New video looks at NTSB's analysis of Flight 77's black box data

(You can watch the 1hr video online at the above 911blogger.com link)

I watched the film, and intend to watch it again in order to better understand it. I was struck by the discrepancies between the conclusions the pilots came to after reviewing Flight 77 black box data, and some of the conclusions of the NTSB.

More important to me, however, was NTSB's absolute refusal to discuss the discrepancies with the PR person from PilotsforTruth, or, from what it sounded like, with anyone who might question their conclusions.

I like that PilotsforTruth want a nonpartisan full investigationof 9/11 as this is what I have long thought would be the only way to potentially know the truth of what happened on 9/11.

I also intend to further explore their website. I notice that they have a forum which could be very interesting.

Thanks again.

As expected, JohnDoeX decided to leave a bunch of stuff in there that he knows isn't true, just like his role models, the Loose Change boyz. But that's okay, apparently, when people like Hope2006 are looking for "truth," not facts; and whadaya know, she was "struck" by the very "truth" that JDX didn't have the integrity to leave out. Only $14.95 for the "higher quality DVD with extras," Hope -- could be whole lotsa "truth" in those extras.

but the billions made by companies exploiting the genocide of Muslims which was made possible from the exploitation of 9-11 goes pffffft, right over your head.
Hope2006 is the enemy not George Bush and his neocon death machine, right?
Is there a limit to how many we can put on the new ignore function? I decided to only use it on personal attackers, thinking it would only be a couple, but it's amazing how bad it really is here.

And, notice there are no "facts" in the post to back up the attack.

I don't think there is a limit to how many one can have on ignore. Myself, I see no reason to use the function anywhere on DU other than in this forum, so my selection is limited to a handful who post mainly in this forum.

for replying to posts from posters I have blocked, I have chosen not to respond to any posts from my blocked list despite being goaded as an attempt to get me to reply.

MP, I would be interested in any reply you might make, however...

... so your "personal attack" was completely false. If I was wrong about Hope2006 being interested in "truth" instead of facts, she now has an opportunity to show that she cares about facts by replying to my post below about the flight path. So do you.

that some posters in this forum seem to confuse the notions of a 'personal attack' with a disagreement in opinion.

by some who post here, in a civil manner without sarcasm, mockery, or snide commentary.

Listen, there was no personal attack, contrary to what was stated above.
The point is that some people can't grasp the difference between a personal attack and disagreement, and that it is indeed interesting to note.

... but as the saying goes, you don't have a right to your own facts. Everyone gets facts wrong from time to time, but the "truth movement" is something else: The "truth movement" is built from the ground up on distorting facts for the specific purpose of influencing people's opinions. Why should that be dealt with in a "civil manner?" My "sarcasm, mockery, or snide commentary" on here is mainly because that's as much as the forum rules will allow.

It's not even a good knock-off of Loose Change. At least the loose changers were the original hucksters with, as Jason Bermas put it, "dubious claims" and "intentional mistakes."...."we're just kids"

These movies remind me of those spoofs floating around the internets where they take film trailers from non-horror movies and turn them in to horror movie trailers by dubbing over scary music and voices. ...IIRC, they turned "Sleepless In Seattle" thriller/slasher.....

All you need is some half truths, out of context quotes, intellectually dishonesty, scary music, somber voice narration and Voila! You have a truther film.

Half way through the one hour video and they don't cover much more "information" than the loose changers. In other words, not using their "pilot" credentials.

I DO find it funny that they mention how easy it would have been to identify the pentagon on approach. We had a long discussion here the other day with CTers INSISTING the pentagon would be impossible to locate.....I remember "speck of dirt" was used by a CTer to describe the pentagon....LOL
I guess there's nothing like intellectual dishonesty to make a point when you don't have facts on your side.


...back to the video

commercial pilots license even though his flight instructors said he wasn't qualified to keep one based on

His poor English skills
His poor academic showing and
His non-existent flight skills.

Apparently anybody with some bucks to spend can get a pilots license. Nothing wrong with that though is there?

So I wouldn't expect much just because they are pilots. Anyone can be a pilot. Hani proved that.

it's just disappointing that there doesn't appear to be info anywhere that can be trusted. This is why I think it is so very important that there be a new thorough investigation into 9/11.

I received my private pilot's ticket when I was a freshman in college @ 18 yrs. old. My dad would laugh that I could rent an airplane but not a car.

The reinforced 'wedge' that was struck was the first and only exposed side on initial approach/sighting and after the descending right turn. Any other target would have required over-shooting the building and setting up an entirely different approach - THAT would imply targeting a specific wedge.

I MIGHT have more respect for the producers/pilots if they had at least DISCUSSED the difference in skill-levels required to dump 7000 ft altitude on a straight in approach versus the path the hijacker took - a descending right turn after initial sighting of the building. The descending right turn to set up a low angle approach was the better bet and more suited for someone with limited skill level.


Also, the they conveniently forget to mention the controller they interview was, IIRC, not actually working/employed/on-duty when the attacks took place. But hey, he "KNEW" it was an inside job @ 5pm on 9/11..:crazy:

As far as the phone call to the NTSB...If they have all these experienced pilots on staff, why did they have someone, who CLEARLY wasn't a pilot, call??? Makes ya wonder - doesn't it? That and the fact that jon doe x's YouTube profile initially pegged his age @ 26yrs old until Greyl called him on it(it suddenly changed to, IIRC, 104? years old).....Rmember, this is the guy that claims 20 year flight experience.

... that's some leftover bullshit from when it was initially reported by some that the plane came from the north, so one of the early "truther" claims was that it did a dare-devil spiral to specifically hit that side:



So, even though it's known now from the FDR data that it came from the west (as most sources had always reported) and it did that slow, wobbly 330^o turn to kill altitude, JDX apparently decided to use that "targeted" claim anyway (even though it hit the same side it would have hit in a dive) just so he could include that stuff about the accounting office being in that wedge, and the part about it being the wedge that had been reinforced, to make it more "suspicious." So, yes, I would call that one of the many intentional deceits.

The most blatant intentional deceit, and the one that bugged me the most, was the one about the "north of the Citgo" path missing the light poles. Some may recall, when the trailer for that video was first released, we had this thread discussing that, and JDX showed up: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=125586

So, JDX definitely knows the graphic in the animation was misaligned; he just doesn't want to give up another "suspicious" piece of bullshit for his video. His "defense" was, well, that misalignment was NTSB's fault, not his, so (being a great "truther" of course) he should be allowed to continue deceiving people like Hope2006 into thinking that the "FDR data" shows the plane missing the poles. JDX definitely knows that the data from the FDR agrees with the path of physical damage; it's just that whoever put that animation together misaligned the Pentagon graphic.

I hadn't seen it before and it is very helpful

If you followed what happened in that thread, you'll see that JohnDoeX admitted (without actually saying so) that the course data from the FDR put the plane over the bridge, not north of the Citgo (as his video still claims!), but he tried to claim that it would still have missed some of the poles if it was plotted "accurately." However, his "proof" of that was a graphic in which he had rotated his compass a few degrees! Unbelievable...

with a now tombstoned poster over a north arrow on some plans for the towers (site plans, IIRC).

Surreal.

I followed it, all right. It's obvious that he knows that he is blowing smoke, that he deliberately skewed the compass, and that he would not have corrected it here unless he was called on it, and it's obvious that he knows that he is misrepresenting the truth in his video. Unbelievable is right but such deception is not unexpected from the twoof movement. Certain members of the twoof movement have been deceiving the gullible for several years now.