I need to print a bunch of stuff out, timelines, testamonies, etc.

Either folks got times wrong or misremembered in the chaos of the moment, or maybe lied (imagine that, a politician lying!!!) about some points, or there was a multi-administration, multi-thousand person, multi-bazillion dollar, multi-national, absolutely top secret mass murder conspiracy created by folks who couldn't hide a restroom BJ or easily create some WMDs for a war justified by same. Were there whistle blowers arranging "clues"... the bin Laden family exodus, the WTC "symmetrical" collapses, the "perfect" approach to the Pentagon? Or was that just how it all "happened"? You envision the "perfect" scheme, while reality is full of oddities and seeming contradictions.

I don't see the evidence of CD detonations, which EVERY expert says should be seen at least near the bottom of the structures in a CD. I don't see stock trading as suspicious, against airline stocks when transcontinental flights were routinely flying half full or less (look up load factors and overcapacity in that period). I can't see a single member of the BOD (NOT an executive) for a security firm entangling the entire corporation in the execution of mass murder and meyhem of unparallelled destruction of buildings and aircraft they were "responsible" for. I don't see anything suspicious about an air defense system, postured for clear intelligence based external threats, being inadequately prepared for a simultaneous, multi aircraft attack using domestic airliners against highly vulnerable stationary targets within US airspace.

I look at the events from my real world perspective as I know it. In the conspiracy, I see ridiculous claims, ignorance of capabilities, and a bunch of "could have/should have" speculation. So much of the conspiracy is based on "outsider" guessing. And it's wrong. Also, any inconsistancy is automatically labelled suspicious, and a scenario is created which fits, regardless of how things are stretched from reality. Just like the Apollo theories, the "establishment" science is suspect. Well, I suspect any pilot who, after looking at the AA77 FDR data, sees the flight path as incredibly skilled or impossible. I see those claiming unclassified F-16 top speeds vs distance as reasons to call "hoax" as ignorant fools. And just because a government report comes to a conclusion, I don't immediately label it a lie.

There are inconsistancies, conflicting information in the testamony. But planes hit buildings. If there were airframe "switches" where did they happen? By whom? What was the timeline? Do any radar tapes show, or disprove this? What happened to the original aircraft/passengers? The magnitude of the conspiracy, completely and utterly secret, grows to gargantuan proportions! Someone was in charge. Who? Thousands upon thousands were in the details...all utterly silent. While the Abu Grabe prison stories were broken by stupid, bragidocious footsoldiers...there is always a weal link that unleashes a flood of evidence.

The impossibility of such a conspiracy is staggering to me. But the reality of nonchalant airline security, a group of determined, well trained, well financed, fanatical terrorists taking an unprepared national airspace system by storm in a matter of about 90 minutes doesn't amaze me in the least. We were a soft target.

That is all assuming of course that they were "aiming" for the side of the building and trying not to hit the ground first. Ground effect also would NOT be in full play as it is most evident at slower speeds and becomes negligible at high speeds.

Also on the question of ground effect:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

staggering yet staring you right in the face-- you dont see evidence of demolitions even though there is video of molten steel dripping bright orange over 80 floors,a solidfied chunk of fused concrete and steel known as the wtc meteorite,microspheres(evidence of not only high heat but the presence of tremendous explosive pressures unattainable in the official theory) and video of firefighters staring into a white hot cavern exclaiming the foundary like conditions!??! if the insider trading isnt suspicious to you try and find out who made the trades and then see how easy it is for you to make such a large anonymous transaction without disclosing your identity -- you forgot to comment on the anthrax attacks on members of the senate and american free press staff that originated from us military installations-- why did the wtc attacks fail to target indian point? you claim norads response is not suspicious....yet do you even realise that they were running a drill that morning dealing with a commercial aircraft targeting the wtc?? guess what it went live just like in london(it should have helped them!)-- you must be insane if the bbc reporting bldg 7 collapsing 20 minutes before it imploded at freefall into its own footprint doesnt rock you to your very core!!! you do realise there is gold missing from the wtc basements dont you?? the two 110 story towers were pulverized to dust in the words of gov pataki "from river to river layers of dust" -- william rodriguez,a janitor from the complex heard an explosion in the basements before the impacts and barry jennings,deputy director of the energency services dept, reported bombs in bldg 7 going off before the collapses of the twin towers are living proof-- your argument is nonexistent --
BEHOLD..... 9/11 TRUTH RISING!!!!

I want to comment on a recent point discussed on this thread.

Q posted this...



747400 replied to Q's post....



Now, a note for 747400: you've correctly identified that there is a "basic problem". But you've completely failed to understand why this problem exists - that is, who is actually responsible for creating - and perpetuating - this problem.

Q already provided you with the answer, when he said.... "In reference to the flights and passengers, they are questions that could only be answered through a full independent investigation with unrestricted access to all the evidence and witnesses.."

Q was referring to a specific issue, but it applies to the entire 9/11 event - including the details you find "lacking". We can only find out who did it, how they did it, and why they did it - "through a full independent investigation".

You want "the conspiracy movement" to give you a detailed, thorough explanation for "how they actually did it"? Well, that's good. So do I. And so does Q. And so do millions of other people all around the world.

But first, you need to understand that first requires a new, fullly independent investigation.

And second, you need to understand who is holding us back from conducting such an investigation. Or as Q said - who is not allowing "unrestricted access to all the evidence and witnesses".

Then, you'll realize what the "basic problem" really is.



Well, there already is solid evidence to back up our claims. Some of this evidence has been well-noted in this very thread (Jones' samples, etc.).

The NIST investigation was a total failure. This point alone requires - demands - that we establish a new, thorough, and completely independent investigation.

It was suspicious, and it prompted an investigation (so to speak, as I'll explain later) by the SEC.

The put options were a huge red-flag...

1. Perfect choice: Put options - betting on failure, not success.

2. Extremely unusual activity: 6 to 12 x normal put options were bought.

3. Perfect timing: 6 -12 x normal put options were bought .....Sept. 6-10, 2001.

4. Perfect picks: 6 - 12 x normal put options were bought Sept. 6-10, 2001.....in only two airlines. Both of which happened to be involved in 9/11.

The result: Windfall profits.

The SEC correctly identified the trades as suspicious, and began an investigation. But like the other "official" 9/11 investigations (by NIST and the 9/11 Commission), the SEC investigation was a contrived and corrupted mess. They began their investigation with the....ahem....'indisputable fact' that al-Qaeda/deranged Muslim terrorists were exclusively responsible for 9/11.

And so, armed with this.. uh...'fact'....the SEC's investigation became a whole lot easier. Why?

Because the SEC needs to show how a suspect (the beyond lucky investor) had access to inside knowledge. A link to someone "in the know".

And the only ones "in the know" about 9/11 were (supposedly) al-Qaeda/deranged Muslim terrorists. So, if the suspect investors had no links to al-Qaeda/deranged Muslim terrorists, then they had no inside knowledge!

Not a single investor was linked to al-Qaeda/deranged Muslim terrorists. "Move along, folks! Nothing fishy to smell!"

It was treated just like the rest of the 9/11 investigation - an utterly absurd joke, sold to a very gullible (and/or unaware) public.

Sorry, what other records would those be? The single source I have seen stating Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 09:58am is the Commission report. Perhaps you could respond to the last section of the post I addressed to you a couple of pages back here and after understanding all the issues give some explanation for the Commission/Mineta discrepancy rather than repeating the same unsupported claim.

I agree, folks got times wrong… the Commission folks… deliberately, to cover for Cheney.

If you are saying Mineta ‘misremembered’ his movements on the morning, that means he got the time of Cheney's “order” wrong, also his own time of arrival wrong, also the Pentagon impact time wrong and also timing of the directive given to land all commercial aircraft wrong. That is not possible when you understand, and I'm sure you do, how events fit with his timeline. As I said earlier, unless you are claiming Mineta was abducted by aliens, implanted with false memories and plonked back on Earth one hour later… ‘misremembered’ or ‘mixed up’ do not make any sense.

For what reason would Mineta lie about his movements on the morning of 9/11… that would make no sense whatsoever.

I do notice you keep launching into generalizations and avoiding this discrepancy because the ‘official’ story cannot explain it in any reasonable manner.

Q24 is trying to trip up a bunch of aging politicians...

I thought to respond to a post by Sunofone, covering several ideas-



That has been discussed, with likely explanations (UPS devices, burning, arcing, generating slag material along with other molten aluminum, perhaps some acidified iron or steel).



Now, what is this heap?



It looks like a multi-layer pile of floor decking from WTC towers- highly burned and jammed together, and oxidized. Just my opinion. It has the right dimensions and materials. All the while, having been through a terrible time.

Thank you. Of particular interest is this quote from that page

So yes, ground effect is negligible in this case and those who mention it just don't know what they're talking about. This is stuff any basic pilot should have an understanding of.

We have seen these images, which are reasonable given the scope and dimensions of the WTC and its destruction.




But, then, people complain about white heat. I don't know about that, but have seen these-

Sorry, I couldn’t see it in the article, at what speed exactly does ground effect become negligible? And still, negligible does not equal non-existent. Another article from the same site linked by Obviousman states: -

“An additional bonus of ground effect that becomes more significant as speed increases is called ram pressure. As the distance between the wing and ground decreases, the incoming air is "rammed" in between the two surfaces and becomes more compressed. This effect increases the pressure on the lower surface of the wing to create additional lift.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all saying the ground effect made it impossible for Flight 77 to perform the said flight path – but it is another point of consideration on top of zipping just above the ground in a large airliner at such high speed. And even if the ground effect did have only a minor influence on the control of Flight 77, then it is still a factor that only a fool would ignore altogether.

Certainly the manoeuvres performed by Flight 77 appear to be calm and well measured rather than that of a radical fundamentalist lunatic on a suicide mission, yelling “Allahu Akhbar!!!” as he maniacally full throttled the engines all the way in.

I think that the man doing the interviewing is under the assumption/belief that the 757 was a distraction for a different aircraft/missile following the strike path.

The officers weren't the only ones to see the 757 follow this flight line. People near the Navy Annex said they saw the plane fly over it towards the Pentagon.

I will see what I can do to find the videos and interviews...and maybe the website also.

no way is that reasonable! the image on the left was taken SIX WEEKS after the collapses-- the official story is NOT consistent with that image

oopss

small "clean" nuclear bomb used on US citizens to start a war...

See this is what I mean by "cheapening the debate". All nuclear material is radioactive...no such thing as a "clean" bomb. They all leave radioactive signatures, and the results would have been easily noticed in the immediate deaths by radiation poisoning.

While I recognize that this is your thread, you could try and do some physics research before posting. Perhaps the next time you could add some actual empirical evidence to the post detailing actual radiation poisoning and known levels of RADs, REMs, or Roentgens, showing alpha, beta, gamma or x-ray levels. Even Chernobyl still has unsafe radiation levels being recorded today, with many parts of the town lethal to visit.

Thanks for twisting my words. Not that I expected less. 911 "discussions" are full of it. Which is why I like to stay out of them and will do so once this aviation issue is answered.
Why should it matter where exactly it becomes negligible? It is clear in this situation it would be. They were at high speed, at a negative angle of attack (which some articles state can even have an opposite effect) and were only within distance of the ground for any possible ground effect to come into play for maybe a second at most. The point is that some (not you) try to claim that ground effect would have prevented the plane at the Pentagon from flying that close to the ground at all. These are the ones I mean when I say "they just don't know what they are talking about."

But to answer the issue you brought up with ram pressure, there is this.
from here http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/51083/01/51083.pdf

h is the height and c is the chord or distance from the front of the wing to the back of the wing.

From here http://www.757.org.uk/spec/spec1.html we can see the maximum chord of the 757 wing is 8.2 meters or almost 27 feet. This means that the plane would have to be flying with the wings at less than 3 feet off the ground for ram ground effect to have any effect. Actually less as the chord of the 757 wing decreases along its length and the average chord would be even less. So the only type of ground effect that comes into play in this situation is the normal type (there are two, normal and ram as described in the pdf linked above) and we already know that normal ground effect decreases with speed and lower angle of attack. Thank you for helping to eliminate ram ground effect as well.

Hi, Q, I haven't forgotten about this, I didn't get much chance yesterday, but I shall give it some consideration as soon as I get a chance.

"Ground effect" is basically the wing's lift interacting with the ground. The wing is developing "x" amount of lift at any given time, as a function of angle of attack and airspeed. If this "x" equals the weight of the aircraft, it will be in level flight, if there is excess lift, it will climb, less lift will result in descent. Flaps increase the lift and effective angle of attack of a wing, as well as drag, allowing slower approaches for landing. Large aircraft are fully capable of landing flaps up, and it looks a bit strange.

Remote controlled jetliner...this would require an extensive retrofit which has never been done on a commercial "FBW" jetliner. The 757-767s were not direct control linked like the 720 in the FAA test. There would have to be airframe specific hardware and software development, fabrication and testing, system engineering and integraion studies, airframe modification and installation,ground and flight testing. "Data link" had been developed and used (in some military aircraft) in the past, but it was not terribly reliable nor precise. Such a development and fabrication process would be very large, and time consuming. This isn't a Predator drone here. Compartmentalization would be impossible.

When would these modified planes be inserted into the scenario? Were they the same airframes that loaded the passengers at the departure points? Who was piloting them? Was an airframe switch made enroute, and the "other" airframes and passengers destroyed somehow, by someone? The plot thickens, and the personnel requirements grows.

And finally, aside from a partially successful 720 test, what further evidence is there that this secenario actually took place?

Actually, Mr. B. has asked most of the things that I too was wondering about. Just think of the precision that these were flown with, if they were flown remotely. How technology that had never been used before publicly not only worked straight out of the box, but worked well enough to convince the whole world. And if anyone's going to say, well, they could have practiced beforehand secretly, what with? All the 767s produced are accounted for; there aren't any that they might have secretly used to practice on first. And it's the question of switching the planes for ones that were prepared secretly that has the most holes in it for me: where was it done? At some convenient military base, like Andrews AFB, perhaps? Then what did they do about all the normal personnel employed there? How did they manage to make sure that they all kept their mouths shut ever since? Or were they replaced by Secret Service/CIA/whoever agents before the "hijacked" planes came in? Or was it done at some clandestine, little used private strip somewhere? And no one noticed two 757s and two 767s coming in to some backwoods strip, (if one could be found that could accmmodate a 767); no one thought that might be a little suspicious?

It just seems that the questions multiply the more one considers the "alternative" theories, and that's what I mean about the "alternative" theories being able to provide much detail as to why it could not have happened, but very little solid detail as how it might.

are you serious?? you cant be-- you should google things before you make such comments-- remote technology has been around for decades

I did not twist anything but I have come to expect this sort of unjustified grumbling where those do not agree with your opinion. You said you “like to stay out” of 9/11 discussions last time… and the time before… you will probably say the same next time too.



Why does the point at which the speed and angle of attack make ground effect negligible matter? Well, because you are claiming ground effect on Flight 77 would be negligible (definition: so unimportant that it may be disregarded) of course. I was asking for the information to see if you could verify the claim.

The article linked by Obviousman says that ground effect is “reduced” due to increased speed and lower angle of attack and, whilst not detailing those factors for Flight 77 or performing the calculations, vaguely says ground effect would be “quite small”… though does not mention “negligible” thereby acknowledging that it is still a factor. This is best shown where the article gets to the point of the hijacker: -

“That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive.”

So we see that Hani Hanjour, the suicidal Islamic extremist lunatic, may have had to make “adjustments” or “fine corrections” that required “finesse and familiarity with an aircraft’s flight characteristics” where at least a basic level of “expertise” was required to counter whatever level of ground effect there was.



Ok, we can agree on that – ground effect certainly would not prevent the airliner flying close to the ground but it is another factor on performance to consider in addition to zipping close to the ground at high speed whilst lining up a target.



Right you are – ram pressure creating drag would not be a factor for Flight 77 unless the engines were, um… dragging through the ground. Still though ground effect begins to influence drag and lift at approximately one wingspan from the ground and what your article describes as “normal ground effect” occurs at approximately half the wingspan from the ground – over 60ft for a Boeing 757.

I have been trawling through the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum – it seems they are way ahead on this whole issue. The flightpath released by the NTSB corroborates the accounts of the two Sgts you posted and as you say, there are other witnesses too.

It very much appears as though there are two flightpaths – the ‘official’ which took down the light poles and another which approached more to the North and at a higher altitude. The idea seems to be that there was a decoy which performed a flyover.

Here is the animation based on the Flight Data Recorder released by the NTSB if anyone is interested. The animation also indicates position of the ‘official’ flight path, light poles and gas station. Also the supporting witness interview that MolonLabe linked.

All very peculiar.

why not try to answer some of the questions that myself and the previous poster were asking? yes, remote technology may have been around for decades. But has it ever been used before, so publicly, in this way?

A request addressed to all supporters of the 'truth movement': in the absence of a transparent and open official enquiry, and so on, why not speculate a little? Consider some of the questions about who, where, when? Try to construct a few plausible scenarios, and see if they come across as more or less likely than the official version? I'm just trying to offer a few constructive suggestions here.

It may not appear that way at times but I do try to stay out of them, except for when things come up dealing with aviation issues that I can answer and perhaps a few other issues that seemed pretty obvious (although I am learning that even the most obvious issues aren't worth it as those on both sides will believe what they want no matter what facts are staring them in the face. I'm sure you can agree with that). I am a pilot and have two aviation degrees. I have dealt with ground effect and I have flown at high speeds low to the ground. In the various sites that have so far been posted there are graphs showing the variation of ground effect with speed and/or angle of attack. The jet was at high speed and a negative angle of attack. Either one of those would make ground effect reduce to minimal if not negative values. Part of why it is negligible is because the values would be so low and another part is the plane would only have been within distance of the ground to start being effected for a second at most. In that short of a time the power of the engines and momentum of the jet would far overpower any ground effect even if the values weren't minimal.

For the record, I haven't made my mind up yet about the whole of 911. I continue to read a few threads but overall, in my opinion, I don't think any of it matters. Here it is almost 7 years later and the same issues keep getting brought up that were "discussed" years ago. Nothing has changed and it appears that nothing will. 50 years from now people will still be arguing about all of this.

That shows you have been well and truly led down the wrong path. The PFT are the most dishonest and discredited Truther group there is. Fine, that is just slagging off at them, but consider two things:

1. Go to a forum of professional airline pilots, like PPRuNe, the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, the largest international network in the world. It has professional pilots (airline, military, light commercial, and private, both fixed and rotary wing) from numerous countries and airlines. There are air traffic controllers, engineering staff, schedulers, and cabin staff. Anyone who claims to be an aviation professional and doesn't know of it, well... perhaps they have never heard of the internet. Go there and see how many people support the claims of nutter groups like PFT.

2. Educate yourself to the lies and inaccuracies peddled by PFT.

Has no considered the fact that there was not a SINGLE person on these planes that knew martial arts... Not one person confident enough to defend themselves from almost guaranteed death otherwise. I know that I wouldn't think twice fighting a person with a box cutter. My legs are FAR longer than a reach of a box cutter. I just find it so unlikely that no one was willing to defend themselves, or if they did there wasn't a single person on those planes who could stop them.

Ok... so are you saying then that you believe there is some cover-up or conspiracy in place because there apparently weren't any people on-board the aircraft that knew martial arts or who were sufficiently confident enough to take matters into their own hands...?



Cz

People on those planes were maced, incapacitated, stabbed and killed by a team of trained individuals. Box-cutters, standard or modified, and more importantly- knives, were reported.

The curtains on the planes added to confusion between cabins, as did threats of bombs on board. People were told they would be returning to the airports, if they co-operated. Such hijackings had some precedents- landing the plane.

The whole thing is the result of years of wasted opportunities.

How many retired and current military personnel were on board Flight 77?

But you're still telling me, that no one could have defended themselves from a knife attack. Mind you, a fancy pen is just as dangerous as a knife. A puncture would into the lung can easily kill a person. So it is unreasonable to say that these people were all helpless.

And to further point out the obvious, mace would effect those on holding the mace. In such a close proximity such as a cabin, mace would be ineffective.

UA93?

or is the theory that that didn't exist?

so you accept the official theory on ua93?? that passengers somehow thwarted the "hijackers" and caused a nosedive that "vaporized" the plane,its engines,the seats as well as the passengers and their luggage? please by all means why dont you post the images of your alledged nosedived commercial passenger airline catastrophe-- and for the record i believe one of the jets that struck the twin towers had an israeli special forces personel in first class on the passenger list and was the issue of hot debate as to why he did nothing

Poor people ... all of these conspiracy theories, yet conspiracies are poking people in their foreheads and nothing is said.

and your, far, far, far more plausible, theory is?

Just what exactly do expect to be left of an aircraft and its passengers / crew after it crashed into the ground at 560+ Mph?

From NTSB: Flight Path Study - United Airlines Flight 93

"The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots (563 mph) in a 40 degree nose down, inverted attitude."



Pictures from

United States District Court - Eastern District of Virgina: United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui - Criminal No. 01-455-A - Trial Exhibits

Engine debris found at crash site:


Fuselage debris found at crash site:









Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder found at crash site:






Cz

This is a complete joke. Absolutely anybody can sign up anonymously to PPRuNe and claim to be anything they want. Indeed, during the registration process there is this disclaimer: -

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".

Once in the forum, a search of 9/11 threads shows that they have all been locked! The few posts on the threads prior to their closure reveal comments such as “delete this now” or “you are insulting the victims”. There certainly are no answers within.

The site is an affront to freedom of speech and intelligent discussion. God it’s so bad it’s even got its own spoof site PPRooN. If the entire internet was governed by PPRuNe rules then sites such as UM would not exist.

And you call this research?

Oh yes, people can claim they are something... but when you have pilot from the various airlines (and I personally know several), they quickly get caught out. Same with the engineers, air trafficers, etc. You can't fake it with the pros for very long.

The fact that NONE of the professional pilots even entertain the idea that the aviation-related acts of 911 are in any way suspicious should give you some idea why a laughing stock those PFT clowns are.

Let's see what else is around:

Any suspicion at Airliners.net from flight attendants? Nope.

How about the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, a group who provide security information in the wake of 9/11? Nope

Perhaps aviation maintenance professionals; any cries for examination of obviously falsified parts / remains? Not so much as a doubt.

Well, surely the National Air Transportation Association are intent on exposing the coverup! What? Nothing at all? Not even a slight suspicion.

Of course, Jetwhine will at least air the possibility of a conspiracy... won't it? Nope. Nothing.

The British Air Transport Association?

The European Regions Airline Association?

The US National Air Carrier Association?

The Professional Aviation Maintenance Association?

The Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association?

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, the 'trade union' for Australian airline pilots?

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association?

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Association?

No?

Is there at least one recognised organisation of professional airline pilots that doubt 9/11?

NO.

It's a bunch of fringe-dwellers, loons and fruitcakes.

there is NOW-- and it is recognized by many as a great torch of truth unlike your bogus deceitful comments concerning professional airline pilots-- here is a sample of their fruit


you better recognize

American 11(n tower)

united 175(s tower)

Amercian 77(pentagon)

united 93(shanksville,pa)

NO.,NO., NO..

they're all in the pay of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Why can't you see the truth?
They can't see the truth in all the convincing explanations as to what actually happened on 9/11 that the Truth Movement have provided.

such as...


um....







.

People allege the President was "in" on the 9-11 events. All I want to say is this. I know someone whose family was helped by Mr. and Mrs. Bush. It was above and beyond, compassion and humanitarian assistance. Way above and beyond.

While he has perhaps shown symptoms of the stress, etc., over time, there is no way he is what some detractors make him out to be- an uncaring person.

That puts all this conspiracy (politics is something else) where it belongs- on the far back shelf, in my sincerest opinion.

And, as time goes on, I am convinced that the basic underlying truths about the subjects relating to 9-11 have been delved into by the press and investigative journalism. And, that NIST (esp.) and the 9-11 Commission (which came about through grassroots pressure) made good efforts to get at the fundamental issues.

Perhaps, the one issue not resolved is what passed for bureaucratic turf distractions in the intelligence agencies, and even petty corruption, which all added up to distinct failures connected to 9-11. Instead of laying blame on the likes of FAA or FBI, people go after fictitious groups. This doesn't really affect the real world, except that the internet gives it a certain life of its own.

After your showing with the PPRuNe site I’m not going to waste my time looking into these others in any detail. I quickly scanned over a few and it appears they are plain websites rather than discussion forums. Why you would expect to find 9/11 information there I don’t know. Or is it your point that if information is censured and restricted and freedom of speech is not allowed on a particular subject then it can't be true. That's kinda not what the western world is about I’d say.



As Sunofone pointed out again - Pilots for 9/11 Truth who have a verified membership and are asking the questions that everyone should be.

I have noted that mrbusdriver and Obviousman have failed to clear up or else are completely ignoring the Mineta testimony/Commission report discrepancy that I have repeatedly asked about. Can anybody else explain this discrepancy in relation to the ‘official’ story? 747400, frenat, Czero, merril, ifisurvive (if you are lurking), flyingswan (when you are back)???

The problem is that Norman Mineta’s testimony places Dick Cheney at the PEOC prior to 09:20am and further that Cheney had an “order” in place. Reading the Commission report, it states Cheney did not arrive until 09:58am thus absolving him of any responsibility. As is apparent from Mineta’s testimony, there was no confusion that Cheney was at the PEOC before him and I have previously linked to other supporting evidence here.

Now, I want to know why the Commission covered up by altering their timeline in this way. You are all lying to yourselves if you continue to support the ‘official’ fairytale whilst ignoring this discrepancy.

No, they are NOT. They are not recognised by any other professional organisation. Why? Because they are a bunch of loons.

Why hasn't the so-called "smoking gun evidence" of the FDR analysis been presented in a court of law, to professional flight data analysts (you know, people who actually have a clue), to any of the numerous professional organisations?

Because it is garbage, and they know it would be proclaimed as such.

If I am wrong, ask Rob (It's my right to shoot you because you are a foreigner) Balsamo to present the evidence to all the various organisations. Have their analysis presented to a professional flight data analysis team. Let's see what happens.

"We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts --"

Really? Seems they are driving very hard in one direction..., and are quick to dispute other views.

As I've been specifically namechecked... Yes, I've been lurking, to be honest though I've not been following this closely recently.

A quick search and I found this which seems to put question on the accuracy of Mineta's testimony. It has a hell of a lot of detail and sources and related links.

I've given it a good scan, but I'm a bit too busy to research in huge depth or debate about it. But it should be a useful link for you to look at and maybe answer your / other's questions (or provide more confusion ).

What you might find, however, if you were interested, is people with some experience in, and knowledge of, aviation. You might not find in-depth discussion of theories relating to switched planes, remotely controlled 767s, hologrammatic projections, and whatever else the alternative theories may involve, but this might perhaps not be because they're all part of the conspiracy, but because such theories would be laughed out of the water.

OK, I have some questions for the globalresearch.ca website...

"Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and ...Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC." Where was this meeting?

"...the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House's Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a Video Conference, which began around 9:10." Now, there are timelines that indicate this conference started at 9:25. Additionally, it is safe to assume that Rice, and Clark, believed that the VP has headed to the PEOC. Rice hadn't gone there, what's to make us believe that the VP did, at this particular time?
"After spending a few minutes there (VTC), ...Rice said...I'm going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President". Now, she THINKS the VP went straight to the PEOC, she assumes it, but maybe he didn't.

"At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived (in the VTC) and Clarke "suggested he join the VP". All this says is that Clarke also "assumed" that the VP went straight to the PEOC.

"In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney's White House photographer, David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney's office and said "Sir, you have to come with us." Did he go anywhere? Were Rice and Clarke there?

"During this same program..." Now this is interesting...note how it doesn't say "at the same time", nor does it mention Clarke or Rice. Could this be a different "you need to come with us"?

continuing..."During this same program, Rice said: "As I was trying to find all the principals, the the Secret Service came in and said 'you have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's already there. There may be a plane headed towards the White House.' "

When did this Rice event happen, and where?? No mention of Clarke, the VP wasn't present, so obviously there was another "run for cover" call with the Secret Service trying to get folks to the PEOC, this wasn't in the VPs office. The website seems to want these two accounts as being the same event.

"ABC's Charles Gibson then said...'In the bunker, the VP is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta' ". Was Charles there? What account(s) is he basing this on?

I am under the distinct impression that this is different situations/events being protrayed as one event. There were Secret Service attempting to get folks to shelter, and apparently they weren't completely successful at first. They finally ended up carrying the VP to the tunnel bodily.

Mineta overheard something about "an order". He inferred, in later context, that it was a shootdown order. But, one more time, the VP was relaying a shootdown order from the President, based on air traffic information being relayed from an FAA "contact" through the Secret Service. Mineta just got a portion of what was happening. Meanwhile, there are no fighters in any position to do anything with these orders if they even get them, so shoot/don't shoot didn't matter, noone was there to carry them out.

One other thing, Mineta indicates that the White House was being evacuated when he arrived, folks streaming out. This could have been anytime in about a 45 or so minute period. And, according to other interviews, he was simultaneously coordinating the USA wide ground stop, among other things.

I see Mr Mineta getting this thing wrong, and was relating events that happened later. He was out of the loop on the shootdown thing anyway.

I see what you mean...this is a really serious piece of research, with innumerable links. Lots of interesting questions and information I wasn't aware of. Much reading to do....Q24, you going to have a look at the "dark side"? (I wondered why, in an entire administration full of evil, murderous villans, one person is held up as clean, pure, and untainted...)
The FAA info on the ATC Zero is fascinating...and not very well known.