Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

General of all American Intelligence:


ExpandMyMind

Recommended Posts

Q24, I'm sorry you've gotten a lot of hostility, but you should know where it comes from.

One of the dishonest tactics CTs like to use is ask reasonable questions and then when they get an answer they just dismiss it, often out of hand without even examining the evidence, often in favor of their own, then bait and switch to put the onus on the people who support the official story and call those who support the official story liars cheats and government stooges. They keep on doing this no matter what evidence there is to show them that they're wrong. That's why there is a lot of hostility when these kinds of questions are asked. So after a long cycle of repeat and rinse, how else would people react when this cycle blurs things. And they often use dishonest tactics like this to blur things so they can claim support for their religious cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 432
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Scott G

    160

  • Q24

    100

  • enzian

    23

  • merril

    20

Top Posters In This Topic

Very well put.

I think we have all been to those forums where decent is firmly stamped out.

Br Cornelius

From both sides of the coin. I've received a lot of hostility on boards dominated by CTs just because I don't believe them and fully believe the official story, regardless of how rational and non-insulting I was. It gets tiresome.

And it's dissent.

But dissent just for the sake of dissent is disruptive and non-constructive.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From both sides of the coin. I've received a lot of hostility on boards dominated by CTs just because I don't believe them and fully believe the official story, regardless of how rational and non-insulting I was. It gets tiresome.

And it's dissent.

But dissent just for the sake of dissent is disruptive and non-constructive.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should.

I like to keep an open mind and learn as I go along. That means on some things I can be the skeptic and on others the believer. Some people do not seem able to cope with that, and some boards will not accept that as a position. If someone makes a rational case for a CT then I am quite willing to accept it, the knife cuts both ways and if you are unwilling to accept any cases of CT then I think you are as closed minded as the CT freaks.

thanks for the correction on my spelling - never my strong point.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me to believe something I require hard evidence and an argument alone, regardless of how rational and detailed it may be, is not hard evidence of anything, just speculation. However, I also believe that after all the evidence has been examined, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, regardless of the messenger. I am also aware that some people like to be disruptive for the sake of being disruptive or just can not accept official stories no matter how much evidence there is to support it just because they have problems with authority. Things like this must also be kept in mind. Information is information, and it shouldn't matter where it comes from. Here's the problem:

There are people who believe that children must be protected from harm. Hitler, pardon the Godwin, also believed in protecting the children. Monstrous people and criminals have no credibility so their beliefs have no credibility. So that means because Hitler believed that children should be protected, then that belief is discredited because Hitler was a monster as well as anybody else who believes that children are monsters and that children should not be protected.

See?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's real unfortunate Q24...you're a civil guy, intelligent (albeit wrong IMO, but won't hold that against you...)

The folks over there don't seem very tolerant of questions directed at their storyline, regardless of their source. You're curiosity is not welcome there, and it says volumes about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q24, I'm sorry you've gotten a lot of hostility, but you should know where it comes from.
I think we have all been to those forums where decent is firmly stamped out.
That's real unfortunate Q24...

Thanks people but I’m not looking for sympathy. My post was just meant as a reality check for Scott G, Little Fish and Fourbrick who just turned up and anyone else getting suckered in by the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum. As I said, it’s a shame because there are legitimate questions to be asked. Unfortunately the intolerant approach taken will only switch people off… I’m even wondering if that’s the real aim. I see the amount of internal bickering over Pentagon theories and it’s certainly counterproductive to the overall truth movement. Divide and conquer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks people but I’m not looking for sympathy. My post was just meant as a reality check for Scott G, Little Fish and Fourbrick who just turned up and anyone else getting suckered in by the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum.

I don't see things the way you do Q24, but I did voice dissent with their portrayal of you, even though I felt that you were a overly cocky in your dismissal of CIT as "cherry picking", something I don't believe you ever substantiated. This dissent can be seen here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774387

I got feedback on that, but eventually things settled down, in this post:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774412

As I said, it’s a shame because there are legitimate questions to be asked. Unfortunately the intolerant approach taken will only switch people off… I’m even wondering if that’s the real aim. I see the amount of internal bickering over Pentagon theories and it’s certainly counterproductive to the overall truth movement. Divide and conquer?

I think they made a lot of good points. They claim that you missed a bunch of them and judging by the amount of text coming from their end, I think they're probably right. Nevertheless, I think that balsamo was mistaken in his portrayal of you and I made this clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also aware that some people like to be disruptive for the sake of being disruptive or just can not accept official stories no matter how much evidence there is to support it just because they have problems with authority

Are you pointing any fingers here, I certainly don't see myself or Q24 in that category.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s more to help you decide – before I even posted, it was inferred that maybe I was “particularly nasty” and guilty of “manipulative lying”. After only my first post I was accused of missing things, not paying attention, “relentless spin”, being in “denial”, appearing “dyslexic”, having an “agenda”. After the second post it is said I am “clinging to impact witnesses”, “confused” and “slipping around”.

And that’s after only TWO very short posts! :blink:

Hardly surprising. Balsamo (or John Doe X - JDX - as he was known on the Loose Change forum) was known for 'moderate with extreme prejudice'. Anything his disagreed with became "spin". He once did a wide IP ban on Loose Change that resulted in most of the Asia-Pacific regin, most of Europe, and some of the US being banned from the website.

Think I'm kidding? Look it up.

He banned a 747 captain experienced training commercial pilots because the 747 captain caught JDX (or John Doh!) out in several basic mistakes in his analysis. He also threatened the same person, saying that he should be shot. The guy is a total fruitcake.

Let me dig up a few links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to have a look see at the P4T website. Looking at the discussions you had on there, it would seem that your questions were going round in circles and driving them mad. Despite them answering your questions you continued repeating the same ones. Incidentally you have not been suspended, just given a vacation in order that you can read up on their earlier discussions, not for asking too many questions, but for asking the same ones over and over again and failing to listen to the answers. :D

That always seems to me a rather patronising approach. "We can't be bothered to answer your questions, why don't you toddle off and look back through the entire forum yourself", is what it's saying. And this (pilots 4 truth, I mean) is supposed to be a forum dedicated to finding out the truth, is it? It's one thing to say that "we've answered this over and over again", you see plenty of that here, and i think that's fair enough, but this does sound like they've decided on what the truth is, or at least what their truth is, and the last thing they want is anyone who isn't so absolutely sure that their truth is the truth. One might almost see a conspiracy here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly surprising. Balsamo (or John Doe X - JDX - as he was known on the Loose Change forum) was known for 'moderate with extreme prejudice'. Anything his disagreed with became "spin". He once did a wide IP ban on Loose Change that resulted in most of the Asia-Pacific regin, most of Europe, and some of the US being banned from the website.

Think I'm kidding? Look it up.

He banned a 747 captain experienced training commercial pilots because the 747 captain caught JDX (or John Doh!) out in several basic mistakes in his analysis. He also threatened the same person, saying that he should be shot. The guy is a total fruitcake.

Let me dig up a few links.

Let's assume that everything you say above is true. I still disagree with your view that he's a "fruitcake". In using such language, you are doing exactly what balsamo did to Q24, when he called Q24 either mentally handicapped or a troll; that is, reducing a person to a one term insult. In an emergency, such as just before a real fight, this might be appropriate, but in an internet forum? Please.

Frequently, the problem with 9/11 is that people get very emotional about the issues. This can lead to decisions that in better states of mind wouldn't occur. I created an account here because, in a forum called sciforums, a super moderator felt that disagreeing with the official story amounted to treason and essentially put 9/11 conspiracy threads on automatic lockdown, for a second time. Think I'm joking? Take a look:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=23...p;postcount=123

So yes, there are irrational decisions made on both sides of the fence. How to avoid this? I think the best approach is to try to put ourselves in the shoes of the other person. Why are they stating this, that or the other thing? And if one doesn't know, one should say so. I remember someone (perhaps here) said they didn't understand my reasoning. I fully admit that I don't understand the reasoning of people here. Instead of blowing our tops, I think the solution should be to just keep on trying to understand the other; I think if we go at it long enough, the truth, whatever it might be, will become clear for everyone.

Edited by Scott G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That always seems to me a rather patronising approach. "We can't be bothered to answer your questions, why don't you toddle off and look back through the entire forum yourself", is what it's saying. And this (pilots 4 truth, I mean) is supposed to be a forum dedicated to finding out the truth, is it? It's one thing to say that "we've answered this over and over again", you see plenty of that here, and i think that's fair enough, but this does sound like they've decided on what the truth is, or at least what their truth is, and the last thing they want is anyone who isn't so absolutely sure that their truth is the truth. One might almost see a conspiracy here.

Sorry but that's not what happened on their forum. Numerous links were given to Q24 in answer to his questions but it would appear that he couldn't be bothered clicking them and wanted the answers printed over again. Nobody asked him "to toddle off and look back through the entire forum" himself. As for it being "their" truth, why don't you go over and prove that their truths are not correct?

Edited by Fourbrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JREF has its own problems but still interesting that those posters, both for and against the official story, came away with the same impression as me. Perhaps it might just be true then.

I don't see things the way you do Q24, but I did voice dissent with their portrayal of you, even though I felt that you were a overly cocky in your dismissal of CIT as "cherry picking", something I don't believe you ever substantiated. This dissent can be seen here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774387

I did thank you for that and quoted you in my post here. I think you hit the nail on the head with that comment, Scott.

As for the rest, CIT have a personal preference for this flyover theory. We know this because they use only eyewitnesses to the North of Citgo flight path and any that only saw a single aircraft to promote their idea. Conversely, there is a deliberate attempt to discredit evidence of eyewitnesses who describe an aircraft on the official flight path, a second aircraft following the alleged Flight 77, an impact with the light poles or even seeing the plane go into the Pentagon.

They cherry pick in so far as the information they are seeking from witnesses as well. For instance, they sought out Father Stephen McGraw and quizzed him about the light poles and as it turned out, years after the event, he did not remember seeing it. They did not dare to ask McGraw to sketch the flight path though because they knew very well that it would likely support the official approach.

Then there is the way they ignore any and all Pentagon impact eyewitnesses despite having not one single eyewitness to a flyover. It should be game over for the theory right there.

There is absolutely no evidence of this either. We have to believe that numerous light pole impact eyewitnesses were mistaken, that Lloyd England is a liar, his taxi damage was faked and that there was an undercover ‘light pole team’ who took a great risk in broad daylight in the middle of a public highway. It also suggests that after taking the time to plant the light poles, the plane was then inexplicably flown from a direction that did not even comply with the damage.

The whole suggestion is so irrational from a theory and a planning point of view when there is no obstruction to a simple plane impact which makes every sense.

Sorry but that's not what happened on their forum. Numerous links were given to Q24 in answer to his questions but it would appear that he couldn't be bothered clicking them and wanted the answers printed over again. Nobody asked him "to toddle off and look back through the entire forum" himself. As for it being "their" truth, why don't you go over and prove that their truths are not correct?

That’s not the real reason I was suspended at all; the blatant fact is that they did not like my views. If you check Obviousman’s links above then you will see that Rob Balsamo has a history of banning and suspending people that don’t agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's leave the behaviour of other forums (let alone the behaviour of members on other forums) out of this forum.

Back on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

Pentagon and VDOT Camera Pole-

Word has it (in other words, I don't know this for a fact but it is very plausible) that the Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Camera pole that is located near the Pentagon on Route 27 where it crosses over Columbia Pike was just barely kissed by part of the right wingtip as the plane careened in towards the building. I had seen this mark before, but was rather startled to see that the "scuff" or scrape mark is still there. Kind of eerie.

p1d.png

p1e.png

There is also this-

9/11: The VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) Went Into Action

September 21, 2001

THE FRIDAY REPORT

VDOT Values in Action

....

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.

Two seconds later, perhaps three, as Chu looked out his office window, he saw a hijacked plane explode into the fortress-like walls of the Pentagon on the plain just below him. STC staffers remember a loud thud, then a terrible explosion, and then a fireball burgeoning from the core of America's military power.

and this-

The flight path over VDOT, and to the traffic camera pole at the Washington Blvd. overpass-

47323605.png

42241830.png

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q24, in regards to the flight path of the airliner that approached the pentagon, I noticed that one of the links that was provided to you over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth seemed to be quite good. It was done by rob balsamo, a very experienced pilot, who apparently created the 9/11 Pilots site as well. I'd like to know if you saw it. Here it is:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merril, there are unsubstatiated rumours, and there are facts. From what I understand of the video I just linked to in my last post, the official flight path simply doesn't coincide with data provided from the NTSB. The NTSB data -does- coincide with the assertion made by CIT and others that the flight path took it in a route north of the Citgo gas station. How do you account for this discrepancy?

Edited by Scott G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q24, in regards to the flight path of the airliner that approached the pentagon, I noticed that one of the links that was provided to you over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth seemed to be quite good. It was done by rob balsamo, a very experienced pilot, who apparently created the 9/11 Pilots site as well. I'd like to know if you saw it. Here it is:

Yes, I have seen that animation many times before. It doesn’t agree with anything - not the official South flight path, nor the CIT eyewitnesses that describe a path directly over the Navy Annex, nor the physical evidence. Apparently, from my discussion with Rob, the black box data is somewhat open to interpretation. The animation is then irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have seen that animation many times before. It doesn’t agree with anything - not the official South flight path, nor the CIT eyewitnesses that describe a path directly over the Navy Annex, nor the physical evidence. Apparently, from my discussion with Rob, the black box data is somewhat open to interpretation. The animation is then irrelevant.

Rob Balsamo has responded to your post:

Clearly he still hasnt watched the video as that is THE south flight path based on heading.... lol. Also, Q24 is now just making stuff up as I have never expressed the data is "open to interpretation", which is why he fails to source it (another trait of a troll).

Q24, I'd like to point out that as I have mentioned before, I don't consider you a troll; even rob is only saying it's a trait of a troll, he's not actually saying you are one. For all of these reasons, I ask you to overlook this part of his statement and focus on the data he's providing.

It's data. In other words, 2+2 always equals 4. 300 feet is 300 feet. 5 degrees pitch is 5 degrees pitch. 09:37:45 time stamp is... .well you get the idea.

Here is the description with the video above.. Bolding the relevant part some people are missing.. (i really wish people would click links.. :rolleyes:)

Three Dimensional view of American 77 Flight Path according to data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Removing altitude and NTSB northern plot data as a variable
(see
for more information), we use the "impact point" as point of origin working outwards based on heading, descent angles and bank angles to analyze if the data can account for the physical damage path. Please see Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two for in depth analysis of complete data provided by US Govt Agencies who claim was generated by the aircraft which struck The Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

I mentioned to him the signature tag, which suggests that you're not against alternate theories to the official story per se. He wasn't impressed. What he said may sound a little harsh, but I think he makes some good points nonetheless:

Our mission statement on our home page... again bolding and underlining the relevant part here...

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots.
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 -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

We stand with the numerous other growing organizations of Firefighters, Medical Professionals, Lawyers, Scholars, Scientists, Architects and Engineers, Veterans, Religious and Political Leaders, along side family members of the victims -- family members of soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice -- including the many Ground Zero workers who are now ill or have passed away, when we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11. We do not accept the 9/11 Commission Report and/or "hypothesis" as a satisfactory explanation for the sacrifice every American has made and continues to make -- some more than others.

Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth only deal with hard data and facts. There is nothing left open for "interpretation". This is why our core member list grows without solicitation.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Any student pilot or layman who has done a small amount of studying can "interpret" the data and come to the same conclusions. Many have as seen in the numerous posts on this forum.

Edited by Scott G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob Balsamo has responded to your post:

I would prefer if you responded. :)

Clearly he still hasnt watched the video as that is THE south flight path based on heading.... lol. Also, Q24 is now just making stuff up as I have never expressed the data is "open to interpretation", which is why he fails to source it (another trait of a troll).

I watched the video that you linked Scott and responded to that.

It is the quotes below, all from Rob unless otherwise stated, that give the strong indication that various aspects of the NTSB data are somewhat open to interpretation: -

  • “… transitioning the aircraft flight path from the Northern approach as plotted by the NTSB to the south flight path as suggested by heading data…”
  • Q24: “....did the NTSB report a South flight path or not?”
    Rob: “Your question above is not that simple.”
  • “The NTSB provides data for a south path in terms of heading data when working backwards from the "impact hole".”
  • Q24: “… is it possible that the NTSB data could fit with a South flight path and that whoever put together the official NTSB animation simply messed up?”
    Rob: “Sure the NTSB makes errors, they made one with their clock annotation…
  • The NTSB provides data for a south path in terms of heading data...
  • “… they [the NTSB] provide heading data, which, when working backwards from the "impact hole", roughly lines up on a southern approach.”

As I said, the animation that you linked doesn’t agree with anything, but based on the actual heading data there appears to be no problem with the NTSB release.

We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time.

The implications of their favoured North flight path are clear – the plane did not impact the building and a flyover was performed. The theory sure is pushed upon people. For instance, I have a feeling you didn’t come up with the following ideas all by yourself Scott: -

The flyover theory, on the other hand, has a great deal of evidence backing it up, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT point out.

To confirm - you believe there was a single aircraft that swooped toward the Pentagon and performed a flyover?

Yes…

AA 77 was switched for the plane that did the actual flyover.

As an official stance they may not offer theory but the people who follow their insinuations do that job for them and divide the wider Truth Movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry all, I can no longer sit by and watch the intellectual dishonesty of Q24 take place. I am very familiar with the work of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. It is clear Q24 is not.

So lets begin.

It is the quotes below, all from Rob unless otherwise stated, that give the strong indication that various aspects of the NTSB data are somewhat open to interpretation: -

  • “… transitioning the aircraft flight path from the Northern approach as plotted by the NTSB to the south flight path as suggested by heading data…”
  • Q24: “....did the NTSB report a South flight path or not?”
    Rob: “Your question above is not that simple.”
  • “The NTSB provides data for a south path in terms of heading data when working backwards from the "impact hole".”
  • “… they [the NTSB] provide heading data, which, when working backwards from the "impact hole", roughly lines up on a southern approach.”

None of the above quote Rob as saying the NTSB data is "open to interpretation" as claimed by Q24, and are cherry picked quotes. If you put them in context, they are clear. This is why Q24 fail's to provide a source link.

Q24: “… is it possible that the NTSB data could fit with a South flight path and that whoever put together the official NTSB animation simply messed up?”

Rob: “Sure the NTSB makes errors, they made one with their clock annotation…

The cherry picking of the above is so blatant and intellectually dishonest, I'm surprised Q24 even posted it. Here is the full quote in context, (bolding the parts Q24 does not want you to see)

Q24 -
"and that whoever put together the official NTSB animation simply messed up?"

Rob -
"
If
is any indication (fixing their "mess ups" in a timely manner), no.

Sure the NTSB makes errors, they made one with their clock annotation,
but they make a notation of that in every FOIA Cover letter. They make no mention of a "mess up" in the North plot and
of such a plot which is in conflict with the govt story."

Since it is quite obvious why Q24 would fail to provide a source link, here it is.

Source

The NTSB provides data for a south path in terms of heading data...

There is nothing left for interpretation in the above statement when taken in context and quoted in full. Again, this is why Q24 fails once again to provide you with source links. Here is the full quote in context again bolding the part he does not want you to see.

"The NTSB provides data for a south path in terms of heading data when working backwards from the "impact hole".

Source

As I said, the animation that you linked doesn’t agree with anything, but based on the actual heading data there appears to be no problem with the NTSB release.

Yes, there is a problem with the "NTSB Release" even on the south heading data. This is an airplane, not a car, it has altitude, vertical speed, pitch, bank.. etc which all have to be taken into consideration. It appears Q24 would rather cherry pick one data point (heading) and ignore all the rest. The answer to your question of "How so.." when told the NTSB still doesn't "fit" the physical damage on the south path can be found in a one page summary on the left margin of Pilots For 9/11 Truth home page. It's titled American 77 Press Release and here is a direct link.. Since you have a habit of not clicking links, here is the full release.

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

03/26/07

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Contact: Robert Balsamo

e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

- The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

- All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

- The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

- The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

- If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon.As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.

Signed:

Robert Balsamo

4000+ Total Flight Time

Former:

Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines

Glen Stanish

15,000+ Total Flight Time

American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)

30,000+ Total Flight Time

Former Pan Am, United

United States Air Force (ret)

Over 100 Combat Missions Flown

John Lear

Son of Bill Lear

Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation

More than 40 years of Flying

19,000+ Total Flight Time

Captain Jeff Latas

USAF (ret)

Captain - JetBlue Airways

Ted Muga

Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR

Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret)

Directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions

John Panarelli

Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11

11,000+ Total Flight Time

Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery

Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford

United States Marine Corps (ret)

10,000+ Total Flight Time

303 Combat Missions

Captain Dan Govatos

10,000+ Total Flight Time

Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines

Director of Operations Training at Polar Air

George Nelson

Colonel USAF (Ret.)

Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic

Dennis Spear

Army Aviator (ret)

7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer

Captain Joe H. Ferguson

30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret)

For complete member list please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

ENCLOSURE: Cover letter of FOIA requests.

For those who would like a detailed explanation of the above, you can view Pilots For 9/11 Truth full presentation of Pandora's Black Nox - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77 on google video here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=46...08186&hl=en

More relevant links on the Flight Data Recorder (Black Box)

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's

Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II

Debunking FDR Debunking

Common Arguments Addressed

Since there is a conflict between heading data and plotted animation produced by the NTSB, Q24 hand waives such information as "irrelevant" ie. "Nothing to see here folks, move along" in hopes you won't dig deeper. Well, no, it doesn't work like that. The data comes from the NTSB in which they claim is based on Black Box data from American 77, it doesn't support an impact with the pentagon. The NTSB a nd FBI refuse to comment. Many highly credible, highly experienced aviation professionals feel this is very relevant. You can see their experience and credentials here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

And with photos here (many in uniform)

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Both lists grow regularly.

How much flight time you have Q24?

The rest of your post deals mostly with CIT and their theory of a flyover which you are again intellectually dishonest in attempting to attribute the theory to Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Feel free to go to their forum and post your concerns.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT

Remember to demand source links from Q24 or he may just be trying to pull the wool over your eyes again.

Have a nice day. :)

Edited sequence of post for clarity.

Edited by ValkyrieWings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That post definitely looked good Valkrye. I'm guessing you participate at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a CIT forum or ATS, presumably for a fair amount more time than I have, laugh ;-). I admit that a lot of what you said to Q24 went over my head. However, I'll be watching some videos that Rob Balsamo suggested; hopefully after that it'll be easier to understand these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the above quote Rob as saying the NTSB data is "open to interpretation" as claimed by Q24, and are cherry picked quotes. If you put them in context, they are clear. This is why Q24 fail's to provide a source link.

I did not “quote” Rob as saying “open to interpretation”. The fact is that if I ask a straightforward question with the answer being, “Your question above is not that simple” and am further informed that the NTSB heading data provides a South path yet the animation clearly shows a North approach then obviously I am justified in believing it is open to interpretation somewhat.

The cherry picking of the above is so blatant and intellectually dishonest, I'm surprised Q24 even posted it. Here is the full quote in context, (bolding the parts Q24 does not want you to see)

I quoted only what I found relevant. I asked the question if the NTSB could have made a mistake. I like to put things into black and white where possible and as I did not receive a “no” for an answer I quoted the section that gave the “yes”.

Anyhow, hello ValkyrieWings :) I understand there is much contradiction from all sides regarding the Pentagon event. Taking all into account, what do you believe is the most likely scenario?

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.