Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Yup.

I'd say you have it pretty much understood there K.!

Kinda hoped so. Why do the CTists have to make things so difficult?

Copy and concur, K! :tu:

This is one of the things I have against the all too short term schools that guarantee you'll pass your written and flight tests. The victims ... er, students may get their tickets but they won't know jack [bad word] about flying. Thing is, they have no clue how much they don't know.

Yep, and being in one that's going in that negative direction is a great way to get a handle on how to get it out of that realm!

Well, the envelope is a kind of curvy parallelogram. Some parts one can't push because the airplane doesn't have enough engine. OTOH, I can say as fact that the published Vne on several airplanes is conservative but it's best to be very gentle on pulling out of the dive that allowed that conclusion. :whistle:

That's why we stall and occasionally, spin one (shhhhh!). Always make the student poop himself to find himself beginning a spin, especially with the instructor in his ear: "Get out of this NOW! NOW!" Hey, you tend to not want to do it when you've done it, and you've learned how a) to get out of it) and b..) not to do it anymore!

One of the things my T-37 instructor went through was recovery from an inverted spin. Intentionally spinning that airplane is a no-no anyway (It's placarded against it.) but spin recovery is part of the syllabus, both normal and inverted. And, yes, it did cause a few in-tense moments but once it was over, it was over. Actually, I made double-damn sure I got right because there was no freakin' way I wanted to do that any more than I absolutely had to. :no:

One of the things Dad put me through was how a power on spiral (as in altitude losing but with power) can transition to a spin. Sky is right. All students learn early on how to use a spiral to dump altitude for all sorts of reasons, one being an emergency landing. They're not always with the power cut back to idle but set somewhere higher. It doesn't matter, the airplane can still entire a spin which tends to be fast and tight. Another way to enter one is a sloppy recovery from a power on stall when the airplane falls off to one side. Again, fast and tight which doesn't change when the power's chopped. Freaky good fun ... for maybe the first turn or two. After that, being subject to motion sickness is a very bad thing. ^_^

I was going to say, "It's always by the numbers," but, I'd say that if you never experience what happens when the numbers fall off the table, you may not live to fly much more. :yes::tu:

Very true. Very true. Those numbers are only valid inside the envelope and, more specifically, around the center of it. But look what Captain Sullenberger did when "the numbers" didn't apply anymore. Or, for that matter, the cockpit crew of the Gimli Glider. A phrase that sprang up after the Hudson River landing is "What would Sully do?" He flew the airplane and not the book, and that is the only real answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ignorance is bliss..

You must be very blissful?

:yes::w00t::yes:

I'm thinking orgasmic :lol: :lol: ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, those of us who actually know what we're seeing, and who aren't occupied by the CT mindset, and the total distrust of government, and the attendant theory-creating that results from that attitude (oh, and I must include the lack of engineering knowledge), aren't surprized at all at what we've seen, and at what's been concluded from the relatively clear evidence.

Just thought I'd make that clear to you. You take care too!

There is a problem with seeing things with the "CT mindset." They haven't quite decided what it is. With all of the different conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, I find it difficult to understand why they can't see that huge discrepancy and discord within their own ranks. If the CTists can answer that, it might help make sense of their versions (yes, plural) of what happened that day. Otherwise, they're just so much noise whose only commonality is that they are following some "experts" who in turn are making money by conning the gullible into buying their books & DVDs. CTists aren't "free thinkers" nor do they use "common sense" but rather are rats being led by silver tongued pied pipers.

CTists remind me so much of audiophools who pay thousands of dollars for gold plated wall sockets so the power to their $25,000+ amplifiers built using oxygen free cryogenically treated wire (which the "experts" can't agree if should be solid or stranded) and other such crap will be protected from the ills of the power grid. Never mind that it doesn't do any such thing, the gurus said they must have these outlets so they go out and spend many much bucks so they can say "Me too!" just like the rest of the gullible rats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now watching an interview with Lt. Colonel Steve O'Brien on the Military Channel, whose C-130 almost collided with American 77 before the B-757 struck the Pentagon. He confirmed to ground controllers that the B-757 struck the Pentagon.

In addition, a playback of a communication tape shows that the military did not know of the whereabouts of United 93 until it was told by ground controllers that United 93 had crashed, which basically slams the door shut on the claim that the military shot down United 93.

Now, listening to confessions of the CIA for its intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks. In addition, it has been revealed that the CIA wanted to capture Osama bin Laden in 1998, but was overruled by President Clinton because it was considered a high-risked operation, which effectively dismissed the claim that the CIA supported Osama bin Laden. The Bojinka Plot received coverage today on the Military Channel and plans to use aircraft as weapons was revealed by Philippine officials and included a plan to attack CIA headquarters with an airplane, which once again, dismiss the claim the CIA supported the terrorist.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whats going on in 'ere then? Are people still debating whether or not 9/11 was an inside job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whats going on in 'ere then? Are people still debating whether or not 9/11 was an inside job?

Personally, I don't see how the government could have pulled it off and not get caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's recap again because you seem to be only selectively picking apart my post that suits your argument. You ask for the information I provide it and then you choose to ignore it. You wanted pictures of large sections of different crashes I provided it. Now you want video evidence I can provide that too! So let's start to pick apart your post shall we?

Not from an aircraft that struck a building at over 500 mph. :no:

(Source National Security Alert 9/11 Pentagon Attack Video at 46:24 minutes into the video)

Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex at the time of the plane flying over and a professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc. Navy Annex said: "I say 13 seconds, uh as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots. National Security Alert reports: "The NTSB reported the plane speed at this point at 460 knots, which equals to 530 miles per hour, or 781 feet per second. At that air speed it would only take a mere 3.4 seconds to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon in direct contrast to the approximately 10 seconds reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin, as well as by William Middleton. All who were in strategic potions to be able to tell this detail in accuracy." (National Security video at 20:19 minutes) Terry Morin quoted as saying "he was flying 350-400 knots I say 13 seconds as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots..." So to recap 1 (international) knot is equal to 1.150779 mile (statute) per hour (mph). With this information according to eyewitness Terry Morin who was there at the time and a professional aviator is saying that the airplane is traveling at 350 to 400 knots which indicates the planes speed between 402.7725 mph and 460.3116 mph. The NTSB is suggestion the plane went at 460 knots or 529.35834 mph. So you can't even get that information right and I proved to you not only was the plane not going 500 mph as you suggest but according to eyewitness testimony it was going less then that speed.

I do! And, there are tons of photos, so once again, no videos are required to prove that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon. After all, were there videos for the crash of that Caspian Airliner? How did they determine the aircraft was a Tu-154?

Officials determined it was a Tu-154 based on video, eyewitness, and physical evidence found at the scene. Here is your video proof you asked and yes there was video proof of this accident like so many other crashes that take place. Please remember you brought up Caspian Tu-154 I did not.

[media=]

[/media]
The FAA and the NTSB can tell you that they usually run into conflicting eyewitness accounts during their investigations, which is another reason why they rely on viable data and physical evidence. Anyone who has dealt with eyewitnesses know how unreliable they can be in accidents. In the case of American 77 and the gas station, the downed light poles proved that the B-757 passed south of the gas station, while on the other hand, there are no downed light poles that suggest the aircraft passed north of the gas station. :no:

There is just one problem to your argument. All of the images that were taken were during the aftermath of the event, and although the FBI has evidence that can show events leading up to the final crash from video surveillance and probably bystanders on the street filming the event as was the case of the first crash at 9/11 somehow no footage exists of the plane hitting the building other then the outside of Pentagon security post which has an obstruction of the object as it flies in. To this day the Pentagon and the FBI refuse to release this evidence.

The physical data you are referring to in regards to the lamp poles was clearly staged as stated by the cab driver who was at the scene and can be viewed on the National Security video I provided. Again what reason would he have to lie about that? He was being secretly tapped when he let that information slip and his wife was an FBI agent which connects him to the government and she probably forced him to help with the cover up even though it seems he didn’t want to be a part of it.

The physical evidence does not support claims that American 77 passed north of the gas station, and physical is what counts. :yes: There are no downed light poles that indicated American 77 passed north of the gas station, but there are downed light poles proving that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

So if I physically dropped a fake serial number at the crash site it would count as evidence even though it never actually happened? So if a cab driver says that there was a cover up and confirms that the lamp poles that were knocked down were staged to make it look like the plane approached from the south side as the NTSB contests (who is a government agency that answers to other bodies of government) we should then assume that the government is always right and everyone else is wrong? Again where is the physical evidence that the wreckage is from flight 77? Eyewitness also said that flight 77 flew over the Pentagon as the bomb exploded but let’s ignore that fact too he must be making it up. Oh yeah he is also another Federal Pentagon Police officer which you can view in the video I provided earlier.

As you can plainly see, there was no way that American 77 passed north of the gas station. :no:

Edward Paik (Auto Mechanic), Terry Morin (professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc.) Robert Turcios (Citgo station employee) Officer Chadwick Brooks (Federal Pentagon Police), Sgt. William Lagasse (Federal Pentagon Police), William Middleton Sr. (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Darrell Stafford (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Darius Prather (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Donald Carter (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Sean Boger (Heliport Air Traffic Controller) will all disagree with you and have confirmed there eyewitness testimony clearly show that flight 77 was in fact north of where the NTSB claims Flight 77 was. Since they were there and you were not I will take their word over yours that this is what actually took place. Finally Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. (Federal Pentagon Police) who saw flight 77 fly away from the Pentagon after the explosion is on record saying this days after the incident and in later interviews. Something may very well have caused those lamp posts to crash down before impacting the building or the lamp posts could have been remotely dropped by very small explosives to make it look like something knocked them down. Either way we will never know because the FBI still refuses to release footage so all we can go by is eyewitness testimony and physical evidence that is reportedly not consistent with what actually took place.

The physical evidence does not support claims of 9/11 Truthers. :no:

As I said above physical evidence can be made to look like what you want when you are trying to cover up something.

Go back and check again. I focused on a number of pieces that I am very familiar with.

Looking at the surveillance video, it is clear enough to see that the B-757 did not take an approach north of the gas station. :no: Question is: How did the 9/11 Truthers missed that?!

The video is of another plane or some sort of flying object impacting the Pentagon the quality of the video along with it conveniently being obstructed by the pillar at the gate house does not make it out to be flight 77 or a 757 yet you think it can only be flight 77. The fact remains the video footage does not support your claim that it is indeed flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon because there is no other footage prior to the impact. As I showed you when you asked for video footage of the Caspian Tu-154 crash video footage can tend to be found even while in mid air.

In the absence of videos, you listen to what the physical evidence is saying.

The absence of videos is telling me the opposite because we know there ARE videos out there minutes before a plane or another flying object struck the Pentagon. The fact that the FBI refuses to release this information combined with eyewitness testimony is indication that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. If a plane that large hit the Pentagon where are the physical skid marks that should be visible at the entrance to the hole and along the path the object took? Why do the pillars at the lower level of the building show them still standing intact and upright right after the impact? The aftermath pictures clearly show this the building eventually collapses after sometime. The evidence does not add up.

TWA 800 did not strike a building at over 500 mph. :no:

Yet you brought it up I never even brought up TWA 800 until you did. I also provided you with the large physical evidence that you asked for and now you don’t want to focus on that because it did not strike a building yet you keep bringing up Caspian Tu-154 which was also a mid air collision. There are many other crashes that have hit mountains and buildings and have large sections of identifiable parts of said plane to indicate it was from the same aircraft that crashed. Yet somehow at the Pentagon there are no visible markings to indicate this.

You will notice that the engine part is that of a Rolls Royce RB11-535 series engine, which powered American 77, and the disk is no way from an auxiliary power unit despite what 9/11 Truthers have claimed, which goes to show why it is not prudent to use websites that are well-known for disinformation and misinformation as you have been doing.

Where does it show that the engine part is of the Rolls Royce RB11-535 what indication gives you any clue as to this being the case all I see is wreckage of a mechanical part that could have been from a similar type of engine. I forgot to ask are you an aviation expert or aviation engineer? Since I was asked this in earlier conversations I feel it only be fair if you answer this as well. I showed you and explained to you that although I am no aviation expert or do not have an engineering degree I was able to shed light on the fact that combustor case is not from a 757 you can clearly see that the rings although deformed do not conform with the dimensions of the actual picture of the Rolls- Royce combustor case housing. Yet you did not respond to that whatsoever but selectively chose to make your point by using NTSB as your evidence which is doctored to begin with. See how that can work both ways? You claim the 9/11 Truthers as you like to call them spread disinformation and misinformation and yet the American Government is doing the exact same thing. When the people you call 9/11 Truthers bring you eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to the table people like you will just call them conspiracy nuts without even taking a look at the evidence. Open your eyes and see what they are showing to you. I am doing the same with what you are presenting and it does not add up and I am proving this to you time and again.

Edited by Crumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the American Goverment never lies right?

Part 1 and 2 should be of interested to those talking about the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance on the black boxes I appreciate it. That is what the FBI might want you to believe that they were from flight 77 but I have my doubts because of two things that still have yet to be pointed out. You still haven't shown me evidence of any large pieces of plane wreckage

Let's see ... 200,000 pounds of airplane striking a building (not a mountain side but a building) at 500 kts or so. Works out to 8 billion pounds force slamming into what is essentially a hollow structure so that even though the airplane got shredded the greater part was still able to pass inside. Due to the angle of the impact, some small pieces from the left wing and fuselage remained outside but the rest went in as shredded metal. Note that a good portion of the 757 & 767 structure isn't metal but rather is fiber which tends to be even more prone to disintegrate in a collision so really doesn't provide much defense against penetration.

A mountain isn't a hollow structure but is pretty solid. Even our local volcanoes are solid until you get to that big hole in the middle where they're not someplace you want to be. (Pele doesn't like when people get too close. She's got one freaky bad temper.) Planes don't go into them but rather crumple against them, not unusually at an angle since the sides of mountains are rarely straight up and down. This allows many much lots of big pieces to remain even if there is a fire. The tail feathers often survive for several reasons, they're the last on the scene of the collision and in most cases there's no fuel back there being two of them. (The Boeing 727 has all three engines in back so the tail's survival is questionable in case of a collision and fire.)

nor told me why the FBI and other enforcement agencies have not released other video evidence that was taken during the crash to the public.

What other video evidence? The parking lot security camera and the one camera at the Doubletree were the only ones aimed in the right direction and turned on at the time. The rest of the hotel's 24 cameras were either aimed away from the Pentagon or turned off - or both.

I do not have an engineering degree but I have read up on plane crashes and have witnessed testimony on why there should be large plane wreckage still visible at the Pentagon by those who have aviation background with degrees in engineering and many concluded that in fact that wreckage should have larger parts present.

I do have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering as do others here and and I am a pilot as are others here. I'm telling you as both an engineer and a pilot those "engineers with an aviation background" haven't a clue. A previous paragraph explains why. Reading up on plane crashes teaches you nothing unless you have some understanding of what the accident reports are saying. Otherwise, you may as well read the Sunday comics.

The fact that the only footage at the Pentagon gatehouse shows a large stone blocking the actual picture of whatever hit the Pentagon as it was flying in is a clear indication that something is being covered up. Release other footage and I will shut up about this if indeed it was a 757 that did crash into the Pentagon.

Oh! My! Freakin'! God! Oh, look, guys. The Doubletree Hotel is now the Pentagon's gatehouse. And the highway overpass is now a large stone. Crumar, I don't know where you get your information but that has to be the most imaginative description of the footage from the camera at the Doubletree Hotel. A highway overpass blocks the actual impact. Czero did a marvelous write up a bunch of pages back which you can find with a little effort on your part. There were No Other Cameras in a position to capture the impact. Neither the FBI nor anyone else can release that which doesn't exist.

The FBI refuse to release recordings from the black box because it will emotionally scar family members is a cop out

It's another example of truther disinformation. First off, the FBI handed the recovered FDRs and CVRs to the NTSB to handle since that's part of what they do for a living. Second, the only CVR that was recovered intact of which I'm aware was the one from Shanksville and only the family members were allowed to hear the recordings from it. Third, it's not policy to release either FDR or CVR data to the public from any wreck let alone those from 9/11.

I may have bought your entire argument but then I realized things could be photo shopped to show proof like this guys evidence of the footage of the plane going toward the building.

Truther tactics include photoshopping and creative video editing as well as cherry picking witness testimony. When they're caught out, they cry about how they're being so abused then change their direction to supply even more "evidence" that's equally bogus or has been debunked already. Y'see, Crumar, the people with whom you associate have been proven time and time again to employ the tactics you accuse the supporters of the official version of using. However the latter group have no need of doing so since the evidence stands on its own merit. It is internally and externally consistent where the assorted conspiracy theories - including false flag ones - are neither.

Please explain my ignorance to me I wait to see how you will answer my questions with more questions.

There you are. No questions involved, just direct fact based answers from someone who is both an engineer and a pilot.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the American Goverment never lies right?

Please point out where anyone who accepts the Official Version has ever stated that "the Government never lies".

After you're done disassembling the strawman you have put up for us, perhaps you can then explain to us why the fact that the Government has lied before (and will probably lie again) automatically means that they are lying about some aspects (or all of them, as some claim) of 9/11...?

What about you? Have you never ever in your entire life lied about anything whatsoever? Answering "Yes" to that question would almost certainly be a lie in and of itself which them means that your "Government is lying because it has lied before" argument promptly disappears in a puff of logic (to paraphrase Douglas Adams).

Unfortunately I don't think you will follow suit.....

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see ... 200,000 pounds of airplane striking a building (not a mountain side but a building) at 500 kts or so. Works out to 8 billion pounds force slamming into what is essentially a hollow structure so that even though the airplane got shredded the greater part was still able to pass inside. Due to the angle of the impact, some small pieces from the left wing and fuselage remained outside but the rest went in as shredded metal. Note that a good portion of the 757 & 767 structure isn't metal but rather is fiber which tends to be even more prone to disintegrate in a collision so really doesn't provide much defense against penetration.

You call yourself an aviation engineer and neglect to point out that some parts of the plane like the engine are made out of titanium and would not just "shred" into tiny little pieces evidence by the turbine and other parts found at the crash site. According to experts (as shown in the two video's I posted above) they say they were able to identify bodies and even finger print victims yet they cannot identify that a 757 crashed into the building? Tell me expert where is the large skid mark that should be present right before the hole as this huge jet slammed into the building? Why is it missing and not there as other aircraft crashes have been known to always cause this feature during an air to ground crash landing.

A mountain isn't a hollow structure but is pretty solid. Even our local volcanoes are solid until you get to that big hole in the middle where they're not someplace you want to be. (Pele doesn't like when people get too close. She's got one freaky bad temper.) Planes don't go into them but rather crumple against them, not unusually at an angle since the sides of mountains are rarely straight up and down. This allows many much lots of big pieces to remain even if there is a fire. The tail feathers often survive for several reasons, they're the last on the scene of the collision and in most cases there's no fuel back there being two of them. (The Boeing 727 has all three engines in back so the tail's survival is questionable in case of a collision and fire.)

And yet as others have claimed in these forums the Pentagon had re-enforced concrete and steel made to withstand large impacts and somehow this plane just went through 3 buildings made of this stuff to make a perfect hole at the 3rd and final exit point where there is no sign of any large titanium parts that could withstand even this impact.

What other video evidence? The parking lot security camera and the one camera at the Doubletree were the only ones aimed in the right direction and turned on at the time. The rest of the hotel's 24 cameras were either aimed away from the Pentagon or turned off - or both.

Based on what evidence please show me proof of this. You work for the FBI and have knowledge that this footage does not exist? The video I posted above clearly indicates that hotel staff had the crash on tape and viewed it countless times before the FBI confiscated it please go take a look at it before spreading misinformation. The FBI confiscated not only stationary camera video feeds but also tourists and other public video hand held devices that people like Czero cannot account for.

I do have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering as do others here and and I am a pilot as are others here. I'm telling you as both an engineer and a pilot those "engineers with an aviation background" haven't a clue. A previous paragraph explains why. Reading up on plane crashes teaches you nothing unless you have some understanding of what the accident reports are saying. Otherwise, you may as well read the Sunday comics.

So you have an Aeronautical Engineering degree and are a pilot even though I did not ask you I am glad you brought this up. Yet others who have the same said degree and are telling a different story should be discounted just because you have a degree? So we should believe you over them because you might be smarter and have more information then those who have the same background as you may not? Why do they not have a clue and you do please enlighten me as to why you are more educated and your opinion accounts for more I would be interested in hearing why. What makes you more special than other well educated pilots and engineers that we should take only your word over theirs? Look I don't want to bash you and disrespect you in anyway that is not my intention but by you just discounting credible people who are educated as clueless does not sit well with me. I will listen to what you have to say and give credence to it because of your background and education but please do not discount all information just because they come from some Conspiracy Truther as you guys like to call them.

Oh! My! Freakin'! God! Oh, look, guys. The Doubletree Hotel is now the Pentagon's gatehouse. And the highway overpass is now a large stone. Crumar, I don't know where you get your information but that has to be the most imaginative description of the footage from the camera at the Doubletree Hotel. A highway overpass blocks the actual impact. Czero did a marvelous write up a bunch of pages back which you can find with a little effort on your part. There were No Other Cameras in a position to capture the impact. Neither the FBI nor anyone else can release that which doesn't exist.

Again spreading misinformation where have I said that the footage was of the Doubletree Hotel please show this in other posts I made. There were many cameras in position to see the plane and where it was located and only one or two that could actually see what happened at the side of the Pentagon before impact this is common knowledge because eyewitness testimony confirms this yet you seem to want to ignore this fact. Czero can write whatever he wants but unless he can prove he is an FBI agent and has first hand knowledge of every camera angle taken by the FBI and can show us this evidence I will discount his claim that there is no other video footage available. Just because some anonomous person says one thing on the internet doesn't make it so.

It's another example of truther disinformation. First off, the FBI handed the recovered FDRs and CVRs to the NTSB to handle since that's part of what they do for a living. Second, the only CVR that was recovered intact of which I'm aware was the one from Shanksville and only the family members were allowed to hear the recordings from it. Third, it's not policy to release either FDR or CVR data to the public from any wreck let alone those from 9/11.

There were 3 black boxes recovered at the World Trade Center and one recovered at the Pentagon. Yet the FBI claim they were all destroyed even though firefighters have testified to seeing them taken away. As for the footage the FBI may have handed them over to the NTSB but they were handed back and are now in possession of the FBI once more. If the government truly wants to stop misinformation they should be transparent with the evidence as it will help close the case and all the conspiracy surrounding this event.

Truther tactics include photoshopping and creative video editing as well as cherry picking witness testimony. When they're caught out, they cry about how they're being so abused then change their direction to supply even more "evidence" that's equally bogus or has been debunked already. Y'see, Crumar, the people with whom you associate have been proven time and time again to employ the tactics you accuse the supporters of the official version of using. However the latter group have no need of doing so since the evidence stands on its own merit. It is internally and externally consistent where the assorted conspiracy theories - including false flag ones - are neither.

There you are. No questions involved, just direct fact based answers from someone who is both an engineer and a pilot.

Everyone lies to try to spread their agenda even the Truthers for whatever reason will do this just like people in gorilla costumes parade around as bigfoot for attention. Just like President Bush and his WMD bull that people bought but never was proven to exist in Iraq. Just like his father who wanted another "Pearl Harbor" his own words not mine and he got one in the form of 9/11. But what is alarming is expert witness and testimony from people who work for the federal government and could lose their jobs and be blacklisted have come forward to claim what they saw and what the NTSB reported were contradictory to what actually happened and I see no reason why they would lie with this risk to them involved. Based on your interpretation of evidence you claim the evidence stands yet there is so much to the puzzle that it doesn't add up. Tell me aviation engineer and pilot expert why was NORAD jets far north for training exercises and on standby that day? Why did they not scramble jets until it was too late and out of all the times to attack somehow these hostage takers had ample time to figure out that NORAD would be on training exercise and that they would not be able to stop the hi-jackers from attacking. Finally have you ever designed, worked on, or flown a 757 and how many hours have you logged and worked on these planes please respond to that one I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

Edited by Crumar
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please point out where anyone who accepts the Official Version has ever stated that "the Government never lies".

The fact that people take the full account of the NTSB report as factual without error is an indication that people do believe the lie and will stand by it. How am I to know if these said same people think the government does lie or not can be proven you are basically asking me for evidence to something that cannot be given unless I go to every person and interview them and then have them assume they are not lying this cannot be done because I do not have the resources to undertake this task. Since you think it can be done please educate me on how this can be done since you seem to think you have an answer.

After you're done disassembling the strawman you have put up for us, perhaps you can then explain to us why the fact that the Government has lied before (and will probably lie again) automatically means that they are lying about some aspects (or all of them, as some claim) of 9/11...?

Straw man according to you and since when do you account for the majority of posters on these forums using the term "us" to indicate a majority of people on these forums that share your viewpoint. The Government of many countries around the world has lied to its people at one time or another. In regards to the American Government and the 9/11 attacks the Government has told the truth and lied because there is a lot of contradiction that is the entire purpose of disinformation. No one can fully get the story straight everyone draws a line in the sand and picks their side. Because human beings tell the truth and lie and have their own agenda and are a part of the Government you will always find those conflicts. The Government is not an entity but a microcosm of people with different backgrounds who try to strive for a common goal for the people who put them in power but some end up serving their own self interests. That is why some people lie about what happened during 9/11 because their motives could be any number of things, like greed, political agenda, creating a new "Pearl Harbor" or whatever else it could be I am not an expert I just like to present evidence and let people be their own judge.

What about you? Have you never ever in your entire life lied about anything whatsoever? Answering "Yes" to that question would almost certainly be a lie in and of itself which them means that your "Government is lying because it has lied before" argument promptly disappears in a puff of logic (to paraphrase Douglas Adams).

Unfortunately I don't think you will follow suit.....

Cz

What an absurd statement. Everyone at one time or another in this world has lied and told the truth. The fact that you are trying to use this argument to discredit what I write and frame it as logic is ridiculous. For that reason the same can be applied to what you write. You can lie and tell the truth no one will know your motives or why but you do it just like the rest of us. Have you ever in your life told the truth about anything whatsoever? Answering "Yes" to that question would almost certainly be the truth in and of itself which then means that your "Government is truthful because it has told the truth before" argument promptly disappears in a puff of logic. See what I did there?

Edited by Crumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me aviation engineer and pilot expert why was NORAD jets far north for training exercises and on standby that day?

The exercises did not affet ANY NORAD jets. The same number of jets were on alert before and during 911.

Why did they not scramble jets until it was too late

How long do YOU think it should have taken them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that people take the full account of the NTSB report as factual without error is an indication that people do believe the lie and will stand by it. How am I to know if these said same people think the government does lie or not can be proven you are basically asking me for evidence to something that cannot be given unless I go to every person and interview them and then have them assume they are not lying this cannot be done because I do not have the resources to undertake this task. Since you think it can be done please educate me on how this can be done since you seem to think you have an answer.

So in other words, you can't provide any quotes where anyone here who believes the Official Story has said "The Government never lies", its just a straw man argument brought about by someone (you) who has no real way of defending or proving their position, other than to purposely misinterpret / fabricate the position of the other side of this debate . Ok... thanks.

Straw man according to you and since when do you account for the majority of posters on these forums using the term "us" to indicate a majority of people on these forums that share your viewpoint. The Government of many countries around the world has lied to its people at one time or another. In regards to the American Government and the 9/11 attacks the Government has told the truth and lied because there is a lot of contradiction that is the entire purpose of disinformation. No one can fully get the story straight everyone draws a line in the sand and picks their side. Because human beings tell the truth and lie and have their own agenda and are a part of the Government you will always find those conflicts. The Government is not an entity but a microcosm of people with different backgrounds who try to strive for a common goal for the people who put them in power but some end up serving their own self interests. That is why some people lie about what happened during 9/11 because their motives could be any number of things, like greed, political agenda, creating a new "Pearl Harbor" or whatever else it could be I am not an expert I just like to present evidence and let people be their own judge.

So in other words, you don't know what a strawman argument is or why your claim that people who support the Official Story also believe that the Government never lies is one, and you only have nothing but your own bias and willful ignorance to support your idea that since the Government has lied before, it must be lying about 9/11.... Ok... thanks

What an absurd statement. Everyone at one time or another in this world has lied and told the truth. The fact that you are trying to use this argument to discredit what I write and frame it as logic is ridiculous. For that reason the same can be applied to what you write. You can lie and tell the truth no one will know your motives or why but you do it just like the rest of us. Have you ever in your life told the truth about anything whatsoever? Answering "Yes" to that question would almost certainly be the truth in and of itself which then means that your "Government is truthful because it has told the truth before" argument promptly disappears in a puff of logic. See what I did there?

Yes, I see what you did there. You avoided the point of my question altogether, and tried to look "smart" (and horribly failed, btw) by turning my "puff of logic" statement around on me, except that your version of it does not make any sense whatsoever, doesn't work, and only serves to make you look even more foolish.

Given the level of ignorance and confirmation bias displayed in all your posts so far, its not surprising that you can't see just how illogical, unsupportable and intellectually dishonest your position and approach here is, though.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's recap again because you seem to be only selectively picking apart my post that suits your argument. You ask for the information I provide it and then you choose to ignore it. You wanted pictures of large sections of different crashes I provided it. Now you want video evidence I can provide that too! So let's start to pick apart your post shall we?

Go right ahead.

Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex at the time of the plane flying over and a professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc. Navy Annex said: "I say 13 seconds, uh as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots. National Security Alert reports: "The NTSB reported the plane speed at this point at 460 knots, which equals to 530 miles per hour, or 781 feet per second. At that air speed it would only take a mere 3.4 seconds to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon in direct contrast to the approximately 10 seconds reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin, as well as by William Middleton. All who were in strategic potions to be able to tell this detail in accuracy." (National Security video at 20:19 minutes) Terry Morin quoted as saying "he was flying 350-400 knots I say 13 seconds as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots..." So to recap 1 (international) knot is equal to 1.150779 mile (statute) per hour (mph). With this information according to eyewitness Terry Morin who was there at the time and a professional aviator is saying that the airplane is traveling at 350 to 400 knots which indicates the planes speed between 402.7725 mph and 460.3116 mph. The NTSB is suggestion the plane went at 460 knots or 529.35834 mph. So you can't even get that information right and I proved to you not only was the plane not going 500 mph as you suggest but according to eyewitness testimony it was going less then that speed.

Now, let's take another look at the facts.

American 77 was positioned 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon at 09:34 and at the end of its turn, it accelertated to 530 mph until it impacted the Pentagon.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

Officials determined it was a Tu-154 based on video, eyewitness, and physical evidence found at the scene.

Well, we have video of American 77 and eyewitness accounts of American 77 crashing into the Pentagon and physical evidence at the scene proved that it was a B-757 and confirmation from American Airlines confirmed that it was American 77, which effectively slams the door on your argument.

...you asked and yes there was video proof of this accident like so many other crashes that take place.

We have video proof of American 77 as well. Now, where's the video for the crash of PSA 1771? How was it determined that aircraft was PSA 1771? What was the size of the largest piece recovered?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4

Please remember you brought up Caspian Tu-154 I did not.

I sure did and you didn't see an intact fuselage either.

There is just one problem to your argument. All of the images that were taken were during the aftermath of the event,...

Well, photos are usually taken of an aircraft crash site in the aftermath of an airplane crash.

...and although the FBI has evidence that can show events leading up to the final crash from video surveillance and probably bystanders on the street filming the event as was the case of the first crash at 9/11 somehow no footage exists of the plane hitting the building other then the outside of Pentagon security post...

That is enough right there and we can tie the flight path with physical damage leading up to, and inside the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You call yourself an aviation engineer and neglect to point out that some parts of the plane like the engine are made out of titanium and would not just "shred" into tiny little pieces evidence by the turbine and other parts found at the crash site.

What is that suppose to mean when I posted the hot sections from the Rolls Royce RB11-535 series jet engine in the wreckage? I don't think that you understood what you have just written, or you haven't been paying any attention to what I have posted.

According to experts (as shown in the two video's I posted above) they say they were able to identify bodies and even finger print victims yet they cannot identify that a 757 crashed into the building?

I

I have already posted photos of wreckage where I have identified the wreckage as wreckage from a B-757. So your argument is shot down once again.

Tell me expert where is the large skid mark that should be present right before the hole as this huge jet slammed into the building?

I can do better than that. I can show where the engine struck the generator.

PBPT-1.png

trail2.jpg

WarpedBendinGeneratorTrailer.jpg

5poles.jpg

gen8.jpg

trailergouge.jpg

As you can see, the B-757 wasn't skidding on its belly.

And yet as others have claimed in these forums the Pentagon had re-enforced concrete and steel made to withstand large impacts and somehow this plane just went through 3 buildings made of this stuff to make a perfect hole at the 3rd and final exit point where there is no sign of any large titanium parts that could withstand even this impact.

Look at this photo where a B-25 slammed into the Empire State Building. Remember, the airframe of the smaller B-25 was not as strong as a B-757.

2174b3241f94.jpg

...

which has an obstruction of the object as it flies in. To this day the Pentagon and the FBI refuse to release this evidence.

Didn't even bother to gain the significance of the fallen light poles leading to the Pentagon?

...The physical data you are referring to in regards to the lamp poles was clearly staged as stated by the cab driver who was at the scene and can be viewed on the National Security video I provided. Again what reason would he have to lie about that?

How do you stage a crime scene of fallen light poles in such a very busy area? Do you know how ridicules that sounds? Like planting light poles on the Golden Gate bridge and hoping no one will notice.

You see, it is like this; you were duped once again.

So if I physically dropped a fake serial number at the crash site it would count as evidence even though it never actually happened?

That doesn't make any sense because serial numbers can be checked for authenticity and the pieces are clearly wreckage from a B-757 and aircraft parts have part and/or stock numbers stamped on them as well. Wtih thousands of pieces of such parts lying outside and inside the Pentagon, how are you going to plant serial numbers? What you have said doesn't make any sense at all and proves just how vulnerable you are to disinformation and misinformation.

So if a cab driver says that there was a cover up and confirms that the lamp poles that were knocked down were staged to make it look like the plane approached from the south side as the NTSB contests (who is a government agency that answers to other bodies of government) we should then assume that the government is always right and everyone else is wrong? Again where is the physical evidence that the wreckage is from flight 77?

The B-757 wreckage itself, because only so many B-757-200 series were built and it wouldn't take very long to account for each B-757 ever built, but it seems the 9/11 Truthers don't think of little things like that.

And, we have wreckage from American Airlines, radar tracking information, eyewitness accounts from the C-130 confirming ground controllers information on the location of the B-757, FDR data, and recovered human remains from crew and passengers of American 77. That is more than enough evidence confirming the identity of the B-757 as American 77.

Eyewitness also said that flight 77 flew over the Pentagon as the bomb exploded...

No one saw anything fly over the Pentagon, not even the air controllers who watched American 77 as it maneuvered in the sky and besides, controllers would have noticed any aircraft that flew over the Pentagon, which is not what happened anyway.

...but let’s ignore that fact too he must be making it up. Oh yeah he is also another Federal Pentagon Police officer which you can view in the video I provided earlier.

Policemen are not immune to mistakes.

Edward Paik (Auto Mechanic), Terry Morin (professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc.) Robert Turcios (Citgo station employee) ,,,

You don't even want to bring in another professional aviator into the argument if you think he agrees with you because I can prove that he is wrong as well and use my own experience, facts and evidence to prove it.

...Officer Chadwick Brooks (Federal Pentagon Police), Sgt. William Lagasse (Federal Pentagon Police), William Middleton Sr. (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Darrell Stafford (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Darius Prather (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Donald Carter (Arlington Cemetery Employee), Sean Boger (Heliport Air Traffic Controller) will all disagree with you and have confirmed there eyewitness testimony clearly show that flight 77 was in fact north of where the NTSB claims Flight 77 was. Since they were there and you were not I will take their word over yours that this is what actually took place. Finally Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. (Federal Pentagon Police) who saw flight 77 fly away from the Pentagon after the explosion is on record saying this days after the incident and in later interviews.

Apparently, you have fallen victim to those conspiracy websites and have been duped again by the disinformation they spew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that people take the full account of the NTSB report as factual without error is an indication that people do believe the lie and will stand by it. How am I to know if these said same people think the government does lie or not can be proven you are basically asking me for evidence to something that cannot be given unless I go to every person and interview them and then have them assume they are not lying this cannot be done because I do not have the resources to undertake this task. Since you think it can be done please educate me on how this can be done since you seem to think you have an answer.

The NTSB report is backed by facts, the problem here is that you do not want to believe it, is a personal problem.

The way I see it is that you already have it in your mind that those facts are fabricated, whether its due to ignorance, lack of education, or a feeling of superiority over all those that are against your strawman position is yet again another personal problem.

Straw man according to you and since when do you account for the majority of posters on these forums using the term "us" to indicate a majority of people on these forums that share your viewpoint.

You obviously have no clue what a strawman argument is.

The Government of many countries around the world has lied to its people at one time or another. In regards to the American Government and the 9/11 attacks the Government has told the truth and lied because there is a lot of contradiction that is the entire purpose of disinformation. No one can fully get the story straight everyone draws a line in the sand and picks their side. Because human beings tell the truth and lie and have their own agenda and are a part of the Government you will always find those conflicts. The Government is not an entity but a microcosm of people with different backgrounds who try to strive for a common goal for the people who put them in power but some end up serving their own self interests.

So basically you are taking all the evidence presented by the NTSB report to back up its claims as being fabricated.

with a position like that, there is no hopes in trying to educate you in why physics, math, engineering, and quite literally every other aspects of science will ever be sufficient enough to show you how silly your points of arguments are.

That is why some people lie about what happened during 9/11 because their motives could be any number of things, like greed, political agenda, creating a new "Pearl Harbor" or whatever else it could be I am not an expert I just like to present evidence and let people be their own judge.

Evidence is backed by facts. Please do not sit there and tell us you have evidence without supporting it with actual facts.

What an absurd statement. Everyone at one time or another in this world has lied and told the truth. The fact that you are trying to use this argument to discredit what I write and frame it as logic is ridiculous. For that reason the same can be applied to what you write. You can lie and tell the truth no one will know your motives or why but you do it just like the rest of us. Have you ever in your life told the truth about anything whatsoever? Answering "Yes" to that question would almost certainly be the truth in and of itself which then means that your "Government is truthful because it has told the truth before" argument promptly disappears in a puff of logic. See what I did there?

How funny, you know how idiotic you conveniently just made yourself sound with this statement?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something may very well have caused those lamp posts to crash down before impacting the building or the lamp posts could have been remotely dropped by very small explosives to make it look like something knocked them down.

I guess you didn't review the photos of the light poles because the impact damages are clearly evident on the light poles, which once again, proves that you are vulnerable to disinformation from those websites.

Either way we will never know because the FBI still refuses to release footage so all we can go by is eyewitness testimony and physical evidence that is reportedly not consistent with what actually took place.

We already know what knocked down the light poles, so your argument if moot at this point.

Yet you brought it up I never even brought up TWA 800 until you did. I also provided you with the large physical evidence that you asked for and now you don’t want to focus on that because it did not strike a building yet you keep bringing up Caspian Tu-154 which was also a mid air collision.

You did not show us an intact fuselage nor wings from the Caspian Airliner.

Where does it show that the engine part is of the Rolls Royce RB11-535...

757_ext_586_1.jpg

An RB211-535 powered Boeing 757 takes off or lands every 25 seconds

Product details

  • Powering over 500 Boeing 757 aircraft around the world
  • There are over 1100 RB211-535 engines in service today
  • 60 per cent of Boeing 757 operators have selected RB211-535 engines
  • RB211-535 engines have logged over 57 million flight hours and over 23 million cycles of highly reliable service by December 2011
  • In service with more than 40 operators
  • The world's most reliable large turbofan
  • High time on-wing engine has completed 42743 hours without a shop visit
  • Sole Western powerplant available on the Tupolev Tu-204 aircraft

http://www.rolls-roy...tcm92-11348.pdf

Engine parts from American 77

rb211-pentagon.jpg

debris2_engine.jpg

planeparts-1.jpg

rottami_002.jpg

rb211-535_1.jpg

rb211-535_2.jpg

...what indication gives you any clue as to this being the case all I see is wreckage of a mechanical part that could have been from a similar type of engine.

The engine came only from American 77. All investigators had to do was to make simple phone calls to the maintenance facility of American Airlines to obtain the serial numbers for those engines.

With over 40 years experience in the field of aviation, I saw all kinds of clues that you have overlooked because you are not in a position, nor have the knowledge and experience to notice the significance of what those photos depict, and based on what you have been posting, proves that you are very vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation.

I forgot to ask are you an aviation expert or aviation engineer? Since I was asked this in earlier conversations I feel it only be fair if you answer this as well.

I have a lot of experience in the field of aviation.

I am a pilot (43 years experience) and an airframe technician (45 years experience). I have invented and developed components for Air Force aircraft as well as special tools, fixtures, and other equipment that are currently in use by Air Force maintenance personnel and defense contractors and I have developed special fixtures for the U.S. Army for its helicopters at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).

I have conducted safety briefings for airframe and jet engine maintenance personnel of L3 Communications, Vertex Aerospace, and Raytheon Aerospace and a safety briefing on the hazards of mountain flying for members of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

I have occupied positions within the Air Force and with defense contractors as supervisor/inspector for airframes and jet engine components. I have been sent on fact finding trips around the country by the USAF and defense contractors and to Pensacola, Florida by the USAF and Raytheon Aerospace to develop a new technical manual for the engine inlet used by the TF-39 jet engine that powers the Air Force's C-5 transport. In addition, I have conducted airframe inspections on NASA's Kuiper Airborne Observatory, tail number 714, at Travis AFB, CA. for many years. I have also flown as DCC crew member aboard the C-5 transport

I have led a chapter as president whose members consist of air force officers, enlisted members, military retirees, air force civil servants and non-military civilians, The chapter is part of Tuskegee Airmen, Inc., and In fact, an original Tuskegee Airman nominated me for president of the chapter, whereas, its members voted me in. I am also the current historian of the chapter.

So yes, I have a lot a experience in the field of aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exercises did not affet ANY NORAD jets. The same number of jets were on alert before and during 911.

Though to be fair, the exercises did proffer doubt in the minds of NORAD controllers who were still referencing it nearly half an hour later: -

08:37 “Is this real-world or exercise?”

09:04 “I think this is a damn input, to be honest.”

How long do YOU think it should have taken them?

Here is one for you…

In response to a NORAD request for cover over Washington, an armed F-16 with a top speed at sea level in excess of 900 mph, 130 miles away at Langley AFB, is at battle stations at 09:09, scrambled at 09:24 and airborne by 09:30 at the latest. The NORAD request is quite urgent in response to an incoming threat, the commander stating, “I don’t care how many windows you break.” How long should it take to reach the Pentagon? Or put another way, where should the F-16 be at the 09:37 Pentagon impact time?

According to the official story where everything is always hunky-dory, the F-16 should be… [drum roll]… 150 miles away; further away than when it took off. That is the fact of what happened on the morning of 9/11. I would say, if not for some breakdown in communication or order override, the F-16 should have been right there at the Pentagon. That would have been quite a risk to success of the hijacking operation. No one has been held accountable for this failure, neither the reasons adequately explained by the official investigation.

All the while Cheney sitting in the PEOC receiving updates of the incoming threat with an undisclosed order in place. It was not a shoot down order. What betting that order was ‘do not intercept’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one for you…

In response to a NORAD request for cover over Washington, an armed F-16 with a top speed at sea level in excess of 900 mph, 130 miles away at Langley AFB, is at battle stations at 09:09, scrambled at 09:24 and airborne by 09:30 at the latest. The NORAD request is quite urgent in response to an incoming threat, the commander stating, “I don’t care how many windows you break.” How long should it take to reach the Pentagon? Or put another way, where should the F-16 be at the 09:37 Pentagon impact time?

I watched the interviews yesterday on the military channel and the F-16s were sent that had nothing to do with a conspiracy. :no: How long did it take for the Air Force to intercept the Learjet of Payne Stewart?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an absurd statement.

What is truly absurd is your claim that explosives knocked down the light poles despite evidence of impact damage.

image035.jpg

image036.jpg

pole3.jpeg

polecomposite.jpg

I don't see any evidence that explosives were used in the following photos, but I do see evidence of impact damage in the form of BENT light poles. So once again, your post has been shot down with facts and evidence. Nothing there supporting the use of explosives, which once again, proves to everyone how vulnerable you are to disinformation. :yes:

Tell me expert where is the large skid mark that should be present right before the hole as this huge jet slammed into the building?

generatorIC.gifgeneratorLC.gif

generator3.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though to be fair, the exercises did proffer doubt in the minds of NORAD controllers who were still referencing it nearly half an hour later: -

08:37 “Is this real-world or exercise?”

09:04 “I think this is a damn input, to be honest.”

But were the number of planes available on alert changed at all? No. And I wasn't talking to you anyway.

Here is one for you…

In response to a NORAD request for cover over Washington, an armed F-16 with a top speed at sea level in excess of 900 mph, 130 miles away at Langley AFB, is at battle stations at 09:09, scrambled at 09:24 and airborne by 09:30 at the latest. The NORAD request is quite urgent in response to an incoming threat, the commander stating, “I don’t care how many windows you break.” How long should it take to reach the Pentagon? Or put another way, where should the F-16 be at the 09:37 Pentagon impact time?

According to the official story where everything is always hunky-dory, the F-16 should be… [drum roll]… 150 miles away; further away than when it took off. That is the fact of what happened on the morning of 9/11. I would say, if not for some breakdown in communication or order override, the F-16 should have been right there at the Pentagon. That would have been quite a risk to success of the hijacking operation. No one has been held accountable for this failure, neither the reasons adequately explained by the official investigation.

All the while Cheney sitting in the PEOC receiving updates of the incoming threat with an undisclosed order in place. It was not a shoot down order. What betting that order was ‘do not intercept’.

I don't beleve I was talking to you. Are you Crumar? Is he unable to think for himself?

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what is alarming is expert witness and testimony from people who work for the federal government and could lose their jobs and be blacklisted have come forward to claim what they saw ..

Let's review what has been said.

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.

http://usatoday30.us...ntagon-usat.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics

The video is of another plane or some sort of flying object impacting the Pentagon the quality of the video along with it conveniently being obstructed by the pillar at the gate house does not make it out to be flight 77 or a 757 yet you think it can only be flight 77

The following photo is definitely not a bomb nor a cruise missile on a collision course toward the Pentagon. Nothing there to even remotely suggest the B-757 overflew the Pentagon. A vertical stabilizer of a B-757 can be seen in the photo and smoke from a FOD-damaged engine can be seen as well.

explosion-1.jpg

With this information according to eyewitness Terry Morin who was there at the time and a professional aviator is saying that the airplane is traveling at 350 to 400 knots which indicates the planes speed between 402.7725 mph and 460.3116 mph.

You are joking, right?! There is no way he could have made such a determination without a stop watch and visual references.

The NTSB is suggestion the plane went at 460 knots or 529.35834 mph. So you can't even get that information right and I proved to you not only was the plane not going 500 mph as you suggest but according to eyewitness testimony it was going less then that speed.

I said the B-757 was traveling at over 500 mph. Unless the witnesses had a stop watch and using ground-based references in conjunction with that stop watch, there is no way to make accurate airspeed calculations. His statement of 350 to 400 knots reflected an estimate, only, so in that respect, you made an error using his statement in order to try to refute the data!

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

I might add that the Boeing Aircraft Co. and American Airlines made important contributions regarding the FDR from American 77.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exercises did not affet ANY NORAD jets. The same number of jets were on alert before and during 911.

How long do YOU think it should have taken them?

Please don't take my word for it, here is a link you can read on the subject. I would post it all but then it would be to long.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731213239607

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But were the number of planes available on alert changed at all? No. And I wasn't talking to you anyway.

I don't beleve I was talking to you. Are you Crumar? Is he unable to think for himself?

This is a discussion forum open to anyone. As you can see there are a number of posters who are bombarding my posts even though I am not talking to them at all. This is exhausting and takes a lot of time to respond to each and everyone so please refrain from not allowing others to respond as it is not your job to police these forums. If you don't like someone asking you a question then don't post it is as simple as that otherwise answer the people that respond.

Edited by Crumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.