[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Another Mossad War Crime 80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks Digital Prison in the Making? In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA 6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike I heard libs might block some streets. 🤣 Jimmy Dore: What’s Being Said On Israeli TV Will BLOW YOUR MIND! Tucker Carlson: Douglas Macgregor- Elites will be overthrown 🎵Breakin' rocks in the hot sun!🎵 Musk & Andreessen Predict A Robot Revolution Comedian sentenced to 8 years in prison for jokes — judge allegedly cites Wikipedia during conviction

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Why I Don't Have Any Use for Truthers
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 9, 2010
Author: Turtle
Post Date: 2010-07-09 11:35:19 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 27437
Comments: 879

Poster Comment:

This woman had sulfuric acid thrown in her face by guess who? Someone engaging in Typical Negro Behavior.

They do this out of envy. "I can't get this woman, so nobody can have her."

He got life in prison.

These are the real problems, not hallucinations abour remote-controlled airplanes and bombs in towers. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

That "wreckage" (to the right of the car's bumper in the left side of the image) looks like a piece of a model airplane.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-13   23:41:32 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So where are the wings? Where is the tail?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-13   23:42:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The lawn was not struck because of ground effect, which creates a powerful air cushion beneath a rapidly traveling craft.

So great of an "air cushion" it would have been impossible for a 757 to fly level at that altitude and speed and hit the Pentagon without scraping the ground on the way trying to keep the nose down, or overflying the Pentagon altogether.

The Impossibility of
Flying Heavy Aircraft
Without Training 

NILA SAGADEVAN / Earth's Common Sense Think Tank 13jun2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

[Mindfully.org note: Specifications for Boeing 757 and Cessna 172 are from Wikipedia. See other drawing below]

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, at nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks" "invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky". But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade / PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs "even landings, to a certain degree" are relatively "easy" because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the cockpit.

But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. She / he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", i.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where she / he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you are as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots "i.e., professional instrument-rated pilots " who ‘bought the farm' because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple “Cessna-172”, an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself, in fact, here is what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

• Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
• Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
• Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."
• Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
• Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."

Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger / hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a “box cutter". Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock, who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet - - 7 miles - - below him, a murky brownish-gray-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness", Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 feet per second), Hanjour would figure out there's little point in looking outside - there is nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he would be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour - whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" - somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes - remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots, while flying blind at 500 MPH, (about 750 feet every second) over 30,000 feet high and above the unfamiliar ground, (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended - and invisible - target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. - - This portion of the Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that little point. - -

According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees per minute while descending at 3,500 feet per minute, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver, - - one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on it. - -

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon - and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway - -, there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing. - -

I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000 pounds airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jets), i.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles - and the Global Hawk.)

The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, using “box cutters" and the hijackers "took control" of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they would realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000 pounds airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

About the Author: Nila Sagadevan was born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and educated in Britain. A former commercial pilot, he holds a degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of Edinburgh and works as a communications consultant. He lives with his wife and son in Laguna Hills, CA. and may be reached at nila@omnicomltd.com

source: http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/911_Impossible_Flying_757.html 13jun2006

scaled drawing from Boeing website simplified by Mindfully.org 14jun2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-13   23:49:24 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your photo is clearly taken after the fire was contained, and after the lawn has been scoured by the FBI and evidence collected.

Uh huh, sure it is...

You make my point.

Where are the teams of firemen, and the multiple hoses pumping multiple streams of water onto the few remaining burning spots. I see what looks like one hose extending to the end of the lawn with nobody at its end.

Where are the fires and firemen tending to the black scorched sections.

Last but not least, when was the photo actually taken. How much time after impact, specifically.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-13   23:49:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So we have an incident with 2 separate explanations. First from 136 people including 103 who saw the impact saying 1 direction that includes light poles being hit, and second from 2 police officers who recollect different directions not hitting light poles.

So you're saying that the two Pentagon officers who saw an aircraft flying NORTH of the Citgo station are lying?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-13   23:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Where are the teams of firemen, and the multiple hoses pumping multiple streams of water onto the few remaining burning spots. I see what looks like one hose extending to the end of the lawn with nobody at its end.

The fire is still burning you moron. Have any pictures of the debris being collected while the fire was still raging?

Oh, and where are the wings, and where is the tail?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-13   23:53:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The video you posted indicates the aircraft that struck the Pentagon took an approach identical to what the 2 police officers witnessed, not what the 100 or so other witnesses saw...

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   0:02:08 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So where are the wings? Where is the tail?

Remember that "oblique angle" of collision I've mentioned, instead of a 90 degree head on impact?

With the oblique angle the starboard wing was impacting the entire wall on its leading edge at the same time, the perfect setup for grinding it into shreds against the building wall almost instantly.

The port wing in the oblique angle collision would have been too far away from 90 degrees to do much damage, and could have been easily folded back into the fuselage in the original collision.

Finally at impact there was a huge blast igniting the fuel tanks.

Whatever didn't get shredded (starboard) or folded back (port) would have been pushed out in all directions into the air, and the fragmented pieces rained back down onto the lawn. Where the pieces were picked up by teams of firemen and FBI gathering evidence.

ERROR: 'The Wings of a 757 Should Have Been Visible Outside the Pentagon'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   0:04:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The video you posted indicates the aircraft that struck the Pentagon took an approach identical to what the 2 police officers witnessed, not what the 100 or so other witnesses saw...

It's not the identical angle. Close but not the same. It's much closer to the angle of the blue line than that of the red line though.

wudidiz  posted on  2010-07-14   0:07:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The video you posted indicates the aircraft that struck the Pentagon took an approach identical to what the 2 police officers witnessed, not what the 100 or so other witnesses saw.

What needs to be explained is the clipping of the light poles, the bumping of the construction materials, the presence of aircraft parts on the lawn, the size of the entry hole, and the presence of scorched aircraft parts inside aand outside the building.

In crisis situations forensic analysis is frequently used to corroborate or disprove eyewitness testimony. Many people get convicted by eyewitnesses but later get released when forensics shows they couldn't have done it. Witnesses are a good start, there's usually a germ of truth in their accounts, but aren't always the complete picture of what happened.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   0:10:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

With the oblique angle the starboard wing was impacting the entire wall on its leading edge at the same time, the perfect setup for grinding it into shreds against the building wall almost instantly.

The port wing in the oblique angle collision would have been too far away from 90 degrees to do much damage, and could have been easily folded back into the fuselage in the original collision.

Finally at impact there was a huge blast igniting the fuel tanks.

Whatever didn't get shredded (starboard) or folded back (port) would have been pushed out in all directions into the air, and the fragmented pieces rained back down onto the lawn. Where the pieces were picked up by teams of firemen and FBI gathering evidence.

^This one's new to me.

"If physics won't explain it, just make something up that will. Most people are stupid and will believe it just because a University or the Government or the TV says it's true."

wudidiz  posted on  2010-07-14   0:42:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Whatever didn't get shredded (starboard) or folded back (port) would have been pushed out in all directions into the air, and the fragmented pieces rained back down onto the lawn. Where the pieces were picked up by teams of firemen and FBI gathering evidence.

Ok, so where's all this evidence? Is it stored somewhere?

Where are the pictures of the "evidence" being removed and moved?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   1:05:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Maybe they hid the evidence so noone could ever prove they didn't have it?

wudidiz  posted on  2010-07-14   1:16:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As far as the two cops, they were both at different locations. They BOTH insist they saw an aircraft fly north of the Citgo station, and impact the Pentagon, and DEFINITELY not coming from south of the Citgo station.

They both say they saw light poles go down, but not south of the Citgo station, but on the path that they saw coming from north of the Citgo station.

Additionally, the trajectory shown in your video agrees with the more northerly approach, and can not be twisted to show what the offical story's southerly path claims, UNLESS there was a SECOND aircraft that overflew the Pentagon coming from that direction.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   1:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Maybe they hid the evidence so noone could ever prove they didn't have it?

I've never heard it mentioned what happened with all that wreckage, have you?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   1:26:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I've never heard it mentioned what happened with all that wreckage, have you?

There are youtubes of a reporter who was on the scene saying there was no wreckage. In later interviews he talks about looking at the wreckage. Makes you wonder.

Name calling is juvenile.

farmfriend  posted on  2010-07-14   1:33:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I've never heard it mentioned what happened with all that wreckage, have you?

Didn't they send it to China?

wudidiz  posted on  2010-07-14   1:39:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Maybe he couldn't see the wreckage because they hadn't place it on the grass yet?

wudidiz  posted on  2010-07-14   1:40:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Didn't they send it to China?

That's where everybody sends their wreckage...

wudidiz  posted on  2010-07-14   1:41:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There are youtubes of a reporter who was on the scene saying there was no wreckage. In later interviews he talks about looking at the wreckage. Makes you wonder.

Maybe he was "made an offer he couldn't refuse"...

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   1:52:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Didn't they send it to China?

I've heard that about the WTC debris, but not about the Pentagon wreckage. The NTSB is supposed to hold onto wreckage from airplane crashes.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   1:53:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Pentagon Missile Hoax

Reasons for no-plane hoaxes:

*discredit the skeptics, alienate those inside-the-Beltway
*discredit the skeptics with a straw man argument
*redirect the skeptics into a false debate (no plane vs. no complicity)
*protect the plotters from political / military insiders thinking that it was an inside job
*the fake debate between no plane and no complicity gets the Bush regime off the hook
*there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of people saw Flight 77, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
*the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a hoax
*making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no- plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway, both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)
*the material on this page and all of the websites that are linked here should finally extinguish the "no plane" hoax -- except for those who have staked their credibility on these claims and cannot admit a mistake, and those who intentionally promote the hoax.

Every claim for the "no plane" hoaxes is refuted here or at a page linked from this page.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   1:59:35 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The fire is still burning you moron

"Smouldering" is more like it except for 1-2 hot spots.

Where's the sense of urgency about putting it out, Twoffer?

For the third time, what time were the photo's taken?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   2:07:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did you know that the cockpit door was NOT opened during all of Flight 77's doomed flight?

Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack”

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   2:09:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Where is the wreckage being stored? Where are pictures of the trucks carting it away, or of the trucks being loaded with the wreckage?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   2:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Can you be more specific?

Watch the whole thing, or if your too lazy, fast forward to 39:00.

Critter  posted on  2010-07-14   6:22:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

deleted

The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-07-14   7:28:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did you know that the cockpit door was NOT opened during all of Flight 77's doomed flight?

Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack”

Once again a CT site fails to report all the information, holding back full disclosure of facts that will fail to support wild non-hijacking theories. Thereby serving as an instigator for conflict between Six Percenters hardliners and the much larger "certain elements within USG allowed 911 to happen" group.

The flight data recorder was at least partially melted, and not only did not indicate any movement of Flight 75's cabin door on September 11, it also did not show any movement for 40 hours and 11 flights prior to Flight 75 on September 11.

Why aren't the CT sites saying this?

This information was submitted as evidence at the Massoui trial in Virginia.

Why aren't the weasely "Scholars" and "Truthers" disclosing it?

American Airlines Flight 77

The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.[85]

The Flight Data Recorder failed to record certain parameters with certainty. Among the uncertain parameters was the status of the cockpit door, which showed no sign of having been opened during the hijacking or previous 40 hours, including 11 flights prior to the hijacking."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   7:49:11 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.[85]

Did you make that up yourself? The NTSB reported that the Flight Data Recorder on Flight 77 was a SOLID STATE FDR, not an older tape based FDR.

Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder Report

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   8:02:21 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   8:05:48 ET  (3 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How about carefully reviewing your "Comments/Response"s before hitting the "This looks good - Post it" button.

"Only validated paramaters are included in the plots and tabular data in this report...The remaining parameters either were not recorded properly, or were not confirmed to have been recorded properly, and are not included in this report."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   8:15:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Flight Data Recorder failed to record certain parameters with certainty. Among the uncertain parameters was the status of the cockpit door, which showed no sign of having been opened during the hijacking or previous 40 hours, including 11 flights prior to the hijacking."

The plane won't take off if a sensor is faulty. The FDR is notified by a sensing circuit if a sensor fails on a monitored parameter, and the cockpit door status is one of the parameters that it's supposed to record, every 4 seconds as a matter of fact.

Then again, according to you the FDR's "tape" was charred and unusable, yet it didn't use tape.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   8:17:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How about carefully reviewing your "Comments/Response"s before hitting the "This looks good - Post it" button.

How about finding better sources that can at least get the TYPE of flight data recorder right, and not concoct lies about "tape being melted"?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   8:18:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So are you going to retract your "melted tape" story?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   8:32:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You and/or your source appear to be embellishing

My sources are linked.

Read them, click on the numbers where present instead of continuing to make accusations.

Now where's any equally researched material for your versions...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   8:36:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So are you going to retract your "melted tape" story?

Seems like you need a hand-holding narration of what this photo is of, even though it is sourced about 5 different ways on a link I already provided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   8:40:09 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Well HERE'S something interesting...

From Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

tnemelckram View Member Profile Nov 28 2009, 07:27 PM Post #70

Group: Contributor Posts: 664 Joined: 30-January 08 Member No.: 2,690

Hi WStutt!

Many thanks for all your work. You have enabled Rob to take a huge leap forward.

You seem to take a neutral position as to drawing conclusions. I think I understand why - one cannot see how your decoding program works so it has to be trusted implicitly by everyone regardless of their opinion. You can't appear to have an agenda and enjoy that kind of universal trust as an honest broker at the same time!

I looked at your three decode files of what appear to be the plane's historical airport locations (Complete, Complete One Line and Complete One Line With Airport Locations). I was unable to tie them into the csv file for the last flight FDR data (Final Flight complete) by matching the bit or frame or whatever they are numbers. SO I am unsure exactly what the former three files represent, starting with their time frame, and more particularly how they tie in to the Final Flight data.

But I did notice the final fourteen locations. Starting at fourteenth from last and going down the list, numbers 14 through 3 are Dulles Airport, which is where the last location would necessarily have to be to fit the Official Story. But then, next to last is "TISX","Henry E Rohlsen Airport","Christiansted, St Croix, U.S.V.I." Then last, intruigingly enough, is ,"KFVE","Northern Aroostook Regional Airport","Frenchville, Maine, USA". WHHHAAATTT!!!

I see from the above Posts there are a total of eleven flights for *whatever this plane is* recorded in the FDR data.I gather from your posts that you have decoded them. ANd how the next to last flight ties into the last flight seems to be important. Theortically, the coordinates when the plane is shut down on the enxt to last flight should be at Dulles just as the coordinates for the last flight start at Dullles.

So have you decoded the other flights? Could you make available at least the starting and final coordinates for each one of the prior ten flights?

It might be interesting to see how they jibe.

rob balsamo View Member Profile Nov 28 2009, 07:43 PM Post #71

Group: Admin Posts: 7,962 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Nov 28 2009, 07:27 PM) But I did notice the final fourteen locations. Then last, intruigingly enough, is ,"KFVE","Northern Aroostook Regional Airport","Frenchville, Maine, USA". WHHHAAATTT!!!

Whaaaaa is right.....

KFVE is not served by American Airlines....not to mention the runway is only 4600 feet, nor can the airport provide services for a 757.... or.. .can it...... (insert twilight zone music here).

Where is this "Complete One Line With Airport Locations" file? I cant find it on Warren's site.

"Henry E Rohlsen Airport","Christiansted, St Croix, U.S.V.I. is also not served by American according to their website.

Where is this data coming from?

tnemelckram View Member Profile Nov 28 2009, 08:03 PM Post #72

Group: Contributor Posts: 664 Joined: 30-January 08 Member No.: 2,690

Hi Rob!

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 28 2009, 07:43 PM) Where is this "Complete One Line With Airport Locations" file? I cant find it on Warren's site.

Where is this data coming from?

Here's a link to the page with the download links for the three files I referred to in the Post including Complete One Line With Airport Locations. Both that file and the other files also appear to have INS type coordinates from which the location can be determined even without the airport names:

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRPartial...iles/index.html

EDIT TO ADD: The airport list also shows that the plane flew to American Samoa and Palau on what appears to be a South Pacific Tour and then to Barrow Alaska at some point in its doomed and checkered career. Also note that the St Croix location appears many times earlier on in the list of airports suggesting perhaps some kind of regularity about that location.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Nov 28 2009, 08:14 PM

rob balsamo View Member Profile Nov 28 2009, 08:18 PM Post #73

Group: Admin Posts: 7,962 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1

Alright, there is something very strange with those locations. If those locations are correct, and it came from the AA 77 FDR file as suggested by the header on Warrens page, there is NO WAY that aircraft is a 757 flying passenger service for American Airlines.

This could be bigger than the closed door article.

Warren, please explain these locations.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   8:42:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

URL = http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flight_77_CVR.jpg/220px-Flight_77_CVR.jpg

Hey genius, did you know that the image you are posting is that of the the COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER, and NOT an image of the FLIGHT DATA RECORDER, and the very name of the file you are linking indicates that?

Here's a link to the Wiki page you found it on... Wiki link

Again, here's the NTSB statement concering the FDR, which is a SOLID STATE device, NOT a TAPE BASED device. In fact, EVEN the Wiki page you visited indicates the image you posted is that of the cockpit voice recorder, NOT the flight data recorder. You purposely "creatively edited" to give a false impression, and weren't even honest enough or smart enough to admit your mistake, if it WAS a mistake and not an outright lie.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   8:54:14 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Two black box devices were recovered at the same time, pinhead.

One was the Cockpit Voice Recorder which was melted, fused into its housing, and wasn't giving any cabin conversation information.

Two was the Flight Data Recorder which didn't show any information about cabin door operation, for either the current flight, or the 11 flights previous.

Either way, there's nothing to support the k00ktheory you're pushing is that somehow the Pentagon hijackers didn't take over the cabin because black box data doesn't say that the door opened and closed. The reason the black box data doesn't say doors opened and closed is because they both were seriously damaged in the crash, and not working 100% during and before recovery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work....Noam Chomsky

AGAviator  posted on  2010-07-14   9:09:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Two black box devices were recovered at the same time, pinhead.

One was the Cockpit Voice Recorder which was melted, fused into its housing, and wasn'nt giving any cabin conversation information.

Two was the Flight Data Recorder which didn't show any information about cabin door operation, for either the current flight, or the 11 flights previous

You posted the following line in reference to the FLIGHT DATA RECORDER, we were NOT discussing the COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER.

The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.[85]

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-07-14   9:14:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (876 - 879) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]