3292 replies to this topic

[mrbusdriver]

OK, so what of Kukzinski'a claims of having direct orders to shoot down an airliner. Does this sound accurate to you, being as he's not controlling any fighters, and is not coordinating/communicating with NORAD or any Region?

"I had direct orders to shoot down an airliner" doesn't make any sense, coming from an E-3 flight deck. And the "alongside" phrase just isn't pilot talk for fighters maybe 100 or so miles away. I wish there was something from the MCC/BC on board that morning, that would be worth reading. I have no doubts about the AWACS/fighter package being put together...the prefect idea. I just question this off statement by the E-3 pilot (which wasn't part of any testimony, was it? Just comments to some little University newspaper...

[Babe Ruth]

Well gosh Mr. Bus Driver, I wonder why General McChrystal reported to Mary Tillman that "your son was killed by hostile fire?"

Are you suggesting that men in uniform always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth???

[Babe Ruth]

Yes Bee, Magic it is! An essential ingredient in the events of the day.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 21 August 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Well gosh Mr. Bus Driver, I wonder why General McChrystal reported to Mary Tillman that "your son was killed by hostile fire?" Are you suggesting that men in uniform always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth???

If you want to bring truth into mix, why are you using websites as references that are notorious for lying, disinformation, and misinformation?

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 August 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 21 August 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Well gosh Mr. Bus Driver, I wonder why General McChrystal reported to Mary Tillman that "your son was killed by hostile fire?"

Are you suggesting that men in uniform always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth???

Another ignorant blanket statement.

Must be easy to run away to the whole "well people in uniform have lied before therefore you cannot trust EVERYTHING they say".

Take each individual's statement as an account to each individual.  Don;t just resort to saying, well if it doesn;t agree with my theory, that person is obviously lying.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

RaptorBites, on 21 August 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Another ignorant blanket statement.

Must be easy to run away to the whole "well people in uniform have lied before therefore you cannot trust EVERYTHING they say".

Take each individual's statement as an account to each individual.  Don;t just resort to saying, well if it doesn;t agree with my theory, that person is obviously lying.

Again, I think there's a difference between trusting or not trusting everything that they say and not trusting anything that they say. People always take it to extremes. Like with politicians, just because they may tell "damn lies" (for whatever reason, sometimes it may be necessary not to tell the absolute truth for good military or political reasons) sometimes, needn't mean that they tell Damn lies all the time.

[RaptorBites]

747400, on 21 August 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Again, I think there's a difference between trusting or not trusting everything that they say and not trusting anything that they say. People always take it to extremes. Like with politicians, just because they may tell "damn lies" (for whatever reason, sometimes it may be necessary not to tell the absolute truth for good military or political reasons) sometimes, needn't mean that they tell Damn lies all the time.

Unfortunately, that is the position BR has placed himself into.

The government lies often, so any testimony they give about 9/11 is obviously false, regardless if evidence backs it up because that evidence was planted to support their lies.

You see?  The easy way out of any disagreements is to claim the "lair liar pants on fire" argument.

Edited by RaptorBites, 21 August 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Little Fish, on 20 August 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

the conclusion of the 911 commission report was "911 was a failure of imagination".

did they fail to imagine that transforming event as the 911 commission report stated (headed by Philip Zelikow)

hmm, well let's go back to 1999 two years before 911 and see what that same philip zelikow wrote along with the head of the CIA and others as published by "Foreign Affairs" on the Council on Foreign Relations website.

"Imagining the Transforming Event"
http://www.hks.harva...nsforming Event

you'll see that they did imagine the event, it even "imagines" the destruction of the world trade centre and how the aftermath would affect society and government.
a bit curious don't you think.
seems more of a blueprint than a warning to me.
how will those that claim "government incompetence" reconcile the above god-like genius imaginings with their claims of "incompetence". will they shape their facts from their beliefs? or will they shape their beliefs from the facts?

Hi LittleFish.

Would you be so kind as to point out specifically where in your link it details any kind of blueprint for the 9/11 attacks?

I read the entire thing and didn't see what you seem to be referring to.  It seemed more focussed on a general terrorist threat using WMD to me.  It also seemed like it was recommending that this kind of threat is potentially emminent and that we should make changes before it happens if at all possible in order to prevent it from happening.

Please also point out where and how it imagines the desctruction of the WTC?

Thanks

[booNyzarC]

Czero 101, on 13 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

No, actually you can't. You are only seeing what you want to see, or what you have been told you can see, not what is actually there.

It is physically impossible for the point of impact to be seen in that video.


"A" indactes the location of the Doubletree Inn, approx
Blue Arrow indicates approximate flightpath of Flt. 77
Black Lines indicate approximate boundaries of the field of view (light yellow area) of the Doubletree security camera.

The Doubletree is located at 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. which is about 1/2 mile southeast of the Pentagon, and south of Highway 395. Look it up on Google Maps.

Highway 395 passes over S. Fern St., S. Eads St. and the Jefferson Davis Highway, all in proximity to the Doubletree.

Go the the Street View of the intersection of Army Navy Drive and S. Eads Street and face North. You'll see the overpass and by comparing it to the known or knowable heights of the vehicles there, you can estimate the height of the overpass at roughly 30 feet.


Street View of the intersection of Army Navy Drive and S. Eads Street, facing north.
Blue Line indicates the location of the S. Eads street underpass.
Yellow Line indicates the position of the "Hwy 395 North - Washington" sign
Red Line indicates the position of the overhead street signs on the Hwy. 395 overpass

Look at the video footage. You'll notice that the camera is roughly 10 feet off the ground (the camera also has a wide-angle lens which distorts the image, but we can ignore that for now).


Screen Cap of the Doubletree Security Camera extended video paused approximately 1 second before the fireball of the impact explosion becomes visible.
Blue Line indicates the location of the S. Eads street underpass.
Yellow Line indicates the position of the "Hwy 395 North - Washington" sign
Red Line indicates the position of the overhead street signs on the Hwy. 395 overpass

The Pentagon is less than 80 feet high, so the absolute very most you might be able to see would be just the very top of the roof of the building if the video were of sufficient quality (which it isn't).

The approach flightpath of Flt. 77 would similarly be hidden by the overpass

Given that we know that the aircraft (or whatever you personally believe it was that hit the Pentagon) hit the building around the second floor, there is no way whatsoever that the impact point is visible in that video, unless you are going to contend that the Doubletree's camera was able to see through a highway overpass and through the Pentagon itself since the impact point is on the other side of the building in relation to the Doubletree Inn.

But you don't have to believe me. You can do the work and prove it to yourself... I highly recommend you prove it to yourself, actually, since it is the only way that you can be sure.



If I'm wrong, show me how. Do the work. Look up the locations I've given you and that are freely available.

Don't hate just because you haven't done the work yourself...


ETA...

This also shows why the "Flyover Theory" is not possible, since an aircraft flying over the Pentagon would almost certainly have been seen in this video.

I guess some thanks should go to lliqerty for bringing this video to our attention again so that we could use it as proof against yet another conspiracy theory...






Cz

Czero 101, on 14 August 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

That's exactly what I'm saying. Even being generous, at the very most you'd maybe see just the top few feet of the roof of the Pentagon, if the video was of high enough quality to allow you to see that distinction between the roof and the overpass.



Yes, the plane did pass over that cloverleaf (I don't know the name of the exchange) and it is also on the other side of the Hwy. 395 overpass, and just at the edge of the approximate field of view of the Doubletree camera. That Hwy. 395 overpass is also higher than the cloverleaf and Hwy. 27, which can be seen again by using Street View.

Flt. 77 was flying at about 750 feet per second so it would only have been "in frame" for about 1.5 to 2 seconds maximum.

Flt.77 would have had to have been at or near 20 feet in altitude (maybe even a little less) when it would have entered the theoretical frame (if the camera could have seen it) which would make the highest point of the aircraft - the tail - only about 65 feet high at that moment, which is lower than the overall height of the Pentagon itself.

This is also about the altitude the aircraft would have had to have been to account for it having hit and damaged / destroyed the light poles along Hwy. 27, immediately to the west of the Pentagon, which would also be just on the "edge of frame" of the Doubletree camera.

I haven't done the math to figure out the angles, but my guess is that the aircraft would have had to have been at over 100 feet in altitude to have had any chance of being seen over the overpass in this video.






Cz

EDITED a bit for clarity...

Brilliant.  

Professor Buzzkill, on 13 August 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that the Pentagon is not visible in the footage at all?

How low must the plane have been flying to be blocked by the overpass and for how long? It appears that the plane would have had to pass over a spaghetti junction of some kind as well.

I'm curious Professor, did you respond to Cz's diligent and very clearly layed out post and I just missed it?

Would you agree with what he has provided here or do you still maintain your originally expressed opinion on the matter?

[Professor Buzzkill]

booNyzarC, on 21 August 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Brilliant.  




I'm curious Professor, did you respond to Cz's diligent and very clearly layed out post and I just missed it?

Would you agree with what he has provided here or do you still maintain your originally expressed opinion on the matter?

I am willing to admit that i may be wrong about the "point of impact" comments, but i stand by my comment that;

1. You can see the pentagon
2. you can see the explosion
3. you cannot see any airplane

This means that the aircraft must have flown at an altitude of (approx) 100-150 feet off the ground, whilst flying over the "spaghetti" junction, which itself must be at least 30-40 feet of the ground. I find it unlikely that there isn't any footage of a commercial airliner flying low over the most powerful and well defended city in the world. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Just think of all the UFO claims here that are rubbished because people didn't catch it on camera. I am keeping with the attitude of "pics or it didn't happen"

[booNyzarC]

Professor Buzzkill, on 21 August 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

I am willing to admit that i may be wrong about the "point of impact" comments, but i stand by my comment that;

1. You can see the pentagon
2. you can see the explosion
3. you cannot see any airplane

This means that the aircraft must have flown at an altitude of (approx) 100-150 feet off the ground, whilst flying over the "spaghetti" junction, which itself must be at least 30-40 feet of the ground. I find it unlikely that there isn't any footage of a commercial airliner flying low over the most powerful and well defended city in the world. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Just think of all the UFO claims here that are rubbished because people didn't catch it on camera. I am keeping with the attitude of "pics or it didn't happen"

So you can see the Pentagon in this image?




Can you save this image and then use MS Paint or some other image editing software to hi-light the Pentagon for me?

[Professor Buzzkill]

booNyzarC, on 21 August 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

So you can see the Pentagon in this image?




Can you save this image and then use MS Paint or some other image editing software to hi-light the Pentagon for me?

Could you do the same and point out the commercial airplane?

[booNyzarC]

Professor Buzzkill, on 21 August 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Could you do the same and point out the commercial airplane?

I haven't claimed that you can see a commercial airplane in the footage.

[Professor Buzzkill]

The easiest way to see the pentagon in the video is wait for the explosion. The first sign of an explosion is that there is a lateral "flash" before the fireball rises. This was when i thought i could identify the pentagon. If you can show that this is not the case I am open to being corrected.

Do you think its perfectly acceptable that there is no footage of an airliner crashing into the most heavily guarded building (outside of a warzone)? If so, why?

[booNyzarC]

Professor Buzzkill, on 21 August 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

The easiest way to see the pentagon in the video is wait for the explosion. The first sign of an explosion is that there is a lateral "flash" before the fireball rises. This was when i thought i could identify the pentagon. If you can show that this is not the case I am open to being corrected.

You need not do it right away (or at all really, your choice), but if you could take a snap shot of the point you are referring to and hi-light the Pentagon in some way i would appreciate it.

Professor Buzzkill, on 21 August 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Do you think its perfectly acceptable that there is no footage of an airliner crashing into the most heavily guarded building (outside of a warzone)? If so, why?

But we do have footage from the security cameras by the Pentagon.  It isn't great footage, but it does show the plane and the explosion.