Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

[BetsysGhost]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20999

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon


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

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

This is a very interesting discussion at Pilots For 9/11 Truth. I read a lot of their material and find they make a compelling case.

[SDuderstadt]

1. If they didn't make a compelling case...

how would you know?

[Indi Guy]

2. Why don't you...

...review the data presented? You always say you want proof that the government's official story is not factual.

Criticism of data presented is far more valuable than gratuitously snide & vacuous ad hominem attacks. ...Don't you think?

[SDuderstadt]

3. Nope...

I am asking the O.P. show why she thinks it compelling.

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof.

[Indi Guy]

4. Why don't you read the info & decide for yourself...

...then post whether or not you find it compelling?

You're very quick with unsubstantiated rebuttals. It would be refreshing to see you actually do some leg-work in your efforts to negate the veracity of the posts you comment on. Most of the time you appear to be content with attempted character assassination of the poster, and never even touch on the subject matter.

Are you willing to act out of character this time and actually comment on the data presented here?

[SDuderstadt]

5. Dude...

I don't need to rebut it. I am asking the OP (and anyone else who wants to chime in) why we should accept pilots4truth's claims and conclusions.

Conspiracists have a really bad habit of posting nonsense, then, when challenged, immediately go into "well, if you can't refute it, it must be so" mode. That isn't debate, dude...that's called "trying to shift the burden of proof".

[BetsysGhost]

6. SDuderstadt

the web site posted, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, is a group of experienced pilots and others who work in the Aviation field. There are members that are interested parties as well.

If you are interested in a site that presents evidence and does not make claims or present conspiracies as to what happened and who did it, this information may be of interest.

If you aren't interested in any info beyond whatever it is you believe happened on 9/11 it is a waste of your time. That being the case apparently here, feel free to post on some other thread.

[SDuderstadt]

7. I am asking you to support your own OP...

Why won't you do that? Or, is only "my side" supposed to be open-minded? Simple question: what would convince you that pilots4truth is wrong?

[BetsysGhost]

8. SDuderstadt

okay I see where this is going.

You need to bother someone else. I don't have time for your little game here. buh-bye

[SDuderstadt]

9. Yeah...

it's called "debate".

[eomer]

10. Here are some examples of Pilots For 9/11 Truth findings that I find compelling.

Both the NTSB and the FAA have released recreations of Flight 77 and their recreations are grossly inconsistent with each other. NTSB shows a flight path that is in line with the downed light poles. FAA shows a flight path considerably farther to the North. The NTSB recreation path is south of the Citgo station, which path is generally considered the official story. The FAA recreation path is north of the Citgo, which is consistent with eye witnesses such as the Pentagoin police officers but inconsistent with the damage at the Pentagon like the downed light poles and the angle of the penetration through the building.

The NTSB flight recreation release has internal inconsistencies that would seem to show that it is faked. Two related files released by NTSB, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) raw data file and the flight recreation CSV file, are inconsistent with each other. For example, the raw data shows numerous FDR power-on resets throughout the flight (which in itself is highly unusual and raises questions). This means that the raw data has a large number of gaps -- time segments during which there is no data. The raw data therefore has a discontinuity in the various sensors (altitude, location, etc) every time one of these reset gaps occur. Yet the flight recreation CSV file that is claimed to be derived from that raw data does not have any such discontinuities. A related anomoly is that an FDR that is rebooting numerous times during a flight should generate notification events and yet no such notifications are present in the data.

Another apparent problem with the NTSB flight data is that it shows the plane being too high to have hit the light poles or to have impacted the Pentagon. This particular issue is one I'm still working to understand completely and assess the validity of. I don't have it clear which setting the Primary Altimeter (PA) readings were based on (were they adjusted for prevailing atmospheric pressure and, if so, with a correct or incorrect local pressure input?) and what exactly do the readings from the Radio Altimeter (RA) (an auxiliary device) tell us; can we figure out which RA readings were measured from the ground, which were from the tops of buildings or trees, are there some that are clearly from the top of the Naval Annex building or the Pentagon lawn, ...?

Another anomoly in the NTSB raw data: an event like impacting a light pole would normally be discernible in FDR data but no discernible effects of the five alleged impacts with light poles are present.

Another anomoly: there may or may not be a 4-second gap at the end of the data just before impact. This gap is allegedly due to a bug in some software. Is it really the case that the final 4-seconds of FDR data are routinely not available due to some bug in the software used to read the data? That seems pretty strange but this is another issue I haven't finished assessing.

There is an FL180 altimeter reset shown in the NTSB flight recreation at a time that would be after the alleged highjacking and both the pilot and co-pilot (as recorded by the FDR) are shown to have performed this reset at the same time as each other and just at the proper time that the FL180 reset is called for by flight rules. Since these highjackers had allegedly only ever flown small aircraft they had likely never before ascended or descended through FL 180 (18,000 feet). Would they really have been this keenly aware of and conformant with procedure?

There is another inconsistency in the data that would seem to be impossible: even though the FL180 resets are present in the flight recreation during descent, they are not present in the raw data that the flight recreation is claimed to be derived from. Yet earlier in the flight, before the alleged highjacking, the FL180 altimeter reset on the ascent does show up in both the flight recreation and the raw data. Why does the ascent FL180 reset properly match between raw data and recreation but the descent FL180 reset does not?

(An FL180 altimeter reset is a switch between using altitudes that are adjusted for the prevailing local atmospheric pressure, the practice below 18,000 feet, and using altitudes that are not adjusted for the prevailing local atmospheric pressure, the practice above 18,000 feet.)

There are other anomolies in the data and official explanations released by the government. These are just a few examples.

Here is a one-hour interview of the FDR expert that is interesting:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2052484937239620900&safe=active#

[k-robjoe]

11. Thanks

I´m listening to it now.

Interesting what he has to tell about the near-accident in 1977 as well.
In relation to the TWA 800.

[William Seger]

12. Rob Balsamo is a huckster and a fraud

The PfT posting is Cap'n Bob's reaction to having his two-year-long FDR scam exposed: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf">Read this study. It's virtually impossible that Cap'n Bob and his "FDR expert" didn't know about the extra four seconds of data in the raw file the entire time that Cap'n Bob was insisting that that wasn't possible, or that the data destroyed the "mystery" that he was trying to sell on his DVDs. Balsamo's only defense: Hey, kids, the FDR isn't even from UAL77!

If you are so desperate to find something to support the ludicrously implausible theory that UAL77 didn't hit the Pentagon that you are willing to take Cap'n Bob's new unsubstantiated assertions seriously, then you are beyond hope. But don't be surprised if you find less and less company as time goes on.

[eomer]

13. Yes, so the issues that study clears up are the same ones I said I was still working on.

The study's explanation for the 4-seconds at the end initially not being decoded does seem plausible.

And the study's findings on the altimeters are what I alluded to as a possibility -- that the primary altimeter, being pressure based, may not have been calibrated and adjusted for local atmospheric pressure as would be required in order to give an accurate absolute altitude. That seems plausible too.

Those two issues being explained does not eliminate the other anomalies.

The NTSB and FAA still have the path of Flight 77 in grossly different places. And the reports of eyewitnesses who were in just the right place to distinguish between the two paths (because their position at the time was in between the two paths) agree with the FAA path, not the NTSB path that is the subject of the study. For example, the two Pentagon police officers who were at the Citgo station, Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt Brooks, are absolutely sure that the plane passed to the north of them. That agrees with the FAA flight path recreation. The NTSB path is on the south side of the Citgo station. If these eyewitnesses are right then the NTSB raw data and recreation cannot be genuine and accurate. And if they are right then the light poles being downed and the damage to the Pentagon building cannot have been caused by Flight 77. I don't believe they could be mistaken based on where they were and their descriptions of what they saw.

[William Seger]

14. "Anomalies"

> The NTSB and FAA still have the path of Flight 77 in grossly different places.

The FAA animation shows a "north of the Citgo" path only because whoever added the Pentagon ground graphic to the animation rotated it the wrong way when trying to correct magnetic north to true north. The animation display and the FDR data both show the plane on a magnetic heading of 70. True north requires about a -10 degree correction at the Pentagon, making the "true" heading about 60. (Further correcting for wind drift, the actual over-the-ground track was about 61.5.) However, the Pentagon graphic was rotated the wrong way -- the graphic was rotated -10 degrees, but that would make the "correction" +10 degrees -- making the apparent heading about 80 instead of 60. Balsamo knew that, yet he kept the animation on his site and in his DVD as "proof" that something was fishy, which just goes to show Balsamo's dedication to the "truth" when he's trying to sell DVDs.

> And the reports of eyewitnesses who were in just the right place to distinguish between the two paths (because their position at the time was in between the two paths) agree with the FAA path, not the NTSB path that is the subject of the study.

There is nothing unusual about people being inaccurate in either their original perceptions of events or their later memories of them, or for different witnesses to "remember" different details. One of CIT's original witnesses, Paik, actually supports the south path: If he saw the plane at all from inside his shop, then it couldn't possibly have been where Lagasse and Brooks place it. Lagasse and Brooks appear to have agreed on a flight path at some point, so they both now "remember" the same thing, and there's nothing unusual about that happening. That's why all eyewitness testimony must be weighed against the other evidence. That includes other eyewitnesses like Lloyd England, Stephen McGraw, and many others who say the plane knocked down the light poles on the bridge. The difference is that every single piece of physical evidence says that those witnesses are correct. Ranke and Balsamo like to ignore that both Lagasse and Brooks say the plane did, indeed, hit the Pentagon, and that there exactly zero "fly-over" witnesses. (Yes, I'm aware of the one they tried to pass off as a "fly-over" witness who says he saw the plane over the parking lot, flying away, but by the time he got outside after hearing the explosion, the plane would have been a couple miles away, not over the parking lot, and furthermore there's no way the plane could have turned sharply enough to to take the southwestern path he described.)

(Edit: By the way, my parents have a neighbor who clearly saw the plane plow into the Pentagon. He was one of the many people on 95 south of the Pentagon who were in a perfect position to see any fly-over: Ranke's idiotic "magic trick" of using the fireball to hide the plane just doesn't work from there. When I told him that some people on the web thought the plane flew over, he looked incredulous for a couple of seconds and then said, "They're full of shit!" I agree.)

There are only "anomalies" if you make a concerted effort to ignore the most plausible explanations.

[eomer]

15. 1) You're talking about a different animation and 2) Ed Paik disagrees with what you say he said.

1) The FAA animation shows no compass or other instrumentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

You're apparently talking about this animation, made by I don't know whom but not the FAA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0&mode=related&search=

2) Ed Paik says that the body of the plane was directly above his shop because from inside looking at an upward angle out the window he could see only the starboard wing. The official path has the plane quite a distance on the other side of Columbia Pike where he would likely have been able to see the entire plane looking upward through the window, not just the one wing. After looking upward out the window he quickly went outside and says he saw the plane pass over the top of the Navy Annex. The official path has the plane going to the south side of the Navy Annex. So Ed Paik disagrees with what you say he said.

Interestingly the FAA animation shows the plane going right over the top of Paik's shop and then over the top of the Navy Annex just like Paik says it did and then on the north side of the Citgo like Pilots for 9/11 Truth say. The NTSB path, which is apparently the same as the official path, shows a different path well to the south, allowing it to take the light poles down.

Here is an interview of Paik taken inside his shop that makes this clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3aCPyagWT8


There are a number of employees at Arlington National Cemetery whose witness reports also put the plane on the north path.

[William Seger]

16. 1) Yes, 2) No

1) You're right, the video I was thinking of (which shows the 70 degree mag heading but about an 80 degree approach) is the the NTSB video, produced from the FDR data. The animation you're referring to is clearly not based on that data: While the plane did briefly bank to the right a few degrees, according to the FDR, it did not appreciably change the heading. This is the plot of the last several headings:



These readings are 2 seconds apart, so the plane was approximately on the same 60 to 61 degree heading well before it got to the Navy Annex. It did not take the curving path shown in that animation, which would have required a rather severe bank.

2) Yes, after Ranke leads him into thinking that the "correct" path is over the Navy Annex, Paik says the body of the plane was directly above his shop. But I'm not talking about what he says; I'm talking about simple geometry. In later videos (after Ranke's deceitful first version implied that he was outside), Paik points out the window at about a 35 degree angle, and from where he's standing that's about as high as he could possibly have seen. The plane would have still been at least 200 feet above ground then. Even if we give Paik a huge benefit of the doubt and say that he was able to see out the window at a 45 degree angle, the plane would have been at least as far SSE of him as it was above the ground:



(The plane on the left is at 200 feet above ground, so if Paik could see up at a 45-degree angle, the plane would have been at least 200 feet SSE. If he was only able to see up at a 35-degree angle, which is more probable given where he says he was, the the plane must have been even farther SSE. In fact, it would have been right on the "official" path, oddly enough.)

Perhaps it may have seemed to Paik that it passed directly over his shop, but if it had he would never have seen it at all. And if he saw it at all out that window, then it couldn't have been where Lagasse and Brooks place it. Period. What you really have there is solid proof of the unreliability of witness perceptions.

[eomer]

17. Or else...

his memory and/or perception were wrong about how close he was to the window and therefore what the angle was.

[William Seger]

19. Except that....

... the 35-degree angle that he actually points to would put the plane precisely where the FDR, many other witnesses, and all the physical evidence put it. :eyes:

[eomer]

21. The witnesses who were in a position to easily tell say it was on the north path.

Sgt. Lagasse, Sgt. Brooks, Ed Paik, and the ANC employees were all in a position to tell the difference and they all say it was on the north path.

At the following link is a map with the paths these witnesses each described in yellow and the official path farther to the south in blue:
http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/archives/all/category/pentagon

The vantage points of these witnesses are also shown.

A further point regarding Ed Paik is that he says the plane came at an angle relative to Columbia Pike, crossing the street more or less at the same time that it came over his shop. This angle (rather than being parallel to the plane of his window) would make it possible for him to see the plane at a lower angle earlier in the path. He was at Vantage #1 on the map linked above and the yellow line that passes by Vantage #1 is the path he described.

And the whole point of this is that it conflicts with the physical damage and the alleged FDR data that was provided by NTSB. On the other hand it agrees with the animation provided by FAA, the underlying source of which is unknown (as far as I know) but presumably is radar since it couldn't have come from the alleged FDR data.

Edit to add: it conflicts with the physical evidence only when combined with the official explanation that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Under the alternative explanation that the plane flew over the Pentagon, that the light poles were staged, and that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by planted explosives, then it agrees with and explains the physical evidence.

[William Seger]

22. The ANC employees....

... were NOT in a position to tell the difference. They were off to the side, about perpendicular to the flight path. Ranke gave them a map to draw the flight path, but the plane was in the air, not rolling on the ground. So, their perception of the flight path would depend entirely on how far away they judged it to be. That's very difficult to do for something in the air, since it's too far for our stereo vision to help and there's nothing up there to compare to. Unexpectedly seeing a 757 that low, it could have easily appeared to be closer than it was -- the same thing that made Paik think the plane flew over his head -- so they drew a flight path closer to themselves than it really was. Notice that they had to curve the path to get it to hit the building -- something all the witnesses agree on. Most people report that the plane banked right and left a bit as it approached, but the path they described would require something like a 70-degree bank, if it could be done at all. (In flight simulator, I can't get a 757 to turn that fast.)

Look at the size of the window in Paik's shop and where he says he was standing again. On either the path he drew or the "correct" flight path, he would have only seen the plane very briefly as it passed by the shop. And let me say this again: If the the plane was where he drew that line, he would not have seen it at all, so that line simple cannot be accurate.

The only real "NoC" witnesses who were in a position to tell were Lagasse and Brooks. They work together, so it's entirely possible that one of them gave the other the "false memory" of where the plane was. If you aren't aware of it, Lagasse has no tolerance at all for the various "77 didn't hit the Pentagon" fantasies: He is absolutely certain that the plane hit the building, and even describes seeing it twist as it tore through the wall. If both memories cannot simultaneously be correct, which do you think is more likely to be mistaken: the flight path or the plane plowing into the wall?

I mentioned my parent's neighbor seeing the plane hit. I took this photo from the approximate place on 95 where he was, coming around the south Pentagon parking lot:



The plane hit the wall around the left corner. Can you really convince yourself that nobody on that side of the building noticed a 7-fucking-57 fly a few feet over the building and fly away? From that angle, it would have looked like the plane bombed the building. When I told Ranke about this witness, he dismissed it because this was not a published interview. Fine, but 95 is bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go going into DC that time of morning, and also pretty crowded coming out (as my parent's neighbor was). And this is just one of the roads passing the building. Why did nobody call the media or the authorities to report that, no, the plane didn't hit the building; it bombed it and flew away? I'm sorry, but Ranke's "fireball magic trick" is one of the most incredibly idiotic "theories" I've ever heard, and he won't even discuss this serious problem with it. It seems to me he understands his "target audience" pretty well...

Yes, I understand Ranke's "logic" entirely: If Lagasse and Brooks are correct about the path, that means the plane didn't hit the building, so all that physical evidence must have been faked. Never mind that he won't even attempt to explain how that could have been done right in front of hundreds of witnesses, much less why the perps would attempt such a ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated hoax with any expectation of getting away with it. And I don't doubt that there will be people who find that to be more plausible than that the perceived flight paths are simply wrong. But I have to say, I'm surprised and disappointed to see your name on the list.

(ETA: I keep forgetting that that highway is called 395 now. Before the Beltway was built and for many years after, it was 95 and the Beltway was 495. At some point, authorities decided to rename half the Beltway 95 and that section of highway 395, to encourage through traffic to go around DC instead of ending up on city streets through DC. I moved out of the area a little after that, so it's still 95 to me.;)

[eomer]

26. Your neighbor could not have seen the plane hit from that vantage point.

From there you can see the roughly SE face on the right and the roughly SSW face on the left. The roughly WNW face where the plane allegedly hit is around the building to the left and the alleged point of impact was not near the corner but further around closer to the middle of that face we can't see around the building to our left.

So the plane hitting the building, if it did, was definitely hidden behind the building from there. It looks like some of the approach may have been visible but definitely not the last part of it. I assume that what your neighbor (and in turn, you) meant by those words is that he saw the approach and then inferred the impact. It is a good example of witnesses not meaning what you would easily assume they mean. Other witnesses say they "saw the plane hit" but when you drill into it you find that they saw the approach but not the impact and they inferred that the plane hit rather than actually seeing it hit.

From that vantage point it's also not obvious that you could see a 757 flying a few feet above the roof along the path that we're talking about. The path would have been to the far side of the building's midpoint so there would be quite a distance from the vertical face of the building that we can see to the location of the plane above the roof. The Pentagon being a very large building, you'd have to check the angles to decide whether it would be visible and, if so, how much would be visible.

After clearing the building, if the plane continued roughly northeast then it would have been immediately over the lagoon and then the Potomac River.

Also, there are a couple of (I believe, or is it one?) witnesses who say they saw a plane flying away just seconds after the explosion.

I agree that this is the toughest part of the flyover theory to resolve but I'm not convinced that it is impossible. To me it is just as difficult to believe, maybe more difficult, that the Pentagon police officers, Ed Paik, and the ANC employees could be significantly mistaken about where they saw the plane fly.

[William Seger]

27. WTF? Are you serious?

You're right, he couldn't have seen the last 100 feet or so, so maybe it just pulled up and flew away and nobody noticed.

Oh, wait a sec... a 757 is 155 long, isn't it... :eyes:

But I give up. If you can entertain that absurd hypothesis as having even the thinnest sliver of plausibility -- much less that the Pentagon police being wrong about the path is less plausible, even though Paik wouldn't have seen the plane at all if they were right -- then you are completely hopeless and I see no point in discussing it further.

[eomer]

28. And the Pentagon is about a quarter mile across.

Maybe you're right or maybe you're not. Without generating a realistic animation that reflects the actual topography, the location of the viewer, and various possible paths of the plane it's not really clear what a person could see from that angle and whether a flyover close to the roof would be apparent from that angle or other locations where there were witnesses.

Regarding Paik, you are ignoring the point I made that Paik said the plane came from the opposite side of Columbia Pike, where it would be more easily visible through his window, and only then crossed at an angle over the street to go over his shop. You're also ignoring that he, like many other witnesses, said that the plane went over the top of the Navy Annex as it went away from him. The official path does not go over the Navy Annex.

[William Seger]

29. Yep, I'm ignoring the point you made about Paik

... because I watched the video where he showed where he was and the window he was looking out, and described what he saw: the body and right wing passing at a small angle to Columbia Pike and to the window. So, what I'm ignoring is your speculation that he really saw something else. Paik is simply guessing that the plane flew over the Navy Annex, based on thinking it flew over his shop at a small angle to Columbia Pike. (BTW, Ranke's deceptive interview conclusively proves how little Ranke cares about the truth: He knew that Paik was in the shop but took him outside to describe his guess about the flight path.)

These is no "maybe I'm wrong" about the simple geometry I diagrammed: If Paik saw the plane at all, it couldn't possibly have been where he drew the line on the map. If Paik saw the plane at all, it couldn't possibly have been where Lagasse and Brooks say it was. (Actually, Ranke prefers to ignore that even if it was where Paik drew the line, then it couldn't have been where Lagasse and Brooks say it was.) If the plane was where those guys say it was then Paik is lying about seeing it.

And I'm really sorry, but there is no way in hell anyone will ever convince me that a 757 skimmed over the Pentagon roof and flew away during morning rush hour, but nobody saw it. That leaves the only possibility as "maybe I'm wrong" that someone would surely have reported it. But that's just one item on an ridiculously long list of things you need to deny if you want to start with assuming that Lagasse and Brooks were right about the flight path but wrong about seeing the plane hit, despite a single shred of tangible evidence that they are right.

Good luck with figuring it out, Eomer, but if you're really having that much trouble, I do believe we're finished.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. I recently had an odd experience with plane trajectories

In this case I was outside. A plane was landing at a nearby airport, but it looked for all the world like it was about to crash into a building.

So, I'm convinced that perspectives on the ground can be wildly misleading. Of course, that on its own can be construed as an argument about how people could have falsely convinced themselves that the 757 was about to hit the Pentagon, not just that Paik or Lagasse and Brooks could be confused about its course. But I'm having a hard time seeing how a fly-over or any other alternative fits the evidence as a whole.

Apparently there is enough discrepant information that someone as reasonable as eomer can 'connect the dots' very differently. It probably has something to do with prior beliefs -- but even a strong prior belief that the plane wasn't about to crash didn't fundamentally alter my strong perception that it was. Minds are funny.

Pardon my waxing philosophical. eomer is one of my favorite people on DU, and it's always interesting to watch him wrestle with something that I can't quite see.

[k-robjoe]

23. A "honey trap"

"The Honey Pot.

On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited.

(...)

Think about it just for a minute. The Pentagon is completely ringed by major highways, including Interstate 395 which had stand-still traffic that morning. Any flyover of the Pentagon would have been witnessed by hundreds of people from all directions. If a plane flew over the Pentagon at low altitude leaving a major explosion in its wake, anyone who saw it would certainly think they were witnessing a plane bombing the Pentagon. Yet there were no such reports, and some who were questioned later, who were in a good position to see any flyover, said they did not see any such thing."

http://911truthnews.com/the-pentagon-a-joint-statement-by-chandler-and-cole/

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Flight 77 is a fairy tale

[zappaman]

20. why is that? n/t

[ryan_cats]

24. SDude doesn't need my help but

SDude doesn't need my help but she said they make a compelling case.

This is a very interesting discussion at Pilots For 9/11 Truth. I read a lot of their material and find they make a compelling case.

I certainly don't want to wade through their site, why doesn't she present what she finds compelling? It's not up to me to do her work. She made the statement, now back it up.

What she did post is the same B.S Balsamo has been saying since what, 2006? Weren't his calculations that flight 77 would have had to make an over 10g dive to do what they did?
That was quickly rebutted.

What scares me is that Balsamo is really a pilot.

I love newly minted truthers or their socks; I'm not saying BetsysGhos is a sock, just bringing up the fact that a lot of new truthers were here before and keep coming back.

[KDLarsen]

25. Don't worry too much

What scares me is that Balsamo is really a pilot.

He isn't a pilot any more. IIRC He's been grounded courtesy of a botched medical. On the other hand, that does give him more time to spread the truth :eyes:

And speaking of socks and Cap'n Robby, you should see him go at it over on ATS. I've lost count, but in a matter of a day he managed to get himself banned 4 times through different sock accounts.

[ryan_cats]

30. That's good news

That's good news that he's no longer a pilot. Bill Lear who was a genius, son's John, is quite the kook on the moon and he was a pilot too. He thinks there's a moon base. While that would be cool, I just can't quite for some reason to believe it...