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

[AlkaMyst]

Please people....EDUCATE YOURSELVES, take a look at the video below and understand that the ISRAELIS did this.

Ex Director of US Army War College States 'Military Know Israel Carried out 9/11 Attacks'

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

Blessings to All,
AlkaMyst.

[Teakai]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Yes this is possible on B767 aircraft.

I'm not sure what you're refering to here, Fred. Are you saying it is possible for the B767 to rise to miss the bridge and then make the sudden drop it would have to make in order to crash where it is said to have?

And, if it is what do you use to support this?

[Zook]

Posted by AlkaMyst (here)
Please people....EDUCATE YOURSELVES, take a look at the video below and understand that the ISRAELIS did this.
Ex Director of US Army War College States 'Military Know Israel Carried out 9/11 Attacks'
[...]
Blessings to All,
AlkaMyst.

Nice find, 'Myst.

I first saw this documentary a few months ago and it confirms that 9/11/2001 was an Inside Job and an Outside Job, e.g. in the sense that Israel runs the US government which is effectively a ZOG, a ROG, and a BOG ... Zionist-Rothschild-Bankster Occupied Governments. To complete the thought, the USG is not a JOG (Jewish-OG). Jews and Judaism are being used as human shields by the aforementioned triad of OGs and are not culpable for the actions of the triad.



ps: For those that have a time of it remembering who owns the US government, here's a mnemonic device. First stretch Zionist to Zionist Nation yielding ZNOG. From there, we have: ZNOG as a BOG in a ROG.

[AlkaMyst]

Thank you zook, but all credit must be given to StephenW11UK who actually found it!!!

AlkaMyst, may I take advantage of your post and ask ndroock1 if he'd like to watch the video linked-to below?

It's not the work of David Icke, but is very much in line with David's thinking; and, in this case, an understanding of 9/11 that most Avaloneans would not find it difficult to take seriously.

Here's the heading to the video: Ex Director of US Army War College States 'Military Know Israel Carried out 9/11 Attacks'

And the YouTube link:
US MILITARY KNOWS ISRAEL DID 911 MOSSAD OP !!! EVERYBODY KNOWS !!! SABROSKY

I will just give my own personal intake on this and I'll give it as a clue....please tell me what you think!

It really doesn't surprise me that the Israelis pulled this off and they may have had their reasons to do so.....

Who provided the most financial help to Hitler and the Nazis in WWII? (clue - Look into Prescott Bush) which in terms caused the genocide of millions of Jews and correct me if I'm wrong but those same powers are still currently in total control of the US today. Put 2 & 2 together and what do you get?......RETALIATION!!!

If no one knows what I'm talking about then please research my comments above fully and you will understand!!!

This is just my personal opinion but I may be wrong!!!

Blessings to All,
AlkaMyst!

[Zook]

Posted by 3optic (here)
Zook, what is wasted is an opportunity to engage someone in a rational conversation so that they can be of assistance in waking others up. Our friend Ty is making a sincere attempt at understanding the material through a highly skeptical prism. This is laudable. How is he expected to see if this shift in perception and consciousness has such a belligerent gate keeper?

I do love your posts, Zook. Can you respond to EYES WIDE OPEN? I'd find the ensuing dialogue useful for my own understanding.

Well ThreeOps, I hear you ... and don't necessarily disagree with you. First, I'm not a gatekeeper ... I don't believe in the gate-keeping paradigm. I'm a free thinker and free thinking neither imposes gates nor observes gates. I'm a fact finder and pit bull defender once I have the facts in my jaws, as it were. Second, while there is great wisdom in toning down to assist those on a sincere mission for facts; we've arrived at a point in time where time is of the essence. Reinventing the wheel of arguments for an Inside Job determination is not a luxury anymore ... it comes at the cost of other research. If 10 people look at the CIT video and 8 come away with a flyover hypothesis and/or Inside Job determination; 1 with a jetliner impact hypothesis; and 1 with an unresolved understanding ... well, IMO, that's eight rescued from abject ignorance; one stewing in wilful ignorance; and the other pendulating like a metronome on the fence between ignorance and knowledge. Meatloaf was happy with two out of three (67%). Why shouldn't I be happy with eight out of ten (80%)?

In short, time is of the essence ... and I'm not going to get greatly disjointed if I lose two and save eight. Humble opinions all around.



ps: That being said, I will address EWO's post after finishing with our friend, Ty. If he is sincere, I'll have saved nine.

[Fred259]

You are correct in all you say, it’s preposterous to suggest the military can take over any flight by remote control. I think he was meaning that the military took control of the two twin towers aircraft and flew them by remote control. This is possible as it’s a feature that was and is available on B767 aircraft only.

However I would suggest that the only aircraft that was ever used was the destruction of Egypt Air B767 Flight990 on 31 October 1999. This aircraft plunged from 39,000 into the Atlantic following an overspeed. This is unheard of within the industry, and many now think that those who were behind these criminal acts were in fact testing and probing the remote control capabilities and envelope of B767.

The air traffic controller responsible for Egypt Air 990 was Pete Zalewski.

Twenty three months later Pete Zalewski was back on duty controlling we are told the two aircraft that flew in the world trade centre.

However a number of very serious questions remain to be resolved. The government insists that the black boxes were never recovered. This is factually true. Its fact because the black boxes are, and still are fitted to the aircraft that were offered for lease by Mr Chowdry of Atlas Air Arizona in November 2003. When enquiries were made the aircraft disappeared.

The FAA, NTSB, FBI, MIT and even FEMA have agreed and published that the speeds of the aircraft that hit the south tower was in excess of 500knots. Yet Boeing the aircraft manufacturer advises that the Velocity Maximum Operating Speed (VMO) must not exceed 360 knots at any altitude for all B767 airframes. Above this speed the aircraft will start to self destruct. It’s also impossible for any commercial passenger transport aircraft to fly at 500knots or above at sea level, due to increased air density and the volumetric efficiency of the engines.

Photographs on the internet show a badly damaged engine located on a sidewalk on Murray Street Manhattan. This engine is a CFM56 gas turbine engine, which is not capable of lifting a B767. Furthermore the engine has no auxiliary gearbox, the consequences of which would mean that the engine had no AC generator oil or hydraulic pumps and as such was useless. It’s impossible to suggest that this engine was from a B767 even if it was complete.

Its very clear now that no aircraft ever left the ground and that the whole exercise was in fact carefully planned and executed on paper.

[Zook]

Posted by Ty (here)
Good man Zook. I respect someone willing to defend what they believe.

Good man Ty. I respect that you respect someone willing to defend what they believe. Though I would like to correct you on one not so trivial point: I am defending more than what I believe, I am defending the observable evidence (including the laws of physics).

[...]
Zook, if it were apples or jars of Vicks Vapo Rub that attacked the Pentagon those experiments may have merit

I believe that Galileo climbed a tower in Pisa once upon a leaning Monday (or was it Tuesday or Wednesday??) to demonstrate that the laws of free fall physics are the same for apples, Vicks VapoRubs, and massive jetliners. In any event, the vertical velocity needed to hurdle the stop sign is the same twice, at the same height, once going up and once coming down. In between, some valuable time must be spent. Time, alas, is the Achilles Heel in your supposition, for in that same time interval, horizontal velocity is acting and closing the gap between plane nose and Pentagon wall face.

As it stands, it is an airplane with ailerons and other mechanical whatnot that provide lift and drop. I'm not a pilot and I'm not claiming to know whether what Robert says he saw is aerodynamically possible, probable, improbable or impossible. I'm just following his account to a reasonable conclusion

Conclusion, yes. Reasonable? Well, let me just give you the mathematics and you decide.


beginTyExcerpt
But a 757-200 is 155 ft long with a 124 ft wingspan (shot 2) and superimposed to scale (forgive the crudeness) onto the google map (shot 3) it seems nearly impossible that a plane traveling 350 knots or more could have done anything but hit the building.

According to Robert it would have to be hugging the ground for him to lose sight of it. By the time the tail clears the knoll the nose can be no more than 361 ft from the Pentagon wall. So let's look at how much time the pilot had to avoid the building.

The speed of the plane was between 350 and 460 knots, the lower being the opinion of Terry Morin, the 2nd eyewitness, the higher being the officially reported speed. That equate to:

402 to 529 miles per hour (1 knot = 1.15077945 mph)
2,126,640 to 2,795,013.13 feet per hour (5,280 ft in a mile)
35,444 to 46,583 feet per minute (60 minutes in an hour)
591 to 776 feet per second (60 seconds in a minute)

With 361 feet between the nose of the plane and the building, that leaves between 1.64 to 2.15 seconds to maneuver and miss it.
You may be right, but it doesn't seem possible to me.
I'll continue through the vid as time allows and see if they have an explanation for this.
end


Let's begin by taking the low estimate of horizontal plane velocity, 591 ft/s. IOW, the best case scenario for your argument of plane impact and the worst case scenario for my argument of plane flyover. If there is 361 feet between nose and Pentagon at the time of stop sign hurdling, then we have t = x/V = 361/591 = 0.61 seconds to pull down again to match the attack profile as seen by the security-gate CCTV frames footage (released to the public after a FOI request). So, first of all, your calculation of time (1.64-2.15 seconds) is incorrect.

Now, average human reaction time is about 0.16 seconds according to this URL:
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/books/car_...tiontimer.html

Subtracting this from the available time of 0.61 seconds, we get (0.61 - 0.16) = 0.45 seconds. With higher speeds, this time decreases. Remember, the plane is lifting at this point over the stop sign; so it will have to max out in height and return to the stop sign height, before diving below the stop sign height to make impact with the Pentagon at approx. grass level (not to mention meeting the attack profile of the object seen in the CCTV footage, which means that the impact angle has to be approx. parallel to the ground and not at an angle that perhaps a kamikaze dive bomber might try) ... and all this in 0.45 seconds!!!
Three doors: Probable, Improbable, Impossible. Behind which door is the lady ... and which, the tiger?

Do I have you aboard the train of critical thinking yet? If so, this thread is over (at least between you and me) ... and you need to apologize to the documentarians. Again, you did not assail me or mine.

[...]
But the truth will win out in the end, providing that's the objective to start with. I'm glad you agree it's worth fighting for.

Indeed, the truth will win out.



ps: FWIW, if we take the high estimate for horizontal jetliner velocity (776 ft/s), we get only 0.31 seconds to dive and level out the jetliner before impact. Impossible.

ps2: Note that if the plane lifts and continues to rise beyond the stop sign, there is more than enough room to clear the height of the Pentagon (and disappear behind a fireball and not have Robert Turcios see anything but a fireball). Id est, the plane flyover is fully consistent with waht Robert Turcios witnessed that fateful morning in September of 2001.

ps3: Humble opinions all around. Now, if you'll excuse me, my good man Ty, I have to visit my good man, EWO.

[jaybee]

Posted by Kra (here)
I'm sorry but... jaybee you are deluded. Someone here had to say this but none would. You should know... these are not government's plans, government is just a tool. I'm not here to implicate myself in such debates, but this made me react.

Excuse me?

To disagree with me ....is one thing

to insult me in bolded type and THEN imply that you are somehow speaking for others as well...is out of order...IMO

I am still happy with my over-all package/ideas about 9/11

if I'm wrong I'm wrong...if I'm right I'm right...half wrong...half right ?

who can say for sure.


edit...have just taken a look at your posts and on the 22nd July 2010...you said

"I am free to say whatever i want as my opinions / theories or more, as long as i do it in a respectful way towards other members and i don't attack them ."


it would be nice if you would give me the same courtesy


.

[Kra]

Posted by jaybee (here)
Excuse me?
To disagree with me ....is one thing

I didn't see this as your opinion vs my opinion... this is about something else... about being blind maybe.

Posted by jaybee (here)
to insult me in bolded type and THEN imply that you are somehow speaking for others as well...is out of order...IMO

I didn't meant to imply that i am speaking for others. But i know many felt the same way when reading what you wrote, i just had the guts to say it.

[jaybee]

Posted by Kra (here)
I didn't see this as your opinion vs my opinion... this is about something else... about being blind maybe.

off you go again

I didn't meant to imply that i am speaking for others. But i know many felt the same way when reading what you wrote, i just had the guts to say it.

please see the edit on my previous post...thanks

[Kra]

Posted by jaybee (here)
edit...have just taken a look at your posts and on the 22nd July 2010...you said

"I am free to say whatever i want as my opinions / theories or more, as long as i do it in a respectful way towards other members and i don't attack them ."


it would be nice if you would give me the same courtesy


.

Yes you are right i've gone off road. I shouldn't have said it that way.

[Fred259]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Good man Ty. I respect that you respect someone willing to defend what they believe. Though I would like to correct you on one not so trivial point: I am defending more than what I believe, I am defending the observable evidence (including the laws of physics).



I believe that Galileo climbed a tower in Pisa once upon a leaning Monday (or was it Tuesday or Wednesday??) to demonstrate that the laws of free fall physics are the same for apples, Vicks VapoRubs, and massive jetliners. In any event, the vertical velocity needed to hurdle the stop sign is the same twice, at the same height, once going up and once coming down. In between, some valuable time must be spent. Time, alas, is the Achilles Heel in your supposition, for in that same time interval, horizontal velocity is acting and closing the gap between plane nose and Pentagon wall face.



Conclusion, yes. Reasonable? Well, let me just give you the mathematics and you decide.


beginTyExcerpt
But a 757-200 is 155 ft long with a 124 ft wingspan (shot 2) and superimposed to scale (forgive the crudeness) onto the google map (shot 3) it seems nearly impossible that a plane traveling 350 knots or more could have done anything but hit the building.

According to Robert it would have to be hugging the ground for him to lose sight of it. By the time the tail clears the knoll the nose can be no more than 361 ft from the Pentagon wall. So let's look at how much time the pilot had to avoid the building.

The speed of the plane was between 350 and 460 knots, the lower being the opinion of Terry Morin, the 2nd eyewitness, the higher being the officially reported speed. That equate to:

402 to 529 miles per hour (1 knot = 1.15077945 mph)
2,126,640 to 2,795,013.13 feet per hour (5,280 ft in a mile)
35,444 to 46,583 feet per minute (60 minutes in an hour)
591 to 776 feet per second (60 seconds in a minute)

With 361 feet between the nose of the plane and the building, that leaves between 1.64 to 2.15 seconds to maneuver and miss it.
You may be right, but it doesn't seem possible to me.
I'll continue through the vid as time allows and see if they have an explanation for this.
end


Let's begin by taking the low estimate of horizontal plane velocity, 591 ft/s. IOW, the best case scenario for your argument of plane impact and the worst case scenario for my argument of plane flyover. If there is 361 feet between nose and Pentagon at the time of stop sign hurdling, then we have t = x/V = 361/591 = 0.61 seconds to pull down again to match the attack profile as seen by the security-gate CCTV frames footage (released to the public after a FOI request). So, first of all, your calculation of time (1.64-2.15 seconds) is incorrect.

Now, average human reaction time is about 0.16 seconds according to this URL:
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/books/car_...tiontimer.html

Subtracting this from the available time of 0.61 seconds, we get (0.61 - 0.16) = 0.45 seconds. With higher speeds, this time decreases. Remember, the plane is lifting at this point over the stop sign; so it will have to max out in height and return to the stop sign height, before diving below the stop sign height to make impact with the Pentagon at approx. grass level (not to mention meeting the attack profile of the object seen in the CCTV footage, which means that the impact angle has to be approx. parallel to the ground and not at an angle that perhaps a kamikaze dive bomber might try) ... and all this in 0.45 seconds!!!
Three doors: Probable, Improbable, Impossible. Behind which door is the lady ... and which, the tiger?

Do I have you aboard the train of critical thinking yet? If so, this thread is over (at least between you and me) ... and you need to apologize to the documentarians. Again, you did not assail me or mine.



Indeed, the truth will win out.



ps: FWIW, if we take the high estimate for horizontal jetliner velocity (776 ft/s), we get only 0.31 seconds to dive and level out the jetliner before impact. Impossible.

ps2: Note that if the plane lifts and continues to rise beyond the stop sign, there is more than enough room to clear the height of the Pentagon (and disappear behind a fireball and not have Robert Turcios see anything but a fireball). Id est, the plane flyover is fully consistent with waht Robert Turcios witnessed that fateful morning in September of 2001.

ps3: Humble opinions all around. Now, if you'll excuse me, my good man Ty, I have to visit my good man, EWO.

These figures are correct and prove that something is wrong, namely the speeds are ridiculous. None of these speeds are remotely possible at ground level. Try 180 to 220 knots max.

Engine power lag in gas turbines is very significant and it can be 5-7 seconds after the application of a power change before that change takes effect. The Arlington worker confirmed this by saying he felt heat from the engines. The power went on before the aircraft passed over the worker.

The aircraft was dangerously low, lots of noise massive trailing edge vortices and wake as it passed over, a C-130 four engine turboprop adding to the confusion, 757 lifts over the Pentagon, massive explosion in Rumsfeld’s missing 2 trillion filing room, with the only photograph of this explosion a low level image coming from the petrol station with the 757 out of frame.

Clever, but as you say the truth will come out.

[Zook]

Good Morning Good Avalon Good EWO ... the Earth says hello!

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
This thread leaves me dismayed. The Citizens investigation team are known within the truth movement as building their cases on flimsy evidence and ignoring those that point out problems with their theories. Please do not just watch it and take it at face value. Do some of your own research. You will soon discover the problems within the documentary.

When I first discovered the CIT video, I watched it more than once to verify for myself that everything was on the level (scientifically and intellectually). Was not disappointed. It was and is a gem of a documentary! So it is with great dismay that I find myself after having read your post here, EWO. For you have chosen to slander the efforts of genuine truthseekers (e.g. the CIT team) and, equally, support an abundantly evidenced disinformation stooge like Franke Legge (and his sidekick, Stutt).

A new paper on this very subject came out last week:
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf

The article you link is one of the seven or eight shifting peer-reviewed versions of a hit-piece on the CIT-investigative video ... authored by Batman Frank Legge (and Robin). Question begs, if the first version was properly peer-reviewed and published, then why are there seven or eight peer-reviewed versions? Ans: the JournalOfNineElevenStudies (eg. JONES) has lost its mission.

There are good articles there, but apparently JONES has been infiltrated and is now being steered away from its original charter. Hate to say it, but Stephen Jones - unless and until he answers the email put to him by Craig Ranke of CIT, where Ranke eloquently, intellectually, meticulously dissects Legge's arguments and returns Legge's prevarications and posturings on a silver plate for all to eat - unless Stephen Jones addresses why this pseudoscientific charlatan has been allowed to publish a lie-imbued barge of bunk on the JONES website ... then I'm afraid, that Stephen Jones sets himself up for discreditation. I'm going to give Jones the benefit of doubt for now and assume that he has been tricked into publishing Legge's poor excuse for a scientific paper. But the clock is ticking, Mr. Jones ... truthseekers are far less patient today than when they outed James Fetzger out as a disinformation donkey a few years ago. It would be a shame really to lose Mr. Jones from the class of Truthseekers. I really like him. So I'm hoping that he has been misled. I'll leave it at that. FWIW, David Ray Griffin fully endorses the CIT-video, along with notable others.

Please also read this:
It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.
[...]

Indeed.

EWO, I'm going to give you (and Avalonians) a chance to study this most excellent discussion at the CIT website before I weigh in further. The discussion clearly establishes who is promoting the lies and foolish suppositions and who is pursuing the truth: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index...&#entry2376511

Hopefully, after you read the thread discussion at the above link, there won't be any need for me to delve into the rest of your post here. I trust you have the decency and integrity to see Frank Legge for what he is (a disinformation agent) ... and also to see Craig Ranke for who he is (a genuine truthseeker).



ps: FWIW, I find the notion of Truth Movement to be specious. Truth doesn't move; it stays put. It is we who have to move towards the truth and establish it where it stands. To that end, I propose the notion of Truth Establishment. There is the truth establishment ... and the truth disestablishment. Frank Legge is a truth disestablishment agent. Craig Ranke is a truth establishment seeker.

ps2: Humble opinions all around.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

It is not slander. It is personal opinion backed by facts. You must know the difference. I will address your other points later.

[Ty]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Good man Ty. I respect that you respect someone willing to defend what they believe. Though I would like to correct you on one not so trivial point: I am defending more than what I believe, I am defending the observable evidence (including the laws of physics).

Good morning Zook,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I had to get some work done. Oh to be independently wealthy.

In any event, the vertical velocity needed to hurdle the stop sign is the same *twice*, at the same height, once going up and once coming down. In between, some valuable time must be spent. Time, alas, is the Achilles Heel in your supposition, for in that same time interval, *horizontal velocity is acting and closing the gap* between plane nose and Pentagon wall face.

This may be true but it is based on an interpretation of what Robert said that may be incorrect. More below on this.

Conclusion, yes. Reasonable? Well, let me just give you the mathematics and you decide.

Good catch on the math. Believe it or not I'm usually pretty good at math and careful about such things. Must have gotten caught up in all the excitement.

As to reasonable, I'll say this. My account is better aligned with Robert's testimony.

I'll attempt to tie this together into a reasonable scenario incoporating Fred's knowledge about gas turbine engines.

Posted by Fred259 (here)
These figures are correct and prove that something is wrong, namely the speeds are ridiculous. None of these speeds are remotely possible at ground level. Try 180 to 220 knots max.

Your scenario: Robert sees the plane lift up to clear the stop sign (ftr, it was a Do Not Enter sign) and continues flying up to clear the Pentagon, obscured from Robert's view by the fireball.

My scenario: The plane is descending and when Robert says "lifts up" he is describing a change in the descent path. The plane goes out of view beyond the knoll and crashes into the Pentagon, creating the fireball.

Each scenario is plausible. I feel that mine is a better fit with Robert's account, especially when coupled with other evidence.

I don't know if the speed of the plane is important at this point but if it is descending to and not travelling at ground level, what restrictions does that put on it's speed Fred?

The video at http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...flight77-1.mpg (sorry - couldn't find an easy way to embed) is all but worthless for clarifying what hit the Pentagon or it's trajectory. But it does, I think, add weight to my scenario.

If the plane flew over the Pentagon, it was not a near miss or it would have appeared in this video in one frame or more, like the object seen in one frame or so just before the explosion shown here.



But no such object appears in this footage. At least if it does I can't find it and I've looked as close to frame by frame as I could.

So if the plane passed over the Pentagon it was high enough that it would be unlikely to be obscured to the extent that Robert couldnt' see it.

Here is Robert's account again:

23:15 Robert: "I could not see when it hit the Pentagon - all I saw was it headed straight to it and uh then the big explosion, the fireball and lots of smoke."

Interviewer: "OK. Did you see it actually ahh.... you didn't see it hit the Pentagon?"

Robert: "No - the view was obstructed I could only see the fireball."

This last sentence "implies" that Robert is saying that he couldn't see the plane hit the Pentagon because the view was obstructed but he saw the resulting fireball. Granted there are other interpretations as your scenario implies.

It turns out, though that the video you posted contains abbreviated interviews. Extended interviews are available in a supplelmental video at http://www.citizeninvestigationteam....pentaconsgv.ht.

In this video Robert confirms the plane was descending...

21:18 Robert: I was looking around and I saw the airplane come down here over the trees.

And suprisingly at 24:06 the following exchange occurs:

Robert: It swooped down here and I tried to follow it and I saw it lift up a little bit to get over to the side of the bridge.

Interviewer: to the side of the bridge...

Robert: Yes where you see the Do Not Enter sign

Intervierwer: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?

Robert (somewhat surpised by the question): Flyover the Pentagon? No the only thing I saw was when it was a direct line to go into the Pentagon [at this point the interviewer speaks and I can't make out what Robert says until the word "collided."]

Note that Robert didn't say it was heading over the Pentagon, but in a direct line to go into it.

I didn't watch all of this supplemental video but starting at about 1:15:00 they begin to discuss other options and say there is no evidence of a missile. At 1:16:00 or so they start talking about the cab driver and the light poles and state that the cab driver claims the light pole speared his windshield after being hit by a plane travelling 500 mph.

I intend to do further research. In the meantime, here are three questions you and others can ponder. I'd be interested in the answers anyone cares to give.

1. If there was no evidence of a missile then what is it that looks like the nose of a plane in the judicial watch video and where else did it come from?
   
2. If the plane passed over the Pentagon before the fireball then how did the fireball obstruct Robert's view of the flyover?
   
3. If the plane passed over the Pentagon after the fireball then how did Robert not see it fly right through the fireball?

Either way, he would have seen the plane in the air at the time of the explosion and only then would the fireball potentially have blocked his view of it. And that isn't consistent with his account.

So for now, I stand by my scenario and find yours inconsistent with the evidence and therefore less reasonable. Cheers Zook. The Earth wishes you a happy weekend.

[Teakai]

Hi Ty - just to say - if that still is from the one released by the officials - it is very likely that all evidence of any plane has been removed.

Also, people witnessing certain traumatic events, do not always have clear recall of what happened and would be affected by hindsight. That's just human nature. Robert may well have looked surpised when asked about the plane, because he truly didn't remember seeing it hit the building, yet there was an explosion - so it must have - this part confuses him - and no wonder.

It would be safe to say that if a misile (who says it wasn't a missile?) or some energy directed weapon was released from the plane it would hit the building at roughly the same time as the plane flew over the building or just before. One's attention would be directed to the explosion and the assumption made that the plane had hit the building.

However, the maths utterly, beyond a doubt establishes that the plane simply couldn't have done it - so that option is wiped off the board.

Just to say - I can see how you might be suspicious of the story based soley on that interview, because, unless one does the maths it may pass as plausible. And generally, people don't do the math - they just take things at face value and trust that it's right. People still trust their government - and the news.
And, I guess, until one realises that their government and the news is not kosher, will they begin to question the legitimacy of what they're officially told.

I think the energy spent on debating these small points about what Robert thought he saw, or didn't would have been better spent first looking at the bigger picture so that one's view was clearer and one's mind more open.
You either want to to know the truth - or you want to argue the small irrelevant points, how you spend your time is your choice entirely, but, like Zook said, time is running out.

[Fred259]

The aircraft is limited to 180 kts with two stages of flap.

The Arlington witness said he watched the aircraft for around 10 seconds so a speed of 180kts is 3nm/min or 18,240 feet / min so 18240/60 seconds=304 feet per second, so 10 seconds that the witness watched the aircraft would see it travel 3000feet or ½ mile. This looks about right from the video. If this was an airport at ½ mile aircraft would be at 150feet, but given he had no intention in landing go around power would need to be set immediately (remember the witness said he felt the heat) or it would hit the ground for real. The power is needed to arrest the rate of descent due to inertia / velocity, but even with go around power set, the aircraft would still sink to around 70ft above the ground till such time that the new power exceeded the weight and inertia. Madness

[Fred259]

Posted by Teakai (here)
Hi Ty - just to say - if that still is from the one released by the officials - it is very likely that all evidence of any plane has been removed.

Also, people witnessing certain traumatic events, do not always have clear recall of what happened and would be affected by hindsight. That's just human nature. Robert may well have looked surpised when asked about the plane, because he truly didn't remember seeing it hit the building, yet there was an explosion - so it must have - this part confuses him - and no wonder.

It would be safe to say that if a misile (who says it wasn't a missile?) or some energy directed weapon was released from the plane it would hit the building at roughly the same time as the plane flew over the building or just before. One's attention would be directed to the explosion and the assumption made that the plane had hit the building.

However, the maths utterly, beyond a doubt establishes that the plane simply couldn't have done it - so that option is wiped off the board.

Just to say - I can see how you might be suspicious of the story based soley on that interview, because, unless one does the maths it may pass as plausible. And generally, people don't do the math - they just take things at face value and trust that it's right. People still trust their government - and the news.
And, I guess, until one realises that their government and the news is not kosher, will they begin to question the legitimacy of what they're officially told.

I think the energy spent on debating these small points about what Robert thought he saw, or didn't would have been better spent first looking at the bigger picture so that one's view was clearer and one's mind more open.
You either want to to know the truth - or you want to argue the small irrelevant points, how you spend your time is your choice entirely, but, like Zook said, time is running out.

Absolutely

The bit that made me laugh, was when the Director of Rolls Royce in the US visited the Pentagon said “ I am not familiar with that engine” meaning that’s not one of our engines!

[Fred259]

These are the WTC engines, do you notice anything wrong!


This is the engine that was found on the sidewalk by WTC2, but this engine doesn’t even power a B767. As this report rightly says it’s a CFM 56 engine used in smaller aircraft.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/911_19_Arabs.htm


This is a naked GE CF6 B767 engine
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28042007@N07/3233629385/



This is the CF6 engine that powered the 767, note the size of the truck
http://www.flickr.com/photos/75061930@N00/4706011830/


They just make it up as they go along, they just say anything.

[NoTingles]

What about the "downed" light poles in the "official" version of the flight path that were trucked in from somewhere else and placed on the set, but had damage consistent with being sheared off by an automobile rather than an aircraft? Hmmmmm...I smell cover-up! Oh, and what about the eyewitnesses who said the plane was coming in low and slow? No one said anything about 400 or 500 knots. The damage we see that penetrated nearly through the building would not be consistent with a LARGE, SOFT 757 with an approach speed of perhaps 200 knots. It IS consistent with damage a missile would cause, especially one with a heavy armored casing. Ah, but Americans don't want to believe what any Russian experts have to say about the issue, even if they know that the Russian made Granit is the only missile in the world that could fit the bill. I'll just say I am extremely grateful the 500K ton nuke warhead failed to detonate.
Now some here continue to doggedly insist that Flight 77 was responsible for the damage, but WHERE is the the wreckage and don't point me to a few scraps scattered around, because that is hog wash. Even the only video bone they threw us didn't show an airplane coming into the frame. Something did though, but it was traveling at about Mach 1.5 and we couldn't get a good image of it...just a blur. The plane purported to be flight 77 put on full power and flew over the cuckoo's nest, then away to some undisclosed location. The security guard at the loading dock who saw it fly over stated that he could hear it putting on power, right after the explosion took place. That seems pretty clear to me even if he thought it must have been a second plane, which none of the other witnesses made a mention of.
I think there are some debunkers, here and elsewhere on the internet who just enjoy being a bur under someone's saddle blanket, they enjoy stirring the pot just to see it boil, but they don't offer anything to put into the soup- they focus only on tearing down the view that differs with the officially sanctioned one, and in my book that makes them questionable. Might even be a troll. My thanks to Zook for posting that video- good on ya!

What really makes me angry is that there were thousands of innocent people who were murdered on that day. Niggling over small, semantic points diminishes that, yet it should never be forgotten what happened to our fellow citizens. And the only way the official version of events will hold water is if you wish away all the holes in it. It's not unpatriotic to question the motives of the government of your country, especially when that government has been proven in declassified documents to have engaged in false flags numerous times before. And each time they do it, thousands of people are murdered, and as far as I'm concerned, they were murdered in cold blood. It is not the government's place to make decisions in carrying out black ops that involve "acceptable losses" of the citizens they are sworn to protect. So why would you think it unpatriotic to point out when wrong doing is taking place. Seems to me, that's what the patriot is supposed to do. I'm angry, but I'm going to nip this rant in the bud. Thanks again Zook.