Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack Investigation Photos
Comments
-
Do you really need me to explain what the word evidence means again?People hearing explosions is not proof of explosives.
just like people saying they saw a plane flying low and an explosion is not PROOF of a plane flying into the pentagon.Dozens of eye witnesses stated that they saw a plane, combined with the physical evidence of the plane crash (large amounts of wreckage on the lawn of pentagon) combined with radar telemetry, and flight recorder information make the incredibly strong case for a plane crash at the pentagon.
just like buildings falling down during a terrorist attack where dozens of witnesses state that they hear explosions might make a case for checking for explosives?I've yet to hear credible evidence for any alternative theory.0 -
again? you've yet to explain it .. but sure feel free!
Yes I did. Refusal to acknowledge it or understand it is your issue.nobody said it was (while being serious) but it is evidence.
You can put the word in bold it doesn't mean you're not mangling the meaning.
People hearing explosions is evidence of people hearing explosions.just like people saying they saw a plane flying low and an explosion is not PROOF of a plane flying into the pentagon.Like I've said before you don't understand what these words mean.
oh, so now you are combining them? but still it's not proof right?
No eyewitness testimony, combined with physical evidence, and telemetry and blackbox information are parts of the evidence that prove flight 77 flew into the pentagon.just like buildings falling down during a terrorist attack where dozens of witnesses state that they hear explosions might make a case for checking for explosives?
No. Things explode in fires all the time. CTR monitors, gas lines, power substations, compressed air or liquids, will all explode in a fire.
Hearing explosions isnt proof or evidence of explosives.
Incidently this thread is about the Pentagon. Please keep it on topic.no one can give you evidence for an alternative theory until you state your theory.
Still haven't worked out the search function yet? Keep trying.0 -
Yes I did. Refusal to acknowledge it or understand it is your issue.You can put the word in bold it doesn't mean you're not mangling the meaning.People hearing explosions is evidence of people hearing explosions.No eyewitness testimony, combined with physical evidence, and telemetry and blackbox information are parts of the evidence that prove flight 77 flew into the pentagon.
eyewitness testimony is evidence that people think a plane like object flew near the pentagon.
telemetry is evidence of telemetry.
blackbox is evidence of a blackbox.
mhh all this evidence is proof? ... proof that a plane has flowing into a building?
"I'm sorry this is a completely incorrect and frankly daft conclusion."Hearing explosions isnt proof or evidence of explosives.Incidently this thread is about the Pentagon. Please keep it on topic.
but then again you want it both ways.Still haven't worked out the search function yet? Keep trying.
but sure dodge it yet again.0 -
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
See page 5, for the open plan ground floor of the Pentagon etc
The double layer brick back wall.
So plane goes through one reinforced concrete wall, some wooden partitions then a large piece ends up smashed through a brick wall.
See how much less like a conspiracy this is when you stop believing the bull on the CT sites.0 -
i'm sure you did. just that no one can find it. but since you've done it before ...
You're also incapable of using the search function to find threads I've started.
I'm not responsible for your incompetence, or lack of ability.i put it in bold so you can see it when you skim through the posts ignoring what you choose to.
This is purely argumentative, and has no merit or relevance to the discussion at hand.ok
(i think you meant "no, eyewitness testimony ...")
I think you don't want to start with the grammar nazism. It will go badly for you.eyewitness testimony is evidence that people think a plane like object flew near the pentagon.
No. Eyewitnesses clearly identified a plane not near the pentagon but flying into the pentagon.104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
And of course,
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.telemetry is evidence of telemetry.
Okay we'll add aviation to the ever growing list of things you don't understand.
The telemetry of United 77 was tracked by several different air traffic control commands.blackbox is evidence of a blackbox.
The flight recorder recovered at the scene, matches the telemetry. The flight recorder was United 77s flight recorder.mhh all this evidence is proof? ... proof that a plane has flowing into a building?
This evidence, combined with physical evidence at the crash scene, forensic evidence of passenger remains, builds a compelling and overwhelming case that United 77 crashed into the Pentagon."I'm sorry this is a completely incorrect and frankly daft conclusion."
Pure argument with substance. Unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value.who said it was proof?
I think we've established that in this context proof and evidence can be used as having the same meaning.it is on topic, just that it proves you wrong by your own logic.
but then again you want it both ways.
The topic at hand is crash into the pentagon. "proves you wrong by your own logic?" You're not even making sense now.
Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is the pentagon, and evidence of flight 77s crash, or I will report you to moderators for derailing yet another thread.can't find what does not exist, even though i did go and look for it.
but sure dodge it yet again.
And this is where your logic lets you down badly.
You looked for it and could not find it therefore you presume it does not exist. Much in the way someone would refuse to believe in the existence of Lions or the Nile, if they could not see it for themselves. It says volumes about your mindset that this is how you think.0 -
You're also incapable of using the search function to find threads I've started.I'm not responsible for your incompetence, or lack of ability.I think you don't want to start with the grammar nazism. It will go badly for you.
This is purely argumentative, and has no merit or relevance to the discussion at hand.No. Eyewitnesses clearly identified a plane not near the pentagon but flying into the pentagon.Okay we'll add aviation to the ever growing list of things you don't understand.
sure good swipe there.The telemetry of United 77 was tracked by several different air traffic control commands.The flight recorder recovered at the scene, matches the telemetry. The flight recorder was United 77s flight recorder.
i'm not sure how you can tell that the blackbox was not from another plane.This evidence, combined with physical evidence at the crash scene, forensic evidence of passenger remains, builds a compelling and overwhelming case that United 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
it might build a compelling case, but overwhelming, well i'd like you to prove that one please.Pure argument with substance. Unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value.
but just to be sure ..
just because people think the saw a plan fly into a building does not mean that a plane flew into a building.
just because people found little bits of plane, does not mean there ever was a whole plane.
clear enoughI think we've established that in this context proof and evidence can be used as having the same meaning.
but it is strange one moment you were saying they were the same, then next you are using evidence in all your responses instead of proof ... strange that.The topic at hand is crash into the pentagon. "proves you wrong by your own logic?" You're not even making sense now.Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is the pentagon, and evidence of flight 77s crash, or I will report you to moderators for derailing yet another thread.And this is where your logic lets you down badly.You looked for it and could not find it therefore you presume it does not exist. Much in the way someone would refuse to believe in the existence of Lions or the Nile, if they could not see it for themselves.It says volumes about your mindset that this is how you think.
maybe you should ask yourself what does it speak about your mindset that you refuse to provide your theory???
(ps quote me properly - not just with quote boxes)0 -
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
See page 5, for the open plan ground floor of the Pentagon etc
<pic>
The double layer brick back wall.
<pic>
So plane goes through one reinforced concrete wall, some wooden partitions then a large piece ends up smashed through a brick wall.
but why would they have wooden partitions on the ground floor holding up the building?
surely they should be concrete.See how much less like a conspiracy this is when you stop believing the bull on the CT sites.0 -
really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the planecoincidence.
I'd like to direct your attention to something Di0genes postedOkay we'll add aviation to the ever growing list of things you don't understand.
From those two statements its pretty obvious that you really do know absolutely nothing about aviation, which isn't really ideal when you're trying to disprove that a B752 hit the Pentagon.
Neither of your statements make any sense whatsoever. You should have a read up on SSR and transponders. Saying that the DFDR data and radar tracks from the ARTCC match up by coincidence is just, well.... Theres still a big red mark on my forehead.0 -
that must be it, but since you can't reproduce it here, it appears that you are making it up.
Or it appears you can't use the search function. I've told you it's on this board, I've directed you towards the search function. I have no inclination to help you any further than that.ah so they claim to have seen a plane flying into it. ok.
They state categorically they saw a plane fly into a pentagon. Many go so far as to identify the model and airline.along with proof, evidence, an argument, reading a report ...
sure good swipe there.
No it's a genuine point. Saying "telemetry is proof of telemetry" is a glib statement that means you don't understand that telemetry is verifiable recorded information on planes flight path.really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane?
The plane was followed by flight traffic controllers several different command structures. I don't really think I understand what you mean by signature. Perhaps you could clarify.coincidence.
I'm sorry are you really saying that it's a matter of chance that united 77's flight data recorder was recovered from the Pentagon?what physical evidence? the plane?
Of course.it might build a compelling case, but overwhelming, well i'd like you to prove that one please.
Who is we? And why do I have to?ah like how you do. got-cha so here goes "unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value."
but just to be sure ..
just because people think the saw a plan fly into a building does not mean that a plane flew into a building.
just because people found little bits of plane, does not mean there ever was a whole plane.
clear enough
Because people didn't find "little bits of plane" they found, huge chunks of plane"
What you fail to understand is this is how a argument, a position, or a case is put forward. You don't have a single piece of evidence, you have several different pieces of evidence combined together, and these make up your case.just in your head. like thousands of tons of explosives and the fact that logic is proof.
You see those are all in your head. I never claimed logic was proof, or said anything about thousands of tonnes of explosives.is it? i don't know you're theory .. you keep running away about it, so i have no idea what topic you are on about.
Firstly it's "your theory". And "you keep running away about it" doesn't make any sense. Finally the topic of the thread is the "FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack" Please stick to the topic of the thread, or again I will report you to a moderator.
it sure does otherwise i'd be saying logic is evidence and stuff. but "unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value."
I literally did in the next sentence.indeed or unicorns, since i asked you to present it and you failed, several times again and again, making excuses ... much like there being unicorns..
You asked. I said no, and pointed you to the search engine. Its not my problem you can't use it.it sure does, it means i did not forget that you have yet to present your theory despite that you attacked another poster for theirs.
maybe you should ask yourself what does it speak about your mindset that you refuse to provide your theory???
Search engine etc.......
In future I'm going to ignore all parts of your posts that are not about the specific topic of the thread(ps quote me properly - not just with quote boxes)
Since you asked so nicely. No. No I won't.0 -
Advertisement
-
<stuff>
a kind word, don't say crap like " its pretty obvious that you really do know absolutely nothing about aviation, which isn't really ideal when you're trying to disprove that a B752 hit the Pentagon."
it might make you look like a silly troll.
firstly:
you have no idea what i know
seeing as you just joined (to help backup your friend as he can't provide proof) and this is your second post, maybe you should have just stayed quiet because ...
secondly:
i am not trying to disprove that a B752 hit the Pentagon.
i never said that a plane did not hit it.
so please be quiet.0 -
Or it appears you can't use the search function. I've told you it's on this board, I've directed you towards the search function. I have no inclination to help you any further than that.
also i have no idea who you are quoting in the rest of you post.0 -
o pleaseeeeeeeee not another conspiracy .0
-
-
you have no idea what i know
From what you posted it gives me a pretty good idea. At this stage you are just saying stuff. So, to guage what you do know, would you care to explain to me/us:- The FAA ATM (Air Traffic Management) structure
- SSR, Mode C, and Mode S transponders
- DFDR Data versus the data that can be obtained from the radar tracks from the various ARTCC's?
PS: I have absolutely no idea who Di0genes is. I'm not trying to "help backup your friend as he can't provide proof".0 -
From what you posted it gives me a pretty good idea. At this stage you are just saying stuff.
so your idea is wrong.
i also fail to see what you mean at this stage.
have you read all my posts in this thread?So, to guage what you do know, would you care to explain to me/us:
The FAA ATM (Air Traffic Management) structure
SSR, Mode C, and Mode S transponders
DFDR Data versus the data that can be obtained from the radar tracks from the various ARTCC's?
and why do i have to explain stuff to you, who has not contributed to this thread?
maybe you could explain what you think the relevance of this is before i go off explaining terms.
(it is only because this is your third post, second on this thread and you have not been a member for more than 2 months.)PS: I have absolutely no idea who Di0genes is. I'm not trying to "help backup your friend as he can't provide proof".
i await your explanation.0 -
Advertisement
-
maybe you could explain what you think the relevance of this is before i go off explaining terms.
You gave your opinion on the DFDR data and the radar tracks provided by the ARTCC's, saying it was coincidence that they validated each other.
You also said "really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane?".
All I'm asking you to do is to actually back up those statements with some knowledge on the subject. Shouldn't be difficult seen as you've already given your opinion on them, and I really dont see how you can arrive at those opinions without understanding how what you're giving your opinion on actually works.(it is only because this is your third post, second on this thread and you have not been a member for more than 2 months.)
Really fail to see what this has to do with anything.0 -
(it is only because this is your third post, second on this thread and you have not been a member for more than 2 months.)Really fail to see what this has to do with anything.From those two statements its pretty obvious that you really do know absolutely nothing about aviation, which isn't really ideal when you're trying to disprove that a B752 hit the Pentagon.
but don't let that be an excuse from jumping in here.
what i said was "really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane?"
you obviously understand how what telemetry is, and how it is data recorded remotely.
and that to record this data you need a signature (credentials - whatever term you want to use) to identify the data that is being recorded.
like how you have a phone number that people ring, does that explain it for you?
this signature, may not have come from the device it claims to be, like webtexts.
so far so good?You gave your opinion on the DFDR data and the radar tracks provided by the ARTCC's, saying it was coincidence that they validated each other.
i said it was a coincidence that the recorder had matched the telemetry.
i actually fail to see how this shows i do not understand it.
unless you are saying it is impossible for the data recorded remotely to match data recorded locally with one of them being wrong?
(i hope you are not saying that .. i really do)All I'm asking you to do is to actually back up those statements with some knowledge on the subject. Shouldn't be difficult seen as you've already given your opinion on them, and I really dont see how you can arrive at those opinions without understanding how what you're giving your opinion on actually works.
telemetry is data recorded remotely.
the flight-recorder records data.
is that enough for you?0 -
you obviously understand how what telemetry is, and how it is data recorded remotely.
and that to record this data you need a signature (credentials - whatever term you want to use) to identify the data that is being recorded.
like how you have a phone number that people ring, does that explain it for you?
this signature, may not have come from the device it claims to be, like webtexts.
so far so good?
I've read this 7 times and still have absolutely no idea what you're on about.it think you'll find that i never mentioned or gave an opinion on the "DFDR data and the radar tracks provided by the ARTCC's"
Really? You sure?i said it was a coincidence that the recorder had matched the telemetry.is that enough for you?
Yes it is. Furthermore I'd like to thank you for proving my point.0 -
I've read this 7 times and still have absolutely no idea what you're on about.Yes it is. Furthermore I'd like to thank you for proving my point.
ok if you say so what ever keeps you happy0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Yes, to demonstrate your complete lack of aviation knowledge. For example, I talk about a Digital Flight Data Recorder, and you try and explain it to me by talking about webtexts and phone numbers and "Credentials", whatever they are.
tell you what, why don't you explain it to me so ... so to demonstrate your knowledge of aviation, now that's i've shown mine ...0 -
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
See page 5, for the open plan ground floor of the Pentagon etc
The double layer brick back wall.
So plane goes through one reinforced concrete wall, some wooden partitions then a large piece ends up smashed through a brick wall.
See how much less like a conspiracy this is when you stop believing the bull on the CT sites.
Sorry something else I meant to point out earlier. Look at where the exit hole is... there are 4 windows and then a blank wall below. The next two segments to the right have only 3 windows which again proves the open plan ground floor area.0 -
Sorry something else I meant to point out earlier. Look at where the exit hole is... there are 4 windows and then a blank wall below. The next two segments to the right have only 3 windows which again proves the open plan ground floor area.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74542645&postcount=58
like you said they have wooden partitions there holding up the walls, do you have a picture of the ground floor to help confirm the open plan of it?0 -
Sorry something else I meant to point out earlier. Look at where the exit hole is... there are 4 windows and then a blank wall below. The next two segments to the right have only 3 windows which again proves the open plan ground floor area.
Many broken concrete pillars and no walls. Almost like those pillars would hold the building up.
0 -
I said to you that cameras point towards the ground. This is a fact. How do you think these cameras will see a plane that for most of it's approach is higher than all the buildings? You see the flaw in your thinking there?
Again can you point me to or give me a link stating those facts
And wasn't that plane approaching on ground level almost .. according to the official report?
Your not backing up your facts and yet my thinking is flawed ??
until then I'm not buying that all 86 camera's were checking the grass and the daffodils below them0 -
-
ahh makes sense, i knew you had a reason for jumping in there ...
Yup, to show that you are discussing and giving your opinion on something you dont have the knowledge to back up.tell you what, why don't you explain it to me so ... so to demonstrate your knowledge of aviation
To keep it simple. The DFDR (Flight Data Recorder) records multiple channels of information about the aircraft. Control surface position, altitude, Indicated/True Airspeed. Groundspeed, Aircraft position, throttle position, angle of bank and many other pieces of information.
The Centre Controllers who tracked the aircraft would have been able to see the aircrafts position, altitude, track, and groundspeed. This data is recorded by data recorders which record all voice transmisisons on frequency aswell.
There is no possible way that these two pieces of information could coincidentally match, and you stating they could just reaffirms your lack of knowledge. A case of "I have no idea so I'll just say "Coincidence" to deflect the question/statement"
As for them tracking the "signature of the plane but not the plane". Well, the aircraft is tracked by SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar) which picks up the aircrafts transponder. This allows the controllers to correlate an aircraft with its flightplan. I really dont see how you propose them to track the "planes signature" but not the "plane itself". Care to explain how you think its done?
This is a picture of the Philadelphia (KPHL) TRACON.
And Heres a Radar Screen.
0 -
Yup, to show that you are discussing and giving your opinion on something you dont have the knowledge to back up.
but at least in that time you've went off and done some research, so i will give you that i'm slightly impressed.To keep it simple. The DFDR (Flight Data Recorder) records multiple channels of information about the aircraft. Control surface position, altitude, Indicated/True Airspeed. Groundspeed, Aircraft position, throttle position, angle of bank and many other pieces of information.
don't see how what i said proved i had no knowledge on the vast topic of aviation ..
but sure you seem to have an agenda i'll go along with it.The Centre Controllers who tracked the aircraft would have been able to see the aircrafts position, altitude, track, and groundspeed. This data is recorded by data recorders which record all voice transmisisons on frequency aswell.
seems like what i said ...There is no possible way that these two pieces of information could coincidentally match, and you stating they could just reaffirms your lack of knowledge. A case of "I have no idea so I'll just say "Coincidence" to deflect the question/statement"
woops, you messed up, what you are saying it is impossible that data can coincidentally match.
i actually have to say that this proves that you know NOTHING about digital systems.
it is improbable that they match, but possible.
it would be statistically more likely for them to match than for 911 to play out as it did. (okay so i'm making this up, but both odds are astronomical small)
you stating that they categorically can not means you have no idea about anything really.
see i do know, so it can be coincidence .. but sure you've proved beyond doubt that you don't understand impossible and improbable.
if you want you can go ahead a try to prove that it is impossible to have them match coincidentally ..As for them tracking the "signature of the plane but not the plane". Well, the aircraft is tracked by SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar) which picks up the aircrafts transponder. This allows the controllers to correlate an aircraft with its flightplan. I really dont see how you propose them to track the "planes signature" but not the "plane itself". Care to explain how you think its done?
you spent time reading it up, fair play, but you just don't have the background (the mobile phone analogy was lost to you)This is a picture of the Philadelphia (KPHL) TRACON.
And Heres a Radar Screen.
thanks for the pics, they do look complex ...
(just so you know aviation is a huge field, "Aviation is the design, development, production, operation, and use of aircraft, especially heavier-than-air aircraft" (from wikipedia). can you now see how even if i was wrong about the 'coincidence', you still could not say i have a complete lack of aviation knowledge.)
0 -
but at least in that time you've went off and done some research
Made me laugh .you would not understand it anyway to be honest.
Avoiding the question, nice. Try and answer it please instead of deflecting it.you spent time reading it up, fair play, but you just don't have the background (the mobile phone analogy was lost to you)
Had a good laugh at this part aswell. I didn't do any "reading up" as you seem to believe. Anything I posted came straight off the top of my head at the time of writing. I said "To keep it simple" in my post. How about we make it more complex? Lets talk about mode A/C/S transponders, SSR/Primary radar, ADIRU's, AOA Vanes, Pitot tubes, altimiters and static ports and show how they all relate to the DFDR shall we?
Also nice of you to assume that I "dont have the background" :pac:
Finally. When I asked you to explain how you think its done, its fairly apparent sarcasm is lost on you. I know exactly how its done, and basically theres no way to track the aircraft seperately from its transponder return. (Apart from primary, which would return the GS, Position and Track data with everything else lost, which isn't relevant here)
EDIT: To explore this coincidence of Data idea, what pieces of Data from the DFDR and the radar track do you think matched up by coincidence?0 -
Anyone with any belief in the no plane theory at the pentagon should look at this link... http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html0
-
Advertisement
-
Again can you point me to or give me a link stating those facts
And wasn't that plane approaching on ground level almost .. according to the official report?
Your not backing up your facts and yet my thinking is flawed ??
until then I'm not buying that all 86 camera's were checking the grass and the daffodils below them
Now i can act like any other NCT er by replying that i cannot be arsed to look at yet another video ... but i will take a peak
previous question still stands though0 -
Avoiding the question, nice. Try and answer it please instead of deflecting it.Had a good laugh at this part aswell. I didn't do any "reading up" as you seem to believe. Anything I posted came straight off the top of my head at the time of writing. I said "To keep it simple" in my post. How about we make it more complex? Lets talk about mode A/C/S transponders, SSR/Primary radar, ADIRU's, AOA Vanes, Pitot tubes, altimiters and static ports and show how they all relate to the DFDR shall we?
if you did not do any reading you, you should have .. then you'd understand a bit about remote identification.
more complex, yeah if you want to, knock yourself out ... use all the acronyms and buzz word you can find. jargon makes us look smarterAlso nice of you to assume that I "dont have the background"Finally. When I asked you to explain how you think its done, its fairly apparent sarcasm is lost on you. I know exactly how its done, and basically theres no way to track the aircraft seperately from its transponder return. (Apart from primary, which would return the GS, Position and Track data with everything else lost, which isn't relevant here)
you know how it's done, and now it's come to "basically there is no way" ... seems like you are saying you think you there might possibly kinda be a way? i know there is ...
but sure i know completely nothing about aviation, and i have no idea how planes fly or what they are made from ...EDIT: To explore this coincidence of Data idea, what pieces of Data from the DFDR and the radar track do you think matched up by coincidence?0 -
Please explain how the ARTCC's track the "planes signature" but not the "plane itself", and what data (Track/Heading/Etc) matched up coincidentally.0
-
Please explain how the ARTCC's track the "planes signature" but not the "plane itself", and what data (Track/Heading/Etc) matched up coincidentally.
but before i go into explaining how it can be faked ... can i ask why you think it is relevant?
i mean you claimed that it was impossible, so you should show how it is impossible?
also it will easy my mind that you are not just trying to get me to break everything down bit by bit ..0 -
i liked the pic you posted originally but removed ...
but before i go into explaining how it can be faked ... can i ask why you think it is relevant?
i mean you claimed that it was impossible, so you should show how it is impossible?
also it will easy my mind that you are not just trying to get me to break everything down bit by bit ..
Please, stop stalling and answer the question.0 -
Anyone with any belief in the no plane theory at the pentagon should look at this link... http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
i can't find the footage of the plane flying into it?
so your stance is that the plane 100% hit the pentagon?
and thanks for the evidence ...0 -
-
-
This one: "Please explain how the ARTCC's track the "planes signature" but not the "plane itself", and what data (Track/Heading/Etc) matched up coincidentally."
so why won't you answer?
tell you what you answer (it's your turn anyway) and then i'll answer ....0 -
Advertisement
-
Carbon-composite wings hitting solid reinforced concrete at close to 600mph will cause the wings to disintegrate.0
-
pushy little fella aren't ya? but you said you were asking me sarcastically because you know exactly how it was done and that it can't be faked.
so why won't you answer?
tell you what you answer (it's your turn anyway) and then i'll answer ....
I've asked you twice to answer the question. You've avoided it both times. I think its pretty safe to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about, otherwise you would have given your answer.
Your postings so far have been the equivalent of a child going "I know you are, but what am I"
I have better things to be doing with my time, so I'll leave this discussion.
But for anyone else trying to convice these people there was no conspiracy you're wasting your time. Its fairly apparent that the conspiracy theorists have a confirmation bias towards the conspiracy and no amount of substantiated proof/evidence/common sense will change that.
davoxx, I wish you every sucess in "Sticking it to the man", or whatever you're trying to achieve.0 -
I've asked you twice to answer the question. You've avoided it both times.
you've avoided your questions too, oh but it only counts when i avoid it?I think its pretty safe to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about, otherwise you would have given your answer.
in the exact same vein, you have no idea what you are talking about (though this is closer than the truth when referring to you) otherwise you would have given your answer.
now the reason i say it is closer in your case is because you claimed it was impossible, then kinda almost impossible, then ... well it degraded into "you tell me".Your postings so far have been the equivalent of a child going "I know you are, but what am I"
but seriously .. be the adult so and tell me what i asked of you.I have better things to be doing with my time, so I'll leave this discussion.
but yeah leave ... you could answer, but that would prove you wrong.
i shall now speculate that the reason you are leaving is because you have completely no idea about aviation and how to debate.But for anyone else trying to convice these people there was no conspiracy you're wasting your time.Its fairly apparent that the conspiracy theorists have a confirmation bias towards the conspiracy and no amount of substantiated proof/evidence/common sense will change that.
just so you know the 'non-conspiracy' theorists have a confirmation bias against the possibility of a conspiracy, and no amount of substantiated proof/evidence/common sense will ever change that.
and i'm going to add that even though they might think conspiracy theorists are all crazy, they are wrong (both on conspiracy theorists being crazy and that there is 1000% no conspiracy)
<sellf-though>how this whole 911 debate can be ended in a month? by releasing all the evidence they have .. all the footage, all the testimony given by bush .. you now facts ... but even then would the NCT be happy? would they not turn around and say ah well that was in the past like iran, iraq, lybia, <next oil country here> ... </self-though>davoxx, I wish you every sucess in "Sticking it to the man", or whatever you're trying to achieve.
will i be successful, i doubt it.
(i notice a lot of thanks from people who can't seem to be able to reply ... maybe if they had evidence they would not be 'high five-ing' a silly post)
BUT: there are sheep that follow in both camps, sheep who follow blindly, not wanting to think for themselves. the difference is there are no leaders or individuals in the NCTs, just a Shepard, bunch of sheep and sheep dogs ...
AND: against a sea of ignorance the lantern of intelligence is burnt out.0
Advertisement