1211 replies to this topic

[flyingswan]

JayMark, on 20 April 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

I hardly see how can anybody, expert or not, with a minumum of common sense, blindly beleive in that if they think about it well. Let's look at in more in detail without necessarly going too deeply into the physics of it for a minute.

Of course, you do need to go deeply into the physics, because such events are so far outside common experience that "common sense" is of little help.  For instance:

Quote

Now how about the actual collapse. Considering the previous, how could the top of the building suddenly break off and bring down the entire structure; concrete, steel strucute, completely down in a very straight collapse at near free-fall speed? Not only that it looks like a controlled demolition but it surely is a very well-done one. Concrete was pulverized, structures showed little to no resistance, all the steel beams were somehow easily broken off and all that made a quite spectacular sight and pile of debris that was quickly disposed of.

There are papers that consider the physics of this in detail.  Here's one:
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf
Why don't you study that paper and see exactly why the collapse once started didn't stop?

Conspiracists don't like that paper one little bit.  They say that one of the world's most distinguished professors of structural engineering must have made an elementary mistake, and his peers who refereed the paper didn't spot it either.  However, they are singularly incapable of pointing to anywhere in the paper where that mistake might be.

747400, on 21 April 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

Ol' Gen. Stubblebine? The original for 'The Men Who Stare At Goats'? I'm not sure how much credibility he holds.

About as much as Donn de Grand-Pre.

[skyeagle409]

bee, on 21 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Sky...I'm baffled that you can recognise anything of real value in this picture?

I've made it bigger...can you be a bit more specific about what the arrow is pointing to...

and how this would fit into where the rest of the plane is (should be) cheers

all I can see is an undefined blob.






edit...well I did make it bigger but now it has mysteriously shrunk....

The arrow is pointing to the post, but in the background you can see white smoke trailing from the aircraft and ahead of the smoke trail you can see the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft at the top right corner of the post.

To many people they have trouble identifying the vertical stabilizer, but since I have looked at many stabilizers for decades, it is easy for me to pick out certain details such as leading edge angles and stabilizer chord. Here is a picture of the vertical stabilizer of an American Airlines B-757. In the  Pentagon pnoto, you can barely make out the American Airlines logo, which looks like a black dot on the vertical stabilizer. I am going to add an attachment of the same stabilizer and I have strunk the photo. Compare the vertical stab in the  smaller photo with the vertical stab in the Pentagon photo.





After I strunk the photo.

Attached Files

•  VERRTICAL STABILIZER2.jpg   29.86K   0 downloads

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2012 - 08:24 PM.

[bee]

.


hi Sky....thanks for clearing that up about what the blue arrow was pointing at...and your opinion on that one frame.

My opinion is that the cctv pictures of the Pentagon on 9/11 are an insult to our intelligence...and a mind game.

ONE proper piece of clear footage of a 757 hitting or closely approaching the building could swing the arguement for

the Official Account of the Pentagon on that day. But that hasn't happened yet and one can presume it never will.

Not in our lifetime anyway. And people can draw their own conclusions about that.

but cheers for the reply anyway

[skyeagle409]

bee, on 22 April 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

.


hi Sky....thanks for clearing that up about what the blue arrow was pointing at...and your opinion on that one frame.

My opinion is that the cctv pictures of the Pentagon on 9/11 are an insult to our intelligence...and a mind game.

ONE proper piece of clear footage of a 757 hitting or closely approaching the building could swing the arguement for

the Official Account of the Pentagon on that day. But that hasn't happened yet and one can presume it never will.

Not in our lifetime anyway. And people can draw their own conclusions about that.

but cheers for the reply anyway

In regards to the cameras, at Travis AFB, CA., we have cameras all over the base, but they do not record every aircraft incident on the runway or on the flightline, some, but not all. There are many ways to determine which aircraft crashed at the Pentagon that has nothing to do with the goverment. We can simply go to the owner/operator of American 77 and ask the company what happened to the airframe of American 77. Only a certain number of B-757-200s were built and all we have to do is to call upon the process of elimination to determine the identify of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, not only calling on the process on the airframes of all B-757-200s, but on the engines as well. Each engine attached to pylons of American 77 has its own flight, maintenance, and replacement histories that can be tracked, and not only the jet engnes, but the APU as well.

We can examine the serial numbers of engines that are still in service or for sale  and those that have been written off  over the years to determine the serial numbers of the engines found at the Pentagon. From there, American Airlines can supply us with the serial numbers of the two engines that were attached to American 77 and from that information we can determine the identify of the aircraft.

Aircraft parts have part or stock numbers stamped on them and from those numbers, you can not only determine what the part is, but what type of aircraft that part is from, where on that airframe the part was attached and even which side of the aircraft the part was attached as well. With all of those parts lying around in the outside and inside the Pentagon, there would have been many part, stock, and serial numbers to be found in order to determine what type of aircraft was involved.

.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Obviousman, on 21 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Just to bring a little reality into this.

How many people here have exerience in aviation?

(raises hand) Over 25 years in both civil and military aviation. Private pilot, military navigator and radar operator, and air traffic controller. Also airworthiness auditor. Currently a military aviation standards auditor.

How many people have spoken to aviation professionals about 9-11?

(raises hand) Yes. Fighter pilots (F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and F-22). Airline pilots (B747, B717, A300, A380).

The result? Unanimous acceptance of the "official" story.

That goes into the "Duh" category, that there would be a group of people who "support" the OCT is pretty ObviousMan.  

Some folks make $ off the results of the OCT--their finanacial existence depends upon it, the bureaucracy of law enforcement and soldiers.

Common sense and close examination of the facts contradict the OCT, any fool can see it.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 22 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

That goes into the "Duh" category, that there would be a group of people who "support" the OCT is pretty ObviousMan.  

Some folks make $ off the results of the OCT--their finanacial existence depends upon it, the bureaucracy of law enforcement and soldiers.

Common sense and close examination of the facts contradict the OCT, any fool can see it.

He is right. The majority of professional pilots do not support the 9/11 Truthers, not even the Airline Pilots Association, International.

[MysteryX]

The ridicules theories about 9/11 for the most part are spread by the very people that did it, not truthers. The reason they do that is so when you run across the real facts that would convince you hands down, you will just ignore them like an Alex Jones rant thinking it is more of the same bull.

You have to take your emotions and opinions and your political positions out of your research. You have to become a real unbiased investigator when researching the facts on 9/11, once you do that it is easy.

Building # 7 collapsed on 9/11 as well. A 47 story skyscraper right next to the towers. It was never hit by an airplane and had no major fires. Yet about 8 hours later it free fall collapsed. Now many argue concerning the towers that the planes weakened the structures and the fires weaken them more, so they collapsed.

However building #7 collapsed having never being touched by and airplane. The people that support the Government report from NIST say the molten metal in the basement of the towers was because of the intense heat from the planes jet fuel. Well once again nothing hit building #7 the NIST report only said about building #7 that they do not know why it collapsed. Also even though nothing touched building #7 there was molten metal pools in its footprint as well.

Now the video below which I posted on page one when I started thisthis thread covers the towers, and the Pentagon, the stand down by Cheney. Understanding the facts about building #7 and the Pentagon is really all you need to understand to know it was an inside job. From there then you can dig through all the smoke and mirrors by those that did it and not be distracted by them.

The other things such as 2.3 trillion was announced as being missing 4 days before 9/11. Most of those records being in building #7, really.

Watch all 25 minutes of the 1st video below, that will give you a good start.

Some of you are going to be very thankful someday for the people like me that have been trying to tell you the truth for years. We put up with the name calling and much worse in order to try to help you see what has happened. The least, the very least you can do is do your own research like your life depended on it before calling it crazy talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvC1RNkmCWA

Edited by MysteryX, 22 April 2012 - 11:58 PM.

[MysteryX]

The key in knowing for sure that 9/11 was an inside job are the facts of building #7
that collapsed later in the afternoon without ever being touched by an airplane.

For those that really want the truth about 9/11 then watch these two videos about the collapse of building #7 in the WTC complex. If you can watch both of them completely and then still tell me you still believe the NIST report then I will say nothing more to you about it. Seriously, if you are a real American or a real world patriot for honor and truth then watch the videos below with an open and investigative mind.

Below collapse of building #7 videos

[skyeagle409]

MysteryX, on 23 April 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

The key in knowing for sure that 9/11 was an inside job are the facts of building #7 that collapsed later in the afternoon without ever being touched by an airplane.

WTC 7 did in fact, suffer from impact damage and fires. On aother note:

[skyeagle409]

MysteryX, on 22 April 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

The ridicules theories about 9/11 for the most part are spread by the very people that did it, not truthers.

On the contrary, the 9/11 Truthers have been mislead. For an example, they confused a Delta B-767 and a KC-135 as United 93 and claimed that United 93 landed in Cleveland when it fact, they confused the other aircraft as United 93.

Then, they claimed that F-16s from Langley AFB shot down United 93,, but what about their claim that United 93 landed in Cleveland? They were misleand by those who have claimed that molten steel can be seen flowing out of one of the WTC towers when it fact, the material is aluminum, not steel and that can be deterimined as the molten metal is cooled because it turns to  a silvery color, which is an indication that the molten metal is not steel, but alumiinum.

They were mislead again by claiming that this video depicted molten steel when in fact, what they thought was molten steel turn out to be reflections from flashlights.







They claim that a pod was atttached to United 175, which turn out to be false because they confused aerodynamic fairings and main landing gear doors as a pod when that are standard on all B-767s and the list goes on and on where their claims have been taken apart using facts and evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 April 2012 - 04:52 AM.

[skyeagle409]

MysteryX, on 22 April 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

The other things such as 2.3 trillion was announced as being missing 4 days before 9/11. Most of those records being in building #7, really.

The money wasn't missing, it was just difficult to track and you cannot destroy evidence by blowing up buildings. I knew that when I was in Vietnam after the hobby shop was hit by a rocket. People recovered intact tape players, models and  I recover screwdrvers while another guy was trying to open an intact cash register, which turn out to be empty. Many items were left intact and some were undamaged so how arre you going to destroy government evidence that is spread in computer systems and files across the country and around the world?.

The notion that the government would blow up building to hide evidence is ridicules by the fact that government doesn't keep all of its records in one place because they are spread everywhere. Even damaged hard drives can reveal sensitive information and there precedures we use to destroy evidence and blowing up buildings is not the way we do it in the real world.

Paper files and other evidence have survived bomb attacks on my bases in Vietnam  so when I read that the reason why WTC 7 was blown up was to hide evidence, which would have been comical had it not been such a tragedy.

Goverment files are spread  out all over the country and around the world, so blowing up a building is not going to destroy evidence and when using government computers you can expect that someone nearby and out of state are watching what you are doing on your government computer, whcih is tightly controlled. After all, whenever you log onto a government computter it provides you with a warning message that you can expect to be under surveillance while using the government computer.

To think that you can destroy government evidence by blowing up a building .is pure fictional thinking on the level of a Hollywood fictional movie.





.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 April 2012 - 05:11 AM.

[Czero 101]

MysteryX, on 22 April 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

The other things such as 2.3 trillion was announced as being missing 4 days before 9/11. Most of those records being in building #7, really.

Please provide a quote where the someone in the government actually said that "2.3 trillion dollars is missing".





Cz

[MysteryX]

Czero 101, on 23 April 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Please provide a quote where the someone in the government actually said that "2.3 trillion dollars is missing".

Cz

This video above will not play embedded so click the link below to watch it on YOUTUBE



WEBSITE: 2.3 trillion announced missing the day before 9/11 - CLICK HERE

Edited by MysteryX, 23 April 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[Czero 101]

MysteryX, on 23 April 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

This video above will not play embedded so click the link below to watch it on YOUTUBE



WEBSITE: 2.3 trillion announced missing the day before 9/11 - CLICK HERE

I see...

So, in other words, you can't provide an actual quote where someone from the government specifically say that "2.3 trillion dollars are missing".

Thanks.

Let's look at what was actually said on Sept. 10, 2001:

Quote

We must develop and build weapons to deter those new threats. We must rebuild our infrastructure, which is in a very serious state of disrepair. And we must assure that the noble cause of military service remains the high calling that will attract the very best.

All this costs money. It costs more than we have. It demands agility -- more than today's bureaucracy allows. And that means we must recognize another transformation: the revolution in management, technology and business practices. Successful modern businesses are leaner and less hierarchical than ever before. They reward innovation and they share information. They have to be nimble in the face of rapid change or they die. Business enterprises die if they fail to adapt, and the fact that they can fail and die is what provides the incentive to survive. But governments can't die, so we need to find other incentives for bureaucracy to adapt and improve.

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us.

- Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 10, 2001 [SOURCE]

Can you please point out exactly where Rumsfeld said the money was "missing" or was "stolen" as other CT's like to pretend is what happened...?

No..? Yeah, I didn't think you could...

Because he DIDN'T SAY THAT.

He said that there were 2.3 trillion in transactions that can't be tracked in the old systems they were using, systems that in some cases were incompatible with each other.

Furthermore, it had been known for quote some time before Rummy's Sept. 10, 2001 speech that this problem existed.

Here's an excerpt from a March 2000 article:

Quote

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.

[SOURCE]

And as for using 9/11 to "hide" this info, here's what resulted from that day from a budgetary standpoint:

Quote

Ending Balance Adjustments to General Ledger Data for the Army General Fund

Executive Summary

Introduction. The “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,” Public Law 101-576, November 15, 1990, as amended by the “Federal Financial Management Act of 1994,” Public Law 103-356, October 13, 1994, requires the annual preparation and audit of financial statements. The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the September 11 terrorist attack. Therefore, we did not audit Army financial information for FY 2001 financial statements. However, Army financial statement information was included in the DoD FY 2001 Agency-Wide Financial Statements.

[SOURCE - PDF PAGE 4]

And it seems that by Feb. 2002, a large portion of that 2.3 trillion had been reconciled:

Quote

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending

By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 – As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.

"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded.

[SOURCE]

I'm sure that this actual evidence will do little to change your opinion, on this topic, an opinion that seem to be based on misinterpretations, misrepresentations and in some case, lies told to you by others who share your mindset, but that's ok... you're allowed to believe what you want to believe, no matter how flawed those beliefs are. You're just not allowed to invent your own facts...





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 23 April 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

You are right about 1 thing--the government was aware of the missing funds (and it was $2.3 T) before Dubya was crowned.

It was so aware that a House Committee, chaired by Cynthia McKinney, was investigating what might have happened to those funds.  At least a portion of those hearing were video recorded, and I watched about 20 minutes worth.

There is a reason Cynthia McKinney was driven from Congress, and that reason is she was "rocking the boat", big time.  I assume you know what I mean by "rocking the boat".

I watched that portion of the hearings conducted on 10 September 2001, in which Mr. Rummy was deposed, along with a female assistant of his.

His testimony was the quintessential example of a witness 'stonewalling' an investigation.  I assume you know what 'stonewall' means.

After his and his assistant's obvious stalling of the investigation, he appeared on the steps of the Congress before a handful of cameras, to answer questions.  Considering what was going to happen the next morning, and that he knew what was going to happen the next morning, the smirk on his face was almost a grin.

With that smirk, he told the cameras that Dr. Zakheim is going to get to the bottom of this controversy.  The cameras did not know, and neither does the average american, that Dov Zakheim is yet ANOTHER big wig in the federal government/Pentagon that is a dual citizen, Israeli and US, and that Zakheim and several of his companies have been intimately involved in the 1996 bombing at WTC, and in the events of 11 September.

Needless to say, the investigation of those missing funds was ended the the events of 11 September, and DR. Zakheim never had to be bothered.