Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

smurfjed

Amazing what you can find on the internet, Supersonic DC8

http://dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

Here is another one for you to think about, you said that the FDR readout meant that the aircraft was too high to hit the building. But do you actually know where the FDR takes it's information from? How it's calculated and what impact using a different pressure setting would have?

CS was asked about ASL/sea level and Barometric/Radar altimeter data and the actual airfield the FDR baseline was for early last year in this thread and it was dismissed/ignored.

The level of evidence that CS casually dismisses as being part of the conspiracy or as "debunkers" being manipulated is staggering.

Especially when you consider that he will present nothing other than "feelings" and his own half arsed theories based often on completely misunderstood words and phrases!

The level of outright lies and evasion is crazy!
No matter how often he is called out on it.

smurfjed

Another one for you to ponder, the top of the fuselage is 20 feet 6 inches, the bottom of the engine nacelle is 2 feet 5 inches above the ground, so total height of the aircraft (without wheels) is 18 feet 1 inch.

So where did the figure that the aircraft was flying at 20 feet come from?





https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/757_23.pdf

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

You were again caught out by someone who actually is an expert in a field you only pretend to be knowledgeable in.

Properly "exposed" and then chucked the toys out of the pram.

smurfjed

Some more light reading, this time from the NTSB.

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf

If you work your way through the FDR data you will find the final speed and true&magnetic heading. At the same time you can look at flight control position and throttle position. The engine readings are extremely interesting.

Have fun reading it

Cheerful Spring

Paper smurfjed send me by PM
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

Pilots for truth debunked Warren Strut and Frank Legge claims.

Strut posted there and he got debunked. He even admitted to not knowing stuff, making errors and even with the corrected data the plane was still too high.

Full list of threads debunking the paper.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22540

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

CS was asked about ASL/sea level and Barometric/Radar altimeter data and the actual airfield the FDR baseline was for early last year in this thread and it was dismissed/ignored.

The level of evidence that CS casually dismisses as being part of the conspiracy or as "debunkers" being manipulated is staggering.

Especially when you consider that he will present nothing other than "feelings" and his own half arsed theories based often on completely misunderstood words and phrases!

The level of outright lies and evasion is crazy!
No matter how often he is called out on it.

Not true I doubt you even remember last year. I have provided info to him on PM how I calculated this and did the same last year.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pilots for truth

P4T - Pilots for Truth is another one of these internet conspiracy groups. Like AE911, they are made up of 911 conspiracy theorists who specialise in attempting to distort evidence about the event (but never producing a solid counter-theory)

Their (largely obtuse) arguments have been soundly debunked over the years

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true I doubt you even remember last year. I have provided info to him on PM how I calculated this and did the same last year.

Post your calculations here

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

P4T - Pilots for Truth is another one of these internet conspiracy groups. Like AE911, they are made up of 911 conspiracy theorists who specialise in attempting to distort evidence about the event (but never producing a solid counter-theory)

Their (largely obtuse) arguments have been soundly debunked over the years

Strut posted and debated his claims on the pilot for truth forum. It was not good for him. You don't even know what the arguments are so why are you saying they are debunked?

Give us your rundown of the complaints. I bet you can't.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true I doubt you even remember last year. I have provided info to him on PM how I calculated this and did the same last year.

You are a liar, feel free to scroll back to our interactions from last year and review them.
Our would you prefer that I do it, post the quotes and highlight your dishonesty again?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Post your calculations here

Flight 77 FDR- time it left the runway to the time it arrived at the Pentagon.

The main issue and not solved or debunked the plane 180 feet in altitude at 9.37am. 300 feet above sea level in Washington 300+180= 480 feet too high to have hit light poles near the bridge.

FDR animation.

Nobody could explain this error.

Frank Legge and Warren Strut then came along a wrote a paper claiming there was missing data 4 to 6 seconds-the NTSB released an incomplete set of data to the public. The pilot for truth debated Strut findings and tore them apart. He even admitted the improved data still has the plane too high to hit light poles.

The FDR data does not support a plane hitting light poles whatsoever.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You are a liar, feel free to scroll back to our interactions from last year and review them.
Our would you prefer that I do it, post the quotes and highlight your dishonesty again?

I am fairly certain I discussed magnetic deviation and true north last year.

You obviously don't know this you can't find the true heading of the plane and not include magnetic declination. I even put a compass on a google map of Washington DC to highlight this

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Strut posted and debated his claims on the pilot for truth forum. It was not good for him. You don't even know what the arguments are so why are you saying they are debunked?

The people on P4T are cranks, people who specialise in the art of tying people up with circular nonsense, some of them have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of this after 15 years

They use the same tricks and techniques and junk-science as you, they are just far, far "better" at it

Yet ask any of them for a basic consensus of what really happened regarding the whole event, and they don't have a clue, or they give a thousand different answers

Luckily we have some (sadistic) people on skeptic forums who actually spend the time to counter their nonsense

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I am fairly certain I discussed magnetic deviation and true north last year.

You obviously don't know this you can't find the true heading of the plane and not include magnetic declination. I even put a compass on a google map of Washington DC to highlight this

You're fairly certain? Yet you have the gall to suggest that I don't remember what I discussed or posted here previously?

Have I asked you about true heading or magnetic deviation as yet?

I am discussing altitude, but its probably a little confusing for you trying to keep up with your multiple streams of concurrent Bull****

Just to confirm you lied once again, here is a link to my post to you from the 26/04/2018

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good spot how to work it out. Your wrong on numbers though

9.42am it was 316 feet it dropped 242 feet hit 9.43am about 72 feet off.

9.43 it was 242 feet it dropped to 180 feet at 9.44am and 62 feet off.

So if working though those numbers

Two seconds later
9.45 it would at be at 132 feet 52 feet off.

9.46 it would be at 92 feet 42 feet off.

At 92 feet it flies over the Pentagon by 20 feet. Pentagon height 5 floors is 70 feet.

banie01 wrote: »

Just on your point of the heights being off can I assume that you are measuring ASL?
This is the standard for altitude measurement rather than relative to ground.

Your argument regarding the height differential versus the FDR is reliant upon the height of the Pentagon ASL and not the relative height.

Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

banie01 wrote: »

Well the original Pentagon site at the time of construction varied between 10ft and 40ft ASL, I can't find a definitive ASL height for it currently, but it is entirely reasonable to assume that levelling the site would have given @25ft ASL.

Further to that,nearby Reagan airport is listed at 4.6mtrs ASL, which is @16ft, with the inherent margin of error in altimeters The "missing" height isn't missing at all.

Taking the airport height as a baseline, the 92ft indicated is actually 74ft above ground and taking the likely Pentagon base as 25ft ASL the height becomes 67ft above ground level with the caveat of inherent margin of error.

Aircraft altimeters are calibrated to sea level with ground level set to the destination airport.
In the absence of specific confirmation that the heights reported are above ground, reported heights are always ASL.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You're fairly certain? Yet you have the gall to suggest that I don't remember what I discussed or posted here previously?

Have I asked you about true heading or magnetic deviation as yet?

I am discussing altitude, but its probably a little confusing for you trying to keep up with your multiple streams of concurrent Bull****

Just to confirm you lied once again, here is a link to my post to you from the 26/04/2018

Your posts are wrong. Please link to the discussion. One post is out of context. I have to see what debate was then.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 77 FDR- time it left the runway to the time it arrived at the Pentagon.

The main issue and not solved or debunked the plane 180 feet in altitude at 9.37am. 300 feet above sea level in Washington 300+180= 480 feet too high to have hit light poles near the bridge.

FDR animation.

Nobody could explain this error.

Frank Legge and Warren Strut then came along a wrote a paper claiming there was missing data 4 to 6 seconds-the NTSB released an incomplete set of data to the public. The pilot for truth debated Strut findings and tore them apart. He even admitted the improved data still has the plane too high to hit light poles.

The FDR data does not support a plane hitting light poles whatsoever.

Nope. The links to the explanation about the missing 4 seconds of FDR data have been provided in this thread and the conspiracy arguments have been exhaustively debunked on skeptic threads. If I recall correctly you weren't bothered to read the threads.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good spot how to work it out. Your wrong on numbers though

9.42am it was 316 feet it dropped 242 feet hit 9.43am about 72 feet off.

9.43 it was 242 feet it dropped to 180 feet at 9.44am and 62 feet off.

So if working though those numbers

Two seconds later
9.45 it would at be at 132 feet 52 feet off.

9.46 it would be at 92 feet 42 feet off.

At 92 feet it flies over the Pentagon by 20 feet. Pentagon height 5 floors is 70 feet.

banie01 wrote: »

Just on your point of the heights being off can I assume that you are measuring ASL?
This is the standard for altitude measurement rather than relative to ground.

Your argument regarding the height differential versus the FDR is reliant upon the height of the Pentagon ASL and not the relative height.

Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your posts are wrong. Please link to the discussion. One post is out of context. I have to see what debate was then.

Click the link I gave you and scroll!
I even went so far as to give you the date!
Explain how my posts are "wrong?"
They are multiple verbatim posts from last April.
You really are a ridiculous liar and funny how your memory fails when you are called out on it.
The conversation is earlier in this thread in black and white.

At this point, I really feel you should be just banned outright from the forum!
You are a timesink, a liar and a troll of really poor BS.

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

You're fairly certain? Yet you have the gall to suggest that I don't remember what I discussed or posted here previously?

These people will drag you into the tiniest details, find something that you can't fully explain to them or some insignificant unknown - and that's their victory, that's them "beating" the experts/skeptics. It's a hobby

Cheerful: what speed was the plane doing when it hit the Pentagon? please provide your evidence

Also who was flying the plane?

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

These people will drag you into the tiniest details, find something that you can't fully explain to them or some insignificant unknown - and that's their victory, that's them "beating" the experts/skeptics. It's a hobby

Cheerful: what speed was the plane doing when it hit the Pentagon? please provide your evidence

Also who was flying the plane?

Aren't I glad I have fairly good recall of my thread posts from last year
At this point I think we should just copy and paste our previous replies to CS.
If he can regurgitate his BS, surely we can do the same with our rebuttals

Dohnjoe

Most of these "technical" and "can't explain that!" arguments are covered on International Skeptics forums and Metabunk

e.g. here's one of the threads on the last seconds of FDR and the complexity of explanation involved
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Aren't I glad I have fairly good recall of my thread posts from last year
At this point I think we should just copy and paste our previous replies to CS.
If he can regurgitate his BS, surely we can do the same with our rebuttals

No, you don't recall correctly. Read the top post from TheChizler he quoted me what does it say. I wait for your reply.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, you don't recall correctly. Read the top post from TheChizler he quoted me what does it say. I wait for your reply.

Which has what to do with the ASL?
As Chizler pointed out to you

TheChizler wrote: »

Your own screenshots show the altitude dropping from 597' to 180' in 5 seconds. Assuming a linear rate this a drop of 83 feet per second. If we do a linear extrapolation in the next two seconds your 180 foot drop is well accounted for, and we'll within the margin of error considering the low sampling rate and given I don't know where in those seconds the screenshots were taken.

Of course this is assuming the pentagon ground floor is at 0 feet relative to the figure in the diagram, but that seems to be what you're claiming.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Which has what to do with the ASL?

Post the quote or I will no more deflection.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Post the quote or I will no more deflection.

Go on....
You accusing someone of deflection?
This is actually becoming interesting now

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Go on....
You accusing someone of deflection?
This is actually becoming interesting now

Context. FDR 180 feet. Then I did some rudimentary calculations why the plane would fly over the Pentagon at this height.

Dohnjoe

Not to keep repeating this but the hallmark of faulty conspiracy thinking anywhere is an obsession/focus with discrediting the established version of events in any way possible instead of developing a solid competing theory

Historians refute and debate historical details all the time, they absolutely don't attack "the official version" and then walk away satisfied with providing nothing

Refuting bull**** takes much more effort than producing it. Truthers have shown they are more than happy to endlessly create bull**** than attempt to create one single credible counter-theory

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Context. FDR 180 feet. Then I did some rudimentary calculations why the plane would fly over the Pentagon at this height.

Your rudimentery calculations are based on a flawed assumption.

Again, don't get me wrong. Your English is likely better than any attempt I could make at your native tongue.
But that quote doesn't add any context to the discussion.
Do you know why?
Because I addressed it in my quoted post above.

So dust off your dictionary, scroll up to post #1456 and address the ASL issue as its been laid out.

banie01 wrote: »

Just on your point of the heights being off can I assume that you are measuring ASL?
This is the standard for altitude measurement rather than relative to ground.

Your argument regarding the height differential versus the FDR is reliant upon the height of the Pentagon ASL and not the relative height.

Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

And just you are aware of the way its worked out....

banie01 wrote: »

Well the original Pentagon site at the time of construction varied between 10ft and 40ft ASL, I can't find a definitive ASL height for it currently, but it is entirely reasonable to assume that levelling the site would have given @25ft ASL.

Further to that,nearby Reagan airport is listed at 4.6mtrs ASL, which is @16ft, with the inherent margin of error in altimeters The "missing" height isn't missing at all.

Taking the airport height as a baseline, the 92ft indicated is actually 74ft above ground and taking the likely Pentagon base as 25ft ASL the height becomes 67ft above ground level with the caveat of inherent margin of error.

Aircraft altimeters are calibrated to sea level with ground level set to the destination airport.
In the absence of specific confirmation that the heights reported are above ground, reported heights are always ASL.

Actually reading back to last years post and I came across another gem from you :pac:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nobody cares about your ground rules only you. Your theory sucks.

1) landing gear was not down so the landing gear would have broken apart with the plane by the time it got to C ring. If the titanium engines did not survive the landing gear would not have.

2) it looks like a hollow charge blast occurred inside the building. A hollow charge would produce a deep cylindrical hole.

3) No landing wreckage was pictured near or outside the hole.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Your rudimentery calculations are based on a flawed assumption.

Again, don't get me wrong. Your English is likely better than any attempt I could make at your native tongue.
But that quote doesn't add any context to the discussion.
Do you know why?
Because I addressed it in my quoted post above.

So dust off your dictionary, scroll up to post #1456 and address the ASL issue as its been laid out.

Sure whatever you want to think. The discussion was about the height of the plane on the FDR animation. I even did maths right after based off this.

. I was clearly talking about plane height in altitude 180 feet. Reason

And just you are aware of the way its worked out....

Actually reading back to last years post and I came across another gem from you :pac:

I busy at home so take some time to reply to posts.

The discussion was about the height of the plane- FDR animation 180 feet clearly their context. I even did rudimentary math how far it would drop at this height and how long it takes. It may be wrong i can remember this far back. You trying to catch me on a post I made a year ago, this is sad.

You said this not me in your post
Quote Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

Really no issue explain how so? The plane height is based on the altitude at a certain time..

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I busy at home so take some time to reply to posts.

The discussion was about the height of the plane- FDR animation 180 feet clearly their context. I even did rudimentary math how far it would drop at this height and how long it takes. It may be wrong i can remember this far back. You trying to catch me on a post I made a year ago, this is sad.

You said this not me in your post
Quote Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

Really no issue explain how so? The plane height is based on the altitude at a certain time..

I'm not trying to catch you out based on something you said a year ago!
You are the one who claimed ASL was never previously mentioned.
You are the one who lied, yet again.

The basis of ASL is laid out in my earlier and quoted posts.
It's already explained with examples.
Read it, if you have a specific question or don't understand it. Ask me a question.