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

[Fred259]

Pentagon Wreckage Part description provided by aerospace web engineers.” One similarity between the two photos can be seen in the cleats along the edge of the Pentagon *object. These devices are called dovetail slots and provide attachment points for the compressor blades”.

(* Strange use of a word.)


EYO. I have taken this picture and text from the disinformation site www.aerospaceweb.org. Since my last visit to ”aerospace engineers” they have upgraded the text which was ridiculous but I'm pleased to say now shows much improvement.

However it’s still very clear that this is a scam lies and disinformation source for whilst it’s an improvement it’s still very wrong. This is not my opinion, rather engineering fact.

Aerospaceweb.org say that this is a compressor without blades. This is not true, it’s a high preassure compressor with blades. (You can see the blades.)

The picture below shows the Swissair engine. The blades also can be clearly seen.

“Cleats” Never heard of this word, other than a device for holding a mast on a sail boat.

“Dovetail slots” Would this be dovetail as in “carpentry.” This is wrong compressor blades are held in position by “fir tree root.” This is an inverted fire tree machined through nickel and titanium so that for all time the blades never detach.





The photograph of the Swiss Air engine above shows that despite falling from 34,000ft into the sea 70% of the blades have survived a catastrophic failure.

[Zook]

Good Afternoon Good Avalon Good EWO!

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
[...]
Now, check this out...
Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s "National Security Alert"
February 8, 2011
Author: Richard Gage

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

CLICK BELOW FOR FULL STATEMENT:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-0...t-cit#comments

Ouch!

Let it be stated that Richard Gage is an excellent architect and his arguments of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building Seven are well-constructed. Ditto for physicist Stephen Jones (of JournalOfNineElevenStudies) who has done a masterful job with his thermite analysis (e.g. iron spherules, etc.). But both of these eminent professionals in the truth movement have focused their research almost entirely on the collapses of the towers and WTC7. Neither has done much research on the Pentagon attack node of 9/11/2001. That both now endorse Legge's shoddy science ... Jones, by publishing the shoddy science at the JONES website; and Gage by allowing himself to be manipulated by the creatures at 911blogger.com (total disinfo website, e.g. truths mixed in with deliberate falsehoods) ... is a testament to the depth of deceptions that obstruct genuine truthseekers looking into the Inside Job. Jones and Gage have got the culprits by the balls with their investigation of the towers and WTC7 collapses; and their expertise is well placed there. By the same token, Pilotsfor911Truth, are the experts in aviation, and it is their experiential and reasoned analysis that carries the day in the investigation of the Pentagon node of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

In this narrative, PFNET have done an outstanding job in exposing the shoddy science of Legge and Stutt; and Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis et al have done an outstanding job documenting the evidence as it pertains to the Northside approaching jetliner. Full kudos to both teams. Indeed, Gage even endorsed CIT on his first real look at the Pentagon node. Subsequent to that - and perhaps due to sheer overload of having to travel and present the structural collapse research of WTC7 and the Twin Towers to audiences far and wide - he has not done the necessary followup investigation of the Pentagon node, choosing to peer instead through the magnifying glass held up by disinfo agents like Wolsey, Legge, Stutt. Ashley, Hoffman, etc. So we should not blame Gage too much ... though we should politely ask him to do his own research of all the physical and circumstantial evidence at the Pentagon node and attending witness testimony (Northside, Southside and Roosevelt Roberts who saw a jetliner leave the scene after the huge explosion!). We should encourage Gage not to rely on the directed disinformation put out by the aforementioned stooges. Jones, too, needs to do his own investigation of the Pentagon node; or stay clear and focus instead on his own area of expertise.

Here's another interview of Craig Ranke (who again does a masterful job of explaining the evidence):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dLgDQqwK53A

Ouch ... put in its proper perspective.

To wit, no ouch here ... except maybe for Jones and Gage if they don't do their own analysis of the Pentagon node and/or if they decide to stand with the stooges against the genuine truthseeking efforts of Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis et al and Pilotsfor911Truth (the real experts to be consulted here).



ps: I appreciate your contributions wrt the Twin Tower and WTC7 collapses, EWO ... as I appreciate Jones and Gage for their important contributions. But they need to step up on the Pentagon attack node by aligning with the scientific method (which the PFNET team and the CIT team has observed); and by distancing themselves from the conjectural points, shoddy science, and blatant propaganda put out by Wolsey, Legge, Stutt, Hoffman, Ashley, etc.

ps2: Humble opinions all around.

[Ty]

Fred,

Rated Speed and Cruising speed don’t exist. These are not standard operating terms.
re you talking about RAS and TAS or what.?

You and Balsamo both state that 460 knots is 110 knots over "rated speed". "safety speed" or something. I forget what you called it. The 757 has a cruising speed of 515 knots. I'm trying to reconcile this discrepancy.


A

[Fred259]

[QUOTE]

Posted by Ty (here)
Fred,

Rated Speed and Cruising speed don’t exist. These are not standard operating terms.
re you talking about RAS and TAS or what.?

You and Balsamo both state that 460 knots is 110 knots over "rated speed". "safety speed" or something. I forget what you called it. The 757 has a cruising speed of 515 knots. I'm trying to reconcile this discrepancy.

You cannot compare me with Balsamo. Balsamo is American. I am British the Americans use different terminology compared with the British. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter because we each understand what each nation’s terminology is.

The 757 does not have a cursing speed of 515 knots.

I don’t understand “rated speed and safety speed”. These are words made up by people like you.

The only speed that matters is the speeds published by Boeing. Within these speeds the aircraft is insured, beyond them it’s not.

They are 350kts VMO (Velocity Maximum Operating)
0.80M (Mach 0.80)

The aircraft must never exceed these speeds at any altitude. I told you all this before. The problem is you want to look up a book and get a speed. This is not possible, commercial aircraft don’t have published speeds.

Departure and low level speeds are governed by WAT (weight altitude and temp) Cruising speeds are limited by Mach No in this case 0.80. This could be any speed and depends on outside air temperature and air density at altitude.

John Lear, Balsamo and I have all told you this but you know better so you refer to your “Boys book of facts” and it says 515kts so you think B757 can do this speed at sea level, its impossible, but you know better.

Likewise you seem to think it’s capable of 350kts at sea level. I don’t think so. Boeing is a good aircraft but Airbus is better, I have no experience on B757. It really doesn’t matter because they are all practically the same, what I will say that the air density for all jet engines is so dense (thick) at sea level that they do not have the volumetric efficiency to produce that power. John Lear said the same in a more professional technical manner but it all amounts to the same.

So when you use your favorite expression “ Hani Hanjour slammed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 500mph” we just laugh and think this has been prepared by an imbecile, but what can we do, you know better.

You publish on the forum that “ Boeing confirm zyz speed) Boeing don’t discuss speeds, they expect a knowledge and understanding of these matters before progressing passed the door. Boeing did not confirm this with you.

TY I have an issue I wish to discuss. Someone is taking this technical knowledge and manipulating the data and upgrading and updating www.aerospaceweb.org a 9/11 scam disinformation website. I have noticed that all the information you have obtained from me is now being updated on www.aerospaceweb.org the 9/11, scam disinformation website.

Around two weeks ago I was reading some of your more outrageous work and at 02.00 in the morning I had an out of body mind experience, well almost. While studying your scam disinformation website it very slowly came to me that I had seen these diagrams before. Then it came back quick as a flash from 29 years ago, I had definitely seen these diagrams before.

The very next day even before breakfast I climbed into the attic and located my box, and low and behold right in front of me was the very same diagram in the technical manual. How extraordinary.

Therefore if they are going to steal information cut and paste information from Rolls Royce Technical Department, Derby, England, it’s quite important that the information stolen is put back in the correct sequential order. Failure to do this means it doesn’t work. In order to do so a knowledge and understanding of the simple gas laws is required, so it’s very clear to me that all these “aerospace engineers” have great difficulty cutting and pasting let alone remotely understanding what they are doing or talking about.

The situation is further compounded when it became clear to me that your intentions were deceitful I started to feed you false information. Within 24 hours for some extraordinary reason same false information appeared on www.aerospaceweb.org the scam disinformation website.

Having shot myself in the foot, I resolved the situation by calling RR tech in Derby and highlighting your scam disinformation website. I further confirmed this by fax. It does doesn’t it illustrate the seriousness of the situation. It’s highly unlikely that any engineer would refer to your www.aerospaceweb.org scam disinformation website however it is conceivable that perhaps someone in another part of the world with poorer English may refer to this website. I would ask that you reflect on this.

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
I started to feed you false information. Within 24 hours for some extraordinary reason same false information appeared on www.aerospaceweb.org the scam disinformation website.

Intriguing, to say the least.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Why are you so hostile? In this thread you have called me poisioness, a disinfo artist, hinted I am insane and now you are trying to publicly humilate me by saying I do not respect 9/11 family members. This is very upsetting for me as I actually WORK with some of the familiy members.
I cant belive you would use such a cheap shot
I stayed away from this thread for a while and now, a few posts in, you start name calling AGAIN.
Way out of line with that post. Reported.

[QUOTE=EYES WIDE OPEN;130803]

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Way out of line with that post. Reported

No I respectfully disagree.
.

So you stand by your insults then.[COLOR="red"]

Fred, I want to know your reasons for attacking me and your reason for standing by your insults. As this was done publicly and more than once, I, in turn (and fairly I believe), would like a public apology.
Saying I have “no heart” and could not care less about the victims and family members has caused me a lot of hurt and to be honest is salting the wound you opened by saying I was “ spreading poison, a disinfo artist,” and hinting I am insane.

It has been suggested that we take this to PM but I don’t see why you should get away with a private apology for such a public attempt to smear me. Also, I have little faith that an aplogy would be forthcoming anyway as you have already stated you stick by your insults.

[aikisaw]

[QUOTE=Fred259;131888]

Fred,

The situation is further compounded when it became clear to me that your intentions were deceitful I started to feed you false information. Within 24 hours for some extraordinary reason same false information appeared on www.aerospaceweb.org the scam disinformation website.

Having shot myself in the foot, I resolved the situation by calling RR tech in Derby and highlighting your scam disinformation website. I further confirmed this by fax. It does doesn’t it illustrate the seriousness of the situation. It’s highly unlikely that any engineer would refer to your www.aerospaceweb.org scam disinformation website however it is conceivable that perhaps someone in another part of the world with poorer English may refer to this website. I would ask that you reflect on this.

Fred

Did you feed EYO the false information on this forum?

Did you feed him the false information in private or another media?

Is it possible that false information was posted on the disinformation site by some one other than EYO?

[Fred259]

[QUOTE=EYES WIDE OPEN;132621]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Why are you so hostile? In this thread you have called me poisioness, a disinfo artist, hinted I am insane and now you are trying to publicly humilate me by saying I do not respect 9/11 family members. This is very upsetting for me as I actually WORK with some of the familiy members.
I cant belive you would use such a cheap shot
I stayed away from this thread for a while and now, a few posts in, you start name calling AGAIN.
Way out of line with that post. Reported.

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Way out of line with that post. Reported

No I respectfully disagree.
.

So you stand by your insults then.[COLOR="red"]

Fred, I want to know your reasons for attacking me and your reason for standing by your insults. As this was done publicly and more than once, I, in turn (and fairly I believe), would like a public apology.
Saying I have “no heart” and could not care less about the victims and family members has caused me a lot of hurt and to be honest is salting the wound you opened by saying I was “ spreading poison, a disinfo artist,” and hinting I am insane.

It has been suggested that we take this to PM but I don’t see why you should get away with a private apology for such a public attempt to smear me. Also, I have little faith that an aplogy would be forthcoming anyway as you have already stated you stick by your insults.

On 19th January 2011 in Post #149 you posted this;

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.

Here is your link of your post.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ide-Job!/page8

When I saw this I got excited thinking EYO has a radio show and if you recall I suggested that perhaps you might want to invite John Lear on your show, who would at least provide some balance and above all John is someone who knows what he is talking about.

Then in Post# 163 you posted this.

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.

So you will understand EYO that I felt a bit cheated , here you were inferring one thing when something quite the opposite was the case. Never mind mistakes happen.

I then decided to look through the documents’ you provided contained in the link. To my utter astonishment it was clear that the documents had been forged.

In the subsequent papers contained within your link it was clear someone had taking policy documents published around the early 1980’s by the FAA in Washington and the CAA in London, cutting and deleting the facts and inserting lies.

The matter related to the width of an airway or air corridor which ladies and gentleman is 10nm wide or 60,800 feet. However this factual information had been deleted and a figure 243 had been inserted. They didn’t say if it was feet meters or boiled eggs. Immediately I knew this was ludicrous and this was confirmed to me when turning the page of the document here was a picture of the world trade centre size 280feet next to an inserted image of an aircraft on the air corridor that according to them is now 243.

You will recall I asked you for an explanation about these forged documents, and asked that you remove them but you decided that it was in the public interest that they should read all these lies and then decide. I will give you full marks for the quality of presentation however.

So first you tell me you have a radio show which turns out to be incorrect and after reading your documents and found then to be forgeries who you forgive me for thinking that you were not who you purported to be.

In subsequent posts you suggested that John Lear was a fraud and that he didn’t know what he was talking about, and provided me with a link on the old forum.

As it happens I have the highest respect for John and so I decided to research the thread and this essentially involved a conversation between Henry Deacon and John Lear who were discussing a secret base contained within the Sea of Copernicus on the surface of the planet Moon. (the base had been airbrushed over on the photograph)

So while thousand around the world were reading and watching in utter amazement this crafted banter between these two great masters, in jumps EYO. We don't need to go into details suffice to say that the mod’s were left running around like headless chickens, trying to find Bill.

So EYO, whilst you do provide much entertainment I really do find that for me at least its unacceptable to forge or distribute government documents or elude you have a radio show or any knowledge or experience on discussions on Autopilots and so really I have nothing much more to say. It does seem to me that you would rather derail progress of the thread and I am personally very disappointed that John no longer blogs on the forum.

I am therefore unable to offer you the public apology you seek, and ask that you perhaps reflect on the reasons for my decision.

[Fred259]

[QUOTE=Fred259;134238]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Why are you so hostile? In this thread you have called me poisioness, a disinfo artist, hinted I am insane and now you are trying to publicly humilate me by saying I do not respect 9/11 family members. This is very upsetting for me as I actually WORK with some of the familiy members.
I cant belive you would use such a cheap shot
I stayed away from this thread for a while and now, a few posts in, you start name calling AGAIN.
Way out of line with that post. Reported.

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Way out of line with that post. Reported

No I respectfully disagree.
.

So you stand by your insults then.[COLOR="red"]

Fred, I want to know your reasons for attacking me and your reason for standing by your insults. As this was done publicly and more than once, I, in turn (and fairly I believe), would like a public apology.
Saying I have “no heart” and could not care less about the victims and family members has caused me a lot of hurt and to be honest is salting the wound you opened by saying I was “ spreading poison, a disinfo artist,” and hinting I am insane.

It has been suggested that we take this to PM but I don’t see why you should get away with a private apology for such a public attempt to smear me. Also, I have little faith that an aplogy would be forthcoming anyway as you have already stated you stick by your insults.

On 19th January 2011 in Post #149 you posted this;

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.

Here is your link of your post.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ide-Job!/page8

When I saw this I got excited thinking EYO has a radio show and if you recall I suggested that perhaps you might want to invite John Lear on your show, who would at least provide some balance and above all John is someone who knows what he is talking about.

Then in Post# 163 you posted this.

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.

So you will understand EYO that I felt a bit cheated , here you were inferring one thing when something quite the opposite was the case. Never mind mistakes happen.

I then decided to look through the documents’ you provided contained in the link. To my utter astonishment it was clear that the documents had been forged.

In the subsequent papers contained within your link it was clear someone had taking policy documents published around the early 1980’s by the FAA in Washington and the CAA in London, cutting and deleting the facts and inserting lies.

The matter related to the width of an airway or air corridor which ladies and gentleman is 10nm wide or 60,800 feet. However this factual information had been deleted and a figure 243 had been inserted. They didn’t say if it was feet meters or boiled eggs. Immediately I knew this was ludicrous and this was confirmed to me when turning the page of the document here was a picture of the world trade centre size 280feet next to an inserted image of an aircraft on the air corridor that according to them is now 243.

You will recall I asked you for an explanation about these forged documents, and asked that you remove them but you decided that it was in the public interest that they should read all these lies and then decide. I will give you full marks for the quality of presentation however.

So first you tell me you have a radio show which turns out to be incorrect and after reading your documents and found then to be forgeries who you forgive me for thinking that you were not who you purported to be.

In subsequent posts you suggested that John Lear was a fraud and that he didn’t know what he was talking about, and provided me with a link on the old forum.

As it happens I have the highest respect for John and so I decided to research the thread and this essentially involved a conversation between Henry Deacon and John Lear who were discussing a secret base contained within the Sea of Copernicus on the surface of the planet Moon. (the base had been airbrushed over on the photograph)

So while thousand around the world were reading in utter amazement, this crafted banter between two great masters in jumps EYO. We don't need to go into details suffice to say that the mod’s were left running around like headless chickens trying to find Bill.

So EYO whilst you do provide much entertainment I really do find that for me at least its unacceptable to forge or distribute government documents or elude you have a radio show or any knowledge or experience on discussions on Autopilots and so really I have nothing much more to say. It does seem to me that you would rather derail progress of the thread and I am personally very disappointed that John no longer blogs on the forum.

I am therefore unable to offer you the public apology you seek, and ask that you perhaps reflect on the reasons for my decision.

NB One of the problems with women is they always like to be in control! Furthermore they always seem to think they “are” right.

My wife thinks I am being very hard on you EYO.

Therefore it’s proper and right that you should have an apology, but will this correct the error of your ways.

I will therefore provide a full written public apology, when you remove the documents that are falsehoods and forged.

I think that’s a good deal.

F

[Ty]

Fred,

Everything you post of this website is a tissue of lies, based on false disinformation websites featuring fake individuals who purport to be engineers,

Heavy duty charge there, Fred. How about getting specific. Name the most egregious "lie" you are accusing me of. For reference, you can use any of the posts I've contributed. I stand by them all: 81, 85, 86, 87, 105, 106, 112, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 175, 181, 184, 185, 191, 351, 354, 356, 357, 364, 383

You know Zero about Ground Effect.

The very reason why no aircraft could ever fly into the pentagon is precisely because of ground effect.

Yesterday you said it decreased with speed when in actual fact it increases.

Wrong again Fred. I "knew" nothing about ground effect when I started, which is why I referred to www.aerospaceweb.org. I have since found 8 other opinions, all but one or two of them from pilots, in various places who either directly confirm the irrelevance of ground effect at high speed or indirectly confirm it by indicating that with with just a bit of luck, even Hani Hanjour's lousy piloting skills could steer flight 77 into the Pentagon.

So what I've learned about ground effect is that either:

a) it doesn't have any relevance beyond landing and take off, or
b) there is a split in professional opinion about it's effect at high speeds.

Note that if the latter, since the bulk of the evidence - witnesses, debris, damage, bodies…etc strongly suggest that the plane did hit the Pentagon then we can conclude that in this instance it wasn't a factor.

Other sources on the irrelevance of Ground Effect :

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon's first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift.

http://www.911myths.com/Ground_Effect.pdf

Eye-witnesses, fallen lamp posts and other evidence testify to the flattened final trajectory of Flight 77 in the seconds before it hit the Pentagon on September 11. Some novice commentators claim that this wasn't aerodynamically possible. The claim made is that the high speed, low-level approach would have been affected by "the ground effect", and we're told this effect creates a cushion of air that would make it "aerodynamically impossible" for the plane to impact as it did. Nila Sagadevan, who apparently has never bothered to study simple aerodynamics as they apply to fixed wing aircraft, attempts to use this blatant falsehood to fool people into believing that a non-existent aerodynamic phenomenon, High-Speed-Low-Angle-of-Attack-ground-effect, would have precluded an aircraft in a descent from hitting the ground at that speed, and so, he would try to convince you that no aircraft could have hit the Pentagon. His intellect is either dizzying, or has made him dizzy.

http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_...askthepilot186

Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the ****ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

And finally, as you're well aware. pilots are a very enthusiastic bunch, eager to share stories and discuss aerodynamics. I'm sure there are numerous pilot forums on the internet where such things as ground effect can be discussed with qualified professionals.

I found one and posted the following question there:

Hi. I'm not a pilot but find myself in a discussion with one who ...

1) insists that ground effect would have made it impossible for flight 77 to hit the first floor of the Pentagon on 9/11

and

2) that the top speed of a 757 at ground level would be far less than the 460 kts recorded by the FDR.

I would appreciate an objective opinion on these issues and also what would the top speed of a 757 be given the flight path it took that day.

Here's the relevant excerpt from the reply:

...your associate with a differing point of view needs to find a new hobby. Hopefully a hobby that falls far more within his realm of comprehension. Ground Effect? Really?

Ground Effect is a useful term associated with takeoff and landing (low speed). But it has ZERO meaning when applied to a meteoric object hurtling itself inbound at throttles forward at a sharp downward angle. Not even a hiccup would be expected due to such. Just tell him that ground effect is no force field…

I asked if it would be Ok to link to that post. His reply:

Please do. But, remind him that he doesn't have to register here to read, but to post. But you should also remind him that should he choose to register here, he will get challenged by professionals who will find his theory silly, if not bordering on insanity.

So have at it Fred. It's time to man up. Go defend your ground effect theory in a community of professional pilots and see how it holds up. After all, it is the truth we are all after here, isn't it, and what better place to hash it out? I found them to be a friendly and welcoming group: http://www.flightlevel350.com/forum/...howtopic=14058

We can all monitor the discussion and see how it goes. Put your expertise on display for us. Makes a lot more sense then continuing to point out what I don't know doesn't it? Or are you afraid to find out what you don't know? I'm betting you won't bother, but would love for you to prove me wrong. This may be your easiest chance to prove me wrong about something so go for it, Fred.

You are utterley insane. I asked you to produce a licence. Now you say he isnt a pilot. If he isnt a pilot then he cant fly the aircraft. FACT.

Listen TY it takes at least 18 months to learn to fly commercially and a further 18 months to be proficient on a 767 at he very minimum.

I never said he was a pilot. You seem to have a serious comprehension problem and are a hoot, I must say. See comments above about how "proficient" he had to be to fly a plane into a building.

TY. Remember we said the engines were indestructible.

No Fred - YOU said they were indestructible. But then you think terrorists need to be licensed to fly planes into buildings and that a plane falling into a body of water should have equivalent damage to one being slammed into a reinforced concrete structure resulting in a massive explosion.

TY. Landing Gear. Indestructible.
TY. Wheel Drums & Brakes. Indestructible we need 10 from inside the Pentagon.

Maybe in Fred's Fantasy Land. I'm willing to bet I can find a forum of structural engineers who would be happy to discuss the specifics of the damage to the Pentagon and the plane if there were anyone here who wanted to engage them. Any takers? I'll open the discussion with a similar question to what I posted on flightlevel350.

Folks – Copy these images and spread them around. When dealing with some jacka** as we are here, they come in handy.

The photograph of the Swiss Air engine above shows that despite falling from 34,000ft into the sea 70% of the blades have survived a catastrophic failure.

Yes, please do, so that when said jacka** starts drawing corollaries between damage from planes falling in bodies of water and those of airplanes being slammed into concrete reinforced buildings resulting in a massive explosion, these can serve as reminders of those differences.

TY I have an issue I wish to discuss. Someone is taking this technical knowledge and manipulating the data and upgrading and updating www.aerospaceweb.org a 9/11 scam disinformation website. I have noticed that all the information you have obtained from me is now being updated on www.aerospaceweb.org the 9/11, scam disinformation website.

The situation is further compounded when it became clear to me that your intentions were deceitful I started to feed you false information. Within 24 hours for some extraordinary reason same false information appeared on www.aerospaceweb.org the scam disinformation website.

First, my intentions aren't deceitful. I have been up front with everything I've posted and included links to all sources. I do admit to one error in post 181 where I said that no witnesses had seen a military aircraft. That was wrong - an honest mistake that misrepresented the statement I made in two earlier posts - 159 & 162 where I accurately said "0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon." In post 181 I separated the two phrases, creating an error. Apologies all around.

As previously stated, I started looking at this thread at the recommendation of another member. I had my doubts to be sure but when something is labeled as "irrefutable proof" I figured it was worth a look. I went where the evidence led and documented that journey in numerous posts. Nothing deceitful about it. That I concluded that THE FLYOVER THEORY IS UTTER AND COMPLETE NONSENSE WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND MOUNTAINS TO DISPROVE IT doesn't make me deceitful. What has become apparent is that proponents and defenders of that theory don't know evidence from opinion or irrefutable proof from irrelevant and mistaken observations.

Is that undeceitful enough for you?

As for your issues with www.aerospaceweb.org I suggest you contact them if you have questions about updates to their site since only they can make them. Note, for the record, that what you post here to me is available to the world, not just to me. Note also, that I did attempt to contact them to let them know you were libeling them so they could respond if desired but I never heard back from them and it wasn't until after you report seeing changes to their site so I doubt that my attempted contact had anything to do with it.

Have a nice day Fred and don't lose your sense of humor. Terrorists needing a pilot's license in order to fly planes into buildings. Really. What a hoot.

[Ty]

[QUOTE=aikisaw;133744]

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Fred,

The situation is further compounded when it became clear to me that your intentions were deceitful I started to feed you false information. Within 24 hours for some extraordinary reason same false information appeared on www.aerospaceweb.org the scam disinformation website.

Having shot myself in the foot, I resolved the situation by calling RR tech in Derby and highlighting your scam disinformation website. I further confirmed this by fax. It does doesn’t it illustrate the seriousness of the situation. It’s highly unlikely that any engineer would refer to your www.aerospaceweb.org scam disinformation website however it is conceivable that perhaps someone in another part of the world with poorer English may refer to this website. I would ask that you reflect on this.

Fred

Did you feed EYO the false information on this forum?

Did you feed him the false information in private or another media?

Is it possible that false information was posted on the disinformation site by some one other than EYO?

EWO didn't post that site, I did. Any information posted on this forum, false or otherwise is available to the world. The only people who can change www.aerospaceweb.org are those authorized by www.aerospaceweb.org to do so.

In search engine parlance, a site's authority is generally equivalent to how many links there are to it from other sites. If you search for "links: www.aerospaceweb.org" in google it will return all the links to that site. At the time I write this it has 12,200, which indicates it is considered a reliable source of information by a lot of other sites. On page 3 of the results returned you'll find a reference to one of the links to the site posted in this thread.

[modwiz]

Post removed because of wrong thread placement.

[Ty]

Two different buildings with important incriminating financial documents or data wiped off the face of the Earth.

I've seen this claim before but haven't yet seen a credible source for it. Not saying there isn't one, but if there is would someone please provide it?

Jet, missile or a quantum booger are moot points of distraction

moot points of distraction? If you can't make your case based on a sound theory backed with reliable evidence then you have no case worth making.

Better than a thought experiment - take your suppositions to a forum of structural engineers and see what they say. You up for it? There's been a lot of wild accusations and unfounded/unsourced speculation in this thread. Anybody willing to put the rubber to the road so to speak and see what the professionals say or you all want to just cling to your assumptions?

[modwiz]

Post removed because of wrong thread placement.

[Fred259]

TY, we now know most of the events behind 9/11 including the names of those involved in this utter atrocity and in the fullness of time they will be exposed.

The reality is 9/11 is not only the destruction of buildings and the severe loss of like it’s about the destruction of the United States, a consequence you may have to live with for the rest of your life. You might want to reflect on that.

[Zook]

Good Evening Good Avalon.

Posted by Ty (here)
[...]
First, my intentions aren't deceitful. I have been up front with everything I've posted and included links to all sources. I do admit to one error in post 181 where I said that no witnesses had seen a military aircraft. That was wrong - an honest mistake that misrepresented the statement I made in two earlier posts - 159 & 162 where I accurately said "0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon." In post 181 I separated the two phrases, creating an error. Apologies all around.

As previously stated, I started looking at this thread at the recommendation of another member. I had my doubts to be sure but when something is labeled as "irrefutable proof" I figured it was worth a look. I went where the evidence led and documented that journey in numerous posts. Nothing deceitful about it. That I concluded that THE FLYOVER THEORY IS UTTER AND COMPLETE NONSENSE WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND MOUNTAINS TO DISPROVE IT doesn't make me deceitful. What has become apparent is that proponents and defenders of that theory don't know evidence from opinion or irrefutable proof from irrelevant and mistaken observations.

Is that undeceitful enough for you?
[...]

Mod Hat Off.

How many times does one need to be clocked before one admits to the paucity of one's analysis, Ty? Before one admits that what one has contributed here contains nothing of value to the discussion with respect to the facts?

I've clocked the counterargument against flyover in about a dozen different ways. But you never address those points. You and EWO ... continue to evade my specific analysis which includes irrefutable evidence such as Officer Legasse's witness testimony of the Northside approach of a jetliner ... which could not have been fabricated due to a few good reasons, not least being his own location at the back pump beneath the Citgo station's canopy which precludes him from seeing a Southside approach! Moreover, he is a government sympathetic witness ... who actually thought he was verifying the government's story, downed flagpoles and all. Watch the frippin' video, for crying out loud!! Officer Legasse also believes that the jetliner impacted the Pentagon, as do virtually all the Northside and Southside witnesses ... which just goes to show you the degree of legerdemain that was involved.

Legerdemain ... is what the flyover hypothesis is all about, Ty. Legerdemain is not voodoo. It is not fiction. It is about the sleight of hand. And anyone who argues that the sleight of hand has no bearing in the analysis ... fails to understand that it is precisely the sleight of hand that is being anlayzed ... at all four nodes of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

All witnesses believe there was an impact, including Roosevelt Roberts, who states that he saw a second jetliner leave the Pentagon parking lot about a dozen seconds or so after the huge explosion. However, there was only one jetliner involved (else the Southside witnesses - mostly in synch with the government's account - would have seen the second jetliner leave immediately, afterwards. But they have not testified to this possibility. So we can logically assume that only one jetliner was involved ... and because it was seen about a dozen or so seconds after the huge explosion ... that it could not have been the source of that explosion. End of story. Flyover hypothesis confirmed. Those who cannot reconcile this logical consequence of all the evidence and witness testimony ... are just not being honest. The only other possibility is that they are not right in the head. We'll leave it at that.

As for your issues with www.aerospaceweb.org I suggest you contact them if you have questions about updates to their site since only they can make them. Note, for the record, that what you post here to me is available to the world, not just to me. Note also, that I did attempt to contact them to let them know you were libeling them so they could respond if desired but I never heard back from them and it wasn't until after you report seeing changes to their site so I doubt that my attempted contact had anything to do with it.

Have a nice day Fred and don't lose your sense of humor. Terrorists needing a pilot's license in order to fly planes into buildings. Really. What a hoot.

You really must live in a world that has lost its intellectual and moral axes. I feel sorry for you, Ty, for there is nothing more gratifying than being in concert with the truth. And there is not a shred of truth in your argument.



ps: Did I mention the virtual confession of Llyod England, the taxicab driver ... near the end of the video? What more is there to pursue here, Ty?

ps2: (A)The CIT and PilotsForNineElevenTruth teams have both done masterful jobs in presenting and explaining the evidence, at the near end. (B) The websites that you and EWO cite, Ty, have done a masterful job at disinformation, at the far end. The truth lies in between these endpoints ... and virtually inseparable from endpoint (A).

ps3: Humble but informed opinions all around.

[modwiz]

Post removed because of wrong thread placement.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Ty (here)
EWO didn't post that site, I did. .

I wouldnt bother Ty. I already told him that 3 times.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

[QUOTE=Fred259;134357]

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Why are you so hostile? In this thread you have called me poisioness, a disinfo artist, hinted I am insane and now you are trying to publicly humilate me by saying I do not respect 9/11 family members. This is very upsetting for me as I actually WORK with some of the familiy members.
I cant belive you would use such a cheap shot
I stayed away from this thread for a while and now, a few posts in, you start name calling AGAIN.
Way out of line with that post. Reported.

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Way out of line with that post. Reported

No I respectfully disagree.
.

So you stand by your insults then.[COLOR="red"]

Fred, I want to know your reasons for attacking me and your reason for standing by your insults. As this was done publicly and more than once, I, in turn (and fairly I believe), would like a public apology.
Saying I have “no heart” and could not care less about the victims and family members has caused me a lot of hurt and to be honest is salting the wound you opened by saying I was “ spreading poison, a disinfo artist,” and hinting I am insane.

It has been suggested that we take this to PM but I don’t see why you should get away with a private apology for such a public attempt to smear me. Also, I have little faith that an aplogy would be forthcoming anyway as you have already stated you stick by your insults.

On 19th January 2011 in Post #149 you posted this;

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.

Here is your link of your post.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ide-Job!/page8

When I saw this I got excited thinking EYO has a radio show and if you recall I suggested that perhaps you might want to invite John Lear on your show, who would at least provide some balance and above all John is someone who knows what he is talking about.

Then in Post# 163 you posted this.

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.

So you will understand EYO that I felt a bit cheated , here you were inferring one thing when something quite the opposite was the case. Never mind mistakes happen.

I then decided to look through the documents’ you provided contained in the link. To my utter astonishment it was clear that the documents had been forged.

In the subsequent papers contained within your link it was clear someone had taking policy documents published around the early 1980’s by the FAA in Washington and the CAA in London, cutting and deleting the facts and inserting lies.

The matter related to the width of an airway or air corridor which ladies and gentleman is 10nm wide or 60,800 feet. However this factual information had been deleted and a figure 243 had been inserted. They didn’t say if it was feet meters or boiled eggs. Immediately I knew this was ludicrous and this was confirmed to me when turning the page of the document here was a picture of the world trade centre size 280feet next to an inserted image of an aircraft on the air corridor that according to them is now 243.

You will recall I asked you for an explanation about these forged documents, and asked that you remove them but you decided that it was in the public interest that they should read all these lies and then decide. I will give you full marks for the quality of presentation however.

So first you tell me you have a radio show which turns out to be incorrect and after reading your documents and found then to be forgeries who you forgive me for thinking that you were not who you purported to be.

In subsequent posts you suggested that John Lear was a fraud and that he didn’t know what he was talking about, and provided me with a link on the old forum.

As it happens I have the highest respect for John and so I decided to research the thread and this essentially involved a conversation between Henry Deacon and John Lear who were discussing a secret base contained within the Sea of Copernicus on the surface of the planet Moon. (the base had been airbrushed over on the photograph)

So while thousand around the world were reading in utter amazement, this crafted banter between two great masters in jumps EYO. We don't need to go into details suffice to say that the mod’s were left running around like headless chickens trying to find Bill.

So EYO whilst you do provide much entertainment I really do find that for me at least its unacceptable to forge or distribute government documents or elude you have a radio show or any knowledge or experience on discussions on Autopilots and so really I have nothing much more to say. It does seem to me that you would rather derail progress of the thread and I am personally very disappointed that John no longer blogs on the forum.

I am therefore unable to offer you the public apology you seek, and ask that you perhaps reflect on the reasons for my decision.

NB One of the problems with women is they always like to be in control! Furthermore they always seem to think they “are” right.

My wife thinks I am being very hard on you EYO.

Therefore it’s proper and right that you should have an apology, but will this correct the error of your ways.

I will therefore provide a full written public apology, when you remove the documents that are falsehoods and forged.

I think that’s a good deal.

F

I DID NOT POST THE AREOPSPACE SITE WHICH YOU SAY CONTAINS FAKE DOCUMENTS.
I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS 4 TIMES NOW.
SO THERFORE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ME TO DELETE ANYTHING.
THEREFORE, YOU HAVE NO REASON NOT TO POST AN APOLOGY.
*WAITS*
AFTER YOUR APOLOGY (WHICH I AM VERY GREATFUL FOR BY THE WAY) MAYBE THEN I WILL RE-ENGAGE WITH YOUR POINTS.

In the meantime, I look forward to your rebuttle of Tys points and your joining of the forum that Ty posted. Lets see if your ideas hold water. Or are they full of holes?
Will you post on that forum?
You seem certain of your convictions on this forum. Why should that foruim be different?
All you have to do is copy and paste your points to that forum. it shouldnt take you long.


Also, I supoose Richard Gage is a disinfo artist now and has been "taken in".
Well?
Or could it be, "gasp", that he actually thinks the flyover thoery is rubbish having looked into it himself.
I know crazy idea huh?

p.s. listen to your wife more.

[Icecold]

Truth doesn't matter one iota, its all about different realities and beliefs.

This fact is an enormous hindrance to the attempt to wake people up.

It will clearly not happen by explaining facts.

It will be enough that some have awoken. We should work with what is available.

It is no wonder that the forum has moved from a primary goal of awakening to a primary focus on using the resources available now.