FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack Investigation Photos

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Do you really need me to explain what the word evidence means again?

again? you've yet to explain it .. but sure feel free!

Di0genes wrote: »

People hearing explosions is not proof of explosives.

nobody said it was (while being serious) but it is evidence.
just like people saying they saw a plane flying low and an explosion is not PROOF of a plane flying into the pentagon.

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

oh, so now you are combining them? but still it's not proof right?
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?

Di0genes wrote: »

I've yet to hear credible evidence for any alternative theory.

no one can give you evidence for an alternative theory until you state your theory.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes I did. Refusal to acknowledge it or understand it is your issue.

i'm sure you did. just that no one can find it. but since you've done it before ...

Di0genes wrote: »

You can put the word in bold it doesn't mean you're not mangling the meaning.

i put it in bold so you can see it when you skim through the posts ignoring what you choose to.

Di0genes wrote: »

People hearing explosions is evidence of people hearing explosions.

ok

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

(i think you meant "no, eyewitness testimony ...")
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."

Di0genes wrote: »

Hearing explosions isnt proof or evidence of explosives.

who said it was proof?

Di0genes wrote: »

Incidently this thread is about the Pentagon. Please keep it on topic.

it is on topic, just that it proves you wrong by your own logic.
but then again you want it both ways.

Di0genes wrote: »

Still haven't worked out the search function yet? Keep trying.

can't find what does not exist, even though i did go and look for it.
but sure dodge it yet again.

meglome

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.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You're also incapable of using the search function to find threads I've started.

that must be it, but since you can't reproduce it here, it appears that you are making it up.

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm not responsible for your incompetence, or lack of ability.

damn straight you are not, you are responsible for your own.

Di0genes wrote: »

I think you don't want to start with the grammar nazism. It will go badly for you.

go for it, but ...
This is purely argumentative, and has no merit or relevance to the discussion at hand.

Di0genes wrote: »

No. Eyewitnesses clearly identified a plane not near the pentagon but flying into the pentagon.

ah so they claim to have seen a plane flying into it. ok.

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay we'll add aviation to the ever growing list of things you don't understand.

along with proof, evidence, an argument, reading a report ...
sure good swipe there.

Di0genes wrote: »

The telemetry of United 77 was tracked by several different air traffic control commands.

really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane?

Di0genes wrote: »

The flight recorder recovered at the scene, matches the telemetry. The flight recorder was United 77s flight recorder.

coincidence (that the recorder matches same).
i'm not sure how you can tell that the blackbox was not from another plane.

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

what physical evidence? the plane?
it might build a compelling case, but overwhelming, well i'd like you to prove that one please.

Di0genes wrote: »

Pure argument with substance. Unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value.

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

Di0genes wrote: »

I think we've established that in this context proof and evidence can be used as having the same meaning.

just in your head. like thousands of tons of explosives and the fact that logic is proof.

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.

Di0genes wrote: »

The topic at hand is crash into the pentagon. "proves you wrong by your own logic?" You're not even making sense now.

is it? i don't know your theory .. you keep running away about it, so i have no idea what topic you are on about.

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

oh a threat, seriously? tell you what go and report me if it makes you feel better. i'm just asking questions that you keep dodging ...

Di0genes wrote: »

And this is where your logic lets you down badly.

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."

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

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..

Di0genes wrote: »

It says volumes about your mindset that this is how you think.

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???

(ps quote me properly - not just with quote boxes)

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

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.

I can see any plane debris in those pics ... does the hole not look too small?
but why would they have wooden partitions on the ground floor holding up the building?
surely they should be concrete.

meglome wrote: »

See how much less like a conspiracy this is when you stop believing the bull on the CT sites.

or when i start following bull on NCT sites and stop asking question or reading reports for myself ....

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane

davoxx wrote: »

coincidence.

I'd like to direct your attention to something Di0genes posted

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay 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.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

<stuff>

hello there mister new user!!

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.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

don't be like that, remember how i helped you though the NIST report, quoting text for you as you were unable to use search, and then when i gave you the page number, you still could not find the page, so i even quoted it for you ... you could at least return the favour rather than sulking about it ... maybe you should admit that you can't use the search feature?

also i have no idea who you are quoting in the rest of you post.

Weylin

o pleaseeeeeeeee not another conspiracy .

davoxx

Weylin wrote: »

o pleaseeeeeeeee not another conspiracy .

o pleaseeeeeeeee not another troll.

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

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".

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

From what you posted it gives me a pretty good idea. At this stage you are just saying stuff.

that would not be correct.
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?

MD11 wrote: »

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?

but who is us?
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.)

MD11 wrote: »

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 apologise for insulting you so


i await your explanation.

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx wrote: »

(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.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

(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.)

MD11 wrote: »

Really fail to see what this has to do with anything.

really, well i guess you can't claim to know what i'm talking about so.

MD11 wrote: »

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?

MD11 wrote: »

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.

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".

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)

MD11 wrote: »

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?

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx wrote: »

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?

davoxx wrote: »

i said it was a coincidence that the recorder had matched the telemetry.

davoxx wrote: »

is that enough for you?

Yes it is. Furthermore I'd like to thank you for proving my point.

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

I've read this 7 times and still have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

don't sweat it, it's not like you've stated whether you knew what telemetry meant or not.

MD11 wrote: »

Yes it is. Furthermore I'd like to thank you for proving my point.

there was a point?
ok if you say so what ever keeps you happy

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

there was a point?

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.

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

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.

ahh makes sense, i knew you had a reason for jumping in there ...

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 ...

meglome

meglome wrote: »

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.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

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.

and what supports the walls of the rest of the building above it?
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?

meglome

meglome wrote: »

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.

weisses

meglome wrote: »

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 them

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Many broken concrete pillars and no walls. Almost like those pillars would hold the building up.

what elevation is that picture?

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

Yup, to show that you are discussing and giving your opinion on something you dont have the knowledge to back up.

if you say so .. yesterday i cared, today not so much so.
but at least in that time you've went off and done some research, so i will give you that i'm slightly impressed.

MD11 wrote: »

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.

so data then?
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.

MD11 wrote: »

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.

telemetry right, data recorded remotely?
seems like what i said ...

MD11 wrote: »

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 ..

MD11 wrote: »

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 would not understand it anyway to be honest.

you spent time reading it up, fair play, but you just don't have the background (the mobile phone analogy was lost to you)

MD11 wrote: »

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.)

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

but at least in that time you've went off and done some research

Made me laugh .

davoxx wrote: »

you would not understand it anyway to be honest.

Avoiding the question, nice. Try and answer it please instead of deflecting it.

davoxx wrote: »

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?

meglome

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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 though

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

Avoiding the question, nice. Try and answer it please instead of deflecting it.

tell you what, why don't you answer mine, i already answered yours, so show me how it impossible for data to match?

MD11 wrote: »

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?

you seem to laugh a lot at stuff, i'm happy for you.
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 smarter

MD11 wrote: »

Also nice of you to assume that I "dont have the background"

you clearly don't ... who knows what credentials mean in regards to remote digital connections ....

MD11 wrote: »

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)

oh so that was sarcasm, you're not very good at it.
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 ...

MD11 wrote: »

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?

<sarc>the parts that are impossible to match by 'coincidence' .... </sarc>

MD11

Please explain how the ARTCC's track the "planes signature" but not the "plane itself", and what data (Track/Heading/Etc) matched up coincidentally.

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

Please explain how the ARTCC's track the "planes signature" but not the "plane itself", and what data (Track/Heading/Etc) matched up coincidentally.

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 ..

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

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 ...

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

Please, stop stalling and answer the question.

what question?
i thought you were going to proof it was 100% impossible .. remember you understand how this technology works and i have completely no idea of aviation?

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

what question?

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."

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

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."

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 ....

MOSSAD

Carbon-composite wings hitting solid reinforced concrete at close to 600mph will cause the wings to disintegrate.

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

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.

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

I've asked you twice to answer the question. You've avoided it both times.

so?
you've avoided your questions too, oh but it only counts when i avoid it?

MD11 wrote: »

I think its pretty safe to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about, otherwise you would have given your answer.

well you'd be wrong, not for the first time, mind you.
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".

MD11 wrote: »

Your postings so far have been the equivalent of a child going "I know you are, but what am I"

did not!!!
but seriously .. be the adult so and tell me what i asked of you.

MD11 wrote: »

I have better things to be doing with my time, so I'll leave this discussion.

really .. have all of your posts on boards not been in this thread?
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.

MD11 wrote: »

But for anyone else trying to convice these people there was no conspiracy you're wasting your time.

these people? are you talking about my people or yours? :P

MD11 wrote: »

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.

ahh i knew you had an agenda .. jumping in thinking "i'll prove that here carzy" ... but alas you've failed
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>

MD11 wrote: »

davoxx, I wish you every sucess in "Sticking it to the man", or whatever you're trying to achieve.

see, you have no idea what i'm trying to achieve ... but i did stick to you, not the man :P ...

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.