FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack Investigation Photos

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.