See other 9/11 Articles
Title: New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth - No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
Source:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
URL Source: http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/ ... dy-raises-more-questions/2351/
Published: Feb 2, 2008
Author: staff
Post Date: 2008-02-01 20:55:16 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: None
Views: 1924
Comments: 89
A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building, said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission: The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them. According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data: a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events. b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense 5 Frames video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time. e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, Pandora’ss Box: Chapter 2, available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearchq=Pandora’ss+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 . According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. We have developed four lines of argument that prove–conclusively, in my judgment–that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot’ss study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon. Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot’ss results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building, including these four: (1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible. (2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’sReilly admitted when one was shown on The Factor. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757. (3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level–physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible. (4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a smoking gun proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained. Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government’ss official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn. Don’st be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence. James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact. Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org. The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11, Fetzer said. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless, he added, they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue ’sbeyond a reasonable doubt’s. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. 
New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth
No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 86.
#1. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
Dozens of people stood there and watched the plane fly into the building. I guess they're lying, though. Part of the "conspiracy" the crackpots love to believe in.
There are sixty some people that watched the aircraft impact the Pentagon. All unknown to each other. Many of them could identify it as an American Airlines aircraft. Anyone that honestly believes anyone could get all of them to lie is doing a disservice to themselves. All of this tends to muddy the water as to who what when and where.
That many or more saw JFK murdered at close range. Oswald was convicted by the Press and the government before Jack Ruby murdered him. Ask anyone who killed Kennedy and they're likely to say Lee Harvey Oswald. Whatever happened at the Pentagon, the location of those individuals supposedly flying on the plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon has no bearing on anything. Something did hit the Pentagon, and if it was the plane we're expected to believe hit it ... then it was allowed to fly around for 88 minutes without being approached by fighter aircraft trained to prevent just such an event.
Media was there when the landing gear was dragged out. Whatever happened on 9/11 gets obscured by such machinations.
Where were they when it was dragged in ? (Just a thought).
Main landing gear would require many men to "drag" in and they were found within rooms that had standard doorways of 2/8 x 6/8.
=========== Where were they when it was dragged in ? (Just a thought). Main landing gear would require many men to "drag" in and they were found within rooms that had standard doorways of 2/8 x 6/8. I don't know how I got on this old thread, but I guess that didn't register with me before. From the article: Don’t be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. I guess this didn't register either. Does anyone know the direction the C-130 approached the Pentagon? I'm curious because I live south of the Pentagon, and heard something fast and low heading toward the Pentagon from Southwest of me that day. It sounded like a missile, except that I had the impression it might have been bigger than that, but it was not coming from the correct direction for Flight 77. I have always been confused about what I heard. Shortly after it passed overhead, I heard an explosion and the whole house shook and the windows rattled. Now when I looked at some of the pictures of the Pentagon in the past, I thought I saw a dark patch ON THE ROOF kind of near the vicinity of the hole in the side of the building. I always wondered what this was, as it rather looked like a hole, but no one ever mentioned it as far as I know. Was it just my eyes playing tricks on me, or has anyone else noticed the same thing? Reading the tidbits above, I began to wonder if and how they could drop something from one of those planes [aren't they huge lumbering things?] and have it land where they wanted it to, like inside the Pentagon, for instance. A quick search seems to suggest that isn't a problem: Bagram C-130s drop high-tech cargo delivery system [pic - Bagram C-130s drop high-tech cargo delivery system Joint Precision Air Drop System bundles fall out of the back of a C-130 Hercules Aug. 25. The drop was made from almost 10,000 feet above sea level and was calculated using up-to-the-minute wind data relayed from two small dropsondes deployed 20 minutes earlier. The dropsondes calculate wind speed and relay the information back to the aircraft, helping to calculate the correct drop point. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Brian Ferguson)] by Maj. David Kurle 455th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs 9/1/2006 - BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan (AFPN) -- The same global positioning technology that helps fighter and bomber pilots deliver smart bombs with pinpoint accuracy now allows cargo bundles dropped from cargo planes to steer themselves to drop zones. A C-130 Hercules from the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron here dropped supplies to a U.S. Army unit in Afghanistan Aug. 31, using the military's newest airdrop system for the first time in a combat zone. An Air National Guard crew, deployed from Alaska's 144th Airlift Squadron, dropped bundles using the Joint Precision Airdrop System, or JPADS, which the Army and Air Force have been developing together since 1993. "This was the first Air Force employment of the joint precision airdrop system in an operational or combat airlift mission," said Maj. Neil Richardson, chief of the combat programs and policy branch at Air Mobility Command. He deployed here as part of the JPADS Mobile Training Team to oversee the first combat use of the system and to train C-130 crews how to use it. "The system did exactly what it was designed for and delivered ammunition and water to ground troops here in Afghanistan," he said. The JPADS is a family of systems designed to bring the same accuracy to the airlift community that strike pilots have enjoyed since the development of GPS-guided bombs, called joint direct attack munitions, or JDAMS. "It's the JDAMS of logistics," Major Richardson said. The goal, when the system is fully developed, is to field four sizes of JPADS - extra light, light, medium and heavy. Though still in the concept-development phase, the heavy JPADS may be able to airdrop up to 60,000 pounds of cargo, more than enough to deliver the Army's eight-wheel Stryker combat vehicle. "Soldiers in forward fighting positions will have a viable means of airdrop re-supply, which is more accurate and increases survivability of critical supplies, like ammunition, fuel, food and water," said Chief Warrant Officer Cortez Frazier, aerial delivery chief for Combined Joint Task Force-76's Joint Logistics Command. "JPADS will ensure the war fighter can continue to combat and win against terrorism," he said. The JPADS loads have GPS receivers which are updated, while traveling in the airplane, through a repeater in the cargo bay that re-broadcasts the aircraft's GPS coordinates to electronics fastened to the cargo. When dropped, the GPS receivers guide steering mechanisms that literally fly the cargo, under a rectangular para-foil, to the desired point of impact. "They are autonomously steered by GPS and electro-mechanical steering actuators," said Maj. Dan DeVoe, a command tactician at the Air Mobility Warfare Center, McGuire Air Force Base, N.J., and also on the mobile training team. The actuators pull risers on a parachute -- turning it one direction or another -- to position the load over the desired point of impact. Once the load is positioned over the drop zone, a second parachute deploys and the cargo descends almost straight down to troops on the ground. In Afghanistan, C-130 crews drop the light version of JPADS, dubbed the "screamer" because it falls at 100 mph. It can deliver container delivery system bundles, containing food, water, ammunition and other supplies, weighing 500 to 2,000 pounds, to troops on the ground. "We're resupplying small units, so we don't need a big volume of parachutes and equipment," said Army Lt. Col. Robert Gagnon, the deputy commander of the 10th Sustainment Brigade, whose job is resupplying Soldiers in Afghanistan. "It allows us to get into a small area from a stand-off distance, where the aircraft is out of harm's way." Prior to dropping the screamer, a C-130 loadmaster will pitch a small transmitter called a dropsonde from the back of the aircraft, which relays wind speeds and direction back to the navigator's laptop computer. "It's a very accurate, very real-time wind picture of what's going on out there," Major Richardson said. "A lot of your error comes from wind and we've taken a lot of the error out." Under traditional airdrop procedures, C-130 navigators guided the aircraft's pilots to a single point in space to take advantage of forecasted winds to blow unguided loads under a parachute to a drop zone on the ground as the cargo descended. Because the winds were forecasted, they may or may not have been the same by the time the aircraft actually arrived at the drop zone. With JPADS, navigators gather up-to-the-minute information about wind direction and speed, then, because the loads can steer themselves, can fly to an area over the drop zone to release the loads as opposed to a single point. "As long as you are in that launch acceptability region, you can call green light and your loads are going to go to their intended targets," Major Richardson said. In addition to accuracy, JPADS allows different bundles to steer themselves to more than one drop zone. "You can basically fly to an area, drop the bundles, and they will steer where they need to go," Major DeVoe said. "With one green-light call, bundles can go to multiple locations." The increased accuracy and ability to drop to more than one location at the same time means that Soldiers on the ground recover the cargo quickly and know exactly where it will land. "(JPADS) ensures the supplies are received in a timely manner," Colonel Gagnon said. "The Soldiers get what they need, when they need it and how they need it. The drop zone is set up for a shorter period of time, the loads come in, the aircraft is gone and the Soldiers are gone before the enemy knows what's taken place." The new system also allows aircrews to drop from higher altitudes, moving C-130s farther from the threat of enemy ground fire and still deliver cargo accurately by air drop. The higher an aircraft drops, the less accurate the loads become -- until now. "JPADS takes the aircrew and the aircraft out of harm's way by being higher and further away from the drop zones and therefore, further away from the threats," Major Richardson said. "On the ground side, the precision of the airdrop systems themselves allows the guys to pick up all the stuff right around the desired point of impact, as opposed to being dispersed or scattered across the entire drop zone," he said. "They're not risking their lives gathering the loads." www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123026339 So....COULD the C-130 have dropped the landing gear in the Pentagon?
There are no replies to Comment # 86. End Trace Mode for Comment # 86.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
#22. To: Cynicom (#21)
#23. To: noone222 (#22)
#37. To: Cynicom (#23)
Media was there when the landing gear was dragged out.
#38. To: noone222 (#37)
Where were they when it was dragged in ? (Just a thought).
#86. To: Cynicom, noone222, Uncle Bill (#38)
Media was there when the landing gear was dragged out.
Replies to Comment # 86.