A researcher for the Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT) organization has acknowledged that a well-known and controversial Flight 77 animation is not official, definitive NTSB material, but merely a "working copy" which contains at least one significant error. The existence of an NTSB animation of Flight 93 has also been disclosed, but PFT has chosen to withhold this material.
In response to a recent Undicisettembre article, Pier Paolo Murru, an Italian member of PFT,
Update: As noted in the comments below, the letter was partly disclosed ("Cover letter page 1 of many....") on April 12, 2007 in a posting on one of PFT's forums.
According to this new NTSB document (shown here) and Mr Murru's statements, the animation is indeed NTSB material (contrary to some allegations), but is a "working copy" which was "never used for an official purpose".The animation also contains at least one significant error: the indication of EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) instead of UTC, as noted by the NTSB:
Please note that the time on the enclosed American Airlines flight 77 animation contains an incorrect annotation. Instead of "EDT (Eastern Daylight Time)," the time provided on the animation should say, "UTC (Universal Coordinated Time)".This new information probably explains the visual and technical discrepancies between the NTSB's other accident animations of the same period and the Flight 77 animation released by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which had prompted some critics to question the authenticity of PFT's claim that it was NTSB material.
Since the animation has now been clearly shown to be an NTSB "working copy" with one or more errors, any dramatic conclusions based on this unofficial animation need to be reconsidered carefully.
A matter of trust
This development raises questions on PFT's approach to fact-finding and openness. Why did PFT not disclose immediately this essential information regarding the NTSB animation's actual accuracy and reliability? It would have avoided a lot of useless work by other 9/11 researchers on both sides of the debate. And it would have avoided all the questions about the animation's source. Secrecy breeds distrust.Why is PFT still withholding the other data it has received? Research is based on sharing data, not on hiding it. Conspiracy theorists systematically accuse the Evil Government of hiding information, but now they're the ones doing the hiding.
More importantly, 9/11 conspiracy theorists need to make up their mind. If they use the NTSB's animations (working copy or not) as evidence, then they are trusting the NTSB. But if they trust the NTSB, they have to trust it also when it says that the data comes from Flight 77's data recorder, which was found inside the Pentagon. Sorry, folks, but you can't switch trust on and off at your convenience and cherry-pick the evidence.
PFT also has undisclosed NTSB animation of Flight 93
Mr Murru's disclosure also reveals another important detail: the NTSB has provided Pilots for 9/11 Truth with another animation, covering Flight 93. The NTSB letter states that it sent PFT "two DVDs consisting of electronic animations that the Safety Board created regarding United Airlines flight 93 and American Airlines flight 77". So far, PFT has not released this animation; indeed, until This is quite surprising, since Mr Murru claims that "there are great incompatibilities with respect to the official development of the impact also for Flight UA93". So why not publish this material? Why publish just the first page of the NTSB letter and not the rest?
One can only wonder what other valuable information is being withheld by all those who claim they want to "expose the hidden truth of 9/11".
Update: Rob from PFT has replied to this article in the comments below. Read them in full, they're quite enlightening. Frankly, I had hoped that an organization which prides itself on having many aircraft pilots and professionals among its members would have provided something less childish than a string of petty insults in its response. But I'm obviously an optimist.
100 commenti:
invece di fare tanto gli internazionali, scrivere in una lingua potabile a tutti gli Italiani, no?
o pensi che qualche inglese passi veramente per un sito con questo url?
(lol)
>invece di fare tanto gli internazionali, scrivere in una lingua potabile a tutti gli Italiani, no?
L'articolo in inglese è una sintesi dell'articolo italiano sottostante.
>o pensi che qualche inglese passi veramente per un sito con questo url?
Non lo penso. Lo so.
>Research is based on sharing data, not on hiding it.
Ah quanto è vero, e quanto è poco considerato questo concetto
Forse non lo sai perchè era scritto in inglese anche quello, ma gli articoli sul taglio ad ossigeno dell'acciaio hanno avuto una certa risonanza anche su siti e forum esteri, specialmente americani. E' per non sentirsi chiedere articoli in lingua "potabile" dagli americani che si sono le sintesi in inglese... se ci fai caso sono sempre "doppioni".
Comunque è vero, posso capire il non commentare o aspettare a pubblicare articoli finchè non sia pronto tutto il materiale, ma nemmeno MENZIONARE l'esistenza di certi elementi proprio non lo capisco. Non credo nemmeno che i piloti cerchino di vendere libri e nascondano a bella posta prove contro il complotto... o sbaglio?
First they said that our animation wasnt authentic and we made it up ...that it didnt come from the NTSB (but they didnt feel the need to check with the NTSB themselves.. nice work guys!) ... looks like that one backfired on them.. oh well)
Now they say because the clock was in error (by the way.. what are the other significant errors? Please source the NTSB who claim other SPECIFIC errors. The only one they mention is MCP), that everything else must be in error and that its only a 'working copy' and not an 'official copy'.
Well, obviously they dont know what they hell they are talking about. The actual quote is that it was never used for an 'official purpose'. Well.. we know that.. no one investigated it! (it doesnt look like the researchers who made this blog are too great at investigation either)
It is a working copy. That means it is information/data you WORK with to investigate. It wasnt used for "official PURPOSE" does not mean its not official. It officially came from the NTSB (are you satisfied with this one yet?). The NTSB claims it came from AA77. It does not support the official story. The fact that the NTSB and/or FBI refuse to comment and/or correct errors speaks volumes. Its no suprise the govt loyalists here (from italy no less?) would rather make excuses and hang onto 'possible errors' than investigate for themselves and hold the NTSB/FBI feet to the fire regarding this material. Hint: They wont investigate the information - because when they do, they will find out when you correct for one error, another conflict arises... (geeze, how many times do i have to say it?)
You guys are grasping straws.. but nice try.
By the way.. if you want UA93 information.. why not ask the NTSB yourself? It is not our responsibility to share any information with you. When we complete our research, you will see the public releases. You wont be happy. But im sure you'll spin it up through ignorance and lack of motivation to do your own research as was shown above with your origibal claim that the NTSB Animation was a hoax. All that typing for nothing. Check your facts before your next blog. You'll save on typing.
Cheers!
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
"released a previously unpublished letter from the NTSB.."
perviously unpublished?
Man.. you guys have cracker jack researchers here huh?
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=6205
Check the date einstein.
By the way.. thanks for the publicity.. we're getting some good hits from this blog.. :-)
Cheers!
Rob
Rob Balsamo,
you are using an FDR found in the pentagon to demonstrate that the plane did NOT hit the pentagon.
Where's the logic in that?
Pape
Hello Rob,
Thank you for your comment. Please note that Undicisettembre has never claimed that the animation was not provided by the NTSB. We merely questioned the lack of NTSB confirmation and the differences between that animation and others provided by the NTSB.
As I said, all doubts regarding the origin of the animation could have been settled immediately if you had published the NTSB letter.
Regrettably, you acknowledge that you published it (in a forum on your site, not on a more visible page) only last April. But the animation has been on the Internet for much longer.
As to not feeling "the need to check with the NTSB themselves", why should we bother the NTSB when you could have provided the information immediately?
>Please source the NTSB who claim other SPECIFIC errors. The only one they mention is MCP.
There is no sourcing to do. Logic implies that if there is a huge error like the clock, other errors may have crept it. We are only advising caution before jumping to conclusions.
>It is a working copy. That means it is information/data you WORK with to investigate. It wasnt used for "official PURPOSE" does not mean its not official.
With all due respect, "working copy" means "interim, draft version". As in "working title" of a film, i.e., something which is temporary and probably will be amended.
>The NTSB claims it came from AA77.
Rob, how come you trust the NTSB blindly when it comes to the content of the animation but you don't trust the NTSB when it says that the FDR was found inside the Pentagon?
Do you really think that if there really was some great conspiracy, the conspirators would allow the NTSB to release an animation that clearly contradicts their story?
Can't you even consider the possibility that, hey, it's just a working copy, NTSB had problems in doing the readout as they had with AA587 (read John's article, the abstract is in English, or read the NTSB report), and the animation is incorrect, end of story? Ah, but then there'd be no story to sell, I suppose.
>The fact that the NTSB and/or FBI refuse to comment and/or correct errors speaks volumes.
Do you ever wonder if they're simply fed up with conspiracy theorists? Tired of seeing their words twisted and relentlessly quote-mined? Is silence now evidence for you?
>Its no suprise the govt loyalists here (from italy no less?)
Please, don't start the tirade on "government loyalists". First of all, I'm British and live in Switzerland. And frankly, I don't give a hoot about loyalty to the Italian government.
Secondly, Undicisettembre has no books to profit from, no DVDs to peddle, and certainly does not withhold information like you do. May I ask why?
>It is not our responsibility to share any information with you.
That's a statement that you'd expect from an Evil Government, not from a fair researcher interested in sharing the truth.
Pape,
the key words are:
"allegedly found"
"two days later"
"in three places simultaneously"
>Thank you for your comment. Please note that Undicisettembre has never claimed that the animation was not provided by the NTSB. We merely questioned the lack of NTSB confirmation and the differences between that animation and others provided by the NTSB.
A lie.. like near everything in this blog
You claimed that in Focus's forum and your previous article too
>As I said, all doubts regarding the origin of the animation could have been settled immediately if you had published the NTSB letter.
The letter had been already published.... Sherlock
>Regrettably, you acknowledge that you published it (in a forum on your site, not on a more visible page) only last April. But the animation has been on the Internet for much longer.
Ok Pilots for Truth: next time you request something to the NTSB make sure to notify this website!
They're all intelligence experts and military pilots (as they claim). Yet they're “anonimous”
>why should we bother the NTSB when you could have provided the information immediately?
Cause they said the NTSB provided the info and you CLAIMED it was not true. Or should they notify anyone in the world.. just like in hijacking procedures.... Oooops
>There is no sourcing to do. Logic implies that if there is a huge error like the clock, other errors may have crept it. We are only advising caution before jumping to conclusions.
Logic implies that if they acknowledge one error .. they are aknowledging that particular error. Period.
>With all due respect, "working copy" means "interim, draft version". As in "working title" of a film, i.e., something which is temporary and probably will be amended.
Now you're teaching English to English speaking people?
We gotta get back! Bull Shit's exploding!
Crackz
>the key words are:
>"allegedly found"
The "allegedly" is something that CT's have tagged onto this. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
>"two days later"
Are all FDRs/CVRs found immediately? Is a late finding cause for suspicion?
I guess that if they'd found it sooner, you'd be saying "hmmm... how suspiciously convenient, they found it straight away". You can't lose.
>"in three places simultaneously"
Please provide a source for this statement.
>A lie.. like near everything in this blog
Thank you for this well-documented statement. Would you like to provide some more?
>You claimed that in Focus's forum and your previous article too
It would seem that your grasp of the Italian language is somewhat lacking. Please provide sourced quotes to support your statements.
>The letter had been already published.... Sherlock
"Published" by posting it in an obscure forum. in April. Months after the animation was posted.
>Pilots for Truth: next time you request something to the NTSB make sure to notify this website
That would indeed be a good idea.
>They're all intelligence experts and military pilots (as they claim).
No offense meant, but that's simply false.
>
Now you're teaching English to English speaking people?
Yes. I'm British. And you're not, as anyone can tell by your spelling of "anonymous".
@crackerz
Despite of its italian name Paolo IS native speaker, no reason to despise his reasoning.
Anyway, you didn't explain why you don't trust NTSB when they say where the FDR was found but you DO trust the animation provided by them?
>Anyway, you didn't explain why you don't trust NTSB when they say where the FDR was found but you DO trust the animation provided by them?
Because it's not the NTSB that “allegedly” found the FDR... but.. (Imagine my shock) the DoD
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44890
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2001 – Searchers found the flight data and cockpit voice recorders about 4 a.m. today in the wreckage of the hijacked plane that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Defense Department officials said. .....
The recorders were turned over the FBI. The recorders are now at the National Transportation Safety Board laboratory in Washington, where technicians are working to recover data on the recorders.
Searchers found ..... turned over to the FBI .... now at the National Transportation Safety Board laboratory...
bye
I didnt have time to read all your comments. However, the recent letter was published the day i got it. It came with the UA93 animation. All AA77 cover letters that came with the AA77 animation/csv file were publish on our forums in the PNNED topics last year. You guys were just to lazy to go look for it and/or email me directly so i can point you to it. Instead, you chose to write up a hit piece based on ignorance and lack of motivation to find facts. Pier has provided links to the letters we received back in August 2006.
The FDR was claimed to have been found in the pentagon in two seperate places. At the exit hole and entrance hole. Its all here..
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5505
Not only that, there are other reports that 3 black boxes were found. Last i checked.. Transport Category aircraft only carry two.
Further, it is claimed they were found in the cockpit. Last i checked, Black boxes are in the tail.
The clock is accurate in terms of UTC. They incorrectly labelled it EDT. If you want to believe an incorrect label on an animation clock suggests altimeter lag (et al).. be my guest.. you still have a problem with vertical speed.. with or without the lag. Do your research. (By the way, there is no lag.. )
Next, all above claims regarding the location of the FDR found in the pentagon came from govt reports. I do not trust this govt. They have lied time and time again. But im not surprised some of you people will use the govt word as gospel.
We never said we trust the information that came from the NTSB. You are using a strawman. Not surprised. Matter of fact.. we KNOW the information thaty came from the NTSB has been altered (1. to cover up altitude.. and 2. to make the aircraft appear coming from a southern approach in terms of heading). What we did say.. many times.. is that the NTSB data/information does not support the govt story. They refuse to comment/retract/correct. You seem satified with that. Many military pilots, commercial pilots, aviation mechanics, including the Former Accident Investigation Board President of the USAF are not. We know why they wont correct their information. They cant. As i said, you correct for one error.. another conflict with the govt story arises.
For future reference... you may want to email us directly and ask these questions before you write a full blog asserting frivilous claims, such as the NTSB animation may be a hoax. It might lend more credibility to your research if you go to the source prior to report so you wont have to edit.. as you have.
All your blogs are screenshot saved. Enjoy your day and try not to edit too much..
Cheers!
Rob
Crackerz, so you think they are so stupid to put in the pentagon an FDR which is not compatibile with their story? And they give it to NTSB for analysis? And that nobody inside NTSB could find anything suspicious? And that finally they also release such a strong evidence to te public via FOIA?
Pape
>Searchers found ..... turned over to the FBI .... now at the National Transportation Safety Board laboratory...
So you trust the NTSB's animation, but don't trust the chain of custody and the DoD?
Tell me, why would the DoD be so stupid as to provide the NTSB with a FDR which contradicts the "official" version?
Do you think that whoever organized the conspiracy is stupid enough to fake the data of the altimeter in the CVS and at the same time release an animation which shows the opposite?
Pape
>so you think they are so stupid to put in the pentagon an FDR which is not compatibile with their story? And they give it to NTSB for analysis? And that nobody inside NTSB could find anything suspicious? And that finally they also release such a strong evidence to te public via FOIA?
They... they... they... they...
Who are those “they” you're referring to?
BTW, Asce claims the Fdr was found in the exit hole
(check Asce)
Pentagon spokesman says otherwise
They were found right where the plane came into the building, right where the data recorder and the voice recorder should have been. They were right at the crash scene.
CNN 9/14/2001
Crackz
[quote]They... they... they... they...
Who are those “they” you're referring to?
[/quote]
The ones who organised the conspiracy: wasn't easier to give to NTSB an FDR which show that the plane hit the pentagon? Why to put inside the pentagon the real FDR with the real data? And why nobody at NSTB found this discrepancy? Are they part of the conspiracy, or they are just stupid?
Pape
Rob,
>the recent letter was published the day i got it. It came with the UA93 animation. All AA77 cover letters that came with the AA77 animation/csv file were publish on our forums in the PNNED topics last year. You guys were just to lazy to go look for it and/or email me directly so i can point you to it.
Rob, we discussed the matter with your Pier Paolo Murru several times when the NTSB animation was released by you. You can find his comments in this blog. Never, not once, did he mention either the cover letter or the existence of the Flight 93 animation.
I was not aware that we had to contact you instead of Mr Murru to get the correct information. For that, I apologize.
>Pier has provided links to the letters we received back in August 2006.
Where?
>The FDR was claimed to have been found in the pentagon in two seperate places. At the exit hole and entrance hole.
And this is suspicious? FDRs break. See the AA587 report. Pinger got lost. Casing was broken.
>Not only that, there are other reports that 3 black boxes were found. Last i checked.. Transport Category aircraft only carry two.
And of course none of those reports (which I'd like to see) can possibly be wrong. How come the reports are infallible when it suits your theory, and untrustworth when it doesn't? Does that not strike you as flawed reasoning?
>Further, it is claimed they were found in the cockpit. Last i checked, Black boxes are in the tail.
Any sources for this statement?
>By the way, there is no lag.. )
With all due respect, I'll accept that statement when it comes from an expert in the field. Last time I checked, pilots were good at flying planes, not at decoding FDRs.
>I do not trust this govt. They have lied time and time again.
Neither do I. But that doesn't mean that they lie all the time. Sometimes, when it's convenient, they might tell the truth.
Tell me, Rob, why does the government lie by providing a FDR with data that does NOT support the official version? Isn't that kind of dumb? Why not provide an FDR whose data corroborate the official path?
Are you really unable to see this basic contradiction in your theories?
>We never said we trust the information that came from the NTSB.
Yet you use the NTSB's animation as evidence. Interesting.
>What we did say.. many times.. is that the NTSB data/information does not support the govt story.
Oh, I see. So the NTSB is in the clear. They're the good guys. Is that what you're saying?
> They refuse to comment/retract/correct.
Oh. So the NTSB is the bad guys. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble with reconciling these two concepts.
>For future reference... you may want to email us directly and ask these questions before you write a full blog asserting frivilous claims, such as the NTSB animation may be a hoax.
Now that I know that I have to ask you and not Mr Murru, I will.
>All your blogs are screenshot saved. Enjoy your day and try not to edit too much.
Again, that's a threat you'd expect from an Evil Government, not from a fair researcher interested in sharing the truth.
FYI, all edits are clearly indicated in each article. We believe in full disclosure.
Looking forward to reading the rest of the NTSB letter and seeing the Flight 93 animation.
They... they... they... they...
Who are those “they” you're referring to?
Well, is difficult to say. If you think there's a conspiracy behind 9/11 facts (and I guess you do) you should tell us who are those "they".
However form what you say I presume they is made up (also) by NTSB and Dod.....If they are I would have expected a more intelligent strategy to cover their conspiracy
> So you trust the NTSB's animation, but don't trust the chain of custody and the DoD?
I don’t trust inconsistent data (check John Farmer’s blog)
www.911files.info
I don’t trust manipulated videos
(check Pier Paolo Murru’s work...)
I don’t trust planted evidence
And you?
>Tell me, why would the DoD be so stupid as to provide the NTSB with a FDR which contradicts the "official" version?
>Do you think that whoever organized the conspiracy is stupid enough to fake the data of the altimeter in the CVS and at the same time release an animation which shows the opposite?
What’s the official story? What’s the official flight path?
Are you able to believe conflicting evidence? (check witnesses, dod videos, Asce building performance report, Fdr data..)
I can’t
Crackz
Btw, what’s a CVS?
Pier linked to the cover letters we received last year in the links on the blog... click them! (geeze.. these guys need to be hand held for everything).
Why are you asking these questions of Pier when you can email the source? Pier is a member of our team.. yes.. but he is not a pilot. Why not email the founders? I think i know why. I think others here know why as well.
We are pilots who know how to cross check. We have Accident Investigators on our team (think they may know about FDR's?). We have FDR experts we have consulted and who have helped us. Do you have anything close to that? If so, tell them to contact us for proper debate. Bring officials from the NTSB and FBI as you'll need them. We dont waste much time on the net debating anonymous posters who obviously dont do their research prior to print. The NTSB, FBI and other govt agencies, information/data that does not support the govt story are our concern. Not you.
"Tell me, Rob, why does the government lie by providing a FDR with data that does NOT support the official version? Isn't that kind of dumb? Why not provide an FDR whose data corroborate the official path?"
Great questions. We are asking the govt just that. Why arent you?
The rest of your comment i didnt read. Email us if you have questions. You have already distracted me from my work enough this morning for frivilous BS and trying to get your hand held to look for information. Start clickin'. Do some research. Its all out there.
Ciao
Rob
>Pier linked to the cover letters we received last year in the links on the blog... click them!
Sorry, which blog are you talking about? Am I supposed to guess?
>Why are you asking these questions of Pier when you can email the source?
Because he's Italian and this is an Italian-oriented blog.
>Pier is a member of our team.. yes.. but he is not a pilot.
Is he then not authorized to speak on your behalf?
>We have Accident Investigators on our team (think they may know about FDR's?). We have FDR experts we have consulted and who have helped us.
Fine. Let's read their papers.
>"Tell me, Rob, why does the government lie by providing a FDR with data that does NOT support the official version? Isn't that kind of dumb? Why not provide an FDR whose data corroborate the official path?"
>Great questions. We are asking the govt just that. Why arent you?
You're avoiding the question. Please provide a logical reason for the inconsistency that _you_ are claiming.
>The rest of your comment i didnt read.
That's very convenient. You ask us to be up-to-date on everything you post in your forums, but you don't bother to read a single comment to the end. Double standards.
[quote]
I don’t trust inconsistent data (check John Farmer’s blog)
www.911files.info
I don’t trust manipulated videos
(check Pier Paolo Murru’s work...)
I don’t trust planted evidence
And you?
[/quote]
I think that the work of Pier Paolo Murru, and the FDR analysis of PF9T, should be peer reviews by some other expert to validate their conclusion. For example, Anti-Sophist on randi's forum has explained why the FDR analysis does not take in account some problems. In this forum, we found that the analysis of Murru is correct only if the camera are perfectly in sync, a point which is not proven yet.
Pape
"Fine. Let's read their papers."
Caught this as i was closing out.. this is the only reply you will get because you obviously want to be spoon fed this information and not click on links.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Pilotsfor911TruthChallengePentagonHitStory.pdf
Be sure to note the signors. Review the full paper and source links THOROUGHLY. After, i would like to see a point by point debunk of ALL the information and the names/credentials of those attempting to debunk facts (keep in mind, speculation based on "possible error" is not a debunk. If you do use this excuse, be sure to write up the effect on other parameters when correcting for 'possible errors'. ie. Correcting for possible altimeter lag, what happens to the vertical speed?). Email it to us when you're done. See ya in a few months.
Further, Pier is not our spokesperson. Pier just joined our team a few weeks ago. He is helping with UA93 work. If you want information, go to the source that has PUBLISHED this information, dont try using a strawman and/or paint with a broad brush as you people do so well. If you had read our site, you would see who our PR people are and the proper email address for contact. Instead you corner a new addition to the team while using every possible strawman you can create and then write up a hit piece that is full of inaccuracies without consulting the source of the information. Typical.
But once again. I thank you for the publicity. We are getting hits from this blog. :-)
Cheers!
Rob
"PS: Paolo you are so sad in your attempt to discredit me with Rob...really sad... "
Caught this as i posted the last comment...
Pier, its a typical tactic these people use.. I seen it too many times. Thats why i try not to waste too much time on them. But since our site is getting some good hits from here.. i figured i'd stick around for a bit this morning. Thanks for all your do Pier, your are a very welcomed addition to our team.
(the rest of you will find out why in due time)
Cheers!
Rob
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
"Anti-Sophist on randi's forum has explained why the FDR analysis does not take in account some problems."
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801
Radar Altitude Confirms Too high, using Anti-Sophist statements. Screenshot of his statement found on the link.
This is fun.. :-)
>I think that the work of Pier Paolo Murru, and the FDR analysis of PF9T, should be peer reviews by some other expert to validate their conclusion. For example, Anti-Sophist on randi's forum has explained why the FDR analysis does not take in account some problems.
Anti-sophistic? A nickname? Or maybe he’s Seneca, still alive and well, after drinking the hemlock and 24 hundred years? lol
>In this forum, we found that the analysis of Murru is correct only if the camera are perfectly in sync, a point which is not proven yet.
You found what? Not proven?
“The blog is edited by Paolo Attivissimo, a British-Italian journalist, and written by Italian technical experts in various fields relevant to 9/11 research, such as airline and military pilots, intelligence experts, chemists, physicists, and engineers.”
Who are those “experts”? Are they “nicknames” as well?
Soooo there are...
John Farmer, data expert
(www.911files.info)
Military and Civilian pilots
(http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html)
Pier Paolo Murru
A Senior Film & Video Editor
Cinematographer
Expert in Postproduction and AV Technology
1400 AudioVisual productions
http://www.thepentacon.net/pierpaolomurru/reportdod/site/splash.htm
Yet your think their work has been refuted by a JREFer and some “experts”, who “have chosen to remain anonymous”
Think again... and please read this, from John Farmer.
http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=1302
Crackz
acaguy2001
Why are you asking these questions of Pier when you can email the source? Pier is a member of our team.. yes.. but he is not a pilot. Why not email the founders? I think i know why. I think others here know why as well.
Does this mean that Pier Paolo Murru is second-class member of your group and does not have access to all the information in its possession?
The name of the group is "Pilots for Truth", but I thought the emphasis would be on "truth" and not on "pilots".
acaguy2001
We have Accident Investigators on our team (think they may know about FDR's?). We have FDR experts we have consulted and who have helped us.
Who are these experts? How can we check their credentials?
If you want to appeal to their authority as experts, you have to give us enough information so that we can check that they are indeed authorities.
acaguy2001
Be sure to note the signors. Review the full paper and source links THOROUGHLY. After, i would like to see a point by point debunk of ALL the information and the names/credentials of those attempting to debunk facts...
I have never seen this standard applied by conspiracy theorists when they criticize the official reports.
acaguy2001
But once again. I thank you for the publicity. We are getting hits from this blog. :-)
And this is what really counts, right?
[quote]
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801
Radar Altitude Confirms Too high, using Anti-Sophist statements. Screenshot of his statement found on the link.
[/quote]
How did you decode the FDR raw data? Did you made public the frame descriptor? I've searched for it on your forum, but was unable to find it: could you please link it?
Pape
non ho capito praticamente niente di quello che state dicendo.
paolo..dove la trovo la versione in italiano di questo articolo?
in alternativa mi accontenterei anche di una versione in spagnolo o francese se non è possibile altrimenti :-)
>Be sure to note the signors. Review the full paper and source links THOROUGHLY
Rob, which of the the signors listed has specific FDR readout experience? The descriptions given are fairly generic.
Two more questions (I'll contact you by e-mail as well):
1. If you're so certain of your findings, why not go to court?
2. Why don't you disclose the details of your work so it can be peer-reviewed? We do have FDR data analysts in Italy, you know.
Per gli italofoni: OK, preparo una versione italiana dell'articolo. Datemi tempo.
"I have never seen this standard applied by conspiracy theorists when they criticize the official reports"
Please quote one theory on pilotsfor911truth.org.
Next up - check the core members list for experts/Accident Investigators. Read closly and thoroughly (i know.. you have a problem with this.. do you know where to find the core member page? Need a link?)
FDR Experts were/are consultants who are currently working in the industry. They will remain anonymous as they will lose their jobs if exposed (which im sure is your intent). We have provided the Raw FDR file for download and the csv file decode to cross check. If you have "FDR experts", you can get the same information decoded and prove us as frauds. For some reason your "FDR Expert", an anonymous JREFer, cannot get the same decode. Why is that? I think i know why. He claims he wont do it because he will get his source in trouble. We are able to keep our source anonymous.. why cant he?
Again, you do not concern us. We do not answer to you. You write pieces that are completely inaccurate and expect us to give you information that you can get yourself (if your claims are true that you have experts on your side, not to mention you can get the informatino direcly from the NTSB)
Further, You dont attempt to contact the source before print... what type of journalism is this?
Tell your "FDR Expert" to get you a Data Frame Layout. We have one. It is accurate. It doesnt change anything. We question the govt based on all the available information and put our REAL names on it. Think we're frauds?
We will not give you the Data FRame Layout. Get your own if you have so many 'experts' on your side. Prove us wrong.
You cant.
While you're trying to chase us from behind your screen (not even attempting to contact us.. nor attempting to research the information that is widely availabel.. such as NTSB cover letters posted since last year) We are chasing down the govt with their own data that doesnt support their own theory.
Have fun!
[quote]
Tell your "FDR Expert" to get you a Data Frame Layout. We have one. It is accurate. It doesnt change anything. We question the govt based on all the available information and put our REAL names on it. Think we're frauds?
We will not give you the Data FRame Layout. Get your own if you have so many 'experts' on your side. Prove us wrong.
[/quote]
Why don't you share it? I don't understand a researcher who does not share his information. The scientific method work in this way:
1) you make your analysis and share the results with all the relevant data.
2) other people check your findings to see if they are correct.
Pape
We share our results with the people that matter. The people who we are questioning based on this information. The NTSB and FBI.
Who are you?
You want us to give you the data frame layout (the only piece of information we are witholding from people like you, many others have it), because you can attempt to expose the source and perhaps have his job. That will not happen. If you are such a savvy rese4archer/journalist, get your own and analyze the data.
I have told you the DFL doesnt change anything. .nothing.. in our analysis. Prove us wrong bigshot.
I don't want that data for me. I was just suggesting to share it, so that other researcher could analyze your results.
In your opinion is not important. May be you are right, but even in this case, I don't understand why so much secrecy about that.
There's another point I don't understand: if you are sure that your conclusions are correct, and you have verified your findings with other FDR experts, why don't you spread the documentation to authorities, newspaper and TVs?
Pape
I also remember you that sharing our results with the people that matter (in your opinion) is not what I call scientific method.
Pape
Just to make sure its not cherry picked.. which im sure he'll try.. I'll also screen shot it.
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:44:25 +0200
From: "Paolo Attivissimo" paolo.attivissimo(at)gmail.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by gmail.com. Learn more
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com, undicisettembre-ML@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: From Paolo Attivissimo (Undicisettembre)
Pilots For Truth wrote:
> Our work is published. You just havent looked for it.
>
>
>
> Slander? Insults is bad research? Im dogging you in a private IM.
Point
> out insults on our site Einstein. What a weak argument for "bad
> research". is that all you got? Because i insulted you in a private
> email, all our research is "bad"? LMAO! How old are you?
>
>
>
> You can get a copy of the UA93 animation by going to ntsb.gov. It is
> where we got it.
>
>
>
> We are currently analyzing it. We will make public releases based on
the
> data in due time and make the full animation available as we did the
> AA77 animation.
>
>
>
> Until then, we have zero responsibility to give you the UA93
animation.
> Whats next... you want me to get you a girlfriend or something? Get
your
> own! Freakin lazy ass...
Please feel free to continue. It's very quotable.
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pilots For Truth" pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: From Paolo Attivissimo (Undicisettembre)
To: topone@pobox.com
Yeah. .pilots are known to use colorful language at times.. especially with those who dont do their research and write hit pieces that are completely inaccurate.
Thanks for making my point that you paint with a broad brush prior to any research, nor source your claims... re: Conspiracy Theorist".
Still havent quoted a theory from our site to prove your claim... yet i have proven you to be an extrofdinary idiot who cant even find an NTSB cover letter in a pibbed topib on a site he links to.
Have a nice day... Be sure to check out our core members page regularly.. we're growing.. two more will be added soon. (actually, i think i have 3 more to add.. need to double check).
Cheers!
Rob
(i wont respond to the other email as you still havent proven your claim of us being Theorists, you lie and slander)
Paolo Attivissimo
paolo.attivissimo(at)gmail.com wrote:
Pilots For Truth wrote:
> You're welcome...
>
> Its not "our" court case.. But Field McConnel is part of our core members.
Thank you for making that distinction.
>
> We dont really expect too much to come out of it.. (at least i dont),
> but they say they can 'prove it' and you aksed for a court case. So
> there you have it.
We'll see what the court says before deciding whether it's proven.
>
> As for you not reading all sites? It might be a good idea to take a peek
> once in a while at a site you intend to 'debunk'. As the information is
> all there and you just made yourself look like such an idiot...lol
Is this appropriate language for a spokesperson of a pilot's organization?
Thank you for providing wonderfully quotable material. Frankly, I had
expected adult behavior from a group of pilots. I was wrong.
>
> And once again.. when people question their govt based on 9/11.. a day
> that affected ALL of us.. it doesnt make us a Conspiracy Theorist. Try
> to stop using that strawman.. its getting stale and shows you dont have
> much left in your arsenal.
>
> If you can find one theory on pilotsfor911truth.org.. please quote it.
> If you call us Theorist one more time.. i will refuse to converse with
> you and you can keep trying to chase us down while we spread our factual
> information to 10's of thousands per day...some days millions.. as we
> grow with more professionals (which reminds me.. i have to add two
> more.. geeze.. wasting time on you).. and hold govt feet to the fire
> based on their lies..
>
> Damn.. it must really suck to defend the US Govt when you dont even live
> here.. huh? What a waste of time for you. Do you have a real life?
Yes, I do.
Ok, you're a conspiracy theorist. Now you have an excuse to "refuse to
converse".
Thank you for the insightful exchange,
Paolo Attivissimo
Sorry about the typos... been up working on UA93 since 7pm last night... was having too much fun with Pepe here i had to continue for awhile...
If anyone has questions, please email us directly and we will address them. Pepe, is cut off. He can write inaccurate hit pieces all day if he likes. Im sure he will. It only exposes his research ability further.
Have a nice day folks!
@acaguy2001
You end up to be completely unreliable: you make questions but don't give any answers. You claim you are for truth but you don't want to share this truth with others, and don't want your research to be peer-reviewed. You only want to share details of your research with "people that matters", and of course YOU decide who matters and who doesn't.
You want names of undicisettembre experts but you don't want to give names of pilots for truth experts.
The attitude of someone looking for truth is a way different from yours.
But maybe you're just trying to get more hits to your site
Matz, they don't need the peer review. They have solved the case, no more investigation is needed. As one of their expert says here: (http://www.hawkscafe.com/order.html)
If you want the answer,gave him 10 $ ^_^
Pape
NTSB Cover letters -
Came with AA77 CSV Files
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64&view=findpost&p=4168936 (post date Oct, 6 2006)
Came with AA77 Animation
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=375&view=findpost&p=4984806 (Post Date Oct 20, 2006)
Came with UA93 Animation -
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=6205
AA77 Downloads -
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64
(post date Sept 1, 2006)
Raw Data Download -
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4574 (post date Feb 7, 2007)
All above information was/is available on our forums, in the pinned topics, and posted within a few days/weeks of receipt.
All AA77 analysis and results can be found in the same forum as well as pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html. There are many reports/videos/recorded calls available.
Full Documentary/analysis based on this information available above is linked/pinned in our Multimedia forum and can be seen for free - Release data Jan 12, 2007.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=3895
I do not know why the original blog above could not find this information nor do i know why they did not contact us prior to writing the above blog. The information is widely available and easily accessible.
UA93 analysis based on animation/csv files will be published when we have completed analysis of the information. We have not published any analysis of UA93 animation/csv files at this time.
Our current UA93 page at pilotsfor911truth.org has source links to the pdf documents that were used for the current analysis published on page. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UAL93.html.
If you would like your own copy of the UA93 Animation sooner, you can contact the NTSB at ntsb.gov.
We will make available UA93 animation/csv once we start to publish analysis of this data.
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Experts -
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
fatemi capire: ma questo pilota si è permesso di pubblicare della corrispondenza privata tra Attivissimo e il loro contatto email?
>fatemi capire: ma questo pilota si è permesso di pubblicare della corrispondenza privata tra Attivissimo e il loro contatto email?
Esattamente.
Per essere pignoli: non so se è un pilota, e ha pubblicato parte della corrispondenza privata fra me e lui.
Paolo, pur esprimendo una critica nel post in italiano, devo dire che trovo questo modo di fare al top della scorrettezza, anzi scorrettezza è dire poco, è vile maleducazione.
Una conversazione privata è privata, fosse anche quella col tuo peggior nemico.
Pur avendo seguito tutto lo sviluppo del thread ed avendo trovato interessanti punti di riflessione da una parte e dall'altra, questo episodio (che spero rimanga tale) squalifica completamente Rob Balsamo come interlocutore.
Ha un bel dire che talvolta i piloti usano "espressioni colorite" , qui si va ben oltre, manca il più elementare rispetto dell'altro e questo, ahimè , diventa sempre più una connotazione negativa dei complottisti, anche oltreoceano. Verrebbe proprio da dire "tutto il mondo è paese".
Glielo direi personalmente ma purtroppo , pur capendo quasi perfettamente l'inglese scritto, quando si tratta di scrivere io in inglese, sembro un jamaicano ubriaco :D
acaguy2001
Please quote one theory on pilotsfor911truth.org.
I wasn't talking about "pilotsfor911truth.org".
However, I have seen the claims of many critics of the "official version", and they certainly do not satisfy your very high standard.
acaguy2001
Next up - check the core members list for experts/Accident Investigators. Read closly and thoroughly (i know.. you have a problem with this.. do you know where to find the core member page? Need a link?)
Since your very high standard for the discussion, why did you not provide already the links?
acaguy2001
FDR Experts were/are consultants who are currently working in the industry. They will remain anonymous as they will lose their jobs if exposed (which im sure is your intent). We have provided the Raw FDR file for download and the csv file decode to cross check. If you have "FDR experts", you can get the same information decoded and prove us as frauds. For some reason your "FDR Expert", an anonymous JREFer, cannot get the same decode. Why is that? I think i know why. He claims he wont do it because he will get his source in trouble. We are able to keep our source anonymous.. why cant he?
I see a lot of speculation about other people's motive and a lot of begging the question.
If your experts can prove with real evidence that there is something fishy about the FDR at the Pentagon, what are they afraid of?
It would be their job to expose the truth, wouldn't it?
acaguy2001
Again, you do not concern us. We do not answer to you. You write pieces that are completely inaccurate and expect us to give you information that you can get yourself (if your claims are true that you have experts on your side, not to mention you can get the informatino direcly from the NTSB)
You are the one who set the bar for the discussion:
"Review the full paper and source links THOROUGHLY. After, i would like to see a point by point debunk of ALL the information and the names/credentials of those attempting to debunk facts..."
Does this standard not apply to you as well?
acaguy2001
Further, You dont attempt to contact the source before print... what type of journalism is this?
Oh wait, by quoting what I wrote, I thought you were addressing this comment at me. Silly me!
Now, I would like a straight answer to my question:
"Does this mean that Pier Paolo Murru is second-class member of your group and does not have access to all the information in its possession?"
Unless this is the answer:
"We share our results with the people that matter."
JDX, pilots for truth rob b. is not very good at this stuff as you see. They do not have any truth, he is just bans people at PFT http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/ go visit and see how dumb a few pilots are. They think increased traffic means they are being accepted. Try not to LOL too hard.
Yes Rob Balsamo makes up what people say about him, he is hung up on what people say and forgets he is not even saying anything. He does say Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but he even denies that. Kind of like a liar, go see him in action at his web site and forum. After all he is almost the only person over there, better drop by, he things that means support. Do not laugh to much after seeing his junk. After all he is the all knowing Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org Do not miss the mental giants at http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/ , great reading if you like seeing dolts post.
ace said:
"http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/ go visit and see how dumb a few pilots are"
go also here,you'll find some of them:
http://patriotsquestion
911.com/#Bowman
http://patriotsquestion
911.com/#Nelson
http://patriotsquestion
911.com/#Lankford
http://patriotsquestion
911.com/#Razer
http://patriotsquestion
911.com/#Latas
http://patriotsquestion
911.com/#Muga
http://patriotsquestion
911.com/#Wittenberg
http://patriotsquestion911.com/ I am not sure all the people on those pages know they are being used as 9/11 truther experts and to impress the dolts who believe in the truth movement. Not one singe fact from anyone on the entire list to support the fantasy of 9/11 truth movement. I wonder how many on the list at http://patriotsquestion911.com/ really endorse the 9/11 truth movement. What is the "official" 9/11 truth story. I wonder when the 9/11 truth movement cult of lies will stop? How can a group with no coherent story exist? Most the leaders spew so much junk it defies all reason how anyone can be gullible or stupid enough to believe them. I continue to use 9/11 truth movement to identify people who are unable to think logically and/or just plan liars who want to mislead other due to some veiled political bias, or to make money off of really dumb people who can not think for themselves. It is hard to argue with idiots who are using Beam Weapons, and no planes to make up some really insane story which they can not tell you. All the whole movement want is to ask questions because they are too stupid, even the experts in the movement, to answer simple questions.
I will really start to worry if the truth movement cuts the percent of engineers who do not believe the 9/11 truth movement ideas by more than 99.9 percent. So far the movement is missing over 99.99 percent of all engineer in their failed movement based on misinformation and lies. Pilots, I would get worried with the same 99.9 percent but so far the pilot on the idiot parade are still short over 99.99 percent pilots.
It seems most rational think people reject the lies of the ironically named "9/11 truth movement". I can not image how people can believe the movement with no facts or evidence, can you? I composed a list of facts from the 9/11 truth movement supporting their points.
1.
I have added them up. Zero. Empty going on over 5 years. A perfect record of zero facts.
All,
Please avoid personal attacks. Leave that to the conspiracy theorists. Discuss methods, don't slander people, and keep personal insults out of your comments. Thanks.
You can delete my posts. And I will try again. But no amount of facts and evidence will help when you talk to someone in the truth movement, it is like a cult or some other zombie like state the members of the truth movement seem to be in.
After 5 years, and not finding one fact from anyone in the entire truth movement to support any 9/11 truth ideas, it is almost impossible not to label their ideas insane or stupid. That is not slander, just a fact. Your web site is very good on explaining how the animation from the NTSB should be handled. It is the truth. The PFT have taken something not to be used for what they are trying to use it for and they ignore the raw data of the FDR which does not place flight 77 with any accuracy better than 3000 feet from the IRU/FMS system. So they use an animation from the NTSB to say flight 77 was some place the very data used by the animation is incapable of showing. Then they ignore to tell everyone all the facts about the animation and the FDR. They fail to tell everyone the map below the aircraft animation is not derived from data in the FDR but just placed under the visual data presentation. This can be proved by the final heading presentation is offset the wrong direction by 20 degrees. Proof that PFT analysis is flawed and no discussion is allowed at the PFTF http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/ , Go and check out how quickly asking questions will have you banned, and therefore a forum to discuss PFT does not exist at PFTF.
You have done an excellent job covering the NTSB animation and putting it in perspective. Outstanding. When you present facts you will be attacked by those who are trying to tell lies by omitting important facts and evidence you have exposed. Good job.
Ace, thanks for replying. There's no need to delete your posts, I'm just acting preemptively to keep the discussion civilized. The difference in tone between genuine researchers and conspiracy theorists must always stand out. It helps all those who don't know the minutiae of 9/11 to distinguish between the sensible folk and the nutjobs.
>no amount of facts and evidence will help when you talk to someone in the truth movement, it is like a cult or some other zombie like state the members of the truth movement seem to be in.
Agreed. We don't write to convince CTs. We write for the mass of people who are curious and have been misled by CT myths but still have an open, sensible mindset.
Well.. i see you're already twisting words at JREF Pepe.. nice job and typical.
As i have mentioned before.. and every single 'debunker/govt loyalist has cowarded away from... anytime you want to sit down for a debate, recorded, instead of hiding behind your screen. step up and email us. Dont just twist words on your blog, and then have to cross them out because your research is poor. Email us you cowards. To date, not one Govt loyaist has emailed us to debate our research. They have been asked time and time again. They would rather hide behind their screens.
Gather your team of anonymous experts, bring the FBI and NTSB.. and then you will see the men in person who put their names on websites and behind this research such as those who you deny on patriotsquestion911.com. (but im sure you will deny they are even them when they stand in front of you).
By the way Pepe.. the quote is "was not used for official purpose" (because they never investigated it) not "Not intended for official purpose" (which when used, is stamped on every document that is aviation related, i dont expect you to understand, nor your other 'experts' here). Other people can read your spin, the govt loyalists will grab onto it for dear life. Too bad thats all they have. Typical.
Did you find the date on the Official Letter Heads? Did you find the Oct letters yet? Perhaps not (im not surprised). But the links are provided for you. Note the date of the first letter that quotes "working copy" and the date we posted it. Try not to twist and spin too much more.. you may have to use that line thing again... :-)
Once again. .the fact the the NTSB hasd not corrected any so-called 'error's', or addressed them. or offered side letters, speaks volumes. They do offer side letters regarding the clock and MCP panel.. but nothing for Flight path orr alttitude. Can you figure out why? I dont think so.. you'd rather hold onto excuse, blog behind your screen coward to face debate in person and twist words while having to edit later due to poor research. Typical.
Your cherry picking and then subsequent twist of the quote is the worse yellow journalism i have ever seen to date. Not to mention rationalization in the form of denial.
Again.. anytime you or anyone else wants to step up to debate our team, in person.. do it. Dont be a coward.
Rob
Once again i would like to thank you for the added publicity from this blog and now more from JREF. Its a nice supplement to our already high amount of hits we been getting. Our orders for our DVD to Italy have increased too. Maybe due to this blog? Dunno. But its welcomed as we are trying to raise funds for a Pilots For 9/11 Truth Conference coming up. Thanks again!
Cheers!
Rob
Rob,
Anyone who starts by calling his opponent "coward" and publishes private correspondence without permission doesn't deserve a debate. His actions speak for themselves.
You have a very simple way to prove your credibility: publish your data and disclose your methods so that they can be peer-reviewed.
Until then, any discussion is frankly pointless.
Any researcher who brags about the increased sales of his DVD or hits to his website is clearly interested in something other than respecting the victims of 9/11.
Are you kidding me? Posting private emails? You were the one threatening to cherry pick quotes from those very emails? Have you even read what you wrote in those emails.. twice!? You can quote it but i cannot? I posted it all so you wouldnt be able chery pick and blog it out of context as you have already done numerous times with the Offical NTSB letter.. our posting dates and available information. You are a joke of a journalist. You even give a bad name to respected opponent bloggers.
All the data is linked above. You seem to have a problem clicking links which is apparent. All work is published on the site, forums and in video. We are now at the point where i am repeating myself because you refuse to click links (all starting with the email click to consult with the source of your claims which backfired hard on you).
Our sales of our DVD's futher our research. People like JREF have donation buttons but offer nothing in return. Those people are profiting off the lives lost and victims. We are funding ourselves to get answers since the govt squandered away our tax dollars on a bogus investigation into 9/11 and is now using it to take away our freedoms and kill 100's of thousands around the world (soon to be in the millions). Im wondering what your motivation is for defending that.
Now, have you learned to quote the original Official Letter Head properly? Are you able to comprehend what it says when taken in context of the complete paragraph? Are you able to remove the blantant attempt at trying to make us out to be hiding information when we posted all our correspondence on the days/weeks received?(doesnt matter if you do or not.. other people know how to click and it just makes you look worse when they find the information you say isnt available). All the data is available. You just refuse to go look for it. I have also posted the links above. It seems you still havent clicked on them.
The only data we do not supply is the Data Frame Layout which changes nothing. If it did, we would post it. Why would we still put our names on the work if the DFL did change the analysis? Are you THAT ignorant? Dont you think the NTSB and FBI has the DFL and can call us out immediately if we were hiding something within?
Your yellow journalism has been exposed. You are a joke of a blogger. You dont address the facts. You havent looked at our work (its all there). You make claims which are frivilous. You slander, lie, cherry pick and outright re-word quotes which is also can attract some form of civil suit (being in italy, its probably why you do it so much). Its it so obvious.
With that said. Anyone who would like to have a proper debate on our research and be supplied all of the information as we have done (and as linked above) Please contact us via email to work out the details. Anyone who has questions, feel free to contact us and we will address them in a timely manner.
Thanks for your attention, support and for informing yourself.
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
(by the way.. anytime you want to quote a Thoery on pilotsfor911truth.org, since you continue to call us Theorists (yet the only theories here are coming from your side... ) you may be able to regain a tiny ounce of respect from your regular readers. (Hint to his regulars.. he cannot quote a theory.. he just likes to use the word. Yellow journalism at its worse).
acaguy2001>
>Are you kidding me? Posting private emails? You were the one threatening to cherry pick quotes from those very emails?
Please note the slight difference that I did not publish them. I merely noted that they would have made good quotes. That's a polite way of advising someone that they're making themselves look foolish by ranting.
As a professional journalist, I would have not published them without your content, but you've solved that issue.
>All the data is linked above. You seem to have a problem clicking links which is apparent.
I have patiently clicked on the links. No Flight 93 animation to be found.
>We are funding ourselves to get answers since the govt squandered away our tax dollars on a bogus investigation into 9/11 and is now using it to take away our freedoms and kill 100's of thousands around the world (soon to be in the millions).
"In the millions"? One more level-headed, scientifically backed statement, I assume.
>All the data is available....
The only data we do not supply is the Data Frame Layout which changes nothing.
Forgive me if I find these two statements self-contradictory.
> is also can attract some form of civil suit (being in italy, its probably why you do it so much).
I'm sure Italians will appreciate that insult to the entire nation.
>anytime you want to quote a Thoery on pilotsfor911truth.org, since you continue to call us Theorists
No problem. For example, your video theorizes that a plane flew over the Pentagon and dropped a cruise missile. It's in the Pentacon video you support on your site.
The title of this blog should read... :
"Pilots For Truth: Flight 77 Animation was not used for Official Purpose"
That is responsible quoting and journalism, and is correct. It was never used in any sort of Official Investigation or Purpose. Your readers will see the difference.
Pepe should also re-word his blog to state:
Update: I have recently seen the NTSB letter heads posted which came with the animation. It is dated Oct 2006 and does not state anything about a 'working copy'. Being that it came through the Freedom Of Information Act,errors should be disclosed and are not. The 'working copy' letter is Dated March 22, 2007 and is posted on PFT Forums dated April 12, 2007. However, the letter disclosed the error in clock annotation but no disclosure regarding altitude or flight path errors. Pilots For Truth did disclose this letter in a timely fashion.
That would be the responsible thing to do...
Instead. .you go around quoting the NTSB letter saying "Not intended for Official Use". When an aviation document is "Not intended for Official Use" it is stamped on the document/data across the text as a watermark. Pilots see it all the time with approcah plates, manuals.. etc.
Complete twist of words.
Next time, try emailing and consulting with the source before print.
TYPO: without your content -- without your consent.
"I have patiently clicked on the links. No Flight 93 animation to be found."
Im only going to quote this one as your others are complete twist of words as well...
Please quote any analysis/claims we have published with respect to the UA93 Animation. We have not published any analysis regarding UA93 Animation. We have not made any claims with respect to animation data for UA93. Why do you feel we are responsible for giving this information to you when we have not even published analysis? Why dont you get your own from the NTSB?
Would you like me to send you copies of all my daily mail i get sent to me as well? Perhaps my birthday card i got from my mom?
You are being rediculous. We have zero responsiblity to supply you with information which we have not published/analyzed. The mail was addressed to a private individual from the NTSB. Not Pepe in Italy.
When we start to publish our analysis based on the animation, we will make the animation available. Do you understand how this concept works?
For all you know, we may never publish an analysis based on the animation. Do we still have to supply you with a copy?
Why not fill out the FOIA form at ntsb.gov and get your own?
" is also can attract some form of civil suit (being in italy, its probably why you do it so much).
I'm sure Italians will appreciate that insult to the entire nation."
Being in another country other than the US which you would be served.. is probably why you do it so much...
Better?
Nice twist of words once again...
Ok.. this is pointless. Its obvious your yellow journalism, poor research skills and complete twist of words is all you serve.
Keep it up.. at least you were easy to expose on your own blog.
By the way.. im italian..
Balsamo.. look it up.
The title of this blog should read... :
"Pilots For Truth: Flight 77 Animation was not used for Official Purpose"
That is responsible quoting and journalism, and is correct.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the title of this article is not a quote. Quotes are identified by, well, quote marks.
>Pepe should also re-word his blog to state
You should address your complaint to Pepe (whoever that is), not to us.
Instead. .you go around quoting the NTSB letter saying "Not intended for Official Use".
Rob, the exact quote is "never used for an official purpose" and that's what you find in my article. I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of misquoting when you're the misquoter.
Next time, try emailing and consulting with the source before print.
Given the name-calling and lack of openness, that would seem to be a rather fruitless exercise. Also, may I remind you that Mr Murru and Undicisettembre discussed the FDR issue at length before publishing the article. He did not provide any information regarding that letter or the existence of the Flight 93 animation.
While you're here, would you like to comment on the Wikipedia claims that one of your members, Mr John Lear, "asserted that the U.S. government had in fact recovered dozens of UFOs over the decades. In exchange for advanced technology, the government allowed for a limited number of alien abductions."?
Or this claim: "Following this conflict, Lear reports, the aliens have essentially gone about their schemes with no interference. Up to 10% of the U.S. population has been abducted, and the Strategic Defense Initiative was actually proposed to protect from alien invaders, not Soviet missiles."
Perhaps you could put me in touch with Mr Lear so I can hear his side of the story for a forthcoming article.
"No problem. For example, your video theorizes that a plane flew over the Pentagon and dropped a cruise missile. It's in the Pentacon video you support on your site. "
"Is it possible something like this could have occured?"
IOs the exact quote in the film.. and not published on the site.
Do you know the difference between a question and a theory?
Based on the NTSB AA77 animation, the aircraft did not hit the pentagon if trends are continued. That is fact. Care to debate it?
Personally.. i dont know what happened at the pentagon. .and i dont tihkn anyone ever will I say this all the time in many interviews (heard any? not likely).
What i do say and start every sentence with is.. "Based on the NTSB Data for AA77...."
Being a journalist.. im surprised you dont know the difference. But, after conversing with you the past two days.. im beginning to see why.
The Pentacon work is seperate from our work. However we do state on our site and find very interesting that a Pentagon Police Officer bets his life on it that the aircraft was on the north side of the citgo as seen in the FDR animation provided by the NTSB and is available from Pilots For 9/11 Truth.org or ntsb.gov. Which if on the north side of the citgo.. does not support the govt story. Dont argue with me. I didnt say it was on the North side. The pentagon Police Officers said it and so does the NTSB.
IOs the exact quote in the film.. and not published on the site.
A remarkably subtle distinction. The fact is, you endorse the Pentacon video on your site. Do you agree or disagree with that video?
Do you know the difference between a question and a theory?
Yes. I am also able to recognize a theory dressed up as a question.
Based on the NTSB AA77 animation, the aircraft did not hit the pentagon if trends are continued. That is fact. Care to debate it?
Not really, unless you have a solid explanation on how the FDR managed to get from the overflying aircraft inside the Pentagon. And perhaps an explanation as to why the government would fake FDR data which does not corroborate its version of the events.
The pentagon Police Officers said it and so does the NTSB.
Well, there are dozens of other eyewitnesses who beg to differ. Are all the other eyewitness liars?
Also, would you care to comment on Wikipedia's statements about your Mr John Lear or put me in contact with him directly?
"That is responsible quoting and journalism, and is correct.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the title of this article is not a quote. Quotes are identified by, well, quote marks."
Admission of Yellow Journalism if i ever saw one. Thanks!
The rest of your post i didnt read as your tactic of distracting me will only go so far. If you want to debate, we will be having a Pilots For 9/11 Truth Conference coming up. Keep watching the site for details (hopefully you learned how to click by now).
I did catch your John Lear jabs. John Lear has 19,000 hours in many different types of aircraft and is the son of the creator of the Learjet. What qualifications do you have to be printing blogs prior to confronting the source?
As for me putting you in touch with him? What am i, your gopher? You're a journalist.. find him. He is readily accessible in a small number of google searches. But if my experience with you is any indication, you'll blog what you want, when you want, without even contacting the organization, individual, researching their work, twisting words, misquotes, cherry picking quotes out of context and re-wording them to your satisfaction without quotation marks so you have an excuse that you didnt re-word a direct quote.
Have a nice day. Try not to cross out too much of your text, doesnt look good when the information is so easy to find and you call yourself a professional.
Rob Balsamo (Yep, im italian!)
:-)
Admission of Yellow Journalism if i ever saw one. Thanks!
The rest of your post i didnt read as your tactic of distracting me will only go so far.
I'm sorry if asking difficult questions is for you a "tactic of distracting". That's what journalists do: ask difficult questions.
Usually, when someone refuses to answer a question, the implication is that he or she doesn't know how to answer without embarrassment.
In any case, if you're not reading what I write to you, clearly there's no point in continuing the discussion. Readers will have to make up their own minds from what you've posted.
Goodbye.
Robn, whay do you want from me?
I don't post on JREF, I don't even have a blog... WTF are you talking about?
Pape (next time, spells better my name :-P)
Rob said "Based on the NTSB AA77 animation, the aircraft did not hit the pentagon if trends are continued. That is fact. Care to debate it? "
The map under the flight 77 animation is not connected by data to the animation of flight 77. Anyone who understands the NTSB animation knows this. In addition you can see the final heading in the FDR, with was used to create the animation shows you the heading is off by 20 for placing the map under the animation.
Plus you can not debate the fact you have no data to place the aircraft closer than 2800 feet to the Pentagon when it is 200 to 300 feet above the ground with 4 to 6 degree decent going. An easy hit to make the Pentagon as all the evidence shows.
You ignore the witnesses, you ignore the DNA, you ignore the FDR, and you place your whole false information of an animation map not supported by any data.
When will PFT find a single fact and stop telling lies about 9/11 and just protest the war.
What was that, DVD sales? Anyone who was interested in research would be much more open and not ban everyone at his PFTF. Your research is so shallow it avoids the fact the map under the animation is not on the heading the real flight 77 was on. Go ahead try to tell the true that the FDR data ended or was damaged and some data is missing.
Even your data release was missing a second the NTSB release had. And you still do not understand the data stored as Long and Lat and all the updates involved on that data.
All you have is you want to use the NTSB animation to prove 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon and you fail to tell everyone the NTSB FDR data ends seconds away from impact, and the animation's map is not where or how Flight 77 was lined up with respect to the Pentagon. Any pilot, accident board president, engineer, instructor pilot, can clearly see your errors in logic. I have talked to pilots, accident board presidents, instructor pilots, and it appears all agree your work on 9/11 truth is all wrong.
acaguy2001
The rest of your post i didnt read as your tactic of distracting me will only go so far.
*cough*
acaguy2001
Review the full paper and source links THOROUGHLY. After, i would like to see a point by point debunk of ALL the information and the names/credentials of those attempting to debunk facts...
*cough*
Now, how about answering my question:
Does this mean that Pier Paolo Murru is a second-class member of your group and does not have access to all the information in its possession?
Pier Paolo Murru
Papageno you're sad more than Paolo! PF911T is a team of Pilots, Indipendent Researchers and Aviation Experts not a military staff or a Religion. The member core is composed by Aviation Professionals....."Pilots for 911 truth"...can you understand man?
What is sad is that Rob Balsamo seems to be more interested in the number of hits to his website and the DVD sales, than in sharing information.
He is clearly an attention hound, like many conspiracist authors.
And it is even sadder that you associate with him.
Pier Paolo Murru
BTW I'm a postproduction/video/film/lights/CGI expert and not a Pilot. So my support in PFT is to help this team in every research/analysis that suppose my competence. I'm a expert in programming CGI animations, procedural simulations, GIS applications...and stuff like this. I've a backround in electronics and digital signals so I've all the elements to do a good work. PERIOD.
And apparently you are not a sufficiently valuable member to be considered representative.
Pier Paolo Murru
...But of course...I'm not a aviation Professional...so every time (and every where) I've talked about this arguments I've linked on the PF911T source as you can see wherever I done this. Look at LC forum, or "Focus" forum or wherever you want. The same forums where your friends (John Battista, Pape and Paolo Attivissimo) accused PFT to have selfmade the AA77 FDR animation!!! Go and look by yourself!
[snip!]
acaguy2001:
"By the way.. thanks for the publicity.. we're getting some good hits from this blog.. :-)"
"Why are you asking these questions of Pier when you can email the source? Pier is a member of our team.. yes.. but he is not a pilot. Why not email the founders? I think i know why. I think others here know why as well."
"Thats why i try not to waste too much time on them. But since our site is getting some good hits from here.. i figured i'd stick around for a bit this morning."
"We share our results with the people that matter."
"Once again i would like to thank you for the added publicity from this blog and now more from JREF. Its a nice supplement to our already high amount of hits we been getting. Our orders for our DVD to Italy have increased too. Maybe due to this blog? Dunno. But its welcomed as we are trying to raise funds for a Pilots For 9/11 Truth Conference coming up."
"Our sales of our DVD's futher our research. People like JREF have donation buttons but offer nothing in return. Those people are profiting off the lives lost and victims. We are funding ourselves to get answers since the govt squandered away our tax dollars on a bogus investigation into 9/11 and is now using it to take away our freedoms and kill 100's of thousands around the world (soon to be in the millions). Im wondering what your motivation is for defending that."
What were you saying about sadness?
Pier Paolo Murru
So please, stop using me against Rob and viceversa....I have all access to informations that I need for my works...what of this stuff you can't understand?
Who's using you?
I asked a question about you to the co-founder of the group because it seems a bit odd for a "truth movement" to say:
"Why are you asking these questions of Pier when you can email the source? Pier is a member of our team.. yes.. but he is not a pilot."
PierPaolo, it seems that you have some problem in undestanding the italian language.
In the focus forum, NOBODY said the animation was faked. But may poeople were not sure about the autenticity of the animation. Until the firt days of April, PFT didn't posted any proof of authenticity, even if some researchers asked them. They didn't release the ISO of CDs, not any official document talking about that animation.
Now, we have the proof we were asking for. We still need all the information regarding the analysis. Where is the work of PFT? A spreadsheet with "273" written on that? What method was used for the analysis of the RAW data? Why PFT didn't take in account the correction of magnetic north? With that correction, the plane is perfectly in line with the official path, for example.
If they want to be trusted, they need to release all the data and all the calculation that lead to their point, not just talk about some expert who did the job reaching in an undefined way. Is not a scientific approach.
Pape
"In the focus forum, NOBODY said the animation was faked. But may poeople were not sure about the autenticity of the animation."
You just said the same thing.
"Until the firt days of April, PFT didn't posted any proof of authenticity,"
Oct 3, 2006
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64&view=findpost&p=4168936
Oct 20, 2006
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=375&view=findpost&p=4984806
"even if some researchers asked them. "
If they asked us, they would have been pointed to the links above. They also wouldnt have to cross out text in their blog.
"They didn't release the ISO of CDs,"
Dec 20, 2006
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64&view=findpost&p=6992328
"Now, we have the proof we were asking for."
Its always been there (see links provided and dates), you just wanted to be spoon fed. Hence the text having to be crossed out in the original blog.
"We still need all the information regarding the analysis. Where is the work of PFT? "
Many detailed reports dated Aug 2006 till present.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showforum=9
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
Full film based on above detailed reports with NTSB animation and calculations using Altimeter simulators, 9/11 Commission Report Animation, USGS Survey et al. Release Date Jan 12, 2006.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=3895
"A spreadsheet with "273" written on that? What method was used for the analysis of the RAW data?"
Full detailsed Report using Anti-Sophist argument of up to 2 seconds missing.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801
Raw Data Download Dated Feb 7, 2007 (days after we were able to get it decoded).
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4574
Links above point here for downloads.
http://www.aa77fdr.com/
Be sure to Read the ReadMe file first to understand how we obtained the decode.
"Why PFT didn't take in account the correction of magnetic north? "
csv headings were altered to show a southern approach. Feb 27, 2007
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5083
"With that correction, the plane is perfectly in line with the official path,"
No it isnt.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5083&view=findpost&p=8530044
Be sure to click links above from 991files.info where a mathmetician/statistician has determined the headings were altered to show a southern approach.
"If they want to be trusted, they need to release all the data and all the calculation that lead to their point, "
I think others who actually do the research can see what is going on here.
Rob
"The map under the flight 77 animation is not connected by data to the animation of flight 77."
Its not?
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/screens/085054lastcallFLM.jpg
Looks connected to the ground to me...
Perhaps you dont see those yellow poles extenging down from the flight path and aircraft to the grid on the ground. It is obvious you have never spoken to an FDR Animation Software specialist. Call one, you'll be surprised.
Excerpt from phone call with FDR Expert.
FDR Expert: Yeah, I’m gonna get to that. It’s, uh, and its not a rocket science algorithm we use to do it. It’s fairly straight forward but what it does do is stop step changes and things. (inaudible) And certainly in more modern aircraft where we’ve got more data like, I, I haven’t looked at your data but it’s a 757-200, is that right?
P4T Rep: That’s right, yeah.
FDR Expert: Ok, well a 757-200 will have things like ground speed, air speed, uh, or have wind speed, wind direction. It will have latitude, longitude and what we can do is we can do a gross error check if we know where you took off from and when you consider that we know what the longitude and the lateral and vertical acceleration to be the aircraft is recorded at very high sample rates. So long as you know where you took off from, we can work out exactly where you were and we can then use things like heading, wind speed, ground speed, to correlate that data so that if there was something odd going on for example, if we were suffering for mag-shift, mag-shift is a GPS thing where the ground, um, the Global Positioning System suffers from positional errors we can actually work out the difference, we can work out at where the airplane truly was by pure physics as in it weighs this much, it was traveling at this speed, heading in this direction, and experience these accelerations, up, down, left, and right. We can then look at the GPS data and say here, here is where the mag-shift started at same point and it, mag-shift can be introduced by the flight magnet systems by, um, ground-radio transmitting errors. But at the end of the day, we have some really quite sophisticated tools to work out exactly where the airplane was.
The rest of your post i didnt read as you dont have much to offer beechnut. Even your friends at JREF understand you're an oldtimer and that your posts are absurd and dont make much sense. Go look around and read some of Beechnuts' posts at JREF. Nothing much but ranting and incoherent diatribes. He's in his late 70's i think so cut him some slack.
Rob
Repost for link not working above (seems the full link didnt transfer...)
Here is a better view of the 'connected map/plane' picture.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=17&view=findpost&p=877323
The map and the aircraft are two independent elements of the NTSB video. The aircraft movement is independent of the ground elements added by the NTSB to represent the area around the Pentagon. How can you tell, what is the proof, and why is there an error?
The final heading, with reference to the Pentagon map below the aircraft in the NTSB video, is about 80 degrees true. The final heading from the FDR recovered in the Pentagon of flight 77 was about 60 degrees true (70 degrees magnetic). 20 degrees off! Did the NTSB place the map and rotate it the wrong direction for the variation of 10 degrees on their "working copy"? It looks like they did. As the article points out, the NTSB video was a "working copy". The map error fits/supports the "working copy" statement by the NTSB.
If you look at the co-founder of PFT statements, he verifies that the aircraft and the map are independent. Yes he presented the proof that the dynamics of flight drive the animation of the aircraft independent of the map below the aircraft animation. Rob tells us, that on the phone his FDR expert said with the FDR they can take the accelerations and other key data to plots the aircraft. I agree, you can plot the plane with data and it will give you a relative path. Actually the FDR has 8 vertical accelerations a second , 4 longitudinal accelerations a second, 4 lateral accelerations/sec, 4 roll angles/sec, 4 pitch angles/sec, and 4 different headings sampled from 1 second to every 2 seconds. Yes with this data and other data you can build the NTSB animation and come up with a relative path. But you do not have an exact position at the end of the NTSB animation. With modern aircraft and GPS updates, errors in position could be in the 100s of feet. In 2001, even using the raw data, the error in position are in the 3000 foot range.
You would have to talk to the NTSB people who did the animation to know which data they used to create the path. Flight 77 had no GPS, the aircraft inertial system relied on VOR/DME for updates, and errors up to 3000 feet are common. Flight 77 had no GPS to correct compass errors. The compasses, as stored on the FDR should be accurate to 1 or 2 degrees. The accuracy of the ground map matching up the aircraft animation is unknown. The error could be 3000 feet (can I say that again?). The proof that the NTSB animation ground depiction of the Pentagon is not an accurate account of the real position of flight 77, is the heading. The heading on the animation, with respect to the misplaced Pentagon ground map, shows flight 77 on a true heading of 80 degrees. The real heading as 77 approached the Pentagon was about 60 degrees true, stored on the same FDR which created the animation of the aircraft you see on the NTSB video, with a misaligned ground map.
Recap: The NTSB video does not show the real location of flight 77 with respect to the ground. Flight 77 real heading was 60 degree true (70 degrees magnetic). Therefore Flight 77 can not approach the Pentagon at 80 degrees true. It is that simple to show why the NTSB video is a "working copy", as stated in the letter.
The FDR confirms other evidence of 9/11. The truth movement ignores witnesses who actually saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Some witnesses talk of a gentle bank ("turn" at high speeds and 6 degrees of bank give a radius of 38 miles; and why the plane did not actually turn but fractions of a degree in the last seconds), the FDR from 77 shows bank angles left and right 2 to 6 degrees during the final seconds. The witnesses even saw 77 hit light posts. The damaged light posts line up with a 60 degrees true heading as stored in the FDR, not the 80 degrees heading for the misplaced pentagon map in the NTSB animation. Witnesses said 77 was at a steep angle. Normal landing approach is at 2 to 3 degrees, what most people are use to seeing. Flight 77 was diving as steep as 9 degrees confirmed on the FDR, and verifies the "steep" statements by the witnesses.
The FDR recovered from the Pentagon was damaged but data was retrieved. Amazing the chip was not destroyed. There is data missing in the FDR before the impact. Could it be a delay storing data? The amount of data in one second, one sub frame of the FDR, is 3072 bits. The data is stored at 3072 bits per second. This could account for some delay in recording. I wonder if the delay is equal to one frame? I wonder if there are four sub frames in each frame in the FDR?
The PFT are reluctant to share methods and raw information in search of the truth. The purpose of the PFT is to sell DVDs and research some more (Rob confirmed this)? You have seen their research so far. PFT can not tell you where flight 77 is the final second recorded on the FDR. PFT says flight 77 is where the NTSB "working copy" video places it on a map misaligned and showing the wrong heading in relation to the Pentagon. The extra money from DVDs will not help them get better, it will help them spread misinformation.
I doubt I need to address Rob's paranoia about beechnut. He sees beechnut, he sees him everywhere. Beechnut could be over the hill. Beechnut has an ATP. Beechnut was a pilot in the USAF for 28 years. He flew KC-135s, and was an instructor pilot, a command pilot, operations officer, safety officer, served on 7 accident investigation boards, accident board president for a large jet, has experience reading and interpreting FDRs from commercial aircraft (including the DC-10), was current operation airlift coordinator for the Bosnia war, coordinated airlift for UNHRC, flew combat missions in Desert Storm. I agree, he must be very old. Was he too close to a SCUD explosion in the Desert? How many accident boards has Rob served on? Beechnut has a BS degree in Electrical Engineering, and earn a masters in Electrical Engineering (he worked at Wright Aeronautical Labs, that could date him). I can call him again and see what else beechnut did or did not do. (I think an ATP is an Airline Transport Pilot rating, it is the rating required by Captains to fly passenger in the USA, most major airlines require new hires to have an ATP, to prove they are competent.) Does Rob have an ATP?
The last word: How can PFT say the data on the FDR was faked or altered, yet use the animation created from the same FDR, as their final position for Flight 77? An animation called a "working copy" by the people who produced it. What is going on at the PFT?
Good article. Good job.
[quote]
"In the focus forum, NOBODY said the animation was faked. But may poeople were not sure about the autenticity of the animation."
You just said the same thing.
[/quote]
If you can't see the difference, you have some problems with communication.
[quote]
"Until the firt days of April, PFT didn't posted any proof of authenticity,"
Oct 3, 2006
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64&view=findpost&p=4168936
Oct 20, 2006
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=375&view=findpost&p=4984806
"even if some researchers asked them. "
If they asked us, they would have been pointed to the links above. They also wouldnt have to cross out text in their blog.
"They didn't release the ISO of CDs,"
Dec 20, 2006
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64&view=findpost&p=6992328
[/quote]
There's no reference to the animation in any of the above link.
[quote]
Its always been there (see links provided and dates), you just wanted to be spoon fed. Hence the text having to be crossed out in the original blog.
"We still need all the information regarding the analysis. Where is the work of PFT? "
Many detailed reports dated Aug 2006 till present.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showforum=9
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
Full film based on above detailed reports with NTSB animation and calculations using Altimeter simulators, 9/11 Commission Report Animation, USGS Survey et al. Release Date Jan 12, 2006.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=3895
"A spreadsheet with "273" written on that? What method was used for the analysis of the RAW data?"
Full detailsed Report using Anti-Sophist argument of up to 2 seconds missing.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801
Raw Data Download Dated Feb 7, 2007 (days after we were able to get it decoded).
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4574
Links above point here for downloads.
http://www.aa77fdr.com/
Be sure to Read the ReadMe file first to understand how we obtained the decode.
[/quote]
If you think these is a disection of the data, and something which can be peer reviewd, it means you don't know what science is. Or in your opinion scientists write their articles putting some pieces in one forum and some other pieces on another? Are you able to write an essay including all the data of your research instead of sending people to your forum? I didn't see any bibliography... all your work is just self referential... still, is not what is to be considered science.
[quote]
"Why PFT didn't take in account the correction of magnetic north? "
csv headings were altered to show a southern approach. Feb 27, 2007
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5083
[/quote]
No. You say the CSV was altered, just because the animation has an error and YOU believe is made with the same CSV data without human intervent (and without error). YOu said to have decoded the RAW FDR data... what they say about that? If you have that information, it shlould be easy to understand if there is an error in animation or someone tampled with CSV...
[quote]
"If they want to be trusted, they need to release all the data and all the calculation that lead to their point, "
I think others who actually do the research can see what is going on here.
[/quote]
I've seen other self proclaimed (like you and your contacts) FDR experts who just says your point are just BS. You avoid the discussion with them, and you don't share with them other data. That's not a research: it's just trying to fool people.
Anyway... if you have decoded the RAW data and you are able to indicate perfectly where the airplane is (and that has not hit the pentagon) why don't you take your "research" to a court? You could win a pulitzer, a lot of money and your site will have a lot of access (which is your goal, as I understand): why don't you do that?
Pape
I want to think for a moment that PFT is absolutely right: they are providing us an evidence that the AA77 FDR data tell us that the airplane flown above the Pentagon instead to hit the building.
But lot of witnesses provide a different scenario, where a plane (or a "flying object", if you prefer) hit the building. No one spoke about a plane that flown away, so it's logical, at this point, to assume that something hit the building.
If FDR data are not confirming this fact, I have only two way to choose:
1. Data on FDR were corrupted or not correctly read;
2. Someone inserted false data in the FDR that was analyzed, to cover up a plot.
First point is quite simple to afford. If the FDR data doesn't confirm impact, even with tolerances, I have to check all the procedures in order to understand if somewhere there is a failure. If a mistake or a malfunction is found, should be a good idea to make it public, in order to avoid similar problem in the future.
Second point is heavy. Lot of people were required to do it, also into the least effort hypothesis.
If we suppose that data were altered in the FDR inside the AA77, it means that several technicians accessed the plane some time before the crash, filling fake data inside and disconnecting the real data flow, without generating suspects. I think it's not so easy to do for any organization, including the most powerful.
If we suppose that someone left a fake FDR after the crash, we have to ask us how is possible that no real expert could understand that mechanical damage was not compatible with the crash, which dynamic was certainly not predictable.
So, I think, it's logical to think that *this* FDR was involved and survived the crash.
Questions at this point are growing up, but answers lacks. Maybe a NTSB technician fills the FDR with false data? Or someone else made it before analysis, without leaving any tampering trace?
My personal idea is that probably something is wrong, not necessarily thinking to a cover up: this hypothesis involves too many people and is, at the end, is too complex to be conducted with few risks for "the evil".
Personally, I think also that if a big conspiracy ruled the facts we sadly know, at least their plot don't let to found any readable FDR in the Pentagon or elsewhere... no evidence it's a lot better than a discovered false evidence.
Hi Bobplissken,
I agree with you. The evidences and witnesses say that the plane hit the pentagon. Full stop.
If the FDR data doesn't match that, probably who analyzed the data is wrong. Even if, for absurd, the plane did not hit the pentagon, it would be so stupid to release a faked FDR that does not line up with the official story. And, in any case, I don't see the point in destroying (and how?) the light poles if nothing passed over it.
Pape
I didnt read all the rants here, but I see people still arent following links provided. Not surprised.
We didnt plot the animation of the plane stopping over Route 27 one second prior to impact. The NTSB did. They refuse to retract, correct any 'possible errors' or answer any questions posed from professional pilots, mechanics, Accident Investigators et al.
This is not a scietific theory being offered. Theory gets peer reviewed.
We show facts -
-It is fact that the aircraft is too high over Highway 27, 1 second prior to the pentagon wall, as plotted by the NTSB.
-If the aircraft was actually at 50 feet above the ground, It is fact that the NTSB animation shows vertical speed is too great (4600+ fpm) to be level with the pentagon lawn as seen in the DoD 5 frames video which has a slope of less than 600 fpm.
-It is fact the NTSB plotted the flight path stopping 780 feet from the pentagon wall.
-It is fact the NTSB used radar, ATC transcripts and the FDR to plot the path.
-It is fact they plotted the animation flight path north of the citgo gas station and Two Pentagon Police Officer coorboate the position (one betting his life on it).
-It is fact that there are no system indications of impact with any object.
-It is fact that the heading in the csv file and animation has been altered by more than 20 degrees (click the links we provided, all the work is there. I can only provide the link, i cannot come to your computer and place your finger on the mouse).
Scientists propose theory which is peer reviewed. We do not provide theory. We provided facts. The NTSB refuses to address these facts. The fact is the NTSB data which they claim is from AA77 does not support the govt story of AA77 impacting the pentagon. Period.
You people offer theory and excuses. You try to believe in possible error instead of getting real answers. You make excuses for a govt which is known for lying. You defend war criminals.
"We were set up to fail... alot of people have things to hide... over 100 people!" - Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair, 9/11 Commission speaking of their investigation.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=3895
(Starts 09:10)
You people dont seem too concerned. Rather you defend those type of actions. You are complicit in the cover-up. You are complicit for helping criminal elements within our govt tell lies to the American people. You are complicit in helping criminal elements within our govt use a biggest crime of the century as an excuse to cause death and mayhem throughout the world when the Commssion formed to investigate the very catalyst of these actions was set up to fail. You are complicit for aiding the criminal elements within our govt in telling lies to our first responders who are now dying. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either that, or you have an agenda.
Fealgood Foundation
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
9/11 Family Steering Committee
http://www.911independentcommission.org/members.html
9/11 Family Members looking for answers
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I'll stop by from time to time to check in and make you earn your shame.
Cheers!
Rob
[quote]
-It is fact that the aircraft is too high over Highway 27, 1 second prior to the pentagon wall, as plotted by the NTSB.
[/quote]
As me have seen, the animation is a working copy, and contains at least 2 errors: the time, and the magnetic north (which is correct on the CSV)
[quote]
-If the aircraft was actually at 50 feet above the ground, It is fact that the NTSB animation shows vertical speed is too great (4600+ fpm) to be level with the pentagon lawn as seen in the DoD 5 frames video which has a slope of less than 600 fpm.
[/quote]
see above
[quote]
-It is fact the NTSB plotted the flight path stopping 780 feet from the pentagon wall.
-It is fact the NTSB used radar, ATC transcripts and the FDR to plot the path.
-It is fact they plotted the animation flight path north of the citgo gas station and Two Pentagon Police Officer coorboate the position (one betting his life on it).
[/quote]
It is a fact that the animation, as said, is a working cxopy and contains errors. At least the magnetic north error, is not present in the CSV.
So, it is a fact that the animation could be taken as a proof of something.
[quote]
-It is fact that the heading in the csv file and animation has been altered by more than 20 degrees (click the links we provided, all the work is there. I can only provide the link, i cannot come to your computer and place your finger on the mouse).
[/quote]
Is not a fact, it's just your opinion. You take an animation (with errors and with no official purpouse) made by NTSB to show that the data provided by NTSB on the CVS are faked. Other people, even some (self proclaimed like you) FDR experts, thinks that CVS is right and animation has some errors. This is the most probable case.
For the rest, I don't even lose time on quoting and replying: just CT bullshit.
Pape
"You people dont seem too concerned. Rather you defend those type of actions. You are complicit in the cover-up. You are complicit for helping criminal elements within our govt tell lies to the American people. You are complicit in helping criminal elements within our govt use a biggest crime of the century as an excuse to cause death and mayhem throughout the world when the Commssion formed to investigate the very catalyst of these actions was set up to fail. You are complicit for aiding the criminal elements within our govt in telling lies to our first responders who are now dying. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either that, or you have an agenda."
Oh my God. Now anyone who disagree whit you or has some doubts, is part of the conspiracy. Are you paranoid ?
I know US govt has told many lies, but in this blog we only focus on 9/11 events.
I still have doubts on what happened at the Pentagon, i think the best thing PFT can do is to require from NTSB an official animation and stop focusing on a working copy.
Anyway, due to the energies involved into the approaching/impact, the possibility that data stored in the FDR went corrupted remains.
Have a nice day and sorry for my bad english.
acaguy2001
I didnt read all the rants here, but I see people still arent following links provided. Not surprised.
acaguy2001
Review the full paper and source links THOROUGHLY. After, i would like to see a point by point debunk of ALL the information and the names/credentials of those attempting to debunk facts
What is this smell?
Ah yes, it's the smell of double standard.
acaguy2001
You people dont seem too concerned. Rather you defend those type of actions. You are complicit in the cover-up.
[snip]
acaguy2001
If you want information, go to the source that has PUBLISHED this information, dont try using a strawman and/or paint with a broad brush as you people do so well.
What is this smell?
Ah yes, it's the smell of hypocrisy.
So, how are the DVD sales going?
Did you get any invitation to appear on TV?
Rob said
"We show facts -
1-It is fact that the aircraft is too high over Highway 27, 1 second prior to the pentagon wall, as plotted by the NTSB.
2-If the aircraft was actually at 50 feet above the ground, It is fact that the NTSB animation shows vertical speed is too great (4600+ fpm) to be level with the pentagon lawn as seen in the DoD 5 frames video which has a slope of less than 600 fpm.
3-It is fact the NTSB plotted the flight path stopping 780 feet from the pentagon wall.
4-It is fact the NTSB used radar, ATC transcripts and the FDR to plot the path.
5-It is fact they plotted the animation flight path north of the citgo gas station and Two Pentagon Police Officer coorboate the position (one betting his life on it).
6-It is fact that there are no system indications of impact with any object.
7-It is fact that the heading in the csv file and animation has been altered by more than 20 degrees (click the links we provided, all the work is there. I can only provide the link, i cannot come to your computer and place your finger on the mouse)."
No it is not a fact on point 1, the NTSB aicraft and map are not plotted correctly and your own FDR decode does not show flight 77 ever there.
Number 2, the plane is not level when it hits it is going down a hill to hit the Pentagon, stop making up stuff.
3. The NTSB did not line up the Pentagon and the aircraft. Which part of "working copy" do you have a problem with?
4. False, you do not know how they plotted the "working copy". Stop making up stuff.
5. Tell the truth, the two Pentagon police officers have changed their story since 9/11. In 2001 those same Police officers tell a different story. Who ever needs to listen can, I will provide a link to listen to their 2001 interview. One of the officers saw the plane hit the lamp posts on 9/11. And both were some of the first people on the scene. Rob is going to say they changed their story. Which story would you beleive one from 2006/2007, or in 2001. I am not sure, in 2001 the officer said he saw the plane hit the posts. Five years later he changed his story. Rob, which story do we believe?
6. The FDR did not have the final seconds, and the best indication of the last position from the FDR is on a heading close to the final and about 2900 feet from the Pentagon. Sorry but you failed to tell anyone where you data puts flight 77. Lots of witnesses place 77 on the heading presented on the FDR. Why?
7. No the headings have not been altered. You should pick better experts next time. There is no error in flight 77 heading system or in the FDR headings stored. You see there were multiple flight stored on the FDR and those flights are verified. Therefore the best back up for the accuracy of the FDR headings is the damage to the light posts and the impact at the Pentagon. Including the impact damage. Sorry, this puts your misinformation at 100 percent for this set of "facts". If these are your facts, I hate to see some of you lies.
You have a small group of so called "experts" who make up stuff to match what they want to believe. Good job in getting out the "facts".
"You people dont seem too concerned. Rather you defend those type of actions. You are complicit in the cover-up. You are complicit for helping criminal elements within our govt tell lies to the American people. You are complicit in helping criminal elements within our govt use a biggest crime of the century as an excuse to cause death and mayhem throughout the world when the Commssion formed to investigate the very catalyst of these actions was set up to fail. You are complicit for aiding the criminal elements within our govt in telling lies to our first responders who are now dying. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either that, or you have an agenda."
Hey Skippy, now calm down a little, ok? Save that rethoric for the people at your site that actually believe it. It's since you began posting here that you're calling the staff liars, joke journalists, evading the questions that embarrass you, calmly admitting you don't read the posts... it's a kind of behavior that's not only sad and childish, it's hypocrisy. And frankly, we've seen it already many times from other CTs. If this blog is so inferior and you say you're so busy, I don't understand why you bother answering so much.
Seriously guys, has any purpose anymore answering to these people? They're just typical theorists, impervious to any logic and just argumenting for the sake of it, to try to raise some dust and mask the evidences going against them. And we've already seen that it leads nowhere argumenting with someone that's already convinced of something, for profit of blindness. It lowers the level of discussion. I don't any point in going further with this, we (they) already demonstrated to our readers what they really are like.
202-314-6000
Have you called the number for answers? We have... (its obvious you havent.. or you wouldnt need to cross out text in the original blog.. awesome professional journalism you got there...)
pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
We put our real names/careers on the line. Military, Airline, Civilian. Do you any of your so-called experts? Didnt think so.
You people are a joke and you're losing. You validate our concerns just by writing your blogs. We will remember you when the time comes for ultimate truth and JUSTICE!
Cheers!
Rob
ace aka beechnut.. you are totally incoherent. Still waiting for your email for debate old timer. Are you scared to debate us on a recorded interview FACE TO FACE? I know.. you think you'll get tripped up and we'll use it for sound bites. Why are we so confident to debate you in person, yet you make excuse to not debate us and spend all your time behind your screen.. day after day.. posting inaccurate claims? If you ever spoke to and FDR expert. a real one.. you wouldnt be saying what you are saying... lol.. But anytime you want to debate face to face old timer.. dont be too scared. Just email us.. we'll work out the details.
You are a waste of space beechnut. Real military officers in our organization who get on recorded lines know it. Salute to your superiors old timer!
All you got are blogs on the net. We reach thousands.. millions per day. You're a joke. Bloggin with people you think are "dolts" day after day. Who is the real Dolt? Get a life dude!
I expect more from a military man. It is clear you have zero self respect.
You get zero respect. You probably have an agenda. Ever been to Bohemian Grove? Gotta love the Owl. And they call us the dolts..
Till next time... enjoy your shame and defending war criminals.
Fealgood Foundation
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
9/11 Family Steering Committee
http://www.911independentcommission.org/members.html
9/11 Family Members looking for answers
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
http://patriotsquestion911.com
Rob, in italy we say "fatti, non pugnette", which can be translated in something like "facts, not handjobs".
So, please prove something or just shut up. Still, you are trying to say that NSTB CSV is wrong using their animation. So, is NTSB lying or not? Os is it just lying when it does not fit your ideas and is right when it does? Because of the animation show what you want to thrust is ok? I remember you that all the witness are against you. All the physical proof are against you. YOu just have some witness wich, after five year, thinks that the plane followed another approach. One of these witness is so dumb that he changed the version after years. And these few people are nothing compared to all the other people who saw the plane hitting the pentagon. How do you explain this? They are all in the payroll of CIA? The policeman changed version because CIA forgot to send him the monthly cheque?
Pape
Posta un commento