900 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 07 December 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Well well... 7 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact, precisely when and where the alleged Flight 77 passed overhead, there is planned a CIA exercie which depicts a civilian airliner, also from Dulles, crashing into a government building.  Is the potential (it doesn’t matter whether this potential was realised or not) to clash with and disrupt real world events not obvious?  As I said, even the NORAD hijacking exercise was being referenced by controllers near 30 minutes after its cancellation – of course there are potential and meaningful consequences to it; the doubt and delay in thought-processes alone are a factor.

I ask you a simple question - to put an estimated probability on the occurrence of that planned CIA exercise coinciding as it did with real world events, even said I would not argue with the figure you produced.  And that is your answer... random namings, lottery millionaires, anything but a straightforward answer to the question.  Take a guess – it doesn’t have to be precise, it doesn’t have to be factual, I’m only trying to determine what you think is reasonable.  100 plane crashes, how many do you guess would correspond to the time and place of a comparable exercie?  Use the list of exercises we have on record to help.  Perhaps you think 50%, 75% or 100%; such “incredible coincidences” occur in every instant?  Then say so.  I’m not even saying this is important on its own - this was intended to be only the first part of what I was building to – and it would eventually demonstrate 1) the unlikelihood of the Pentagon event in context of the official story and 2) the certainty of the Pentagon event in context of a false flag operation.

Here's my totally bs calculation, heavily biased in your favor, I'll try to look at it from your 'could be' perspective here.  Let's look at what are the chances of this exercise being at the specific time and involving these characteristics, if it was random.  Let's say the exercise could have been planned for any day in two years, excluding Sundays and the plethora of federal holidays, and round to an even 600 random days to choose from.  Let's say that the exercise could happen at any time within 12 hours of each day, I hope excluding a night exercise is reasonable.  I'm a little shaky on this step, but let's say you'll count anything within 5 minutes of the exercise start time, so this gives us a 10 minute window around the attack time, so for simplicity and total invalidity's sake, we'll say there's a one in 6 chance of being 'precise' on the minute of the time if the attack nailed the day and hour.  Now they were testing the emergency response with this exercise I believe; despite your 'maybes' there doesn't appear to be really much relevance to it being specifically a plane crash, it doesn't look like air traffic control or again whatever functions NRO was doing or was supposed to be doing on 9/11 was the goal of the exercise, it seems to be mostly dealing with building evacuation. This is a bad thing for you in that it reduces the significance of this coincidence as any disruption, actual or reasonably expected, to relevant NRO functions is speculation based on what has been provided, but it's a good thing in this analysis as it's another coincidence.  So this adds another variable, so let's say there are a total of 5 'catastrophes' (fire, bomb, asteroid, etc) that could have been used as background.  And since you mentioned it, since they chose plane crash, let's say they could have chosen one of five major eastern US airports randomly for this scenario.

So based on that abomination of a probability calculation, with almost every single variable tilted in favor of the 'false flag' scenario and including all kinds of errors and bad assumptions about variable independence, I come up with 1 in 1.08 million of the event planner just randomly coming up with a scenario that mirrored the actual Pentagon attack.  With a measurement error varying from many hundreds to thousands of a percent, and is a number that is for entertainment purposes only, I do not have faith in the accuracy of my calculation.  1 in a million, 1 in a 100 thousand, 1 in 10 thousand, regardless, it's your turn (actually, it's been your turn, this is your argument, but hey, happy early holidays!), you can start building now.  You can start by explaining why given the vast number of connections available, let alone the latitude you allow when designating a 'hit', that you are startled that something, or somethings even, that had a chance of one in a million at very best of occurring actually occurred.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 12 December 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

I come up with 1 in 1.08 million of the event planner just randomly coming up with a scenario that mirrored the actual Pentagon attack.

Thank you.

Or in terms of a percentage, approximately 0.0001%

Next (this one should be more straightforward)...

At the time of 9/11, the Pentagon was in the midst of a major renovation program (scheduled 1999 - 2010) with work to add steel-reinforcement, blast-resistant windows and fire safety measures.  This work was to be carried out in five stages to each 'wedge' of the building.  By 9/11, work to the first 'wedge' was essentially complete.  What is the probability of the aircraft then impacting that one completed segment, thus limiting damage to the building and loss of life?

I’m talking about this: -

Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot

...

But the renovation--estimated to end up costing more than $1 billion--is still less than one-fifth complete.

...

But the video also showed how much worse the damage could have been.

American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

"This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse," Evey said. "The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift."

The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well.

http://articles.lati...6/news/mn-46435

Here we have a “wonderful gift” to add to the prior “incredible coincidence”.

Of all the aircraft, departure airports and flightpaths that could have been chosen, the terrorist plan culminated to impact this one altered part of the building that would cause the least damage.

Can we agree this has a 20% (one in five) chance of occurrence in context of the official story?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

At the time of 9/11, the Pentagon was in the midst of a major renovation program (scheduled 1999 - 2010) with work to add steel-reinforcement, blast-resistant windows and fire safety measures.  This work was to be carried out in five stages to each 'wedge' of the building.  By 9/11, work to the first 'wedge' was essentially complete.  What is the probability of the aircraft then impacting that one completed segment, thus limiting damage to the building and loss of life?

Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot

Least vulnerable? The terrorist pilot fire-walled the throttles to max power in order to slam the airliner into the Pentagon at over 500 mph! That doesn't sound like he wanted to minimize damage by any means. What was the final cost in repairs?




You might want to considering the direction from where American 77 approached and add that even the loss of one life is one life too many. The approach was not indicative of an approach flown by an experienced military pilot nor was the approach practical in military terms especially when a straight-forward diving attack would have been appropriate rather than flying the final course of a mission through a forest of light poles and other obstacles after conducting an unnecessary overheard turning manuever.

You have to understand that American Airlines confirmed the B-757 was its aircraft and I even posted its fleet history to make that point very clear.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 December 2012 - 06:16 AM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

Least vulnerable?

Yes, the Pentagon was impacted in the one area that had experienced structural reinforcement.

Did you really need to open with such a pointless question after my last post?

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

What was the final cost in repairs?

Less than it would have been had the aircraft impacted any other segment.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

The approach was not indicative of an approach flown by an experienced military pilot nor was the approach practical in military terms especially when a straight-forward diving attack would have been appropriate rather than flying the final course of a mission through a forest of light poles and other obstacles after conducting an unnecessary overheard turning manuever.

The approach of the alleged Flight 77 was consistent with the Wide Area Augmentation System which became available in 2000.

http://www.journalof...emsMonaghan.pdf

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

You have to understand that American Airlines confirmed the B-757 was its aircraft and I even posted its fleet history to make that point very clear.

I don’t give a monkey’s what American Airlines ‘confirmed’ without a check of the physical debris.  You must understand that it’s frankly ridiculous you put forward anyone’s assumption, including American Airlines', as ‘proof’ of identification.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

Thank you.

Or in terms of a percentage, approximately 0.0001%

Next (this one should be more straightforward)...

At the time of 9/11, the Pentagon was in the midst of a major renovation program (scheduled 1999 - 2010) with work to add steel-reinforcement, blast-resistant windows and fire safety measures.  This work was to be carried out in five stages to each 'wedge' of the building.  By 9/11, work to the first 'wedge' was essentially complete.  What is the probability of the aircraft then impacting that one completed segment, thus limiting damage to the building and loss of life?

I’m talking about this: -

Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot

...

But the renovation--estimated to end up costing more than $1 billion--is still less than one-fifth complete.

...

But the video also showed how much worse the damage could have been.

American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

"This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse," Evey said. "The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift."

The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well.

http://articles.lati...6/news/mn-46435

Here we have a “wonderful gift” to add to the prior “incredible coincidence”.

Of all the aircraft, departure airports and flightpaths that could have been chosen, the terrorist plan culminated to impact this one altered part of the building that would cause the least damage.

Can we agree this has a 20% (one in five) chance of occurrence in context of the official story?

I think a little research into the company in charge of this project is in order too.  I think it was British?

[RaptorBites]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

I don’t give a monkey’s what American Airlines ‘confirmed’ without a check of the physical debris.  You must understand that it’s frankly ridiculous you put forward anyone’s assumption, including American Airlines', as ‘proof’ of identification.

The problem here is that assuming the plane that struck the Pentagon was NOT AA77, then why in the world would AA even claim a loss?  It is their plane, they would want to know what happened to their now missing plane.  

The fact that radar had tracked 77 from take off to crash at the Pentagon is, in itself a large possibility the plane was inevitably flight 77.

[Q24]

RaptorBites, on 13 December 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

The problem here is that assuming the plane that struck the Pentagon was NOT AA77, then why in the world would AA even claim a loss?  It is their plane, they would want to know what happened to their now missing plane.  

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss.  Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.

RaptorBites, on 13 December 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

The fact that radar had tracked 77 from take off to crash at the Pentagon is, in itself a large possibility the plane was inevitably flight 77.

That is not my understanding by far.  I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77.  I’ll dig out the sources if you need them.  Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight.  Perhaps you have different radar data to anything I’ve seen?  But I doubt it.

Not that it ultimately matters – radar is simple to fool.  We needed a physical investigation on the plane debris.  Anything less is insufficient as proof.

[RaptorBites]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

That is not my understanding by far.  I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77.  I’ll dig out the sources if you need them.  Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight.  Perhaps you have different radar data to anything I’ve seen?  But I doubt it.

Not that it ultimately matters – radar is simple to fool.  We needed a physical investigation on the plane debris.  Anything less is insufficient as proof.

I concede my statement, having looked over the radar information, there was a 9 minute gap in which there was radar blackout.  The radar data I was looking at was a reconstruction based on the FDR data.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Yes, the Pentagon was impacted in the one area that had experienced structural reinforcement.

What difference does that make?

Quote

Less than it would have been had the aircraft impacted any other segment.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! If the Hani wanted to minimized damage he wouldn't have struck the Pentagon in the first place, much less, fire-wall the throttles to max power in order to strike the Pentagon at over 500 mph! That doesn't sound like a technique to use in order to minimize damage to a particular structure.

Quote

I don’t give a monkey’s what American Airlines ‘confirmed’ without a check of the physical debris.

You should!! After all, the B-757 belonged to American Airlines, operator of American 77.

Quote

You must understand that it’s frankly ridiculous you put forward anyone’s assumption, including American Airlines', as ‘proof’ of identification.

I don't think you heard me straight before.

Each part of an aircraft has part and/or serial numbers stamped on them and from those numbers, each part of the airframe can be identified using the aircraft technical manual and ordering system. I kept part and serial numbers on record of each airframe and engine component my workers handled and from each of those numbers, I could have tracked every aircraft those components were installed to anywhere in the world and identify the mechanics who installed those parts and the date those parts were installed.

It is very clear to me that you do not possess to knowledge needed to even know what you are talking about.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

The approach of the alleged Flight 77 was consistent with the Wide Area Augmentation System which became available in 2000.

http://www.journalof...emsMonaghan.pdf

Do you even understand what you have posted? Once again, you have allowed yourself to be duped by that article. Did you even know that in some cases, pilots allow the airliners to control themselves? In case you didn't know, such technology is old news

Quote

http://articles.lati...6/news/mn-46435

From  your own link:

Quote

In addition to the 64 people killed aboard the plane, 125 civilians and military personnel died from the impact and resulting inferno.
But the renovation--estimated to end up costing more than $1 billion--is still less than one-fifth complete. On top of that, it will cost at least $300 million to repair the damage from the attack, officials estimate. If plans for the remodeling go forward on schedule, it won't be done until 2014.

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss.  Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.

That is moot! You don't understand how the tracking process works in the world of aviation.

Quote

That is not my understanding by far.  I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77.  I’ll dig out the sources if you need them.  Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight.

In the article you posted, it said that 64 people were killed aboard the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, which clearly shows no switch occurred by any means. In the documentary shown the other day, even though the transponder was tampered with, only Information pertaining to that aircraft had disappeared from the radar screen, but the radar return from the aircraft remained on the screen despite what 9/11 conspiracist have mistakenly claimed.

As I have stated many times in the past turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar. In fact, birds do not have transponders and yet, they can be detected on radar as well. 9/11 conspiracist got this false notion into thinking that turning off a transponder will make an aircraft disappear off the radar screen, but that is not the case.  What does happen is that information on the original target disappears and the aircraft gets lost among many other airborne radar targets, which makes it extremely difficult to track.

Remember, the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 December 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

There is no problem - it makes no difference to American Airlines’ claim; they are a plane down whatever the circumstances of the loss.

And the only B-757 of American Airlines that crashed that day was American 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

Quote

Their assumption that the aircraft ended at the Pentagon ticked all the politically correct boxes, but without a physical check of the debris it is only that, assumption.

Are you implying that American Airlines did not know that the B-757 that crashed at the Pentagon was its own? It is peculiar that you would say such a thing when American Airlines, along with the Boeing Co., sent the required information to investigators that pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77.

What it is, you do not possessed the needed knowledge to understand how things work in the real world of aviation.

Quote

That is not my understanding by far.  I’m under the impression there was actually a large gap (a complete blackout during a period of the alleged flight path) in the radar tracking of Flight 77.  I’ll dig out the sources if you need them.  Of all the 9/11 planes, this one had most opportunity for an undetected switch in flight.

Another misconception on your part because you do not possess the needed knowledge to understand what you are saying. What have I said about the B-757 not being a stealthy aircraft and what have I said about ATC radars with the ability to track birds, which do not carry transponders? Did ATC notify the C-130 pilot to track a target headed its way, which was identified by the C-130 pilot as a B-757? It shows that ATC was in fact, tracking American 77 toward the Pentagon.

Please explain to us in detail, how non-stealthy aircraft, whether squawking or not, can be switched in flight?

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 December 2012 - 11:52 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Quote

Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service. He never imagined it would be inside the Pentagon. One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it, the urban search-and-rescue specialist found a gruesome sight.

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

http://usatoday30.us...n-usat.htm#more

Why would anyone suggest that American 77 was switched in flight and not account for passengers and crew of that aircraft?

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 December 2012 - 12:14 AM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

What difference does that make?

The difference that the one reinforced segment of the Pentagon made was in reducing damage and loss of life in the impact compared to a non-reinforced area.  That was already made clear in my post #827 just above.  Why ask a question that has clearly already been answered?

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! If the Hani wanted to minimized damage he wouldn't have struck the Pentagon in the first place, much less, fire-wall the throttles to max power in order to strike the Pentagon at over 500 mph! That doesn't sound like a technique to use in order to minimize damage to a particular structure.

Of course what I said makes sense – had the aircraft impacted the non-reinforced area, the damage and loss of life would have been greater.  What are you finding difficult to process about this?  It’s a very simple point to which you are responding with inane questions and statements.

Also, the perpetrators would want the attack, and features therein, to be genuine, firstly to provide the pretext for their longstanding geopolitical aims and secondly to test effectiveness of the Pentagon reinforcement works.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

You should!! After all, the B-757 belonged to American Airlines, operator of American 77.

No, I don’t give a monkey’s what you or American Airlines assume here without a check of the physical debris.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

I don't think you heard me straight before.

Each part of an aircraft has part and/or serial numbers stamped on them and from those numbers, each part of the airframe can be identified using the aircraft technical manual and ordering system. I kept part and serial numbers on record of each airframe and engine component my workers handled and from each of those numbers, I could have tracked every aircraft those components were installed to anywhere in the world and identify the mechanics who installed those parts and the date those parts were installed.

It is very clear to me that you do not possess to knowledge needed to even know what you are talking about.

I could swear because we have been over this half a dozen times already, we come to the same conclusion every time, and then you later repeat the same thing every time.  It’s simple.  For all the above the issue is this: you, nor anyone else, have ever inspected the debris to carry out such an identification.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Do you even understand what you have posted? Once again, you have allowed yourself to be duped by that article. Did you even know that in some cases, pilots allow the airliners to control themselves? In case you didn't know, such technology is old news

That demonstrates my understanding incorrect, how?  If anything, congratulations, your comments back up the potential for remote guided flight.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story.

This, and the link excerpt you quoted, has no bearing whatsoever on my text you were responding to about WAAS.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

That is moot! You don't understand how the tracking process works in the world of aviation.

Yes I do understand how the tracking/identification process works ‘in the world of aviation’.  In particular, in air crash investigation the process is generally through the record of part serial number which you described above.  However, disturbingly this process was never carried out by you, nor anyone else, in the case of the alleged Flight 77, nor any of the 9/11 aircraft.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

In the documentary shown the other day, even though the transponder was tampered with, only Information pertaining to that aircraft had disappeared from the radar screen, but the radar return from the aircraft remained on the screen despite what 9/11 conspiracist have mistakenly claimed.

As I have stated many times in the past turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar. In fact, birds do not have transponders and yet, they can be detected on radar as well. 9/11 conspiracist got this false notion into thinking that turning off a transponder will make an aircraft disappear off the radar screen, but that is not the case.  What does happen is that information on the original target disappears and the aircraft gets lost among many other airborne radar targets, which makes it extremely difficult to track.

Remember, the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft.

Showing your extensive lack of knowledge on the subject, skyeagle.  You should take a leaf from the book of RaptorBites who had the sense and decency to research what I said.  The fact is that Flight 77 did disappear from both primary and secondary radar screens during flight – for a period, there was no radar return whatsoever.  All references thereafter from official sources on the day (ATC, the Secret Service, PEOC) concern an unidentified aircraft – and the lack of physical identification, to the skeptic, means that is what it has remained to the present day.

skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

And the only B-757 of American Airlines that crashed that day was American 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

Why are you responding twice over to the exact same text as in your previous post?  I didn’t even bother reading the rest of this post – one response was quite enough.

skyeagle409, on 14 December 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Why would anyone suggest that American 77 was switched in flight and not account for passengers and crew of that aircraft?

The aircraft can be switched and the passengers and crew accounted for.  It is key to remember there is no process or audit of collection and transit of the remains identified, which was not carried out on site, i.e. there is nothing that proves the passenger remains came from the Pentagon at all.

About your article excerpt.  There is no physical/photographic or direct witness (quoted) evidence that any passengers were found “still strapped into their seats”.  It also defies logic that the impact should essentially break the aircraft to its component pieces, yet human bodies from the same aircraft should survive somewhat intact.  The article may be making use of journalistic licence based upon something that Sgt. Mark Williams said about ‘victims still in their seats’ (which they were – many of the office staff killed).

I look forward to you coming back with more inane questions, statements, double responses and irrelevant links.  I probably won't respond.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 14 December 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Of course what I said makes sense – had the aircraft impacted the non-reinforced area, the damage and loss of life would have been greater.  What are you finding difficult to process about this?  It’s a very simple point to which you are responding with inane questions and statements.

Sky's seems a perfectly good point to me.  If conspirators want to minimize damage, there are simpler options than trying to hit the bit of the building that's been reinforced.  Sky's suggestion of a lower impact speed would be very effective, but why hit the building at all?  Why not a near miss?  Why not a less valuable building? Why not claim something similar to Flight 93 and drop it in the sea?