I have researched 911 quite a bit in the past few years and have learned much. I have read at these boards for a while and thought I would join up for one particular reason. It seems to me that anyone who completely agrees with the governments story would have no need to come here and argue that point. You already have the backing of the US Government, what more do you need? Anyway getting a little off point. I may not last long here because I only deal in fact. If the 911 truth movement wants John Q Public to listen you MUST deal in fact and must stop using words like "industrial military complex", which only makes it easier for people to label you a quack.

I would like to know if GWB or e^n have commented on the video "pandoras black box:flight of 77". I would like to know how you debunk absolute fact? Are you going to say that the in flight data recorder of flight 77 lied? I would like to know the counter argument to this video. The animation, constructed by the government, from the flight data recorder information shows the following:

1.At one (1) second before impact the plane was at 450+ feet.
2.The flight path of the plane was nowhere near close to the downed light poles
3.Government surveilance video shows the object hitting the pentagon coming in low, straight and never touching the ground.
4.Fighter Jets deployed were sent out over the ocean looking for russians when it was already documented that VP:DC knew a hijacked plane was coming at Washington (this would imply he knew from which direction).

Now lets deal in fact, you cant prove that the in flight data recorder lied so lets not try that. I would like an explanation for these things in factual terms without the use of words like "think" "wonder" "probably" "possibly" "could" etc. Please make me believe the official story, I would love to and thats no lie. For bonus points, using the same criteria above (only facts) and past factual documented events explain the collapse of WTC 7, citing examples to back up your claim. For even more bonus points feel free to explain the video of the firefighter interviewed by Loose Change recently in which he says that the first plane struck, he and his crew arrived and THEN the elevators blew out. Thanks for your time.

The raw data from the FDR is open to interpretation.

There is not much more I can say if I want to stay within your no "think" "wonder" "probably" "possibly" "could" rule.

Because then I would give my interpretation.

Sure hope you get it cause you sound honest.

No, that is false. The factual data is not open to interpretation. Please cite evidence that would back up your claim of FDR information being open to interpretation. The very definition of fact is "indisputable truth." You cant interpret factual data of elevation, speed and location.

What I said isnt false at all.

Just have a look at the raw data... open it with notepad if you fancy it.

It certainly is open to interpretation.

If I give a fair kick to your microwave, send the chip to the government who then sends you back a raw text files full of data are you going to tell me what and how it failed exactly?

Is the govt interpretation wrong? (the animation, the output data, etc..)

possibly.

And that would be it. Maybe the learning channel will do a piece like it did with the Concorde crash, who knows.

None of this proves anything. Especially any wrong-doing

I will disregard this post due to the fact you used nothing but your own opinion and that is useless (the use of words if, possibly and maybe means you are not dealing in fact). Again factual data is not open to interpretation. If you can prove the data wrong please do. Your opinion means nothing in terms of investigation.

Hi shug7272.

The animation that the NTSB released is flawed as depicted in Pandora's Black Box. The NTSB made this mistake.

However, the FDR data itself (which is what the animation is based off of) shows a different approach path. The FDR data actually lines up very close to what the physical damage shows. Like racerx said, the FDR data is open to a little bit of interpretation, although not completely open.

BTW, It's military-industrial complex. I know, it's lame for me to point that out.

I believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition. I also think the latest FDNY interview is very compelling. We agree on these things, so I'm not sure if you want me to cite references or not, but I can if you wish.

Hello. :)

I am not looking for very close I am looking for fact. Please do show me proof that the FDR data itself shows a different speed, location and altitude of flight 77. Interpretation is nothing but one persons opinion which does nobody any good so I am not interested in that either.

I care not about my spelling or grammar. Feel free to correct it all you like.

I already told you your question cannot be answered up to satisfactory standards with the no "think" "wonder" "probably" "possibly" "could" rule.

That is the very goddamn fundamental thing there is to it.

Interpretation of the raw FDR data. ....just slow down and think about it for a second, and dont say anything else until you open the raw data file that came from that FDR box.

Another post disregarded due to the fact it contains no facts. Let me explain it to you. I want the information so I can make my own interpretation or opinion of it. I dont need yours, just facts. So please prove the facts I listed above wrong.

Well... I tried.

Another post disregarded due to no facts.

Its open to interpretation.

If you dont think thats factual then whatever floats your boat dude.

Just ask the creator of the video what he thinks of spoon-feeding people.

Again, interpretation is just one persons opinion derived from fact. I only want facts so I can form my own interpretation of the facts. Another post disregarded due to no fact.

You no longer seem honest to me.

Im not gonna prove Santa Claus dont exist tonight.

Thats a fact wheter you like it or not.

Well, racerx is right. The FDR is open to some interpretation.

You can view the data here...

http://www.aa77fdr.com/

Here is a picture for you that shows the heading according to the FDR...

Again, interpretation is just one persons opinion derived from fact. I only want facts so I can form my own interpretation of the facts. Another post disregarded due to no fact. If you cannot prove the facts wrong then I care not for what you say and care not to debate you on opinions or "interpretation". Thank You.

No thats not true, that is someones interpretation of the data. The data, as illustrated in the animation is fact. If you can prove to me the FDR info shows that flight path I would love to talk. That includes elevation of the plane and light poles. Just facts. I dont need anyones interpretation of the facts.

Edit to further explain what I want from this post.

I DONT want anyones interpretation of the facts. I want the facts. Please show me where in the data it says the plane carried out that approach at an elevation that could strike the light poles.

ah.

Thats why we dont understand each other.

Thats utterly false.

The animation is a visual representation of an interpretation of the FDR raw data, which came from a FDR box. (... not sure there because from your standpoint the very existance of a box is in question.)

Nobody can come up with facts, up to your standards, in that thread.

I await the trollish answer again :)

The picture I gave you is not open to interpretation. It is a fact that that is what the FDR data shows, and I gave you the link to verify that for yourself.

Please show me what area of the file dump you use to back up your claim that the animation is wrong.

Ok now you both are a step ahead of me. :o

Look you have to look at the root of this thing and follow the logical precedures that leads to the extraction of the data, from the moment the plane takes off from the moment some dude photocopy his arse right after hes done with the FOIA documents...

Some common sense was lost with the usage of the FOIA fdr information, the real world never gonna bother about it.

What part of the file dump do you use to backup your claim that the picture is factual.

Disregarded due to no fact relating to OP.

The last point in the FDR data RO1(ReadOut1), you will see that track angle true is 61.2 degrees. It is the same in RO2, BTW. I learned that the hard knocks way.

It is a fact. Check for yourself, and let me know if you need help understanding.

The altitude issue is a whole lot more complicated and THAT is wide open to interpretation.

How can altitude, as recorded by an instrument designed to precisely record the data of the planes instruments, be open to interpretation? It gives the altitude, and the data dump clearly shows that the altimeter was not reset upon decent and was therefore incorrect. When the information is corrected with the correct settings it puts the plane at over 450 feet at one second before impact. Please address the part of my post you are correcting and the facts you use to correct it. Thank you and I appreciate the fact that you can understand what I am asking for. Please know that unlike some, I am not here to argue, but to learn. Not learn peoples opinion or interpretation but just facts surrounding 911. I am currently investigating your first claim and appreciate it.

I am having difficulty figuring out how the track angle true of 61.2 puts the plane at a different approach. If you could help me understand it, citing fact I would appreciate it. Please know that I research and corroborate anything before I believe it. Thanks again for your help. I will continue on my own as well. It appears that the track angle only states the orientation of the plane measured up to 360 degrees. It doesnt seem that this would effect the planes approach, just the orientation of the plane upon impact, which if the altitude is to be believed it would not have impacted. Doesnt seem to change the approach at all, just the orientation of the plane at the last moment recorded.

The further I delve the further it looks like your claim is not true. The magnetic heading would have to be wrong. It appears the approach is just as the animation shows, with only the orientation of the plane upon "impact" being brought into question.

I just want to say hi Rob :)

Disregarded due to irrelevant to op.

The reason I do this is to keep track of posts that matter and sort out the posts of people entering to only confuse the facts and flow of the post.

No confusion intended. Just saying hello so....HELLO :)

racerX and -Raven-,
Have either witnessed or performed or understand an 'interpretation' of a raw file?

'notepad' ? that is funny..

The NTSB Evidence

The Fdr Lines Up With Damage Path (not)

10 Reasons

The heading by itself can not be interrupted to create the picture above without disregarding the rest of the data. And a heading does not tell you X,Y position, much less X,Y,Z position.

The FDR in any light so far, does not support the Official Story.

I tell people to stay away from the animation until you can correctly understand a raw file, and tabular output.

Hello. :)

I am researching and learning this, so I want to learn the facts. In my research I am starting to see some of what you are saying although I dont understand it all yet. If you would add anymore fact I would appreciate it.

EDIT: After looking at your links I have to say thank you. Some good facts there I have never found. Appreciate it. Can you back up your claims that the time stamp for the raw file is one day earlier than it was recovered?

OK before this thread goes in circles or it gets ugly we are going to address this post right here.

shug7272, you don't want someones interpretation of the data but The data, as illustrated in the animation is fact. Is it fact?? The animation is based on someones interpretation of the data. The animation didn't create itself. So by your standard of not wanting someones interpretation, you need to read the raw data and create your own animation.

Edit: From this point on if you DON'T want anyones interpretation of the facts, read the raw data and create your own animation. Because right now, you ARE calling someones interpretation of the data fact.

People!! Come on now. We just went over this yesterday and that was the warning.

The animation was made from raw data recovered from the in flight data recorder. How is that interpretation? They took the readings.. and made an animation of those readings. When you compare the raw data to that of the animation it seems to coincide perfectly. Apparently you dont read well, my original post asked for factual evidence to disprove several facts I have listed. Nobody has done that. They all wanted to say, oh well this COULD mean this. No it doesnt, it can only mean one thing, altitude is altitude I dont need to you tell me how high the plane was I have readings, speed is speed. If you would not let people constantly run in circles and argue about interpretations you might get somewhere.

If you cannot understand what I am asking, which you clearly cannot, please dont address me.

Let me make it simple. For the simple ones among us. I listed fact that is backed up by raw data and an animation made by the government directly FROM that raw data. They made a animation OF THE RAW DATA. Speed , altitude and heading are not OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. North is north. Good lord, a bunch of dullards.

Its not my fault NOBODY COULD COME IN AND SAY "hey you said this, its wrong, and here is my proof as to why its wrong." Why dont you and the others get that?

No it seems you're having trouble understanding. You just said.......

The "they" is someone else who read the data and created the animation, a "working animation".

Based on your posts saying you don't want someones interpretation of the data, then you need to take the raw data and create the animation yourself. Right now you're trusting someone else's work to be right and fact.

I'm not stating an opinion on the data or the animation.


You are the one who's is going to cause this argument to go in circles by your double standard of proof.

If you support the NTSB animation 100% excellent. Then there's no point at all to this thread and I can lock it.

You have been addressed and warned, I'm not letting this thread explode into mindless bickering, where it is going.

Just realize one simple fact that you must have not yet grasped. The animation is made from factual data speed, altitude and heading.The animation was MADE FROM THAT DATA. In order for the animation to be wrong they would have had to use different data in the animation then was in the raw file. I researched it, THEY DIDNT, its the right data. The raw file has all sorts of great info. They made an animation from that RAW DATA which is FACT not interpretation. I looked at it, it adds up. I created a post to see if someone could backup counterclaims with FACT. They cant. Nobody said, look at reading x in the raw file and compare it to plane position.... I started the thread and asked for one simple thing. People came in and couldnt do it, I called them on it, they didnt like it. I dont care if you like it or not. Get over it. Do some moderation and moderate the problems and not the OP who is just REFUSING to have the thread HIJACKED like most are here and taken off topic. Get it? I was simply trying to KEEP the thread on topic, what about that dont you like? Should I not call out people when they try to spin shit? I thought you guys fought people like that here? You know.. the government.

edit: please STOP monster Quotes pretty please

Shug, Yes I can, more info here

I also want to comment on this phrase,
"based on someones interpretation of the data"

I agree on IVXX's comment about reading The data, and that is important, and has not been done enough. Only 2 times in History afaik.

But strictly speaking, any output from The data (tabular/screen/graph/animation) is not 'someones' anything. It is done by computer through systems designed, built, tested, and developed inside and at the very top of The industry.

There is a nasty birds nest of specifications from sensor to The data, and it is always examined and scrutinized every time anything goes wrong, regardless of 911.

So, within this scope, The data can be no more uniquely flawed or anomalous then the other 9,000+ FA2100's strapped into everything from commercial to military and from prop to jet to helicopter.

Now once you have The data, and it becomes an output of numbers, this micro step becomes an Industry in itself. These numbers however, are fact unless determined to be in error through concise research.

So, Just has you can interrupt the black box MPH reading in your car differently then The law, it is still fact.

~~~~

That reads like an opinion to me.

About the Animation.
One thing, and one thing only.
It took Human Intervention in order to Alter the Normal procedure of Computing the PresAlt and Baro raw Numbers into the Animated Altimeter. This is not a 'whoops' or 'working' anything. It WAS in there per practices and WAS UnSelected/Removed/Whatever in order to show a False representation of the Actual Data.

~~~
I loathe ]quote[ abuse..

Don't tell me what to do. I am moderating the thread. This very issue just caused a huge problem here. Yesterday a thread is posted letting all know the crap going on in the Pentagon section will not continue. That is zero tolerance for everyone. Then today this comes up again. I received a report a post about this thread and came to check it out. Should you not call out people when they try to spin shit?? No. Not when we've been there done that.

So if you're saying no one can prove you wrong then this thread is meaningless. Just going to cause problems that will not be tolerated anymore. Instead of letting the thread get to that point, I'm stopping it here.

There's other threads that provide all the NTSB evidence. So thread closed.

If you have a problem with the moderation, you're always free to leave.