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

[Teakai]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
I agree, he who solves the mystery relating to the destruction of WTC7, effectively solves the whole crime scene.

Call me Agatha, but I've got it all sorted.

The WTC buildings were planted with explosives to bring them down. (WTC - 7 was a greedy mistake, because it is this building that has been the most controversial piece in the whole plot.)

The Pentagon was partly destroyed mainly because of the missing trillions.

Why would they do such a thing? - an assortment of reasons - but the foremost being that the elitists wish to bring forth a new world order, but first the US republic must be destroyed and to do that people must be willing to give up their constitutional rights in order to be 'safe' from the terrorists.

Am I stating the obvious?

[Fred259]

Posted by Teakai (here)
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?

Not sure if you have seen this Taekai

We are Change in London managed to get an interview with that BBC anchorman his name is Philip Hayton.

It was Philip Hayton who on September 11 2001 was working in the studio when the news of the attacks came in.

It was Philip Hayton who from the BBC studio in London, broadcast to the world about the attacks for SIX Continuous Hours.

“We are Change” London recorded this interview with him around 2 years ago.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2oqQ


“We have come to ask you about the World Trade Centre Attacks. Do you remember them”?

@1.22 He Lies “ I was in the theatre with my son”

@2.00 He Lies “ I didn’t have anything to do with it”

@2.20 He Lies “ he shakes his head - No not me”

@2.31 He Lies “ Have you ever heard of WTC7 ? – Answers No”

@3.13 He Lies ( he knows he is caught and is working out his story – new lies now )

@3.49 He Lies “ I wasn’t in the BBC studio, I was in the theatre”

@5.19 He Lies “ This is all news to me !

@8.06 He Lies “ Its all completely new to me”


So, now you know. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world; you now know the BBC from London will just tell you lies.

[Teakai]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
The notion that all footage was manipulated is unbelievable to me.

Why?
Do you have a solid reason for thinking so, or is it just an idea that you can't get your head around?

[Zook]

Hi Teaks,

Posted by Teakai (here)
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.

Well, with respect to the isolated Pentagon node of the 9/11/2001 attacks, Occam's Razor definitely narrows it down to holographs or actual jetliner flyover. Haven't watched September Clues yet, though I think I may have watched it when it first came out (and thought nothing of it, may even have rolled my eyes once or twice). In any event, I'm definitely in the flyover camp; not least because if a holograph was used, there would be no real need for a holographic jetliner to lift up before the fireball, or to even be on the Northside of Citgo, for that matter. Also, a holographic jetliner would enjoy flight privileges that a putative Hani Hanjour piloted jetliner wouldn't ... and so there would be no need for a distracting Northside flyover (at odds a with the downed lightpoles) while the attacking missile made its play on the Southside.

So I submit that Occam's Razor confirms a physical jetliner flying over the Pentagon while the other components of the attack event played out (e.g. missile and/or pre-planted explosives). MHO, OC.

[Teakai]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Not sure if you have seen this Taekai

We are Change in London managed to get an interview with that BBC anchorman his name is Philip Hayton.

It was Philip Hayton who on September 11 2001 was working in the studio when the news of the attacks came in.

It was Philip Hayton who from the BBC studio in London, broadcast to the world about the attacks for SIX Continuous Hours.

“We are Change” London recorded this interview with him around 2 years ago.

“We have come to ask you about the World Trade Centre Attacks. Do you remember them”?

@1.22 He Lies “ I was in the theatre with my son”

@2.00 He Lies “ I didn’t have anything to do with it”

@2.20 He Lies “ he shakes his head - No not me”

@2.31 He Lies “ Have you ever heard of WTC7 ? – Answers No”

@3.13 He Lies ( he knows he is caught and is working out his story – new lies now )

@3.49 He Lies “ I wasn’t in the BBC studio, I was in the theatre”

@5.19 He Lies “ This is all news to me !

@8.06 He Lies “ Its all completely new to me”


So, now you know. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world; you now know the BBC from London will just tell you lies.

Thanks Fred, I hadn;t seen it before. He was definitely telling the truth at 8:53 when he said. "I sense that you think there's a conspiracy here." - likely it was the only truthful thing he said during the interview.



I don't know why he would agree to do the interview and admit to not knowing about building 7!?!?!?! It's just too big a lie to pull that off and think people won't think you're either a complete idiot or a complete liar.

He's not the first to forget about building 7, though. Which is really weird.

[Teakai]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Hi Teaks,



Well, with respect to the isolated Pentagon node of the 9/11/2001 attacks, Occam's Razor definitely narrows it down to holographs or actual jetliner flyover. Haven't watched September Clues yet, though I think I may have watched it when it first came out (and thought nothing of it, may even have rolled my eyes once or twice). In any event, I'm definitely in the flyover camp; not least because if a holograph was used, there would be no real need for a holographic jetliner to lift up before the fireball, or to even be on the Northside of Citgo, for that matter. Also, a holographic jetliner would enjoy flight privileges that a putative Hani Hanjour piloted jetliner wouldn't ... and so there would be no need for a distracting Northside flyover (at odds a with the downed lightpoles) while the attacking missile made its play on the Southside.

So I submit that Occam's Razor confirms a physical jetliner flying over the Pentagon while the other components of the attack event played out (e.g. missile and/or pre-planted explosives). MHO, OC.

Sure, Zook - a fly over is definitely not yet ruled out

Only, why bother? And then why bother lying about the flight path and all the speeds and heights etc?
A hologram just seems easier all round.

And the big question is: If it was a real plane and it did a fly over, why didn't they use the real flight path = not fabricate one that didn't add up?

(We also keep, at the back of our mind, that there is the witness who believes she saw the plane hit the building whose testimony was deemed fully credible by Nairnia.)


Oooh, Occam's razor is cutting ever so close to the throat now

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I have a busy period coming up so cannot reply in deatil right now but I MAY when I have time.
However, I will say this. I already went through all this with John lear who I respect. You would think that someone with that amount of knowledge would not have to resort to name calling in the first instance with those that challenged him. Its shameful really. I would not put so much faith in someone if I were you.
So, I really dont know if I have the time or inclination to go through it again. I may. I may not. It depends how much time and energy I want to spend on this. (if any).
Oh, and Occam's razor mean sthe simplest explanation tends to be the right one. A holograme is NOT the simplest explanation for either the towers OR the pentagon. But like I said, I really dont have the time but thanks for putting forward your arguments guys.
I travlled the jouney you are all on myself a few years ago and came to the conclusion that there is simply no hard PROOF of hologrames.

[Teakai]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
I already went through all this with John lear who I respect. You would think that someone with that amount of knowledge would not have to resort to name calling in the first instance with those that challenged him. Its shameful really. I would not put so much faith in someone if I were you.
.

I respect my sister-in law, even though she’s an absolute total b*tch, so, I know what you mean.

Bu-u-u-ut, seriously now – what’s John Lear got to do with this discussion? I missed that part.

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
I travlled the jouney you are all on myself a few years ago and came to the conclusion that there is simply no hard PROOF of hologrames.

HAHAHHAHA too funny! No hard proof of holograms !! HARD proof geddit? Geddit??????



It’s very late. I really must go to bed before I don’t respect myself in the morning.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Oh, and Occam's razor mean sthe simplest explanation tends to be the right one. A holograme is NOT the simplest explanation for either the towers OR the pentagon. .

Is.
In fact - at this present time - it seems to be the only explanation.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I reccomend people in this thread listen to this. Its on Thursday. Or you can get an mp3 straight after...


On this week's "9/11 In Context" show, which airs Thursday, January 20, at 3pm ET, I will interview researcher Aidan Monaghan, who has investigated the 9/11 flights in great detail with important results. Aidan has also filed a wide range of FOIA requests from government agencies and filed lawsuits seeking information related to the 9/11 attacks. Today's discussion will focus on Aidan's impressive research into the autopilot technology available for 757s and 767s at the time of the attacks, contradictory black box information provided by government agencies, and other unusual circumstances related to the flights.



http://www.resistradio.com/forum/4-s...9ic-jan-20#165

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

As I do not have much time I wont write a long post explaining eveything that is wrong with CIT.
I think those that promote the no planes or flyover theories should read the links below. They document all the errors far better than I ever could.
If you still trust CIT after reading these and can rebut every point using the scientific method and occoms razor, then I will be impressed. However, it seems vary obvious from a logical standpoint that the erros pointed out are valid and that you should all worry about these errors and the methods CIT use. They cannot rebut any critique of their ideas in an adult manner. That alone should tell you a great deal about these "researchers".

Here are the links: Please read them fairly, dont let emotions or stubborness or fear of being wrong cloud your view. Look at them in a logical fashion instead.

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html

Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/

Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010...s-cit-methods/

Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010...y-erik-larson/

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/200...oking-gun.html

Did any of you actually read this brand new paper I already posted? I dont recall anyone addresing its CONTENT.
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

What is very clear is that there is a consistent and blatant ongoing cover-up at the Pentagon. Those INSIDE the Pentagon have all the physical evidence and all the confiscated videos. They undoubtedly have the definitive proof of what hit the Pentagon, and how it was done, but they are not saying.

The problem with focusing on a protest of the Pentagon cover-up is that the population at large attributes to the military the right to keep secrets. Secrecy in wartime is understandable, if it is in furtherance of military objectives. It is not reasonable that the military should be allowed to extend this privilege to the cover-up of evidence of a monstrous crime, but the fact is, they can get away with it. The population is not willing to second guess military prerogative in matters like this. Therefore despite the absolutely blatant cover-up of the facts of 9/11 at the Pentagon, there is no public outrage, and there is no reasonable possibility that the public can be aroused on this issue.

Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.

Fortunately the evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the Pentagon almost irrelevant. If anything essentially new (and verifiable) can be discovered at the Pentagon, fine, but the sparseness of information and the thoroughness of the cover-up at the Pentagon makes it an unlikely venue for significant new findings.

The Honey Pot

On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?

Despite popular belief, the physical evidence does not rule out that possibility that it was American Airlines Flight 77 that actually crashed into the Pentagon. Confidently asserting otherwise, then being proven wrong and discredited for sloppy research, would be disastrous for the credibility of the solid science-based research at the World Trade Center.

Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up? We must remember that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people were murdered in a day not counting the thousands who have died since, and millions killed in the resulting wars. If agencies of the US government really are complicit, which the evidence shows to be the case, then the people who really know what happened are playing for keeps. Any movement with real potential for arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly infiltrated. This is not paranoia: it is a simple fact. The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor.

[Zook]

Good Morning EWO,

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
As I do not have much time I wont write a long post explaining eveything that is wrong with CIT.

There's that claim again ... a slander against CIT without any credible proof. Did you even read the thread I posted earlier where Craig Ranke takes the time to rebut the charges against himself and CIT (and does a most eloquent job of it, IMO)? If you didn't, then I'm going to have to call you out ... for the link that I provided leaves no room for opinion. It exposes Frank Legge for what he is, a disinformation agent. If you are a serious investigator of 9/11/2001 ... you will find the time necessary to discover who Frank Legge is, before you start promoting him all over the place. And if you do start promoting him all over the place in spite of who Frank Legge is ... well ... that's your burden to bear and integrity to lose.

Here's that link again:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index...&#entry2376511

Again, the link above scuttles Frank Legge (and his sidekick Stutt). Be man enough to read it ... is all I ask. And if you have integrity, your opinion of CIT will change 180 degrees. More the further it precludes the need to read any of the links below ... for CIT is a genuine show (all one has to do is study National Security Alert with a critical eye; Llyod virtually confesses to the Inside Job!!) ... and its detractors in the links below are then genuine disinformation operatives.

Here's an expose of the CIT detractors as laid out by Craig Ranke himself (excellent 2-part clip):
https://youtube.com/user/Truthsto.../1/WMvxd8HV54w
https://youtube.com/user/Truthsto.../0/GT0qY6lAwIg



ps: Note that your links below, EWO, include proven disinfo agents such as Victoria Ashley, Arabesque et al. Just Google for these names and you'll find a popcorn trail of disinfo. Can you explain why that is?

ps2: I would now have to question the integrity of the 911blogger website.

ps3: David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (of AE911) both support CIT and Craig Ranke.

ps4: Humble opinions all around.

I think those that promote the no planes or flyover theories should read the links below. They document all the errors far better than I ever could.
If you still trust CIT after reading these and can rebut every point using the scientific method and occoms razor, then I will be impressed. However, it seems vary obvious from a logical standpoint that the erros pointed out are valid and that you should all worry about these errors and the methods CIT use. They cannot rebut any critique of their ideas in an adult manner. That alone should tell you a great deal about these "researchers".

Here are the links: Please read them fairly, dont let emotions or stubborness or fear of being wrong cloud your view. Look at them in a logical fashion instead.

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html

Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/

Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010...s-cit-methods/

Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010...y-erik-larson/

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/200...oking-gun.html

Did any of you actually read this brand new paper I already posted? I dont recall anyone addresing its CONTENT.
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Teakai (here)
Why?
Do you have a solid reason for thinking so, or is it just an idea that you can't get your head around?

I already gave the reason. I will repeat it again. Download the NIST torrent. I keep talking about it. Everyone keeps ignoring it.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Good Morning EWO,
There's that claim again ... a slander against CIT without any credible proof. .

Its not slander. You mention credible proof. There is no way you could have read all the info in the links I posted (as well as all the links within those articles) between the time of our posts. Therefore you would have not had time to consider the evidence I posted. Your proof is there.

I watched the youtube clips. This is all Craig Ranks’ opinion. He has no evidence.
To me, he is just angry that nobody will debate him. Why? Because he FIRST engaged in ad hominem attacks against others. At one point at about 4:10 he even says "if perpetrators of 9/11 were going to try and control thought, they would want to control 9/11 blogger. Now do we have any proof that’s the case? No."

Also, I see no proof of any of the people you listed being disinfo. Only opinion. Not proof.

Frank Legge revised his paper 6 times when errors were pointed out with it.
This is GOOD science. He did not want bad science to stand.
Admittedly, all of this should have been noticed because the article was peer-reviewed. Journal of 9/11 studies dropped the ball with that one I grant you.
However, rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer review within the 9/11 Truth Movement, CIT Instead disparage any who take issue with their methods or their results, and instead rely on a list of questionable endorsements. I.E. Here is what Richard Gage actually said:

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

CIT even posted a literal “enemies list” on the internet in which they attacked the character of those who disagree with them.

Now scroll down two thirds and read from sub title “A pattern of disruption”. I already posted this link by the way but I guess you chose not to read it? http://911review.com/articles/ashley...tml#disruption

I really have no more to say and would rather put my efforts into Building What? and the NIST torrents. At least they get results and are productive . CIT and their claims are unprovable and currently, are a waste of time IMO. They will not help get justice for the families. Thanks for reading. (not my links obviously, you clearly didn’t read those). Cheers!

[Zook]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
[...]
I.E. Here is what Richard Gage actually said:

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
[...]

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t927.htm

beginExcerpt

Title: Richard Gage supports CIT
Description: yet distances himself from flyover


Craig Ranke CIT - December 5, 2009 04:51 PM (GMT)
Richard Gage met me personally in June of 2009 when we had a detailed discussion regarding the Pentagon attack and he agreed to view National Security Alert which was our brand new video presentation at the time. A couple of weeks later (after viewing the presentation in full) he contacted me to say he was impressed enough to give us a blurb of support, and did, but soon after contacted me again to say that certain members of his board of directors were upset with this and that he would need to alter the endorsement.

Our press release went out at the end of July announcing a significant amount of endorsements for National Security Alert including the version from Richard Gage that had been fully vetted by his board of directors. Shortly after the press release went out I received a call from Gage that he attributed to escalating pressure from upset individuals trying to convince him to fully retract his statement of support for our work.

To his credit he had the courtesy to personally call me to talk about these concerns before acting on them. After over an hour of discussion on the phone about the evidence and our "methods" he told me that his concerns had been lifted so he would not retract and that he was looking forward to seeing me in New York for the 9/11 anniversary since we were both presenting at the "We Demand Transparency" conference where we could talk further.

We did in fact have the opportunity to talk in great detail in September and he assured me that he was still supportive of our efforts even though he was still receiving a significant amount of pressure from a select group of individuals. Namely, Justin Keogh who controls 9/11 Blogger and Michael Wolsey who has been on a public rampage since the release of National Security Alert in an attempt to personally discredit us with baseless accusations of "disinfo".

During this 2nd personal meeting on the weekend of the 8th anniversary in New York Richard Gage not only pledged continued support but also agreed to contact me with any concerns that might arise in the future.

Now, almost 3 months after the anniversary and almost 5 months after he first provided his statement of support Gage has issued a "clarification" without being specific as to what prompted this and without having contacted me to discuss his concerns as promised.

QUOTE

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Original Review:
The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.


Richard has not retracted his statement in support of our efforts. He has merely demonstrated that he has been effectively spun away from understanding the simple non-controversial scientific fact that a plane approaching on the north side of the former Citgo gas station can not hit the light poles or the building and that he has potentially been influenced by misrepresentations of our alleged "methods".

While we're sorry that he has given in to the admitted pressure to issue this "clarification" it does not change the implications of the information or the fact that Richard Gage has stood by his statement that the evidence presented in National Security Alert is "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and that it "deserves serious attention". It also does not diminish the unprecedented amount of public support we have received from other respected and accomplished researchers, pilots, journalists, activists, and concerned citizens, including countless who are not even listed on that page.

We continue to support the work of Richard Gage and his dedication to exposing the 9/11 deception. We respect his decision to stay focused on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers while deferring research of the Pentagon attack to others. We appreciate his continued support of our efforts as well.

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
CIT

end

Richard Gage is a remarkable man. His original review of National Security Alert, the one before receiving pressure from the establishment infiltrators of AE911.org to modify his stance ... is the one which holds the most weight. Indeed, it's the same independent review that all genuine truthseekers have arrived at who were not pressured to conform to group thinking (myself included). To wit, the truth hangs its hat on the first of Richard's Gage reviews, for that is the one where he uses his own eyes; his own ears; his own brain; and his own experiences as a critical thinker (being a career architect).

Keough and Wolsey ... are what they are.

Just came back to delete this last bit that wrote; after all, this is Avalon and we have different standards of discourse to abide here. [stuff written by yours truly - in anger - in this space ... now deleted]. I am human; I make errors; and I make no apologies about being human. One thing I will not be is a robot; so you may fully assume that I retract the remarks regarding devilish trash with human self-control and not because someone has turned a robot key on my back.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
I reccomend people in this thread listen to this. Its on Thursday. Or you can get an mp3 straight after...


On this week's "9/11 In Context" show, which airs Thursday, January 20, at 3pm ET, I will interview researcher Aidan Monaghan, who has investigated the 9/11 flights in great detail with important results. Aidan has also filed a wide range of FOIA requests from government agencies and filed lawsuits seeking information related to the 9/11 attacks. Today's discussion will focus on Aidan's impressive research into the autopilot technology available for 757s and 767s at the time of the attacks, contradictory black box information provided by government agencies, and other unusual circumstances related to the flights.



http://www.resistradio.com/forum/4-s...9ic-jan-20#165

Wonderful stuff Eyes Wide Open, this is impressive, I'm looking forward to the show, we could be getting somewhere now.

Can you put up the number so we can call in?

I was wondering if you would consider inviting your friend John Lear onto the show. John and Aidan could have a good go at it and at least you would get some balance. You need to be the anchorman, but make sure John doesn’t steal the show, you know what he’s like. At the very least John would be able to tell you, if Aidan is talking horse pucky or not.

Another thing, its just a suggestion but you don’t want to be going on live radio broadcasting to the world and making irresponsible comments do you, so I was wondering before you start talking about “autopilot technology” and flight directors coupled with GPS to ACARS and all the sexy toys in his write-up, it's quite important that these Muslims actually knew what they were doing, agreed?

Would it be possible therefore to ask Aiden about the basics, before he comes on the show like the following:

The pilots licence number and country of issue. (i.e. US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc)
Total flying hours, and the number of hours in the previous 30 days prior to 9/11.(Very important)
The date of the B767 training course (i.e. classroom training)
The date of the Muslims last simulator / IFR check ride.

I know it’s a lot but it quite important because we need to establish they actually knew what they were doing with this kit. Even if we just get the licence number and country of issue that would be great…

Good Luck. Remember what they told Bill “They are smoking cigars drinking scotch and laughing at us”

[Ty]

Well I'm back... did you miss me?

Spent way too much time researching a number of things. Accordingly I think this will be my last attempt to quash the lunacy of the fly-over theory and we can all move on to something more worthwhile.

I started out looking for the truth about whether a plane hit the Pentagon and I'm satisfied I've found it, though have the feeling that no amount of evidence will convince some people so why bother? I'm still wrerstling with my dependant unwealthyness and have better things to do.

I wish I could keep this short but several different areas have emerged so I've broken this post into the following areas:

• The Path Math
• Aircraft & Flight Characteristics
• Witnesses
• Engine Parts & Other Debris
• Passengers and Personal Effect
• Conclusion

I'll provide my findings and/or thoughts in each section with links, then wrap up with my take on it. You may want to hold off replying to any thread until you've been through the last section summarizes the others.

If you want to skip over the details and links, just jump to the CONCLUSION post at the end. Unless omeone snuck a post inn before I got all mine posted it should be post #165

¤=[Post Update]=¤

THE PATH MATH

Math is only as reliable as the mathmetician. The criticism I found of the math is of Balsamo's initial 50 minute "math based" video, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The criticism is by William D Clinger, PhD (MIT, 1981, mathematics). Rob Balsamo is a pilot, not a mathmetician. If I want to take a plane trip, I would prefer having Balsamo pilot it. If I'm looking at two different results of mathematical analysis of the same problem I would at least give the mathmetician a review to see what he has to say then decide if it seems credible.

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme.../balsamo2.html

"Rob Balsamo calculated that all such flight paths [over the top of the VDOT antenna that end in level flight at the Pentagon] would involve at least 11.2 g, but made several serious mistakes in that calculation. A week later, Balsamo admitted his errors and promised to "publish a revision with the proper formula(s)/calculations".

9/11: Attack on the Pentagon is that promised revision, in the form of a 50-minute video. In that video, Balsamo recalculated the g-load using a completely different method, coming up with a lower bound of 10.14 g."

The link identifies the 5 errors and the corrections to them. After correcting for the errors, the g-force for a flight from over the VDOT tower to the Pentagon is just 1.9g. If the plane were slightly lower at the VDOT tower, as two of the witnesses on the CIT video suggest then the maximum g-force is just 1.6g, both well within the tolerance of the aircraft.

Clinger's calculations also support my interpretation of Robert's testimony re the "lift up" - ie it was nothing more than a change in the rate of descent - from 77 fps to 36fps. Maybe that's another reason why I prefer his solutions

Regarding the first video in Post 98...

I have no problem with this math. However I do have a problem with two claims made early in the video

0 witnesses place the aircraft on the South path
460 knotts is 110 knotts over aircraft's rated speed

These are both untrue. He's either being intentionally misleading or sloppy. In either case he's spreading misinformation. I guess that would make him a genuine disinformation operative who should no longer be trusted. Evidence to the contrary is below in the Witness and Flight Characteristics sections.

Though I have no problem with the math, I also have a problem with this presentation's claim that a northern path is possible when he does the analysis on the southernmost path of those reported. To keep this from being obvious he never shows the path they are analysing overlayed with the witness paths. When you do that, it's obvious that he chose a much smoother path than most of the witnesses reported which, comparatively, have a rather sharp turn about mid-way through the path.



Why would he do this? Well, now that we know he is a genuine disinformation operative we can surmise it's because it would make it more apparent that those paths are likely impossible. Based on the Gs he was computing with the much smoother curve of the path he analysed, the curve that is characteristic of most of the witness testimonies, would likely result in a mathematically impossible flight path, thus disproving rather than proviing the viability of the witnesses' flight paths.

The "detractors" path he analyses later is even smoother than the path he did the main analysis on.

So this math doesn't PROVE anything. It presents two possible flight paths, neither of which correspond to more than one or two of the video's witness accounts. Nor does it make any attempt to disprove the southern path which Clinger proves is also possible.

[Ty]

AIRCRAFT AND FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS

Three issues have been raised in this area, none of them hold up under scrutiny.

• The maximum speed of the plane
• The possible speed at ground level & ground effect
• The skill of the pilot

According to Boeing, the cruising speed of the plane is Mach 0.8 or 515 knotts.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757...f_200tech.html

To convert Mach to Knotts: http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conve...nversion.shtml

According to http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-da...ts.main?id=101 the max cruising speed is 493 knotts.

Fred, I don't know where you got this info, but I suggest you scratch that source for any future info. Whoever, wherever that comes from is providing bad information.

The FDR did indicate that there was substantial flutter in the final seconds so that would indicate the speeds are at, near or over the max rated speed. This creates discrepancy with some of the witnesses who say they watched it for 8 or 10 seconds, but it is not unusual in high adrenaline situations for time to slow down. I have experiened that personally in a far less traumatic situation.

The other issues in this section are dicussed here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0274.shtml

Excerpt:

"A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong...

The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low.

These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

So based on the manufacturer the plane is capable of flying 500 knotts without breaking apart.
Based on aerospace engineers the flight path is not problematic and could be navigated by Hani Hanjour.

[Ty]

THE WITNESSES

We already know about the ones in the video that started this thread. What hasn't been pointed out yet, not that it matters much at this point, is that no more than 2 or 3 of them site the same flight path. The star witnesses don't even agree with each other. And most of the paths drawn by them would likely be impossible due to the rather sharp curve I mentioned above in the Math section. Not to mention that one of them (Sean Boger) originally claims to have seen the plane fly into the Pentagon and two of them (Robert Turcios and Terry Morin) describe flight paths that go out of sight before a giant fireball occurs. Terry Morin details the flight going out of sight low. For Robert Turcios there is no other way the plane could have gone out of sight except behind the knoll.

Some links to other eyewitness accounts...

• http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept0...20aircraft.htm
• http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html#p3
• http://web.archive.org/web/200701140...2004/facts.htm
• http://web.archive.org/web/200405102.../witnesses.htm

I haven't read all of these. But have read much and skimmed the rest. Based on another's analysis of the links, here's a summary:

• 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
• 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact
• 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
• 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
• 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
• 7 said it was a Boeing 757.
• 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
• 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
• 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
• 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
• 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
• 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
• 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
• 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
• 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
• 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

If 16 people saw the plane hit the light poles or were next to them when it happened, and the only way the light poles could be hit is with a southern path, then Balsamo's comment at the beginning of the video discussed above that 0 witnesses saw a Southern path is wrong. They may not have specifically identified the path but by placing the plane at the lightpoles, a southern path is the only path.

Penny Elgas ended up with part of a wing in her back seat, suspecting it fell through her sunroof after the plane struck a lightpole. Full story here:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...ting.asp?ID=30

(Teakai - Dig away into the hologram/holograph theory. I think it will be interesting, but I don't think they are capable of knocking over light poles and materializing wing parts onto back seats. So I don't think they will satisfy the Pentagon evidence.)

Eyewitness accounts on video:

• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...4801305&hl=nl# - airplane debris on the road and account of car witness who saw the plane hit
• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...5115423&hl=nl# - saw plane descend
• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...3144757&hl=nl# - saw the plane hit the pentagon, piece of plane landed by car
• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...4262433&hl=nl# - saw nose gear between two rings near 10' hole
• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...5901088&hl=nl# - saw the plane hit the pentagon
• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...2225281&hl=nl# - saw the plane hit the pentagon
• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...0307799&hl=nl# - saw the plane hit the pentagon
• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...8790726&hl=nl# - same accouont as Robert's

Some thoughts on witness reliability

As mentioned previously there is no doubt that eyewitness accounts can be erronious. That's why some think it was a commuter plane and some think it was north of the Citgo. But all agree they saw a plane, 104 of them saw it hit the Pentagon, 16 saw it hit the light poles, 8 others saw the light poles fall and none saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

It is very hard to tell exactly where a plane is unless it is flying directly over you or runs into something. If it isn't right over you, have to know the altitude in order to estimate where it is on your line of sight. Given the same line of sight, if it's 50 ft off the ground it will be in a very different place than if it's 100 ft off the ground and verey different again if 150 ft. At the speed the plane was flying and the fact that no-one knew how large the plane was it would be very difficult to know the altitude.

So the witnesses from the video are at an extreme disadvantage in attempting to locate the plane. The witnesses who saw it hit the light poles know exactly where it was. That, combined with the 104 who saw it hit the Pentagon strongly suggests that the video witnesses are mistaken and the plane did fly the southern path and did hit the Pentagon.

Most of the sites I've looked at that are building a case for a fly-over or a missile neglect to mention the eye-witness accounts. As did this thread except for myself and Eyes Wide Open. If there were just a handful of witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon then confusion may be a valid way to dismiss them. But there are 104 documented (I'm sure there are may more than that, given all the hotels and offices in the area) who saw the impact, 16 who saw the plane take out the light poles, none who saw a missile and none who saw a fly-over.

Whatever anomalies there are in the official story, it is disingenuous to just dismiss these accounts because they expose the impossibility of the theory du jour. Continuing to promote any theory that doesn't address these accounts would, in the opinion of many, make you a genuine disinformation operative.

[Ty]

ENGINE PARTS & OTHER DEBRIS

Fred, you wanted two Boeing 77 engines to be produced as proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Why would that be proof? Wouldn't a determined skeptic, who doesn't believe any planes were involved in the first place just claim they were planted? Along with the other bits and pieces that were photographed?

At any rate, I couldn't find evidence of two Boeing 757 engines. I did find evidence of 3 Boeing 757 engine parts and a Boeing 757 wheel. And if you missed it in the witness summary above, 4 rescue workers claim to have seen airline seats, and 2 others saw bodies still strapped in the seats. 2 of the video witnesses saw plane debris and one saw the nose gear between the Pentagon rings. Will that do?

Here's the link that discusses the engine parts:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml

In summary, we have studied two key pieces of wreckage photographed at the Pentagon shortly after September 11 and found them to be entirely consistent with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine found on a Boeing 757 operated by American Airlines. The circular engine disk debris is just the right size and shape to match the compressor stages of the RB211, and it also shows evidence of being attached to a triple-shaft turbofan like the RB211. While many have claimed the wreckage instead comes from a JT8D or AE3007H turbofan, we have shown that these engines are too small to match the debris. Furthermore, we have studied what clearly looks like the outer shell of a combustion case and found that its fuel injector nozzle ports match up exactly to those illustrated in Boeing documentation for the RB211-535 engine. There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.

As to John Brown, the Rolls-Royce "CEO" (who was actually just a spokesman) who said: "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with..." two different sources confirmed my suggestion that this may mean nothing more than what he said - he wasn't familiar with that engine. There is nothing more earth shattering in his statement than that. Wherever that bit of misinformation came from should also be added to the scratch list as a genuine disinformation operative.

The link above explains this as

The material is from an article titled "Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence" written by Christopher Bollyn that appeared on the pro-conspiracy website American Free Press.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that,"It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site.

The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

I found another explanation here: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...-herrings.html

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”

The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military’s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman’s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine. When AFP told Brown that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine, Brown balked and asked who at Pratt &Whitney had provided the information.

Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer. AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: “No,” Brown said. “I don’t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the company.”

A different page on the same site confirms the wheel is from a 757:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0290.shtml

I didn't bother posting pics of the other debris since they are available in numerous places, including early in the CIT video. Another compelling piece of evidence at the site is this large generator.




It shows a large gouge on the left where the engine clipped it and smaller gouge on top from the wing. This generator is pretty thoroughly discussed here - http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/generator.html - where the author concludes the plane couldn't have created the damage to the trailer because, all evidence to the contrary, he concludes that the plane was too high for the wing strut to gouge the top of the trailer. He admits the trailer was rotated towards the Pentagon from the impact, admits the marks on the trailer are consistent with the placement of the engine and strut of a 757. Then for reasons that elude me concludes that the plane was too high to make the small gouge with the wing strut and ends the discussion wondering what could have caused the damage.

This illustrates the problem of amateur researchers jumping into the fray and creating false flags and confusion. Not that I claim to be anything more than that. But it does help to remember basic physics - as mentioned earlier - the math tells the story. It never occurs to this author that when the generator is hit on one side by a plane travelling +/- 500 mph that the trailer won't just be shifted towards the Pentagon but that since it was hit at the very top that it will also likely tilt. If you push the top of a refrigerator does the bottom move or does it tilt? And once it tilts, the top of the generator likely then hit the bottom of the wing, creating the gouge from the strut. If it hadn't hit the wing it would likely have been pushed over instead of moved.

At any rate, this damage is near impossible to explain except for the generator being hit with the 757 just before it crashed into the Pentagon.

So we have no smoking gun in John Brown, damage to a generator that can't be explained except with the plane-hits-pentagon theory, 3 engine parts that came from or are consistent with the RB211-535 on flight 77 and a wheel that matches those used on that plane as well.

Why weren't more parts found?

First, we don't know that they weren't. Just because they weren't photographed and released doesn't mean they weren't there. And if more parts weren't found, I submit that there is a better explanation than that the crash was faked and a fly-over occured.

One possible explanation is that some folks found them and kept them, as Penny Elgas did with the wing part she found in her back seat. She kept hers as a memorial and honored it, eventually turning it over to the museum exhibit. Others may have had the same motives or may have speculated there would be monitary value in the future as there was with bits of the Berlin Wall.

It would help if all of the evidence were released. On the other hand, if I were TPTB and I had this evidence and knew it irrefutably proved the official story I'm not sure I would release it either. Consider - there is much conviction by some that the divide between the left and right in this country is manufactured to divide and distract. I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me to be a legitimate philosophical difference in the role of government.

But what better way to sow discontent, divide the country, gather, identify and monitor all the anti-PTBers than let the 9-11 issue continue to foment. Like gnats to a light or terrorists to Iraq, this issue serves to gather and divide. Why end it? Too much fun watching the show.