A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Job!

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
There is zero proof of hologrammes. The burden of proof is on you and those that support this idea. Their (and your proof) so far amount to nothing at all.
IMO the no plane theiory is a total waste of time, not to mention wrong. Its incredibly detrimental to 9/11 truth.

Re-direct your efforts to answer the questions I posted. It would be much more useful in getting a new investigation going. The further you go down your current path and the more time you invest in this, the harder it will be for you to change course. But thats just my advice. Take or leave.

On the contrary Eyes Wide Open

You say that the no plane theory is a total waste of time, not to mention wrong, and that’s its detrimental to the 9/11 truth.

I respect your point of view.

Further you have asked that that we re-direct efforts to answer those questions that you posted. I will do so now.

In return I would ask you to prove that the no plane theory is wrong.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
The apparent discrepancies in the FBI's identification of suspects raises many questions but provides few answers. This issue may appear suspicious, but it may reflect an opinion that the "hijackers alive" story just doesn't pose a threat to the official account.

There are many possible explanations for the inclusion of identities of still-living individuals in the FBI's list of suspects, from coincidence to identity theft. The use of assumed identities is consistent with the official account, but is perhaps more consistent with the view that the Arab men on the flight were patsies.

IMO the planes were real. Clearly the thermite and WTC7 is the way to go and has the most hard evidence. Only these thing will get a case re-opened. Holograme theory will never ever achieve that.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Like I said on another thread, download the NIST torrent. There is footage of plane wreckage falling to the ground right after impact with the towers. Indeed. One person is killed by it and another has a near miss.

I agree, he who solves the mystery relating to the destruction of WTC7, effectively solves the whole crime scene.

We have agreed that I will answer your question sheet, and in return you have to prove that the use of 4 aircraft was real.

Hologrammes and trickery on 9/11 has deceived the US public and those in the wider world for 10 years now. Charles has told Bill, not hinted or suggested or pondered TOLD or informed Bill that a False Flag event involving ETs will happen. It’s the view of many that this will involve the use of hologrammes and as such by establishing that no aircraft were involved on the September 11 incident we will in turn educate those of the possible use of this technology in the forthcoming False Flag trickery.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Those who think CIT use the scientific method are wrong. They are poor researchers IMO.

As a seperate issue, for those that think there is no evidence of a plane at the pentagon:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/parts.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ompressor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/rotor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...yardparts.html


Now if people are REALLY interested in justice, the CIT way will not get any answers EVER.

This is the way to do it....

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice. And one that wont.

1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?

2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?

4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).

5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?

7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?

8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?

9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?

10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?

11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?

12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?

Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.


The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”

“How did they really die?”

“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.

1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?

Indeed I agree this is a question for the pending investigation.

You say they were an identified security risk. This being the case given the names of those who are a security risk would be included on the passenger list, why were they not apprehended.


2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?

I don’t believe it was disabled, normal command and control systems were fully functional as evidenced by the launch of two F15C aircraft from Otis AFB.


3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?

We don’t know. It’s an interesting question. Do Vice Presidents normally do this?


4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).

I think you answer your own question.


5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.

Agreed, it’s not possible for the lighter mass on impact to destroy a larger mass.
Isaac Newton 3rd Law of Motion.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY


6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?

Unable to comment.


7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?

Indeed I agree. The FAA and NTSB have investigated every air accident and Incident involving American registered aircraft worldwide for decades. In addition both organisations have intervened or assisted other nations who operate US manufactured aircraft that have been involved in an accident or incident.

I have no knowledge of US law and consequently am unable to comment. However had this incident occurred within the UK or a UK registered aircraft worldwide the following documentation would immediately be impounded by the police.

For both pilots: Flying Licence, Medical Certificate, Flying log book for the last 30 days. Last 6th month simulator report and assessment.

Aircraft Technical Log

Aircraft Engineering Log

Aircraft Engine Log

Aircraft Radio Log

Aircraft Compass Log.



8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?


It would also have been impossible to receive a false transmit squawks from an aircraft that didn’t exist in the air, so they told you that the aircraft weren’t transmitting or squawking.

They didn’t do this, because if they had done so secondary surveillance radar would have located the position of the aircraft both laterally and longitudinally at all times + - 100 feet.

The Hijack code isn’t secret 7500 for hijack,7600 radio failure 7700 mayday squawks are internationally used and recognised codes that are transmitted in an emergency. When transmitted every SSR radar mast in the eastern seaboard as far west as Kansas, satellites, coast guard and airborne AWACS aircraft would instantly X the position and track the distress signal. Why would they want to give the game away? They don’t really want assistance do they!

When they talk about radar returns they are referring to primary radar. With primary radar everything and anything comes back into the radar parabolic dish and paints on the controllers screen. This will include all aircraft at all levels, clouds ice and rain and above all shadow. No precise information is received back from a primary return.


9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?


It is possible to make a cell call from a flight today, however it was not possible in 2001.
Those employed within the telecoms industry confirm this.


10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?

Interesting point, however I’m unable to comment.



11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?

Please product Hani Hanjour Flying Licence, Medical Certificate, Log Book, and last 6th month simulator assessment.

Agreed, practically impossible to impossible. If he spent any time in any aircraft at all it would have been a single piston engine Cessna weight 750kgs speed 90Kts or 1.5miles/minute and then he just jumps from the Cessna and into a 767 weight 130,000kgs Speed 500kts 8 miles /minute

Its impossible be able to hand fly any aircraft weighting 130 tons at 500kts.


12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?

No aircraft hit the US Pentagon building in Washington DC. If it’s alleged that Flight 77 a B767 was destroyed at the Pentagon site, please account for two Rolls Royce RB211 engines that powered the aircraft, and one smaller auxiliary power unit (APU) gas turbine engine.

No aircraft hit either of the twin towers in New York. If it’s alleged that the twin towers were destroyed by two aircraft, please account for 4 General Electric CF6 engines that powered the aircraft, and two smaller auxiliary power unit (APU) gas turbine engines.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Agreed, it’s not possible for the lighter mass on impact to destroy a larger mass.

Bullets? Sandy Koufax fastballs to the head? I think you confuse mass with momentum (which is mass times velocity.)

And what happened in the Youtube video you link of the plane hitting the wall depended on the structural integrity of the wall as well as its mass. If the wall had been a bad batch of concrete or fragile limestone or cheap glass, it might have shattered, even given its greater mass.

[Teakai]

Posted by Ty (here)
Good day Zook and Teakai,

Teakai - I'm not familiar with phsyics. Is that the study of icky phsycological stuff?

When I do I want try and view them from your perspective and keep my remarks as on target and reasonable as possible. Us linear, analytical and procedural types put much faith in science.

Oops to the linear scientific types it would be spelled ‘physics'

Posted by Ty (here)
So I want to make sure I understand your reasoning here. In short, that the math trumps opposing eyewitness accounts. That because it supports the northern path and rules out the southern path it confirms the testimony of the witnesses in the original documentary. Correct?

No, maths and eye witness means different alternative = likeliest scenario = holograms.

Posted by Ty (here)
And that because those witnesses' testimony is confimrmed by the math, that the hundreds of other eywitness testimonies must be mistaken. Is that correct?

If there are eye witnesses with completely differeing views – having assessed their point of perspective – and if they are still opposing = some are lying.

There is also the power of suggestion to consider .

Posted by Ty (here)
And because the plane approached from the north, as confirmed by those witnesses and the math, that the CCTV frames are bogus.

The CCTV frames are hugely edited and show us nothing that has any value except that it is lacking a plane. Why remove the plane if it was there = because there wasn’t a plane.

Posted by Ty (here)
So, again, it's the math that makes these witnesses credible but not the others. Correct?

The maths is the bottom line. It is the fixed non debatable, non moveable element in this equasion.

Posted by Ty (here)
Have a great day all.

You too - it's lovely and sunny here, thinking of getting some gardening done.

[Zook]

Hi Ty,

Posted by Ty (here)
Clearly aircraft were involved. Thousands saw them at WTC and hundreds at the Pentagon.
[...]
As for the hijackers who are alive and well, the first paragraph of the article explains that:

THEIR names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who carried out the attacks on America. But yesterday four innocent men told how their identities had been stolen by Osama bin Laden's teams to cover their tracks.

That makes sense. Indeed, it's 100% guaranteed Osama bin Laden's teams (e.g. CIA, Mossad, MI6, ISI) are all heavily implicated in the events of 9/11/2001. What's a few passport thefts on the rap sheets of mass murderers?

[Teakai]

How the news did it:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

Disappearing wing:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BztotD5hXw0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lo3wGanEjk0

and one for the road:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z_BSnGIXkZ8

[Fred259]

Posted by Teakai (here)
This math:

and this math

And the math that says that if a plane went through it would have knocked down all the pillars in its path, not left some standing in its wake. That's phsyics, I think

Teakai, I’m sorry for the delay in getting back about this video.

Essentially this video was prepared by Pilots for 9/11 truth in response to a challenge that said the north route over the navy annex and the Citgo service station was impossible.

In order to compare that it is possible the same data used on the southern route must be used. Therefore they have used the speed of 460kts in this analysis.

However it needs to be appreciated that these speeds are impossible

@ 8.37 in the video. They confirm that FAA insist the aircraft was travelling at 460Kts. Yet this speed exceeds the maximum operating weight set but the manufacturer by 110kts. The velocity maximum operating (VMO) for 767 aircraft in the US is 350kts and in the UK 340kts.

@11.34 in the video. They confirm that the 460kts suggested by the FAA is impossible.
“Cant even obtain such speeds without tearing itself apart” or self destruct.

@12.22 in the video. They confirm the maximum operating limit VMO again at 350kts.


What this means is that all FAA US registered aircraft must never exceed 350kts at any altitude anywhere in the world. In the UK the CAA regulate for all British 767 operators but they say 340kts. In Australia it may be different again, but not by much. The difference is just the different engineering policies of the various nations.


This aircraft is not capable of doing 460kts at sea level.
the FAA and Boeing limit speeds worldwide at 350kts

The question needs to be asked. If the FAA who licence and regulate B767 operators in the US know its VMO is 350kts why are they suggesting that it was doing 460kts?

The answer is all down to Richard Gage at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. Essentially Richard put forward a very convincing case that proved beyond doubt that the buildings couldn’t collapse after the being hit by aircraft and subsequent fuel fires. The case was sound.

In order to discredit Richard Gage’s work NIST back engineered his figures and calculations. In order to counter his argument they increased the weight of the aircraft by adding more fuel and increased the speed. Gauge was still able to prove it was impossible, and we are left with these ridiculous speeds.

@3.51 in this video he has bugged 350kts with the barbers pole. He can’t go above this speed. The actual speed of the aircraft is 333kts Indicated Airspeed confirmed in the bottom box and white needle on the clock below the barbers pole.

He is showing Mach.80 in the top box which is his limiting speed. He can’t go above this speed. Mach 0.80 at that altitude, on that day at that temperature is limiting him to 333kts 17 kts short of his maximum indicated speed of 350Kkts.

His true air speed TAS through the air might be around 400kts but only because he is at 35,000 feet and temp / pressure / density decrease with altitude.

When he descends temp / pressure / density will start to increase and his speed will decrease.


For manual calculation of TAS in knots where Mach number and static air temperature are known the expression may be simplified to: 38.94x the square root of the temp in degrees kelvin


https://youtube.com/watch?v=CeisFVgqIuc

So all this talk about 400, 450, 500, 550 Kts any damn number is government garbage.

Richard Gage had them by the you know where, so they just change things and make it up as they go along.

[Teakai]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Teakai, I’m sorry for the delay in getting back about this video.

Essentially this video was prepared by Pilots for 9/11 truth in response to a challenge that said the north route over the navy annex and the Citgo service station was impossible.

In order to compare that it is possible the same data used on the southern route must be used. Therefore they have used the speed of 460kts in this analysis.

However it needs to be appreciated that these speeds are impossible

@ 8.37 in the video. They confirm that FAA insist the aircraft was travelling at 460Kts. Yet this speed exceeds the maximum operating weight set but the manufacturer by 110kts. The velocity maximum operating (VMO) for 767 aircraft in the US is 350kts and in the UK 340kts.

@11.34 in the video. They confirm that the 460kts suggested by the FAA is impossible.
“Cant even obtain such speeds without tearing itself apart” or self destruct.

@12.22 in the video. They confirm the maximum operating limit VMO again at 350kts.


What this means is that all FAA US registered aircraft must never exceed 350kts at any altitude anywhere in the world. In the UK the CAA regulate for all British 767 operators but they say 340kts. In Australia it may be different again, but not by much. The difference is just the different engineering policies of the various nations.


This aircraft is not capable of doing 460kts at sea level.
the FAA and Boeing limit speeds worldwide at 350kts

The question needs to be asked. If the FAA who licence and regulate B767 operators in the US know its VMO is 350kts why are they suggesting that it was doing 460kts?

The answer is all down to Richard Gage at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. Essentially Richard put forward a very convincing case that proved beyond doubt that the buildings couldn’t collapse after the being hit by aircraft and subsequent fuel fires. The case was sound.

In order to discredit Richard Gage’s work NIST back engineered his figures and calculations. In order to counter his argument they increased the weight of the aircraft by adding more fuel and increased the speed. Gauge was still able to prove it was impossible, and we are left with these ridiculous speeds.

@3.51 in this video he has bugged 350kts with the barbers pole. He can’t go above this speed. The actual speed of the aircraft is 333kts Indicated Airspeed confirmed in the bottom box and white needle on the clock below the barbers pole.

He is showing Mach.80 in the top box which is his limiting speed. He can’t go above this speed. Mach 0.80 at that altitude, on that day at that temperature is limiting him to 333kts 17 kts short of his maximum indicated speed of 350Kkts.

His true air speed TAS through the air might be around 400kts but only because he is at 35,000 feet and temp / pressure / density decrease with altitude.

When he descends temp / pressure / density will start to increase and his speed will decrease.


For manual calculation of TAS in knots where Mach number and static air temperature are known the expression may be simplified to: 38.94x the square root of the temp in degrees kelvin


So all this talk about 400, 450, 500, 550 Kts any damn number is government garbage.

Richard Gage had them by the you know where, so they just change things and make it up as they go along.

No argument there, Fred.

[Fred259]

No answer from Eyes Wide Open. Maybe he is still pondering, maybe he will post back.

I think he is playing devils advocate one eye wide open, one eye half shut.

The United Sates is in intensive care. The United Kingdom is waiting for the next available bed. Australia and Canada are in accident & emergency. New Zealand could be next.

Many problems exist throughout the world, but much could be resolved with goodwill and intent. Then we have subversives and globalists and groups of 33, problems we could all do without.

It’s very important we resolve this deception and trickery. Bill has been informed yet more is to come.

Then we need to look at Chemtrails, with new information available and on hand.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
No answer from Eyes Wide Open. Maybe he is still pondering, maybe he will post back.

I think he is playing devils advocate one eye wide open, one eye half shut.

I do have a busy life outside of Avalon you know. Don’t write me off yet! Patience is a virtue.

I will try and answer your questions if I have the time but I am a busy research librarian!
Besides which, you are the one making the claim of hologram’s. The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove it. So far, you have not. It’s only conjecture. Now, compare the two theories using the scientific method. Which of them is the stronger? I think the answer is obvious.

4 has not been accomplished and 5 not even attempted with regards to those that support the hologram’s idea

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

The notion that all footage was manipulated is unbelievable to me. Like I always keep asking, how many of you have actually downloaded the NIST torrents and looked at all the FOI release videos? There are HUNDREDS of individual shots of the second impact made by normal people. Are you saying they are in on it to?

As I keep saying, I think perusing this path is futile and will not result in getting the case reopened. Once the case is reopened, perhaps this can be followed up but until then, I consider it an unworthy course of action. I already went through all this with John Lear on these very forums and he left the forums, having to result to name calling because he could not back up his theories.

Look, I have been involved with some of the family members and they also agree with me I am afraid. Why not donate or at least help to promote the building what campaign instead. Real progress has been made.

http://buildingwhat.org/

Because of these efforts, we managed to get a 9/11 sceptic to do a complete about face on Fox news!

http://buildingwhat.org/buildingwhat...e-on-fox-news/

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
On the contrary Eyes Wide Open

You say that the no plane theory is a total waste of time, not to mention wrong, and that’s its detrimental to the 9/11 truth.

I respect your point of view.

Further you have asked that that we re-direct efforts to answer those questions that you posted. I will do so now.

In return I would ask you to prove that the no plane theory is wrong.

What I mean is the whole community should bring awarness of those questions. In-fighting about hologrames and what hit the pentagon is not progress and helps nobody. When we work together, we can achive anything! Just look at the buidling what campaign. My list of questions are the ones that the community should focus on. Only then is a new investigation likley as talk of hologrames brings with it, an inherent "giggle factor" which most will nevr take seriously. Questions of what hit the petagon can be asked once a new invetigation is underway. But a new investiagtion wont ever get underway if you start with questions like that.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Teakai (here)
How the news did it:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

Disappearing wing:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BztotD5hXw0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lo3wGanEjk0

and one for the road:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z_BSnGIXkZ8

These prove nothing at all. All of that can be done in photoshop. How much do you know about the people that made these videos? Has it occured to you that what you propose, (insterted jets) could quite eaily have been the opposite. I.E photoshoped by those that made the videos so it appears that the jets are holographic. Bad conclusion drwan from poor research. Remember Occams razor!

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
What I mean is the whole community should bring awarness of those questions. In-fighting about hologrames and what hit the pentagon is not progress and helps nobody. When we work together, we can achive anything! Just look at the buidling what campaign. My list of questions are the ones that the community should focus on. Only then is a new investigation likley as talk of hologrames brings with it, an inherent "giggle factor" which most will nevr take seriously. Questions of what hit the petagon can be asked once a new invetigation is underway. But a new investiagtion wont ever get underway if you start with questions like that.

Absolutely

As posted previously building7 holds the key to resolving the crime scene.

[aroundthetable]

I'm sure this has been put forward already but i couldn't find it through the search.

This shows how CGI was used, and also shows the remarkable links the 'official' witnesses of the plane have to the media.

The title is September Clues and there are several parts.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE

Hello and best wishes to you all in 2011.

[Zook]

Good Morning Good Avalon Good Avalonians All ... the Earth says hello!

Posted by 3optic (here)
I believe Zook said the official "attack path and profile" are what's bogus.

Correct. In relation to an attacking Northside jetliner, the official attack path and profile are bogus. Of course, in relation to whatever struck the Pentagon (assuming that something did), the Southside attack path and profile is consistent with the involvement of a second attacking object.



ps: FWIW, I neither rule out holographic planes nor rule them in. All my arguments pertaining to the Pentagon event assume physical objects, not holographic objects. If holographs were, indeed, used; then that is the burden of a detailed post-conviction process to prove, not mine to make conjecture with here. Conviction can be obtained from evidence at the three other nodes of the 9/11/2001 attacks (e.g. Shanksville, Pa.; WTC1 and WTC2; Building Seven). I try to stick with the world I know and not one that requires esoteric technology, e.g. in proving stuff.

[Fred259]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Good Morning Good Avalon Good Avalonians All ... the Earth says hello!



Correct. In relation to an attacking Northside jetliner, the official attack path and profile are bogus. Of course, in relation to whatever struck the Pentagon (assuming that something did), the Southside attack path and profile is consistent with the involvement of a second attacking object.



ps: FWIW, I neither rule out holographic planes nor rule them in. All my arguments pertaining to the Pentagon event assume physical objects, not holographic objects. If holographs were, indeed, used; then that is the burden of a detailed post-conviction process to prove, not mine to make conjecture with here. Conviction can be obtained from evidence at the three other nodes of the 9/11/2001 attacks (e.g. Shanksville, Pa.; WTC1 and WTC2; Building Seven). I try to stick with the world I know and not one that requires esoteric technology, e.g. in proving stuff.

Indeed Indeed Mr Zook, I was wondering how long it would be before this was exposed.

The attach however must be separated, with the first attack being the cover for the second attack. The first attack being the B757 taking the northerly route was supplemented by a noisy 4 engine C-130 turboprop adding to the confusion, and planting in people’s minds the “I saw an aircraft” concept. Even if they didn’t see the aircraft they would certainly have heard them cementing these concepts within the mind.

The second attack assuming it wasn’t an internal attack, taking the southern route would have been much faster and with any noise generated masked by the C-130.

It’s possible the C-130 may have had some involvement in supporting the second attack. By supporting, and I’m only wondering if some additional laser targeting took place to ensure that the second attack hit home precisely where it was wanted. It was after all a critical building, that is to say critical to those who planned the attack.

The southern approach profile supports the use of a different aerial platform.

We also need to consider that it was just 24 hours previously that Donald Rumsfeld had announced that for some reason they were unable to account for 2.3 trillion USD. Many within the Pentagon must have known this or perhaps had involvement. One can’t help but wonder if those who were no longer useful, were perhaps called to meet ahead of the attack and within the overall target area.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
I do have a busy life outside of Avalon you know. Don’t write me off yet! Patience is a virtue.

I will try and answer your questions if I have the time but I am a busy research librarian!
Besides which, you are the one making the claim of hologram’s. The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove it. So far, you have not. It’s only conjecture. Now, compare the two theories using the scientific method. Which of them is the stronger? I think the answer is obvious.

4 has not been accomplished and 5 not even attempted with regards to those that support the hologram’s idea

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

The notion that all footage was manipulated is unbelievable to me. Like I always keep asking, how many of you have actually downloaded the NIST torrents and looked at all the FOI release videos? There are HUNDREDS of individual shots of the second impact made by normal people. Are you saying they are in on it to?

As I keep saying, I think perusing this path is futile and will not result in getting the case reopened. Once the case is reopened, perhaps this can be followed up but until then, I consider it an unworthy course of action. I already went through all this with John Lear on these very forums and he left the forums, having to result to name calling because he could not back up his theories.

Look, I have been involved with some of the family members and they also agree with me I am afraid. Why not donate or at least help to promote the building what campaign instead. Real progress has been made.

http://buildingwhat.org/

Because of these efforts, we managed to get a 9/11 sceptic to do a complete about face on Fox news!

http://buildingwhat.org/buildingwhat...e-on-fox-news/

4 . Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).



I think you answer your own question. This is one of the problems we all have. A lot depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

The fundamental problem in the US and the UK is that our governments are infested with Marxists. All key offices of state and departments in government are now run and managed by Americans in the US and Brits in the UK who themselves have been ideologically subverted. This is why nothing works, and everything is failing.

Turning to your question. “Why were Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report?

The answer to your question is contained in the paragraph above. Where do FEMA fit into all this? The answer can be found by asking yourself who are the decision makers within FEMA. The problem is that until recently in Britain and sadly also in America everyone thinks that Communist come from Russia and have names like Ivan and Olga and live in Moscow. They don’t try John and Tracy from London, Manchester and Glasgow UK as well as Boston, Atlanta, Kansas, LA and smaller places as well like Billings Montana.(Maybe that’s pushing it a bit) They are still good Americans, baby boomers go to church on Sunday, but they have been ideologically subverted and that is why people like you and I look at this decision to appoint Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar to write the 9/11 FEMA report and scratch our heads and wonder how this can be.

America, here is Charlotte Iserbyt Director of Policy under the first Regan administration talking about the subversion of the US education system. This was in 1985 and now these are the kids who are in key government places, pulling the strings and making decisions.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

America, here is Yuri Bezmenov a former KGB agent who defected to the US and now lives in LA with his new American family, talks about how to destroy a nation state by ideological subversion. This is how the US and UK have been destroyed.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3WeUWe2XagQ&NR=1

Britain. This is the communist organisation who with leadership training courses have key ideologically subverted individuals in every department in government from Whitehall to County Hall.

www.commonpurpose.org

And how this Marxist infestation is being exposed in Britain.

www.cpexposed.com

Canada, same old ideology different country. English & French versions.

http://www.actioncanada.ca/en/

http://www.actioncanada.ca/fr/



5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.


Eyes Wide Open. Why do you ask a question and then also provide the information you want to see in the answer.

“Seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane” Who is saying this? Was this why you didn’t reach agreement with John Lear, a man who has 19,000 flying hours so maybe just maybe he might be right. I don’t have John’s level of experience, but I do understand what he will be saying so I stand by John Lear.

Here you go again…

“Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact? A perfectly sensible question.

But then you give the answer you want..

“Giving additional evidence for the use of explosives?

No no no I don’t agree, could it be I wonder the weight of all the water that the firemen were pouring over the building.

I have no idea of the weight but I do know that airport fire trucks pump 6100liters /min so 6100 x 30 =183,000 liters / 4.56= 40,131 gallons of water x 10lbs per gallon = 401,315lbs / 2240 =180 tons of water approx.

So maybe this additional water pumped over the damaged roof caused the further collapse 30 minutes later. What say you?

[Teakai]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
These prove nothing at all. All of that can be done in photoshop. How much do you know about the people that made these videos? Has it occured to you that what you propose, (insterted jets) could quite eaily have been the opposite. I.E photoshoped by those that made the videos so it appears that the jets are holographic. Bad conclusion drwan from poor research. Remember Occams razor!

Hi Eyes Wide Open, the videos are not meant as 'proof' of anything.

And, it is by the use of Occams Razor that establishes the fact that the 911 official story is totally false - now we're just pondering how it may have been brought about in a way that is most logical and reasonable.

Occams razor says holographs seem the likeliest way it was done.

[Teakai]

Posted by aroundthetable (here)
I'm sure this has been put forward already but i couldn't find it through the search.

This shows how CGI was used, and also shows the remarkable links the 'official' witnesses of the plane have to the media.

The title is September Clues and there are several parts.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE

Hello and best wishes to you all in 2011.

Thankyou, Around thetable - you can even hear the media lying. (If you know what I mean - because, obviously they are lying - but you can hear it in the inflection of their voice. "Oh my goodness, there's another one." Said with all the passion and disbelief he would muster if his wife had told him they were having beans again for dinner.)

This one is just amazingly stoopid:
Reporting WTC 7 down 20 minutes before it was.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk

How did the reporter not see it?
And, only slightly more astonishingly - how do people keep believing the official story after ALL the in your face evidence of ALL the in your face absolute bullsh*t?