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

[Ty]

PASSENGERS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS

DNA analysis was able to identify all but one passanger of flight 77. The last pages of the link below name the passengers and pentagon casualties:
http://web.archive.org/web/200609070...iles/3/266.pdf

Following approximately 2½ weeks of remains processing and two months of DNA analysis, 183 unique identities were generated from the remains of those killed in the attack on the Pentagon, yielding 178 positive identifications. Some remains for each of the terrorists were recovered, as evidenced by five unique postmortem profiles that did not match any antemortem material provided by victims’ families. No identifiable remains for five of the victims known to have been killed in the attack were recovered.

Leslie Whittington, husband Charles Falkenberg, and two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3 were among the victims. Whittington's battered driver's license and one daughters' luggage tag were recovered and returned to Leslie's parents. The names are on the list of those in the link above and the story is here:
http://onlineathens.com/stories/0911...40911030.shtml -

Suzanne Calley was also on the flight. Her name also appears on the victim list in the link above. Her wedding ring was found and returned to her husband, story here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200707041...ew.asp?c=73724

I'm sure some will conclude this is all part of the fly-over cover up. But these are human remains, all of which have some surviving loved one. Whatever part TPTB played in orchestrating or covering something up, consider what would be required in staging this, and how many people it would take.

Do you honestly think a plan that called for this would be considered in the first place? Where will they find the dozens of people needed to mutilate these bodies between the time flight 77 takes off and the crash, then scatter their remains throughout the crash without being noticed by any of the first responders?

[Ty]

CONCLUSION

I've taken just about every objection raised in this thread and researched it to either explain it or identify it as misinformation.

• The math alledgedly proving the plane couldn't hit the Pentagon doesn't exist - it had 5 mistakes in it..
• The claim that the engine parts found couldn't be from the 757 because they are too small and the Rolls-Royce CEO isn't familiar with them is misinformation.
• The alledged maximum speed of the plane is misinformation
• The issues of ground speed and ground effect are misinformation
• The witnesses in the CIT video are mistaken about where the plane was.
  • The paths they draw don't match each other so they are wrong by default except maybe one or two that match. Then it's just a question of how wrong are they?
  • The paths they draw don't match the flight path Balsamo used to demonstrate a viable flight path, except for one or two of the more southerly paths
  • Based on Balsamo's radius math it is unlikely that the northernmost paths would fall within acceptable Gs given those discussed for the much smoother paths he analyzed,

Evidence supporting a flyover:

The dozen or so CIT witnesses, none of who saw the pane flyover, they only saw it approach, 1 of which saw the plane hit the Pentagon and two who describe a path that can only end with the plane crashing into the Pentagon. All trying within a second or two to locate a plane of unknown size and altitude as it flys by at a speed that could be as much as 500 mph or more

Evidence supporting a crash:

• Clinger's math shows the southern path is viable. His credentials? MIT mathmetician.
• Boeing confirms the plane can go 500 knotts.
• Jeff Scott (http://www.aerospaceweb.org) confirms that ground effect would be inconsequential. His credentials? See below.
• Colleagues of Jeff Scott confirm that, Hani Hanjour, or anyone else, could have flown this plane into the Pentagon providing they "had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."
• Boeing 757 engine parts and wheel rim were found in the debris along with other debris clearly identifiable as being from an AA plane, and plane parts landing in or near cars on the highway
• A large generator with damage nearly impossible to explain except by a plane clipping it prior to crashing into the Pentagon
• Written Witness accounts:
  • 104 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
  • 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.
  • 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
  • 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.
• Video Testimonials
  • 4 who saw the plane hit the Pentagon
  • 3 who saw plane debris scattered as far as the highway, landing between the cars or nose gear between the Pentagon rings
  • 2 saw the pane descend but not crash
• DNA confirmation of all but one passenger from the flight and personal effects of at least two passengers found

Evidence suggesting no crash:

• The 8 or so CIT witnesses who plot paths, many/most of which would likely be aerodynamically impossible.
• Balsamo's math in his 50 minute video. His credentials? 4,000 hours flight time.

Evidence suggesting no flyover:

• All of the above supporting the crash, plus
• 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
• 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
• All the planning and co-conspirators needed as I outlined in post 81 and now, in addition to that, since the passenger remains were identified at the site, flight 77 would have had to have been disposed of PRIOR TO the Pentagon attack and all the bodies mutilated then strewn about the crash scene without being noticed by first responders who are swarming all over the place.
• It makes no sense - a mission to fake a plane crash would have never gotten off the drawing board. It is many times more complicated than just flying a plane into the Pentagon. It accomplishes the same thing but in a much more round-about and error-prone manner, multiplying the number of people needed to pull it off by hundreds.

Posted by zookumar (here)
I believe that you are a reasonable man. But even reasonable men can be unreasonable

Indeed they can. When we started this we said that the truth will come out. The only question now is whether or not it will be acknowledged as such.

Now I really must get back to work.

Here are Jeff Scott's credentials

Biography: Jeff Scott is an aerospace engineer specializing in aerodynamic analysis and conceptual design. His primary expertise is applying aerodynamic prediction software and trajectory simulations to flight test programs and flight clearance efforts. Among the projects Jeff has supported during his career are airframe design, flight testing, guidance and control software, modeling & simulation, system engineering, performance predictions, wind tunnel tests, high-speed propulsion research, and aviation safety. Jeff is the chief editor of Aerospaceweb.org.

Selected Memberships:
Academy of Model Aeronautics; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; International Test and Evaluation Association; National Association of Rocketry; Sigma Gamma Tau Aerospace Engineering Honor Society; Society of Automotive Engineers

Selected Honors & Awards:
Achievement Award for Aerodynamics and Modeling & Simulation, 2009; Certificate of Appreciation for Expertise in Aeromechanics, 2009; NASA Team Achievement Award for Wind Tunnel Advancement, 2008; Team Leadership Award for Trajectory Prediction, 2006; Team Leadership Award for Engineering Investigation 2005; Teammate Appreciation Award for Flight Test Support, 2005; Team Award for Excellence in Acquisition, 2005; Achievement Award for Aerodynamic Analysis, 2004; Engineer & Scientist Development Award, 2002, 2003, 2004; Letter of Appreciation for Flight Test Support, 2003; Leadership Award, 1998; NASA Scholar, 1997

Selected Publications:
Scott, J. Advanced Wind Tunnel Test Methods for a Rolling Airframe, Air Vehicle Engineering Conference, July 2009; Scott, J. Flight Test Results and Simulation Methods for Analysis of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAV/UCAV Subsystems Symposium, August 2004; Scott, J. Application of Simulations to Investigating Flight Test Anomalies, Aircraft & UAV Engineering Conference, May 2004; Scott, J., Wind Tunnel Test Results to Validate Analytical Predictions of Protuberance Drag, November 2003.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
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”

Whoops! I should have made clear I am not the host. I posted this from their site. Apologies for giving the wrong impression. My fault! I feel silly now.
I think the number is on the site somewhere. I am sure they will give it out as some point to.
I am just a humble research librarian. I could never present in a million years. I have enough problems talking in front of a bunch of noisy students where I work.

Your concerns are very valid. it might be worth you emailing them to the show. You raise some fantastic points.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Ty (here)
CONCLUSION

I've taken just about every objection raised in this thread and researched it to either explain it or identify it as misinformation.

• The math alledgedly proving the plane couldn't hit the Pentagon doesn't exist - it had 5 mistakes in it..
• The claim that the engine parts found couldn't be from the 757 because they are too small and the Rolls-Royce CEO isn't familiar with them is misinformation.
• The alledged maximum speed of the plane is misinformation
• The issues of ground speed and ground effect are misinformation
• The witnesses in the CIT video are mistaken about where the plane was.
  • The paths they draw don't match each other so they are wrong by default except maybe one or two that match. Then it's just a question of how wrong are they?
  • The paths they draw don't match the flight path Balsamo used to demonstrate a viable flight path, except for one or two of the more southerly paths
  • Based on Balsamo's radius math it is unlikely that the northernmost paths would fall within acceptable Gs given those discussed for the much smoother paths he analyzed,

Evidence supporting a flyover:

The dozen or so CIT witnesses, none of who saw the pane flyover, they only saw it approach, 1 of which saw the plane hit the Pentagon and two who describe a path that can only end with the plane crashing into the Pentagon. All trying within a second or two to locate a plane of unknown size and altitude as it flys by at a speed that could be as much as 500 mph or more

Evidence supporting a crash:

• Clinger's math shows the southern path is viable. His credentials? MIT mathmetician.
• Boeing confirms the plane can go 500 knotts.
• Jeff Scott (http://www.aerospaceweb.org) confirms that ground effect would be inconsequential. His credentials? See below.
• Colleagues of Jeff Scott confirm that, Hani Hanjour, or anyone else, could have flown this plane into the Pentagon providing they "had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."
• Boeing 757 engine parts and wheel rim were found in the debris along with other debris clearly identifiable as being from an AA plane, and plane parts landing in or near cars on the highway
• A large generator with damage nearly impossible to explain except by a plane clipping it prior to crashing into the Pentagon
• Written Witness accounts:
  • 104 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
  • 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.
  • 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
  • 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.
• Video Testimonials
  • 4 who saw the plane hit the Pentagon
  • 3 who saw plane debris scattered as far as the highway, landing between the cars or nose gear between the Pentagon rings
  • 2 saw the pane descend but not crash
• DNA confirmation of all but one passenger from the flight and personal effects of at least two passengers found

Evidence suggesting no crash:

• The 8 or so CIT witnesses who plot paths, many/most of which would likely be aerodynamically impossible.
• Balsamo's math in his 50 minute video. His credentials? 4,000 hours flight time.

Evidence suggesting no flyover:

• All of the above supporting the crash, plus
• 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
• 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
• All the planning and co-conspirators needed as I outlined in post 81 and now, in addition to that, since the passenger remains were identified at the site, flight 77 would have had to have been disposed of PRIOR TO the Pentagon attack and all the bodies mutilated then strewn about the crash scene without being noticed by first responders who are swarming all over the place.
• It makes no sense - a mission to fake a plane crash would have never gotten off the drawing board. It is many times more complicated than just flying a plane into the Pentagon. It accomplishes the same thing but in a much more round-about and error-prone manner, multiplying the number of people needed to pull it off by hundreds.

Indeed they can. When we started this we said that the truth will come out. The only question now is whether or not it will be acknowledged as such.

Now I really must get back to work.

Here are Jeff Scott's credentials

Biography: Jeff Scott is an aerospace engineer specializing in aerodynamic analysis and conceptual design. His primary expertise is applying aerodynamic prediction software and trajectory simulations to flight test programs and flight clearance efforts. Among the projects Jeff has supported during his career are airframe design, flight testing, guidance and control software, modeling & simulation, system engineering, performance predictions, wind tunnel tests, high-speed propulsion research, and aviation safety. Jeff is the chief editor of Aerospaceweb.org.

Selected Memberships:
Academy of Model Aeronautics; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; International Test and Evaluation Association; National Association of Rocketry; Sigma Gamma Tau Aerospace Engineering Honor Society; Society of Automotive Engineers

Selected Honors & Awards:
Achievement Award for Aerodynamics and Modeling & Simulation, 2009; Certificate of Appreciation for Expertise in Aeromechanics, 2009; NASA Team Achievement Award for Wind Tunnel Advancement, 2008; Team Leadership Award for Trajectory Prediction, 2006; Team Leadership Award for Engineering Investigation 2005; Teammate Appreciation Award for Flight Test Support, 2005; Team Award for Excellence in Acquisition, 2005; Achievement Award for Aerodynamic Analysis, 2004; Engineer & Scientist Development Award, 2002, 2003, 2004; Letter of Appreciation for Flight Test Support, 2003; Leadership Award, 1998; NASA Scholar, 1997

Selected Publications:
Scott, J. Advanced Wind Tunnel Test Methods for a Rolling Airframe, Air Vehicle Engineering Conference, July 2009; Scott, J. Flight Test Results and Simulation Methods for Analysis of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAV/UCAV Subsystems Symposium, August 2004; Scott, J. Application of Simulations to Investigating Flight Test Anomalies, Aircraft & UAV Engineering Conference, May 2004; Scott, J., Wind Tunnel Test Results to Validate Analytical Predictions of Protuberance Drag, November 2003.

What fantastic posts! You are clearly level head and logical in your approach. We need more like yourself. Your conclusions makes perfect sense. It pretty much destroys the hologramme claims. Also I guess we will never know if CIT are disinfo or not but the case seem to be there if one really wanted to go that route.

[Teakai]

CNN - before they got the story straight.
Eye witness testimony:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils...t_pentagon.swf

(I couldn;t find it anywhere else - it seems to have been removed)

Anyway - it seems that there will be differences between opinions about what did and what didn't happen.
Would it be safe to say that we're on the same page that it's a set-up by the elitist and not brought about by Muslims who resent the US freedoms?

[Teakai]

Posted by Ty (here)
PASSENGERS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS

DNA analysis was able to identify all but one passanger of flight 77. The last pages of the link below name the passengers and pentagon casualties:
http://web.archive.org/web/200609070...iles/3/266.pdf


Leslie Whittington, husband Charles Falkenberg, and two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3 were among the victims. Whittington's battered driver's license and one daughters' luggage tag were recovered and returned to Leslie's parents. The names are on the list of those in the link above and the story is here:
http://onlineathens.com/stories/0911...40911030.shtml -

Suzanne Calley was also on the flight. Her name also appears on the victim list in the link above. Her wedding ring was found and returned to her husband, story here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200707041...ew.asp?c=73724

I'm sure some will conclude this is all part of the fly-over cover up. But these are human remains, all of which have some surviving loved one. Whatever part TPTB played in orchestrating or covering something up, consider what would be required in staging this, and how many people it would take.

Do you honestly think a plan that called for this would be considered in the first place? Where will they find the dozens of people needed to mutilate these bodies between the time flight 77 takes off and the crash, then scatter their remains throughout the crash without being noticed by any of the first responders?

Umm, what DNA? What bodies?

This is an official report. ergo - it's full of crap.

The on the scene eye witness reporter in the first video says there wasn't any evidence of a plane - just bits big enough to pick up in your hands. And there was no mention of any bodies at all - and you would think that would be relevant.

Where did they get the bodies from then? Where did they get the DNA? Why wasn't it all destroyed in the fire? This just does not add up at all.

A luggage tag was found? A supposed boeing plane was annihilated to bits you could pick up in your hands, but they found a luggage tag - how very convenient - could it have been planted along with the ring - the one that didn't melt in the heat. And the engine they later coughed up as 'evidence'?

This is just like the plants they use to implicate the one's they want to be seen as the terrorists. The one's that survive despite all reason.

You've done heaps of work Ty, and put loads of energy into this - but one can't disregard facts in order to move onto the next step. And official reports do not constitute fact.
Keep in mind that there's a whole load of 'experts' that would tell you to your face that the human population is to blame for global warming - these are the 'official' one's you're going to hear.

There's a whole other lot that's saying it's a load of crap - but you won't find them on the news - unless they're being made to look like fools.

Questions - why do you think Leroy (on the tape) lied about the pole through his taxi windscreen if it really did happen? (and we know he did lie because we heard him lie)

Why do you think all the cameras were removed that showed what really happened at the Pentagon? If a plane really did fly into the buiding - then why hide it?

And, finally - why do you think when they did release those 5 frames - there were only five frames - which did not reveal a plane.

[Teakai]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
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.

I do agree, Eyes Wide Open. But it seems to me that the bottom line is that the whole thing was a set-up. It does sound rather daft to argue the possibilites of it all, because in the great scheme of things - it's pointless.

If it's a matter of convincing the public - that blind, blind public who allow and justify this ridiculous secrecy - then, I don't see the point. If they are so trusting to believe the military should have their secrets and the government are justified in having theirs - then I see little chance of them being awakened to the fact that their gov. is not what they believe it to be unless they actullay choose to open their minds themsleves and look - or unless the TV tells them so.

How it all happened - we don't know, we can speculate, but we don't have all the facts - we only know that the 'official facts we are given do not add up.
The rot runs deep and many will sell their integrity for dollars.

There may be no hard evidence for holograms, but there is no hard evidence that a plane flew into the Pentagon either (except for the planted stuff) Why do we suspect it's planted?

Because 'they' have a record of doing such things.

Because, an on the scene eye witness said there were no big parts that you couldn't pick up in your hands. That wouldn't be an engine.

Because plastic and gold survived the explosion and fire and didn't melt, but the plane didn't to such an extent that nothing remained but pieces you could pick up in your hands.

Becasue they tell us they found DNA where it would be impossible to find DNA that shows up all passengers but one - well, that settles it doesn't it? Must be the hijacker, so it must be the plane - that's settled then, the imaginary DNA proves it.

Given the above points alone I think the "plane hit the building" theory holds less water than the hologram theory, becasue while not yet 'proven' it has yet to be disproven and I would suggest that your desire to hold on to your preconceptions may be blinding you to being open minded about the possibilites - thereby, dismissing out of hand the finding of the 'real' truth and not some half ars*d story that you have to bend rational thinking in order to make fit.

But, in the end - what exactly are we debating here? We all seem to agree on the most fundamental part.

[The Arthen]

Extremely excellent. I'm spreading this link around.

[kouby]

Sorry I might be slow, but I really don't get how people can still believe the airliners caused the towers to collapse.

Perfect vertical fall at free-fall speed? Concrete and steel pulverized to dust?
Since when to Commercial Airliners cause matter disintegration? I'd be rather worried about flying if this were the case.

To keep things simple I'd say some pissed off Muslims (trained by the US of course, back in the good ol' days of fighting the big bad Russians) thought they were pulling off the kill of the century, and then those nice guys from the Bush & Cheney clan thought to themselves:

"Hey! We could use this!
Phone up those good guys at NIST and get some of that wonderful termite stuff sprayed all along the supporting structure of the buildings to give 'em a last nudge on the road to fame.
Oh and let's go nuts and do WTC7 as well, like that we can get rid of all those embarrassing documents and stuff those internal affair guys don't want to let go.
Oh and heck, we're pulling off this crap, let's just get rid of everything!
Get old Jimmy to fly by the Pentagon and get rid of the accountants, they might find out about all that black project stuff one of these days.
Oh and let's get Silverstein in the game so he can make a crap load of insurance money to pay off Giuliani, like that he wont think twice about getting an investigation...
Holy cow! We could go to Iraq after this! Wow we're great!
Wink wink, nudge nudge, mutual patting and 'It's all for the greater good, after all it's their basic idea, we're only putting the icing on'"

Strange, call me a pessimist, but this scenario shocks me much less than the 4-simultaneous-hijackings-with-no-intercept-from-norad scenario.

[Zook]

Posted by Ty (here)
Well I'm back... did you miss me?

Hi Ty. Missed ya. Will miss ya again after I load you on the catapult and cut the cord.

[...]

Look, I'm sure there's interesting stuff in what you write above. If not me, definitely the FOX-news audience will be enthralled by it. But let's cut to the chase.

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

From the above, can we assume that you acknowledge that the Northside jetliner approach did, indeed, happen? Good. Well, the short of it - and the catapult loader - is this ... the incidence angle at the actual damage scene does not match anything that can be delivered via the attack profile of any Northside jetliner (whether it is lifting up, leveling out, or performing magic bullet physics on its way in). Any hypothetical Northside crash would have created an incidence angle in the opposite direction to that defined by the hole punch in the first few rings of the Pentagon. Period.

What is the logical consequence of this? Well, we have an incoming physical Northside jetliner whose dynamic profile does not merge with the static profile of the Pentagon impact zone ... so if it didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it go? Did it fly through it to get to the other side? Over it to get to the other side?

Suspending the esoteric technologies at the behest of Occam, there is but one conclusion: the flyover. The age of Aquarius is here and the time of prevarications is over. Explain the incident angle incompatibility, Ty ... or find your rule of reasonable, e.g. concede the argument. Thank you.

[Fred259]

Posted by Ty (here)
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



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.

Attachment 3908

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, the problem is that when you see something you don’t like, or it doesn’t fit how you feel, you with respect come out with reduclious statements because it makes you fell better.

“Rob Balsamo is a pilot, not a mathematician”

So what. I have seen all these really impressive calculations involving Cos and Tan of this that and every angle which comes to xyz so that must be right.

Then you accuse Rob Balsamo of making false statements, being misleading, sloppy, spreading misinformation and a genuine disinformation operative.

The facts of the matter Ty is that Balsamo is right and you misinformed. It doesn’t matter what Balsamo says or what I say, what matters is what Boeing say, and for the record Boeing publish the speeds that the aircraft is designed for taking into account a multitude of factors and these are then the speeds.

So when Balsamo says in the video that the speed is 110kts over its rated speed he is taking that information from Boeing. What he is talking about is the Velocity Maximum Operating (VMO) speed which is published by Boeing for all 767 aircraft at 350kts Indicated Air Speed, (IAS) at any altitude anywhere in the world for all time. The reason for doing this is that Boeing engineers have calculated that above this speed the aircraft may be prone to a number of factors including braking up, which is also what Balsamo said in the video.

Then you go searching around the web and find the “boys big book of facts” and it says xyz, so that now becomes right.

You then type irresponsible rubbish, which you then try and defend because it says so in the “boys big book of facts”

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

Oh I see now you have posted your latest epistle on engines,.

If you want to understand about speed first you must understand about the international standard atmosphere (ISA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ard_Atmosphere

What this says is that temperature pressure and most importantly density all decreases with altitude. It’s this atmosphere that Boeing engineers design aircraft around and engine manufacturers calculate performance.

Aircraft have seven different types of speed depending on what you are talking about. The speeds that are important are Indicated Air Speed (IAS), Mach No (Mno), True Air Speed (TAS) and Ground Speed (GS).

Indicated Air Speed (IAS)

This is the speed that the pilot will read on the air speed indicator.

Mach No.

Very important for flying at high altitude. It’s a function of temperature, and remember we said that temp density and pressure decreased with altitude, so this is going to increase and decrease all the time because it’s a function of the outside air temp.

True Air Speed (TAS)

TAS is the speed of the aircraft through the air at altitude where the air is very thin. Remember we said density decreased with altitude.

Groundspeed.(GS)

Groundspeed is the speed over the ground and true airspeed (TAS) plus or minus any head or tailwind component. For example all jet streams blow westerly around the world except for a smaller jet stream which is for the Aussie’s only, and blows easterly from Malaysia towards the Gulf. Qantas like this jet stream because they can get into it and the aircraft groundspeed is increased. This means they can fly Sydney London direct due to the increased groundspeed. Going home it’s not possible because now the groundspeed is reduced due to the headwind component of the easterly jet stream.

The same is true for the North American jet over the Rockies and the polar front jet over the Atlantic. Flying east the aircraft makes good time and will use less fuel. London to New York, the jet steam is now on nose and slowing us down with increased time and fuel consumption.

WAT

Weight altitude and temperature. A B767 may lift a full load out of New York in winter because it’s at sea level and it’s cold. The very same aircraft will struggle in Nairobi or Mexico City because these airports are much higher and hotter.
What this means is that the speeds change all the time depending on where you are in the world and the temperature. This is called WAT limited, and means you have to either reduce fuel which is what the bosses want or reduce passengers which is what the crew want. Fuel on the ground is expensive; but fuel in the air is pricelist. You don’t ever want to be running low on fuel in the air do you.

Your hard work TY.

Now having understood the international standard atmosphere this is the bit you need to get your head around.

The empty weight of the aircraft is called the APS weight (Aircraft Prepared for Service). The time for the trip is calculated and a fuel load determined. The number of passengers and bags is also calculated and this now becomes the take off weight. The altitude of the airfield and the temp is known and with all this data to hand, a manual is produced from the aircraft library, and for that day at that airport, at that temp, and that weight, follow the line on the graph and a whole bunch of speeds drop out. While in the manual but on a different sheet the power settings are obtained AGAIN all down to temperature. You don’t just max or wellie the throttles captain TY you will damage a $10 million engine, and get the sack. Power settings are all calculated and profiled to temperature.

Airspeed indicators have plastic bugs which can be moved to “bug the speed” the first speed is V1, around 80 kts but can be 100kts all depending on temperature. After VI you are committed to taking the aircraft into the air as insufficient runway remains. The next speed call is rotate, this is the speed the aircraft will become airborne. Then V2 this is the climb out speed, V3 and V4 are flap retraction speeds.

The aircraft might rotate at 125 kts and climb away at 140kts. The gear and flaps need to be cleaned up before the aircraft can be accelerated. Take off power is reduced to climb power and it might climb today at this weight and temperature at 180kts IAS.

NOW TY this is the bit that matters. Remember we said temp preassures and density decrease with altitude.

So she is still climbing at 180kts IAS on the clock, but with decreasing temp pressure and density the true air speed and Mach no start to increase. His indicated speed on the clock is 180kts IAS but his true air speed is 200kts TAS, Mach No around 0.30 approx.

In the developed world US, Europe, Australia etc speeds are restricted below 10,000 feet to 200kts TAS. Above 10,000 ft the nose is lowered and the IAS will increase to 280kts and the aircraft will cruise climb to cruising altitude at this speed. Now he is at 20,000ft and the indicated airspeed is 280kts IAS but true airspeed is 325 ktsTAS Mach no increasing and up she goes with all these speeds increasing due to decreasing temperature, pressure and density. 1000 feet below cruise altitude the nose is lowered again and the aircraft will drift nicely and level at 36,000 feet. It’s very important not to bust the altitude or you will be called in for a meeting next day where tea and biscuits will not be served. A note will also be put in the file on the desk marked Captain TY!

At cruise level the speed for B767 is now bugged at VMO which is 350Kts IAS anywhere in the world as Rob Balsamo told you. Mach No will be around 0.80 which is the maximum speed. True air speed depending on the temp and density might be 480 today but tomorrow in Asia it might be 450kts for example. Lets say its 480Kts TAS and we are flying London to JFK. The met office and air traffic have positioned the jet stream over mid UK. What happens is that Air Traffic move the SLOP up to the north of Scotland away from the jet stream so better speed over the pond. We enter the SLOP over Scotland and pop out in Nova Scotia.

This is the SLOP https://youtube.com/watch?v=g_a8b...eature=related

Here is a passing aircraft in the SLOP / No, they are not Chemtrails

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mu9po...eature=related

While in the SLOP and at high altitude speed will be around 340Kts Indicated Air speed on the clock, however the very cold air-60C and very thin air outside (density has decreased) the very cold air and decreased density has increased the true airspeed to 480Kts TAS. Let’s say we have a 50kt tailwind, and so this makes our groundspeed 530Kts while routing towards Canada in the SLOP.

So here we are FL350 (35,000 feet) mid ocean 70N 45W Captain TY is tucking into roast lamb and all the trimmings, feet up on the panel. Greenland is out to the right. Here comes the No1 its Paula today, chats her up…not impressed. We’re all together in a group, all in the SLOP, look out front and up above Pakistan International leading the pack going to Boston, Virgin behind, LA probably with Bill Ryan. Then its El Al, us “Fly TY” Lufthansa and more down the back.

This is where all the misinformation is happening on the forum. It’s impossible to fly at these speeds at ground level and lower altitude as we have seen on the way up. Yes we can get 500Kts out of her but only up here where the air is thin (density decreased) and it’s very cold. These speeds mentioned on the forum with Mohammed Atta hurtling towards the WTC 2 at 550Kts get real folks, it’s impossible, this is what Bill Ryan means: “they are smoking cigars drinking scotch and laughing at us”.

Another thing, we agreed didn’t we that Boeing limited us to Mach 0.80. What does that mean? It means that in just another 20kts the aircraft would go supersonic. We can’t do that it’s not designed for those speeds and must stay subsonic at M0.80 under US law. If we go supersonic bits will fall off. That would not be good. Something we haven’t mentioned so far, Stall speed while we were climbing up and the TAS was increasing, so was the stall speed, and now the sitting in a little envelope with a high stall speed and a high Mach No. I should mention also, you can’t hand fly up here everything is done by computer which thinks 5 times faster than a human, unless of course your name is Hani Hanjour!

Suppose we climbed up another 5,000 feet to FL400 40,000 feet into even thinner air the Mach number would increase to maybe M0.96, just below supersonic. Cause for concern. What about stall speed, it would increase as well, and so the envelope gets smaller. In the RAF this is what they call “coffin corner” and rightly so. This is where the Air France A330 was over the tropical Atlantic when it hit clear air turbulence. If the nose goes down and the aircraft speeds up, she will goes through M1.0 and supersonic, possible break up as we said earlier. If we pull the nose up, stall speed increases, leading to high speed stall. This is a dangerous place. Take her down TY, lets get down to a safer level.

Captain TY pops out at Gander and we leave the SLOP and commence the descent into JFK. To do this you need to know your 30 times table or if you cant do that the 3 times table will do. No cosines, log, trigs, calculus, advanced mathematics just the 3x table.
We were at 35,000 feet, so to hit the runway at JFK you must multiple 35 x3. This must be done in the head, but you can use your figures. So 35x3=105nm. We must have commenced the descent a good bit before 105 nm from JFK or you will not hit the runway. If we leave it late we have to go down faster, it’s not a problem but the cabin pressurisation changes are greater. Passengers get blocked ears and children start crying.

Your cleared to descend by ATC and the power is reduced and the nose kept up. The aircraft starts to fall, but is moving forward due to inertia. Speed is slowly decreasing and we are going down. The speed wash takes time, TAS, is decreasing. Mach No is decreasing. IAS is deceasing GS is decreasing, the aircraft is moving into warmer air and thicker air because temperature is increasing and density is increasing. The flaps can be lowered when you get below a certain speed, and then she will go down nicely. Below 10,000 we can’t go above 200kts remember and its radar vectors to the ILS. (Instrument Landing System)

Air Traffic will vector you on the start of the ILS at 10 miles out at 3,000 feet speed will be 160Kts IAS TAS will be 160Kts Mach number doesn’t matter any more, but you have a 3Kt headwind component today because its fog so your groundspeed 157kts. Now note that because you are now down in thick air (density increased) both the IAS and TAS are the same compared with when you were mid Atlantic on the SLOP.

So this is a Cat 2 Instrument approach in Fog with a decision height of 50feet above the runway. It’s not possible to look in at the instruments and look out, it all happens very quickly, so the first officer will brief the captain how the landing will be and the FO will fly the aircraft to 50feet and at this point the captain who is looking out to visually see 5 sets of landing lights, at 50ft decision height. When he gets 5 sets, the captain will take control and land the aircraft.

To fly the ILS accurately, it’s the 3 times table again no cosine tans or roots of the angles all calculation done in the head. At 7 miles from touchdown 3x7=21 so your height should be 2100feet. 6 miles 1800feet speed 140ktsIAS 140ktsTAS 140ktsGS, lower the gear this produces drag and slows the aircraft down and so now lower 25 degrees of flap, speed will decrease to 125Kts IAS 125KtsTAS 123KtsGS. Note that, we are now down in thick warm air compared to altitude and so all speeds are the same.

At 3 miles 900ft in the soup, the auto-voice shouts “200feet” from the radio altimeter. This is not welcoming news because you are still in the soup, and what happens is beads of smelly perspiration drip from your armpit and drop on the floor from your elbow!.Not very cool.

Radio altimeter auto voice shouts “100 above” is 150feet above runway and 100feet to go till decision height at 50ft, speed is nailed on the button at 125kts, First officer will transfer left hand to the throttles should a go around be necessary at 50ft, down she comes 90ft, 80ft still in the soup, 70ft some light is starting to show now 60ft Captain shouts “I have 3” (sets of lights) radalt Auto voice shouts “50 feet” decision height, the Captain can now see 5 sets of lights and Captain TY takes control, now count 1, 2, pull nose up Flare, 3,4,5 Bang, main wheel contact with ground must be positive and firm. Now TY we don’t want any of your kissie kissie landings, get the rubber onto the asphalt. Lower the nose, wheel will contact and TY this is the most important bit, make sure you bang it down the runway lights, hitting every light, if you don’t you could loose it and that would be another meeting no tea, no biscuits and a note in Captain TY file.

Like this
https://youtube.com/watch?v=9B5v8UOKAso
The pink is landing light bounce from fog, just let it play.

So now you know why Rob Balsamo says VMO is 350Kts and all these figures that you have been reading are all made up to impress you.

Going Up Indicated Air speed is constant, True Air Speed & Mach No increasing.
Going Down Indicated Airspeed is constant True Air Speed & Mach No decreasing
All speeds depend on temperature, density and pressure.

B767 Speeds. 350Kts M0.80 at any altitude never to be broken. US Law
B767 Speeds. 350Kts M0.80 at any altitude never to be broken. Australian Law
B767 Speeds. 340Kts M0.78 at any altitude never to be broken. UK Law

You are due Rob Balsamo a beer!

[3optic]

It's like watching a fantastic game of doubles tennis!

[Zook]

Hi Ty,

Posted by Ty (here)
CONCLUSION
I've taken just about every objection raised in this thread and researched it to either explain it or identify it as misinformation.
[...]

Having a high-gliding opinion about having done something ... and actually doing something ... are two different propositions, you will agree.

Here are Jeff Scott's credentials

Biography: Jeff Scott is an aerospace engineer specializing in aerodynamic analysis and conceptual design. His primary expertise is applying aerodynamic prediction software and trajectory simulations to flight test programs and flight clearance efforts. Among the projects Jeff has supported during his career are airframe design, flight testing, guidance and control software, modeling & simulation, system engineering, performance predictions, wind tunnel tests, high-speed propulsion research, and aviation safety. Jeff is the chief editor of Aerospaceweb.org.

Selected Memberships:
Academy of Model Aeronautics; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; International Test and Evaluation Association; National Association of Rocketry; Sigma Gamma Tau Aerospace Engineering Honor Society; Society of Automotive Engineers

Selected Honors & Awards:
Achievement Award for Aerodynamics and Modeling & Simulation, 2009; Certificate of Appreciation for Expertise in Aeromechanics, 2009; NASA Team Achievement Award for Wind Tunnel Advancement, 2008; Team Leadership Award for Trajectory Prediction, 2006; Team Leadership Award for Engineering Investigation 2005; Teammate Appreciation Award for Flight Test Support, 2005; Team Award for Excellence in Acquisition, 2005; Achievement Award for Aerodynamic Analysis, 2004; Engineer & Scientist Development Award, 2002, 2003, 2004; Letter of Appreciation for Flight Test Support, 2003; Leadership Award, 1998; NASA Scholar, 1997

Selected Publications:
Scott, J. Advanced Wind Tunnel Test Methods for a Rolling Airframe, Air Vehicle Engineering Conference, July 2009; Scott, J. Flight Test Results and Simulation Methods for Analysis of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAV/UCAV Subsystems Symposium, August 2004; Scott, J. Application of Simulations to Investigating Flight Test Anomalies, Aircraft & UAV Engineering Conference, May 2004; Scott, J., Wind Tunnel Test Results to Validate Analytical Predictions of Protuberance Drag, November 2003.

Always amazes me when people attempt arguments by fallacy of appeal to authority. And amuses me, too. How much do I owe you for putting a smile on my face?

[Fred259]

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

TY/
If you scroll down on this website you will see a destroyed engine. This is a Pratt & Whitney 4462 high bypass ratio turbofan which powered Swissair Flight 111.

The Rolls Royce RB2-11 engine also a high bypass ratio engine would be about the same size as the engine in the photograph.

Swissair111 an MD-11 aircraft was lost on September 2 1988 in the Atlantic following we are told an electrical fire.

This is the kind of photograph we are looking for as it gives much information and is actually very revealing.

Notice the compressor blades on the front fan of this engine. Can we agree that 80% have survived this high speed impact? The reason for this is because the compressor blades are machined into that casing by what’s called a fir tree root.(ie they are like a christmas tree)

You must have been to an airport and walked on the apron, and you hear the noise from these compressors when the engine is shut down. It’s a chink chink chink chink chink chink che che che che che sound.

The reason for the noise is because the wind is blowing through the engine and causing the blades to turn gently. With the engine cold the fir tree root that imbeds the compressor blade to the casing has now contracted. You can lift that blade with you hand. It’s loose and rattles around hence the chink chink chink noise on the apron.

When the engine is running the fir tree root starts to heat up and expands within the casing. This expansion of the fir tree root means that the engine front section is virtually indestructible.

Notice also the shaft that has broken through. That shaft should be connected to the front compressor and the rearmost turbine at the back of the engine. Inside the shaft are another two shafts connecting the second and third compressors with the second and third turbines at the back of the engine. So 3 compressors up front connected by 3 shafts within each other, driving 3 turbines at the back of the engine. Again these parts are virtually indestructible as you can see.

What say you, I estimate the Swissair engine is around 80% complete. It’s completely destroyed, but it’s complete because it’s virtually indestructible.

WTC 1, WTC 2, Pentagon, Shanksville. 4 Sites, 4 aircraft, 8 engines, do we agree?

Would it be possible to get us photographic evidence of just one of these engines, forget the other seven? What you are showing on your post are 3 photographs of 3 parts. What has happened to 99.5 % of the remainder of the 8 engines?

On the subject of engines you say that 2 engines the size as the Swissair engine have been destroyed, and no parts are available for inspection yet in the same report you provide what you call “written witness accounts” that says “2 bodies still strapped into seats”. Can you elaborate on that ?

1. “All trying within a second or two to locate a plane of unknown size and altitude as it flies by at a speed that could be as much as 500 mph or more”
2 “bodies still strapped into seats”

I see you are calling it 500mph or more today, but yesterday it was 500kts. Are they the same?

So a B757 crashes into the Pentagon at 500kts or is it mph? Two virtually indestrictible 5 ton Rolls Royce engines vaporise, in front of 2 bodies still strapped into seats and furthermore a witness has given a written account of this!

This reminds me of Charles and his comment to Bill;
“They are smoking cigars drinking scotch and laughing at us”

Ground Effect

TY you talk about these subjects and pontificate about the square root of zero as if you are an aerodynamics engineer.

Its very disingenuous of you for not only are you letting yourself down but frankly you are publishing documents that are forged and in so doing destroying for others perhaps the very reason why they might want to be associated with Project Avalon.

For the record it’s very clear that your knowledge and understand of ground effect is precisely zero.

The True Document.

This document is an accurate and sensible scientific explication on ground effect. Please note that they have illustrated this with two photographs.

http://www.se-technology.com/wig/htm....php?open=aero

Russian scientist designed built and flew a complete range of aircraft based on the principal of ground effect. I suppose they must have been wrong as well.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=su141UIHqOI

The Forged Document.

This document is forged. Please note that they have illustrated this with three photographs which on examination is so obvious that it’s ridiculous.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0274.shtml

I was concerned about this document being linked to aerospace web. The reason for this is because many years ago I subscribed to the excellent publication Aviation Week & Space Technology and for some reason I was confusing the two.

I have now researched aerospace web .org and frankly it’s a buffoonery site. It’s obvious this where you have been getting your information from a disinformation agent with pictures of aircraft on his website.

If you want to cut out pictures of aircraft for the children’s bedroom wall, click here
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/

If not move on.

I’m a bit disappointed TY I have to say, it was very clear you really had no understanding of what you were talking about and yesterday I thought well many others have taken time out and explained things to me so I will try and help this guy with the International Standard Atmosphere and its relevance to speeds. Now I wish I hadn’t.

I will however look out for your next splendid epistle on gas turbine “defuser vanes”…or your friend “Eyes Wide Open” and his “Latest developments in autopilot technology”

Oh dear, I have never laughed so much before, now I know why John Lear left….

[Teakai]

GAME.SET and MATCH!

[Ty]

Dear Zook, Teakai and Fred,

Unfortunately I have a 3 day workshop today through Sunday so won't have time to adequately address your replies until mid next week or so.

In the meantime I offer this for your reading pleasure...

A state of mind we'll call delusion
Enables one to see
Reality as just illusion
Where anything can be

Where planes in one theory don't exist
In another, can be where they were not
And buildings into which they crash, they miss
Though this fly-by not one witness caught

Where 100 witnesses are just rejected
Who saw the plane and building meet
The illusion, you see must be protected
And against this it wilts in defeat

There's a world where anything can be
Where a theory needn't match
What hundreds say that they did see
The plane into the building crash

It's fun to drop in on this world
To speculate on what may be
But when reason to the side is hurled
It seems disingenuous to me

To promote a theory anyone
With modest sense can see
Should be tossed as so much carrion
Onto the heap of what can't be

A wise person once said "Seek and ye shall find"
I'll add two words to that: "Seek nonsense and ye shall find nonsense"

And for your viewing pleasure...

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[Zook]

Good Morning Ty,

Maybe it would be easier if I just asked you what you think did happen on 9/11/2001?

I say this because even a total newbie investigating 9/11/2001 for the first time ... would be citing evidence (as it were) from both sides. All I've seen from you is a one-sided endorsement of evidence stitched together by demonstrable disinformation agents (whose task it is to divide the so-called Truth movement).

So let me ask you this simple question ... was WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition or was the WTC7 collapse a byproduct of an attack armada consisting of Arabs, Boeings, and boxcutters?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Zook (here)
So let me ask you this simple question ... was WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition or was the WTC7 collapse a byproduct of an attack armada consisting of Arabs, Boeings, and boxcutters?

Some of us, when we decide to start beating the question of 9/11 with a stick, choose to focus on some detail or other of the Official Story (such as WTC7) that makes no damn sense. By that means,we begin to realize that something else happened that day.

Some of us, when that time comes, choose to focus on some details that while they might be claimed (see the Title of this present thread) to provide conclusive evidence of an Inside Job, can still be countered and rendered indecisive. By that means, we protect ourselves from having to reconsider the events of that day.

Ty apparently has chosen the second path in regards to 9/11.

I suspect we all choose the second path at times. The details of this life are far too varied and complex for each of us to become an informed skeptic in all possibly relevant matters. Most of us, most of the time, on most topics, have to adopt a position of "steady as she goes". If someone sounds an alarm, we will suppose that it is a false warning, perhaps a device failure, and go back to sleep.

Only occasionally will we examine the alarm, realize there is a real fire causing it, and change our understanding accordingly.

[Fred259]

Posted by Zook (here)
Good Morning Ty,

Maybe it would be easier if I just asked you what you think did happen on 9/11/2001?

I say this because even a total newbie investigating 9/11/2001 for the first time ... would be citing evidence (as it were) from both sides. All I've seen from you is a one-sided endorsement of evidence stitched together by demonstrable disinformation agents (whose task it is to divide the so-called Truth movement).

So let me ask you this simple question ... was WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition or was the WTC7 collapse a byproduct of an attack armada consisting of Arabs, Boeings, and boxcutters?

This is going to be an interesting response. The BS machine will be in overdrive.

He has shot himself in the foot.

Witness Video.

@1.34 “I saw it go over the gas station”

@2.17 “The aeroplane came over where I work and over the gas station”

The Case Study Video

Something is funny down at this end the 10 O'clock position on the fish eye camera.

From 2.10 it’s this point here that I think the aircraft slipped over the Pentagon. I wonder what all those fuzzy images are. Also a large flash happens again down at the barrier end.

I was wondering if this might have been a small shoulder launched missile, with the building wired as well. In the video you can actually see something white going from the roadside and over the lawn. This is where they then put the aeroplane with a smoking engine.

Americans slaughtering Americans, and the American Government covering it up.

What an abomination.

[Zook]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
This is going to be an interesting response. The BS machine will be in overdrive.
He has shot himself in the foot.
Witness Video.
@1.34 “I saw it go over the gas station”
@2.17 “The aeroplane came over where I work and over the gas station”
The Case Study Video
Something is funny down at this end the 10 O'clock position on the fish eye camera.
From 2.10 it’s this point here that I think the aircraft slipped over the Pentagon. I wonder what all those fuzzy images are. Also a large flash happens again down at the barrier end.
I was wondering if this might have been a small shoulder launched missile, with the building wired as well. In the video you can actually see something white going from the roadside and over the lawn. This is where they then put the aeroplane with a smoking engine.
Americans slaughtering Americans, and the American Government covering it up.
What an abomination.

What is really telling ... is the relative anonymity of the Southside witnesses and the forthright testimony of the Northside witnesses.

The Southside witnesses appear to be upset, irate, emotionally invested in finding that the jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. By contrast, the Northside witnesses appear dispassionate and just interested in describing what they saw (some are very detailed in their testimony). To wit, those that saw the plane lift_up/bank_right at the last moment, just say so and leave it at that. They don't try to justify this account or that account, or that other account in left field over there. Moreover, they all virtually believe that the plane impacted the Pentagon. Let me say that again in case Ty or EWO miss the important point: the Northside witnesses believe that the plane impacted the Pentagon, just as the Southsiders do. IOW, those that place the jetliner North of Citgo also believe that the jetliner crashed into the Pentagon!

What this means is that the Northside witnesses cannot be impeached.

Let me explain. The only basis for the impeachment of the Northsiders is whether the jetliner was North or South of the Citgo gas station; the other potential basis - whether there was an impact or flyover - is shared in common by both the Southside and Northside witnesses and can therefore be dismissed without consequence. Turning to the former basis then, e.g. the North side placement of the jetliner ... it is easy to see that they cannot be impeached on this basis. After all, anyone with an IQ greater than a helium balloon can be expected to remember that they saw the jetliner on the Northside if that is the only vantage point for them to see the jetliner. Enter Office Lagasse. He was caught on video pumping gas on the Northside at the back pump. Lagasse misremembered and thought he was at the front pump. But that kind of error is to be expected in human memory five years after the fact. What cannot be expected, indeed, what is impossible ... is to misremember the jetliner's position in the sky. You see, Ty and EWO, from where Lagasee was pumping gas, the Citgo gas station would have blocked the view of a Southside approaching jetliner. The only view available to Lagasse was the Northside view. If a jetliner had been on the Southside, Lagasse would've only heard it, not seen it. But he saw it. And the only place he could've seen it is if the jetliner had been approaching the Pentagon from the Northside. And it was, as confirmed by other Northside witnesses who all placed the jetliner North of Citgo.

So we have established that Officer Lagasse's IQ is higher than a helium balloon's. Perhaps we should give out IQ tests to everyone reading this thread to determine where they belong, e.g. wrt the helium balloon.




ps: With Northside jetliner approach conclusively established on the multiple testimonies of the Northside witnesses, in particular, the single testimony of Officer Lagasse; the rest of the case is easily made (e.g. plane banking and/or lifting up just about the Do Not Enter sign; which then would have forced it to either crash high up on the Pentagon wall at an opposite incidence angle, or flyover and disappear behind the Pentagon). Slam dunk! Or as Teaks aptly puts it ... Game. Set. Match.

ps2: I'm tired of lugging this heavy box of humble opinions around; mind if I toss you good folks one of these lighter, pocket-sized pointed opinions? Thank you.

ps3: We can start impeaching all the Southside witnesses in the above video. Indeed, the pursuit of truth demands it.

[Fred259]

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.
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

So Eyes Wide Open,

You say;

“Here are the links: Please read them fairly, don’t let emotions or stubborness or fear of being wrong cloud your view. Look at them in a logical fashion instead”


I have done so and frankly I’m disgusted that you post these on this website.

You say,

Skeptics of the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon have argued that the lack of public photographs showing airliner seats, bodies, and luggage is evidence against the crash of Flight 77. This argument is based on several assumptions, none of which are supported.
• The seats, passengers, and luggage would have survived the over 500-mph crash and subsequent fires in a form yielding to easy identification in photographs.

• Remains of the seats, passengers, and luggage would have been photographed and the photographs would have been made public.
The baselessness of the second assumption becomes particularly apparent when one notes that nearly the entire fuselage (containing the seats, passengers, and luggage) probably entered the Pentagon, where we know that 125 Pentagon workers were killed. Yet there are no photographs in public circulation of the remains of these victims.



This is not true, we are not saying that. Rather that is what you are saying.

We don’t want seats, bodies luggage etc.( The very fact you include bodies in your 3 item list shows that you don’t know what you are talking about)


What we are saying is this.No evidence exist today or has ever existed that an aircraft flew in the Pentagon.

If this is not the case, and we are misinformed then the evidence would be overwhelming.

On the basis that you have no evidence, of any kind and by that I mean serious evidence then we must conclude that it didn’t happen.

These are the sorts of item’s that would constitute as evidence or reasonable evidence.

x1 Pilots Flying Licence (or even just the number and country of issue.)

x1 Indestructible - Cockpit Voice Recorder.

x2 Indestructible - Flight Data Recorder, (commonly known as Black Box’s)

x2 Indestructible - RR RB-211 Gas Turbine Engines.

x1 Indestructible - Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Gas Turbine Engine.

x3 Indestructible - Landing Gear Olio Struts (18 feet long)

x10 Indestructible - Carbon Fibre Brake Wheel Hub Housing Units.

You must have seen pictures of air accidents in books, newspapers or on TV.
Sometimes it’s hard to make out the fuselage particularly if it’s been on fire, but you always can make out what could be an engine and what defiantly is landing gear do you agree, maybe not.

Are we being unreasonable?

We can appoint a Judge from the International Court in The Hague to travel to Washington and inspect the parts. All we would like is to be able to photograph the items, and check that the part numbers match with the aircraft maintenance logs.

Then you can have the parts back.

If however you have no evidence, for even just a few of the parts then we must conclude once and for all that it just didn’t happen. Are we being unreasonable?