"When asked why the flight data they published is inconsistent with a strike on the pentagon the NTSB refuse to discuss it and refer callers to the FBI."

In fact, the "flight data" you are referring is inconsistent with the black box data it is supposedly based on. A flight animation is reconstructed based on the black box data. The black box data is consistent with the trajectory of the official flight path. Any assertion that the "animation" is more relevant than the black box data is not particularly credible, since the data seen in the animation is "supposed" to come from the black box data.

"NTSB ANIMATION" IS FLAT WRONG
TEN DEGREES FROM TRUE: THE NTSB ANIMATION IS FLAT WRONG
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/05/ntsb-animation-is-flat-wron...

"So I looked at how 70 degrees translated into that animation. I capped a frame of the plane passing over the Navy Annex area, nearly centered on what I determined to be Southgate Road (at a mag heading of 70 it says) and mapped that. Lo and behold, the path from there to the Pentagon, the path taken in the video, is NOT a 70 degree heading! It's 80 degrees, a full ten degrees off!"

I don't know why the data is wrong, but it is wrong, and it's certainly not "evidence" of what happened at the Pentagon. Unless you believe they fabricated the black box data but made a "correct" animation based on it. But this is not possible since the magnetic inclination is factually incorrect in the "animation". So, to recap, the animation data that isn't even with the correct magnetic inclination and does not match the black box data it was "constructed from" is continuously promoted as somehow being evidence of something that happened on 9/11. The explanation simply could be as simple as the flight animation was incorrectly made. This seems like the most reasonable explanation since the magnetic inclination is wrong and it does not match the black box data. Even more strange, is that the 9/11 commission had a different animation (matching the official flight path of course). Now isn't that weird? Why are there two different animations? I'm not saying I have all the answers, because I don't. This is a weird situation that has not been fully explained, but jumping to conclusions is where you start to get in hot water.

This often repeated claim that the "flight animation" is credible evidence that the official story about the flight path is wrong is an example of misinformation. This is why fact checking is so critical, and simply repeating unsubstantiated claims is destructive and ultimately a diversion from the real issues that can be confirmed.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

comes even close to the authenticity provided by the Citizen Investigations Team (CIT) through questioning numerous eyewitnesses

http://www.thepentacon.com

or the real-time accounts of Air Traffic Controllers in charge of Flight 77. We have the explicit statement of the Operations Manager of Washington Center that Flight 77 has never been visible on radar on its way back to Washington despite controllers where desperately looking for it.

Source: NORAD Tapes, Channel 4, at about 9:30.

More evidence that Flight 77 didn't fly back to Washington here:

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/08/where-was-flight-77-after-856.ht...

Face it, finally. Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

Woody Box, who ever you are...I have some info to share...and some questions.

First, I do not agree with all your conclusions posted here...but they are all very worthy, all very nearly correct, and are very helpful in the investigation about AA77. The FBI is simply holding back far too much information regarding all of this, specially the FAA radar data etc.

I do object to your wording in that it was AA77 that popped back up on radar as a primary target some 8 minutes after being lost to radar contact. How do you know this? And shouldn't it be stated that...

"an eastbound primary target appeared eight minutes after AA77 was lost to positive radar contact".

In stating it the way that you do, you help establish the "party line" that this unknown primary radar target WAS AA77...and this is only "possible".

Second, I am somewhat familiar with "how" the FAA RDP...[Radar Data Processing]...computers "could" have several problematic issues regarding its incapacity to display a primary radar target in that area. But, I would need to see some intricate RDP data records and system parameter set-ups in order to establish what and how such radar incapacities existed in that region on 9/11.

Also, there is a line of thought that the RDP systems were hacked from the outside to eliminate primary radar returns in the radar sort boxes that covered that area...and thusly, this "'primary radar return data exclusion" could have been inadvertently, OR deliberately subverted within the FAA radar operational structures. Again, further investigations are required.

Moving on...a few points, and the Qs...

I have done some very simple work at looking into the locations "where" AA77 was lost to radar contact and "where" the primary target in question "popped up" some eight minutes later. My curiosity became "peaked" when it shows that this primary radar target "popped up" in the vicinty of Diana, WV.

Diana lies right in between two high ridges of the Appalachian Mountains whose lengthy peaks run in a northeast-southwest orientation. And, towards the northeast end of this valley lies Camp David. And just to the west of this valley is the region in eastern Ohio where AA77 was lost to radar contact just as it was seen beginning a descent.

Its my understanding that there is NO RADAR COVERAGE, either primary or secondary, down in this valley between these two high ridges.

In being asked to analyze some RADES radar data by some researchers and and author of an upcoming book discussing "The Mystery Plane"...or planes, I was alert enough to seek the altitudes of the floors of the radar coverages of the military radar site that was used for the RADES radar data source, and which was used by the NORAD system in the basic coverage of the WDC area. The radar site is located at The Plains and its identifier is PLN. PLN is situtaed atop a 1000 foot hill, ridge or rise, just to the east of the aforementioned ridges and it appears to be able to "see" radar targets at or below 500 feet in the Pentagon-WDC-Andrews-DCA river bottom area. Indeed, I have concluded that this RADES data does show such coverage at those surprisingly low altitudes.

To the western quadrant of the PLN radar sweep, it appears that the floor of the radar coverage in the vicinity of Diana [where the "primary target" popped up] is between 7000 and 9000 feet. I am quite interested in the 7000 foot possibility as this altitude shows up as the same altitude of the "target" that made the infamous descending turn into the Pentagon...the target that most presume is AA77.

Since PLN does NOT have any altitude estimation system as some of the NORAD radar sites have, the knowledge of the altitude of this primary target had to come from another source. The FAA radar could not tell the altitude because its FAA transponder was turned off. The PLN radar could not tell the altitude. The RADES radar data that I analyzed did not have any terminal radar included, and again, if it was FAA terminal radar data, it would not show an altitude. So, this leaves either, an altitude that was discovered by SOME Military IFF radar capabilities at some unkown radar facility IF the target had an IFF transponder aboard [which may have nullified any missle defense systems if they were operational], or, it came from the FDR which is the subject of this thread.

Additionally, it is now very clear that when in the PEOC...Cheney was getting radar updates from a completely seperate radar system/facility than that of the radar updates that Belger-Minetta were getting from the FAA systems.

Do you know the "source" of the 7000 foot altitude at which the "alleged" AA77 started its descending turn?

Also, are you aware of the reports that there were two roofers in the vicinity of Camp David that reported an airliner crash AT Camp David?

If AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, it had to go somewhere and here are some ideas.

1. After being lost to radar contact in an area where there was no primary radar covergage, it could have either continued a descent below primary radar coverage in the valleys, or stayed at higher altitude and slowed down making it look like just another VFR aircraft...and flown to either:

...Camp David where it was crashed?...or
...a secretive military base/airport to land and be disposed of...

2. It overflew the Pentagon and somehow hooked up with/shadowed by the "Gopher" C-130 which appears to have headed directly towards Camp David after it overflew the Pentagon...OR... peeled off away from the C130 somewhere northwest of WDC and was VFR to the secretive military airfield to be disposed of....

Regarding the above...there are quite a few large aircraft operating in and around WDC during this time period...and they are not AA77...

Just thought that I'd ask.

BTW...a primary target that was either BELOW 7000 feet near Diana, or was AT 7000 feet WEST of Diana, would NOT be seen by PLN, until it flew further eastbound at 7000 feet, or climbed to 7000 feet in the valley near Diana thus enabling the PLN radar site to now "see" this primary target at those points.

Interesting aye?

Robin Hordon

regardless of who I am, I'm certainly familiar with the most authentic sources for the space-time coordinates of the planes - i.e. where has which plane been at what time - to judge that 9/11 was an Operation Northwoods-like maneuver. Planes were swapped.

Here's what the manager of Washington ARTCC reported to NEADS at about 9:30 with regard to AA77:

"so what we have done at the surrounding centers here is tell everyone to look out for limited codes, primary targets, or whatever the case may be. And that was the last time, that was about fifteen minutes ago since I talked to the Indianapolis Center Operations Manager."

Source: NORAD Tapes, Channel 4

We're not talking about a little radar hole beteween two ridges. Flight 77 completely vanished at 8:56 and didn't reappear anywhere in WV. And it was certainly not flying for 20,30 minutes through Washington Center airspace. Controllers were specifically looking for its primary radar. They didn't spot any radar target. Conclusion: Flight 77 was not there.

When it comes to the real-time statement of this manager versus an anonymous black box/animation version, I take the gentleman. Sorry for that.

For you're asking: I am indeed pretty familiar with the Camp David crash rumor. It has a lot to do with UA 93, but certainly nothing with AA 77. Please read

"Mineta and the elusive plane crash at Camp David"

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/04/mineta-and-elusive-plane-crash-a...

Woody Box...just making a point to the bloggers who operate anonymously...my name is Robin Hordon, and what I write I mean and stand by...regardless of who asks!

Don't miss my point here...A LOT can be done when there is no radar coverage...

In eastern Ohio it was a computer ? glitch causing no primary radar covergae...HMMM? Over Diana, where this primary target that everyone has been made to think is AA77, suddenly "popped up" on radar coverage and remained in such coverage until the Penatgon area.

There is no PLN radar coverage below 7000-8000 feet over Diana...but there IS radar coverage at 7000 feet EAST of Diana...HMMM?.

Within the valleys, there can be a lot of aviation activity below the ridge tops that is NOT recordable on radar data dics and tapes.

Please think for a minute about the interesting similarities between the bottom of the radar coverage floor over Diana as being 7000-8000 feet, and that "someone", "somewhere" established that the "unidentified target" that performed the descending turn into the Pentagon? began at 7000 feet. This is very intriguing to me.

AA77 could have done ANYTHING when in the "primary radar hole" in the Indy Center's airspace...such as slowing down and keeping its transponder OFF or, turning on a VFR code and flying anywhere to the west or south that it wanted to...while remaining unidentified. To FAA and military radars, AA77 would have simly blended into all the other VFR aircraft operating in those regions because most VFR aircraft were yet to be made aware of any "must land now" orders.

Or, it could have flown east a bit, popped over the ridge forming the western peaks along the valley in which Diana lies...then it could have dropped right down UNDER radar coverage and flown up towards Camp David or to the southwest...ALL remaining undetected and not recorded.

I seem to remember some testimony that I read somewhere, [although it sounded a bit whacky], from a woman who talked about seeing a very large airliner operating in the general area of such ridges and valleys, and being "swallowed up" by a mountain? But that might have been closer to Shanksville...which is not all that far away from Camp David, nor is it all that far from the primary radar hole in eastern Ohio. Lots of interesting stuff all around this region.

Moving on...

I am VERY familiar with the Air Forces' capabilities for very low flying as I used to be part of running what was called OB [Oil Burner] routes. These were low altitude routes flown by SAC [Strategic Air Command] bombers that flew along carefully chosen terrain up in the New England area [other areas too] where the exact route of flight was chosen because if one flew it, the route would be VERY similar to the low altiude bombing routes that would be flown should we have to bomb Moscow, or Lenningrad etc.

These are VERY low, and VERY accurate aviation activities, and if the Air Force wanted to plot out such a low altitude route along the valley in question, it could do so easily, and Burlingame could have programmed and flown it easily. And, even though its a huge airliner, it has very quiet engines when throttled back, and designing a flight path that weaves over a routing that kept it clear of cities, busy highways and even farms would not be any problem at all.

So, what "could have been" that primary target that "popped up" over Diana at 09:05-ish? My analysis of the RADES radar data that I was given estabilshes that there IS primary radar available to the WEST of Diana at higher altitudes ABOVE 7000-8000 feet from the PLN radar site. And this is an area IN BETWEEN the radar "FAA radar hole" over eastern Ohio, and Diana...but still east of the 8 minute radar gap? So, IF any primary target were in this airspace between Diana and the FAA's radar hole over Ohio, and it was ABOVE 7000-8000 feet, it "should have been detectable WEST of Diana via the PLN radar site, and such radar data should have been displayed. Well, It wasn't displayed, and again, AA77 was allegedly up at very high altitudes here. Thompson's "Timeline" states that the FAA radar data "saw the target" all the way...and that this target was not shown to the controllers...yet it states that primary radar coverage in the area is poor...and it also acknowledges that the target for AA77 was lost for 8 minutes.

Take your pick here because without the FAA radar data readouts and parameters on 9/11 in this area, its hard to establish too much for sure about the "availability" of target data. But there are radar holes in which some interesting "stuff" could happen.

To encapsulate here...AA77 was lost to radar about 08:56AM...and the first acknowledged "unidentified primary target" was picked up over Diana at about 09:05AM? about 8 minutes later?. BUT, since there was primary radar coverage from PLN WEST of Diana up at higher altitudes, if it WERE AA77 up at its asigned altitude, then it would have been detected before 09:05AM?.

BUT...if it were another air vehicle that was flying at around 7000-8000 feet, it would NOT be picked up by PLN primary radar until it reached or was a bit east of Diana.

So, if there were a swap, the air vehicle that was "swapped in" could have been a low flying craft flying undetected below the high ridges and could be scheduled to be over Diana about 09:05AM-ish or so. Not that this tight timing would be all that important...but there had to "some" close proximity just for overall timing sake. And, such a low flying air vehicle could have been almost anything that could fly at fairly high speeds in the military's asset list. It could have been flying undetected BELOW 7000 feet until it went east over the eastern ridge line towards Dulles.

So, in 8 miuntes of lost radar contact, the real AA77, flying slowly at lower altitudes, and giving the appearance of an untracked/unkown VFR aircraft, could have gone anywhere and done anything from crashing at Camp David, to flying to any secured airfield within HOURS of eastern Ohio because it had enough fuel on board.

AND...whatever military asset that was chosen to take AA77's place in this scenario could have flown undetected throughout the Appalachians [undetected by FAA radar as it would have been seen by military IFF radar sites], BUT...eventualy it would have to climb up OVER the eastern valley ridge east of Diana...and thusly, it would eventually HAVE to be picked up on primary radar from SOME radar site. This is an important part of the swap scenario...seeing the "swapped in" air vehicle, but NOT seeing the swap itself. Again, the 7000 foot number jumps out at me here.

a brief aside...

Now, here is where Barbara Honegger and I merge with some information. She claims that whatever flew past Dulles and on towards the Penagon, HAD to be a military air vehicle with a military IFF transponder on board...BECAUSE WITHOUT AN IFF TRANSPONDER...the air vehhicle might have been shot down as it might have triggered the ground-to-air missle defense system protecting P56...[if there was one].

This casts an interesting and perhaps "differing light" on the Cheney-Minetta story because...IF INDEED...it was a military asset, and it DID have an IFF transponder on board thus "shutting down" the missle defense system automatically, then eventually the press would ask, "appropriately", if indeed it WAS a military asset that made it past the missle defense system and NOT AA77.

So, there may have been a GREAT NEED for another explanation for the penetration of P56 by an "unknown" air vehicle.

It is possible that the "Cheney-Mineta" vignette, was Cheney "covering for" the fact that it WAS a military asset that made it past the missle defense system...and he did so by "taking one for the team" by yapping about the existance of a "stand-down order". Thusly, this is the ONLY way that it could be concluded that it WAS a civilian aircraft that did not have an IFF transponder...in this case, AA77. And we all know that Cheney could, did, and will again lie about anything.

Moving on a bit...

Although the PLN radar is a military radar site, the "target" seen by this site that represents AA77 on the RADES data, could have been either a primary target, or an IFF target, or both. This was not made clear to me about the base data. For sure, it was NOT an FAA transponder target because Dulles Tracon would have seen it. The IFF transponder data could have easily been scrubbed from this RADES radar data and thusly, this evidence may have been manilpulated similar to how some other evidence in the AA77 saga seems to have been so "hacked". OR, once again...the RADES target data flying past Dulles and on into the Penatgon loop could have simply come from a military/IFF transponder on board a military air vehicle [Dulles' FAA radar scopes would not display the IFF transponder].

Now, there are some issues with the RADES radar data that I was given and I cannot "KNOW" all of the above for sure because SOME of the radar data was deliberately EXCLUDED from my analysis by the person who did the FOIA for this data. I think that it would not have made a difference because the scrubbed data had to do with LOCAL traffic in and around WDC. SO, what I saw, I saw and its certainly interesting...if valid!

[BTW...as soon as I discovered the "pre-filtering" of radar data for me to analyze...I terminated that relationship...you gotta be kidding me...asking me to analyze data that has been pre-hacked!]

Anyway, all of this is very complicated, but ANY of these scenarios are well within he scope and capacities of the US Military...a simple piece of cake actually.

With the exception of the Honegger conclusion that came a year later and, both the RADES radar data and the "Camp David" possibilty that came to me only four months ago, this entire "swap scenario" had been shared on my blogging on P4T regarding the saga of AA77 about two years ago.

Upcoming stuff...

Mark Gaffney has written a book about "The Mystery Plane"...or "planes" that were flying all around WDC when indeed, they shouldn't have been there. The book is due out this September and there are quite a few scenarios etc that can be considered. However, IF there was a swap, it had to take place somewhere, and in the vicnity of Diana is one clear possibiity. If its an overflight, then being "shadowed/covered" out towards Camp David, OR perhaps it could have become one of the..."unkown", but "denied', yet "seen and photographed" by multiple eyewitnesses AND two news camera sources...LARGE aircraft operating in and about WDC on 9/11...when there should NOT have been such activity.

I have not read Mark Gaffney's entire book and have only contributed my ATC, visual and radar analysis in his research, but it shoud be stimulating and very informative regarding the AA77 saga.

Please remember that what I am stating about these "swap scenarios" are nothing more than postulations .

Some of the hard radar data and analysis IS completely valid. This can combine well with other research and reports from existing work. In the end, if AA77 did not strike the Pentagon, then regarding "where it went", there are a few possibilities that seem quite reasonable...and certainly easily doable within a 9/11 Attacks War game Scenario.

Robin Hordon

PS:

...Am I correct that you believe that the other three airliers were swapped out also?

...Do you have the source of the fact that the target that made the descending turn at the Pentagon was AT 7000 feet...and when it was established?

With respect - I didn't confuse them. My comments referred to the flight trajectory determined from the raw Flight Data Recorder binary data file (.fdr file) and decoded by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This was supplied by the NTSB and contains radar altitude (omitted from NTSB animation) which matched the pressure altitude - both of which indicated the plane was too high to strike either lightpoles or Pentagon.

Specifically, the raw data file shows the plane never lower than 273 feet. The Pentagon is 71 feet tall, the lightposts are about 40 feet tall, so the trajectory is inconsistent with a strike.
A further problem (as Woody mentions) is that this flightpath contradicts the signed testimony of witnesses including two Pentagon police officers.

The NTSB animation supposedly derived from the same data file has more problems because it shows the plane coming in from the wrong angle too. I can imagine no simple explanation for errors in the animation resulting from an innocent mistake because it is generated automatically by software from the data file. Any effort to correct the angle results in the plane taking off from somewhere other than the airport! It suggests serious tampering.

Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files

The NTSB Flight Path Study of AA77, including an addendum, the testimony of the Indianapolis ATC working AA77, and possibly the FAA RDP [radar data processing] data shows that AA77 began a descent while in its left turn at the end of the western leg of its flight just before it was lost to positive radar identification. And, the left turn WAS NOT SHOWN AS BEING COMPLETED TOWARDS Washngton, DC and the last heading was actually southwesterly.

This is why the Indy ATCs looked towards the southwest for a crashed airliner. Its really simple to understand.

So, well before ANY analysis of what AA77 actualy did at the Pentagon [according to the "animation"] is considered as being accurate, the falsity of the animation itself was already established AT the end of the western leg where the animatuon DID NOT SHOW any descent...AND...it did show a full 180 degree turn back towards WDC.

On Pandora's Black Box, in which my voice adds some background, the ONLY reason that the "disclaimer" that the aircraft seen may NOT have been AA77 was because I had to scream at P4T that the animation was wrong and that the aviation activities shown at the "Pentagon Senario" could NOT BE TRUSTED.

I suggested that the NTSB data [including the Addendum] also be shown at the point that the descent in the turn began, but the answer was: "There has been too much work that has already gone into this video to make any changes now."

So much for the Truth part in P4T. But they do some very good work.

It is my EXPRESS opinion that this animation was cleverly handed out by the HI PERPS through a FOIA request to a "British Citizen"???, and then handed back to P4T SOLELY to get this animation out into circulation as much as possible...and P4T obliged.

If one looks at the history of the "tracks" of AA77 from the beginning news reporting, one will see that over time, the "dotted lines" showing an "unconfirmed flight path for AA77", slowly turned into solid lines, and thusly began to CONFIRM that this target was AA77...IN THE PUBLIC'S MINDS. The ATCs at Dulles thought that the target was a military aircraft and ALL ATCs and FAA higher-ups stated that it was an "unkown" target, and NOBODY, at NO TIME, in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, ever positively identified this transponderless primary target as being AA77.

This is a classic disinfo and psy-op program.

In the end, this primary target indeed may be AA77, but it will have to be proven as such by evidence at the crash scene because it CANNOT BE PROVEN by ATCS and any radar data studied...and this includes the RADES data provided by the military. So far, the evidence of such physical evidence at the Pentagon crash site is being effecively challenged.

P4T got into the 99/11 Truther game really late...its first considerations of what happened came from some flight tracking system used by relatives to see where their family's airplane was in the ATC system...this is like a crank guitar in comparison to one bult by Les Paul.

The damage done to thousands of people who looked at this flawed animation put out there by P4T will have to be undone by extra work by all of us regarding the saga of AA77.

Few "regular people" who see this animation will have a reason to look into how well the FDR? for AA77 matches up with this animation. They will buy the animation hook-line-and sinker.

Game-Set-Match...HI PERPS!

This is too bad...and P4T was warned before they went to press.

My aviation, ATC, and decades long HI PERPS' experiences instruct me to think that AA77, with Burlingame at the controls [far too coincidental for me...], is the modern day "Operation Northwoods", and actually served as the single "false-flag-flight" that was part of "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" which was clandestinely, and effectively, buried within the other multiple War Games during the 9/11 attacks.

The reason that AA77 needed to play this role is because if all the other alleged hijackings" [and them flying into buildings] may not have happened as successfully as they seem to have happened, had failed...then there was still at least ONE successful attack that would have happened! Had all the "hijackers??? been caught, or all three airliners NOT been taken control of somehow, and the "terrorsts??? been thwarted, there STILL would have been a big explosion and deaths of american citizens for TV. And the hijackers??? would have STILL played a strong enough role as being part of another "plot against us" for Bush-Cheney Co. to invade Afghanistan and eventually Iraq.

Makes one think a bit differently about what Bush meant when he stated something along the lines of: "Looks like I hit the trifecta...".

Pundits stated the trifecta was a "save for his presidency, an excuse for Bush's economy, and a save for the republican party". I think that it might be that there were THREE buildings hit making Bush's trifecta...

AA77 is the Achilles Heel for the HI PERPS...and this is why they constantly steer everyone to other flights, why they fabricate and erase data surrounding AA77, and why they refuse to release tapes, FAA radar and communications data and other evidence such as the various video tapes surrounding the Pentagon.

Also, if Truthers had not been successfully "mind fucked" into thinking that the Pentagon was hit by an airvehicle, and they looked at facts in an unbiased manner,,,aka...the streak in the Pentagon lawn that somewhat matched the approach path, the fact that the vehicle shown in the FAB FIVE FRAMES was actually on or very near the ground, and that the exhaust was NOT smoke from a High By-pass turbojet engine, but looked like that of a rocket engine, then they would first suspect that the vehicle seen in the FAB FIVE FRAMES was not airbourne at all. Maybe it was a "rocket sled" and that these FAB FIVE FRAMES were designed to accomplish the same thing that the animation was designed to accomplish...PSY-OPS. And Barbara Honegger makes a strong case for the first explosion at the Pentagion being at 09:32-ish? HMMM?

AA77, the Pentagon explosions, and how NORAD was effectively "stood down", will bring down these criminals...and they do know this!

Robin Hordon

Interesting analysis Robin, but the substantial point is that the NTSB animation and the data file were proffered ostensibly to support the official story but fail to do so. Surely having established that we don't need to go any further with them - besides forcefully and vocally rejecting them. Speculating about what the files actually indicate or what purpose was served by publishing them may indeed lead us into a psy-op trap, but there's no need to go there. After all, it is the NTSB, not P4T who claim the data came from the AA77 FDR recovered from the Pentagon. And as Aidan just established, they have no record of any effort to positively match it to the plane.

Perhaps P4T's work isn't perfect... How many things in this universe are? I think we all make mistakes, and US citizens were certainly provided precious little accurate information between Sept. 2001 and say June 2007. As we gain more and better information, we may need to amend some statements made earlier based upon faulty or incomplete information- such is the nature of learning and growth.

I do know that there are 4 pages of Flight AA77 threads plus 8 pages of Pentagon threads at the P4T forum that are likely more current than Mr. Hordon's review of "Pandora's Black Box," Chapter One of which was released in late 2006 and Chapter Two in Jan. 2007 with finite resources, I believe. Personally, I respect a person or organization for having the courage to speak out or produce something, even if it is imperfect (see LTW / "Loose Change" for example). Now as to the nature of "speaking out" that transpires on that Randi forum- well that's another matter...

IMHO, there appears to be liberal use of the words psy-op and disinfo above, and was there an implication of P4T dishonesty, or did I read that incorrectly? I did some analysis of the alleged AA77 and UA93 SSFDR data myself, completely independently of P4T's analysis, and my conclusions were awfully close to those of P4T's Core Memebers, based upon raw .CSV data (I didn't watch Pandora's Black Box or the NTSB animation very closely or completely before my data analysis). I also did analysis of the alleged USAF 84 RADES data for all 4 flights.

My $0.02
------------------------------
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays

Click - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=435

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

and even though he tried to be helpful, he ran into a brick wall pretty quick. Boeing has 1000's of employees and most of them are as clueless as the rest of the world, about what happened on 9/11 and their employer's role in that event.

The only people who know much (other then possibly some top execs) are the ones who were on the front lines that day. Ochin mentions the accident investigation authority and that they are the only ones at Boeing who have access to the data. This is the team that the DOD paid a visit to on 9/12, when they showed up to take over the investigation. If there was some way to find out who's on this team there might be something there. From what I heard most of them were not happy campers when their investigation got shut down.