raise or lower its altitude as you will then see more of the aircraft from his window. Ed describes only being able to see the right wing and perhaps some of the fuselage. This is demonstrated in the images in the original post of this thread.


QUOTE
Could you please add a third aircraft to your model flying just to the left of the antenna on a direct line to the Pentagon or even parallel to the Pike and at a height that would pass a shadow over Paiks office?


You want me to do work for you? Thats funny...lol... but yeah.. sure, give me the data and source or at least a witness who supports such a claim.

What, you just want to arbitrarily place aircraft any where you want sans supporting data or statements just to hold onto your impact theory?

Sorry, doesnt work like that. As an Engineer, you should know this. You sure you're an Engineer?



Stop making excuses for your theories Shill and just face the facts that there is a growing mountain of conflicting data/information/statements with the govt story.

It may be the reason these lists grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
http://patriotsquestion911.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sheeplenshills
post Feb 5 2010, 01:50 PM
Post #7





Group: Guest
Posts: 49
Joined: 1-February 10
Member No.: 4,886



If you support the govt story, why are you trying to fudge their own data? If you support an impact theory, the heading, course and altitude data cannot be changed just to support your fantasy.

I was assuming that the FDR has some % error and may place the aircraft slightly of its path. You discount the data completely so why anm I not allowed to do likewise?


The North path aircraft is based on exactly what Ed describes. You cannot rotate or move the aircraft too much, or raise or lower its altitude as you will then see more of the aircraft from his window. Ed describes only being able to see the right wing and perhaps some of the fuselage. This is demonstrated in the images in the original post of this thread.

You have an uncanny belief in eyewitness evidence but only for the ones that back up what you think happened? Paik can at best seen no more than a glimpse of the aircraft before it was out of site so one cannot with any honesty at all state that his account puts the on the route you show. That s just one of many possible route that would equally well with his evidence.




You want me to do work for you? Thats funny...lol... but yeah.. sure, give me the data and source or at least a witness who supports such a claim.

I asked you politely to add one more position. Is this too much to ask? if it shows that a plane could not fly parallel or close to it down Columbia pike then it adds to you version. If not then we can then agree that Paik at best place the plane over or south of Columbia Pike. Why did you show altitude of plane on north route so low as opposed to the FDR which places it considerably higher. Is this because if it was as high as FDR info the shadow would be well to the north of Paik and he would not have seen it?


You have built a great "model"....it would be a shame to use it only to show a couple of possibilities when there are many more.

What, you just want to arbitrarily place aircraft any where you want sans supporting data or statements just to hold onto your impact theory? Sorry, doesnt work like that. As an Engineer, you should know this. You sure you're an Engineer?

Yes I am, are you? I have posted before a line which I think fits the witnesses accounts, particularly that of Mr Morin and the Lady at the VDOT.


"Once again you further demonstrate your piss poor research capability."

Funny.... I get paid very well to do Research and development ...............do you?

" Do you think the US Naval Observatory forgot to "Spring Forward"?"

No, but they may have referenced back to GMT and EST is not always GMT plus 5. Glad to see that your model is correct as it would have been really embarrassing for someone to point out such an error later....

Stop making excuses for your theories Shill and just face the facts that there is a growing mountain of conflicting data/information/statements with the govt story.


You insulting me just makes you look childish....you as likely a Shill to screen a much simpler and plausible version of what happened....that the Terrorists were simply duped into thinking they were acting for someone other than who they thought they were......I don't think you are but its just as likely.

I agree there is lots of data.....our differences are on what is relevant and reliable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2010, 01:52 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (sheeplenshills @ Feb 5 2010, 12:41 PM) *
One further thing.....is sun correct for EST on that date...with all the playing around with time zones and moving the clock forward and back its important to make sure thats right. It looks about right but I just wanted to make sure.


Actually, This is probably the most intelligent point i've seen you make on this forum. I had to double check, but the US Naval Observatory posts their times as EST. The NTSB reports the "impact" time at 09:37:45 EDT.

So, we have to use 08:37 EST data from this file.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altit...h_091101%20.txt

Altitude = 31.8
Azimuth = 112.5

Unfortunately for you, it doesnt help you or your theory.

All it does is move the shadows back a few feet.



...and the sun to the left by a few degrees.



Sorry Charlie.... tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2010, 02:12 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (sheeplenshills @ Feb 5 2010, 01:50 PM) *
I was assuming that the FDR has some % error and may place the aircraft slightly of its path. You discount the data completely so why anm I not allowed to do likewise?


Who said we "discount the data"?

We're bringing it to court!

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Sign Affidavit In Lawsuit Brought By Pentagon Survivor



QUOTE
You have an uncanny belief in eyewitness evidence but only for the ones that back up what you think happened?


You have an uncanny belief to ignore witness statements and data and place the aircraft anywhere you want.

Our analysis is based on data and witness statements. Neither support the govt story.

Your conclusions are based on a belief. That is a logical fallacy and is an argument from incredulity.




QUOTE
I asked you politely to add one more position. Is this too much to ask? if it shows that a plane could not fly parallel or close to it down Columbia pike then it adds to you version. If not then we can then agree that Paik at best place the plane over or south of Columbia Pike.


And i asked you to provide data or a witness statement and i'll place the aircraft based on such information. Why do you just want to arbitrarily place aircraft anywhere you want?

QUOTE
Why did you show altitude of plane on north route so low as opposed to the FDR which places it considerably higher. Is this because if it was as high as FDR info the shadow would be well to the north of Paik and he would not have seen it?


Because Paik describes it as "very low, almost hit my roof", has drawn a path on an overhead sat image, and if it were higher along that line, Paik wouldnt see the wing. The FDR data? ...well, the altitude and heading correspond to the South Aircraft you see above. Have you even looked at the data? Do you know what altitude is? MSL? AGL? True Altitude? Pressure Altitude? Absolute Altitude? The allowable margins for error in Absolute Altitude are +/- 2 feet! Heading is recorded to a tenth of a degree! Are you sure you're an Engineer?

QUOTE
You have built a great "model"....it would be a shame to use it only to show a couple of possibilities when there are many more.


Thanks. Feel free to try yourself. The software is called Maya. Its made by Autodesk, the same company who makes AutoCAD. It is used for many high budget films, Product development.. Forensic investigations... the list goes on... Excellent program.

I used it for 4 films and presentations. You should check it out sometime.

"9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" - Impossible G Loads for a 757 - Witness Points of View.

"The North Flight Path" - Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

Our latest...

"9/11: World Trade Center Attack"

and of course...

"National Security Alert" - By CIT

Have you even researched what you're debating?



QUOTE
I have posted before a line which I think fits the witnesses accounts, particularly that of Mr Morin and the Lady at the VDOT.


You need to study more.


QUOTE
Funny.... I get paid very well to do Research and development ...............do you?


Really? Whoever is paying you is getting ripped off.


QUOTE
No, but they may have referenced back to GMT <snip> Glad to see that your model is correct as it would have been really embarrassing for someone to point out such an error later....


See post above. This was actually the only good point i have seen you bring up. Too bad it doesnt help your case.

QUOTE
...and EST is not always GMT plus 5.


Wrong again Einstein. EST is GMT- 5. EDT is GMT - 4. Always!

"GMT plus 5" is in Islamabad, Pakistan, genius.. rolleyes.gif

See that little clock in the lower right corner of your screen? Good, double click it. Click the Time Zone tab.

Geeeze, where do these people come from? Wow...



QUOTE
I agree there is lots of data.....our differences are on what is relevant and reliable.


Many people agree with me and the list grows.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Who exactly agrees with you and what are their credentials? Can they be verified?

By the way, try to learn how to use the quote feature Mr "Engineer". rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IRIQUOIS227
post Feb 5 2010, 02:43 PM
Post #10





Group: Core Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 22-September 08
From: New Mexico
Member No.: 3,841



I can hardly understand these countless hours concerning a 757 hitting the pentagon, when that fiction was denied and proven years ago. What's the matter with you people. many people on scene described all sorts of aircraft, but the alleged impact site made the arrival of a large aircraft IMPOSSIBLE. In simpler terms. I knew years ago no large aircraft hit the pentagon. I also know for a fact that NO 767 owned by American or United Airlines struck the twin towers. It is established fact when considering the way the twins came down that an explosion occurred in the top of the towers, and thermite squibs sliced up the metal beams that made up the structure of these towers. Bldg was commercially demolished by an order from Silverstein which got him a 7 billion dollar insurance settlement. Obviously there is data aplenty about this debacle, and we can stop this jerking off about the pentagon.

tedbohne
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 5 2010, 03:11 PM
Post #11


∞* 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 (IRIQUOIS227 @ Feb 5 2010, 11:43 AM) *
I can hardly understand these countless hours concerning a 757 hitting the pentagon, when that fiction was denied and proven years ago. What's the matter with you people. many people on scene described all sorts of aircraft, but the alleged impact site made the arrival of a large aircraft IMPOSSIBLE. In simpler terms. I knew years ago no large aircraft hit the pentagon. I also know for a fact that NO 767 owned by American or United Airlines struck the twin towers. It is established fact when considering the way the twins came down that an explosion occurred in the top of the towers, and thermite squibs sliced up the metal beams that made up the structure of these towers. Bldg was commercially demolished by an order from Silverstein which got him a 7 billion dollar insurance settlement. Obviously there is data aplenty about this debacle, and we can stop this jerking off about the pentagon.

tedbohne


Dude, you can go screw yourself on another forum if you like. Fine with us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sheeplenshills
post Feb 5 2010, 04:38 PM
Post #12





Group: Guest
Posts: 49
Joined: 1-February 10
Member No.: 4,886



QUOTE
Wrong again Einstein. EST is GMT- 5. EDT is GMT - 4. Always!




See I learn fast smile.gif

My Error in saying plus 5 was no more culpable than yours in the getting the time wrong on your shadow model.
you are of course right it is minus 5..........and I thank you for correcting your model. See how good things get
if folks work together in a civilised manner. I would not insult you for making an understandable error please show me the same respect.

Your post give useful information on shadow lengths and to me show quite clearly that the shadow may well have fooled many people into thinking the plane was closer than it was. You do not have a height from Paik, "right above my head" is way too vague to establish height. If the plane really was doing 500 plus mph then the noise would have convinced anyone that it was really close, even 350 would be unusual. You may have placed the plane too low especially if you take Morins height estimate into account . Whats the error in FDRs for location other than height? what technology would a 757 of that age have for location ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sheeplenshills
post Feb 5 2010, 04:47 PM
Post #13





Group: Guest
Posts: 49
Joined: 1-February 10
Member No.: 4,886



QUOTE
Many people agree with me and the list grows.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Who exactly agrees with you and what are their credentials? Can they be verified?



You are asking for the equivalent of a list of how many believe in gravity or that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Most people know fine a plane flew into the Pentagon so why would they be adding themselves to a list saying that they do?
Its you that has a belief that is the exception so not surprisingly you gather similar believers around you. I don't doubt that the Mormon church could get a list of millions of people who believe the story of the gold plates but that says absolutely nothing about the truth of the tale.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2010, 04:54 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2010, 05:04 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (sheeplenshills @ Feb 5 2010, 04:38 PM) *
My Error in saying plus 5 was no more culpable than yours in the getting the time wrong on your shadow model.


Hardly. I have a practical knowledge of the topic and knew the shadow wouldnt be off by more than a few feet to the west , so i double checked it. I could have just left it as those who make excuse for the govt story such as the people you link to, still are using EST in an EDT time zone.. lol...

You are just throwing shit against the wall hoping it will stick, eg. thinking the sun could be 5 hours off from its current position and that "EST" is "not always" "GMT plus 5". You were wrong many times in just one sentence.

QUOTE (sheeplenshills @ Feb 5 2010, 04:38 PM) *
Whats the error in FDRs for location other than height? what technology would a 757 of that age have for location ?


You dont already know? Wow, i thought you were such a good researcher who gets well compensated for your research skillz... rolleyes.gif

Why do you refuse to look at the data? Do you know what an SSFDR is? FA2100? The capabilities? The tolerances? The allowable margins for error? Have you spoken with L3 Commincations? (we have). Do you know any Aircraft Accident Investigators? We have several. Do you know any FDR Experts? We have several. Know any 757/767 Capts from United or American? We have several. Know anyone who has actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11? We have several.

Do you know how to do a simple speed-time-distance calculation? Do you know how to use heading/course data of 61.2 Degrees and work backwards from the "impact hole"? Do you realize there is over 3 years of solid research on this forum and you are way out of your league?


Shill, if you had any sort of discipline in your research, you would stop posting and start researching before you make yourself look more a fool and perhaps your boss finds out and demotes your position and pay. laugh.gif

Our "beliefs" are based on data, solid research, and decades of expertise in the field. Your "belief" is based on what you been told by your govt.

You dont happen to work for IBM, do ya? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sheeplenshills
post Feb 5 2010, 05:17 PM
Post #16





Group: Guest
Posts: 49
Joined: 1-February 10
Member No.: 4,886



QUOTE
Why do you refuse to look at the data? Do you know what an SSFDR is? FA2100? The capabilities? The tolerances? The allowable margins for error? Have you spoken with L3 Commincations? (we have). Do you know any Aircraft Accident Investigators? We have several. Do you know any FDR Experts? We have several.



Rob if you don't know how accurate the position is just say so or post a link to the answer.


QUOTE
Do you know how to do a simple speed-time-distance calculation? Do you know how to use heading/course data of 61.2 Degrees and work backwards from the "impact hole"?


Yes and the angle of impact does not mean the plane was flying on the same heading up over Columbia Pike.

QUOTE
Do you realize there is over 3 years of solid research on this forum and you are way out of your league?


If you can call the CIT work research...........and out of my league, I think not.

QUOTE
Shill, if i were you, i'd stop posting and start researching before you make yourself look more a fool and perhaps your boss finds out and demotes your position and pay.


Little chance of that....my Boss is is much the same opinion on this as me......smile.gif

QUOTE
You dont happen to work for IBM, do ya? wink.gif


Very clever......do you happen to still work for Jet Blue?

This post has been edited by sheeplenshills: Feb 5 2010, 05:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2010, 06:40 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (sheeplenshills @ Feb 5 2010, 05:17 PM) *
Rob if you don't know how accurate the position is just say so or post a link to the answer.


I see, you want everyone to do your research for you. Sorry Shill, spend some time studying. The positional data is based on Radar (RADES and ASR), INS Lat/Long, DME, Course, speed and distance. It doesnt support your "North of VDOT/South of Columbia Pike" Fantasy, nor any of the witnesses on the approach path to the Pentagon. Those who make excuse for the govt story have a nice plot for you to look at. Let your fingers do the walking.



QUOTE
Yes and the angle of impact does not mean the plane was flying on the same heading up over Columbia Pike.


61.2 Degrees is not the "angle of impact". Its the True Course data in the Flight Data Recorder for the last mile or so... give or take a few tenths of a degree (do you know what a True Course is? Considering you havent a clue of the different types of altitudes, i'm thinking not). and almost lines up with all the physical damage through the poles (left wing misses pole 2 by about 2 feet and takes out VDOT cam by about 2 feet)... to the gen to the "impact hole". In other words, the positional data is a straight line for about the last 15 seconds. The South Aircraft you see in the above images is on that line. If you support the "impact theory", you cannot budge from this approach.



QUOTE
If you can call the CIT work research...........and out of my league, I think not.


Well, considering you dont even know the positional data as provided by your govt.... and CIT knows all about it, it appears they have the upper hand on you.



QUOTE
Very clever......do you happen to still work for Jet Blue?


When did i claim to work for jetBlue? We do have a few in our organization who do work for jetBlue though... namely Capt Jeff Latas.

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways



Shill, you are WAY out of your league.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sheeplenshills
post Feb 5 2010, 08:41 PM
Post #18





Group: Guest
Posts: 49
Joined: 1-February 10
Member No.: 4,886



QUOTE
I see, you want everyone to do your research for you. Sorry Shill, spend some time studying. The positional data is based on Radar (RADES and ASR), INS Lat/Long, DME, Course, speed and distance. It doesnt support your "North of VDOT/South of Columbia Pike" Fantasy, nor any of the witnesses on the approach path to the Pentagon. Those who make excuse for the govt story have a nice plot for you to look at. Let your fingers do the walking.


Nor does it support CITs fantasy so why does CIT get a free pass to ignore it but I do not? I know full well that the FDR line is further out and was justing asking just how accurate FDR data is. Thanks for answering my question.




QUOTE
61.2 Degrees is not the "angle of impact". Its the True Course data in the Flight Data Recorder for the last mile or so... give or take a few tenths of a degree (do you know what a True Course is?"


So long as the FDR line is close to the angle of impact that's all we need to know. They are consistent (maybe both wrong but consistently so)

QUOTE
Considering you havent a clue of the different types of altitudes, i'm thinking not). and almost lines up with all the physical damage through the poles (left wing misses pole 2 by about 2 feet and takes out VDOT cam by about 2 feet)... to the gen to the "impact hole". In other words, the positional data is a straight line for about the last 15 seconds. The South Aircraft you see in the above images is on that line. If you support the "impact theory", you cannot budge from this approach.


I have read about the various forms of altitude readings and I believe there are problems with that shown on the FDR data. I will no doubt get to that later. Again why can CIT diverge from that line and I cannot? I''m not insisting that the FDR line is right just showing that CIT cannot honestly show that its not and certainly cannot claim a NoC




QUOTE
Well, considering you dont even know the positional data as provided by your govt.... and CIT knows all about it, it appears they have the upper hand on you.


Actually its not my Gov. its yours.....I'm British and have one of my own smile.gif and yes I have seen the reports on the FDR and the problems with it.




QUOTE
When did i claim to work for jetBlue? We do have a few in our organization who do work for jetBlue though... namely Capt Jeff Latas.


Your right of course, I googled you guys a while back and remembered the wrong Pilots employer. I did think it curious that a Airline would employ someone with so high a profile in this CT.


QUOTE
Shill, you are WAY out of your league.


Perhaps, we shall see. Why are you so uncivil to anyone that has a different opinion to you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 5 2010, 08:48 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



CIT doesnt ignore the FDR data Shill, they report the witness information. CIT acknowledges the fact the FDR data also does not support an impact. Did you miss the link above where we are taking the data to court?

We analyzed the data provided by the govt. It doesnt support their story.

The witness do not support an impact. The data doesnt support an impact. The witnesses and data do not support each other.

What exactly do you have to support your theory? You want to ignore the FDR data, you want to ignore the witness statements... You want to arbitrarily place the aircraft based on what?

Shill, we arent the "Conspiracy theorists". You are.. .and you have zero evidence/data/information to support your theory.

If it appears i am "uncivil" towards you, its because you come in here with a chip on your shoulder thinking you know more than everyone else, and have been proven wrong time and time again based on the fact your research 'skillz' are piss poor. We see it occasionally. Its typical behavior of a troll...Our patience wears thin.

Now, take about 2 weeks vacation and study.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 7 2010, 10:02 AM
Post #20





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Let me guess would those detractors happen to have anything to do with the govt loyalist site and this post

CIT Fraid Revealed http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php...5041&page=2

They seem to think they have exposed CIT as a fraud what a laugh pathetic and full
of bs as always.

All it takes is for one of them circus clowns like Mackey to spew out a
bunch of complete and utter bs and the rest of the sheep will blindly
follow baaaahhh.

so tell me am i right?

whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Feb 7 2010, 10:06 AM
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: 20th December 2014 - 06:31 AM