911 Pentagon Video Footage

[skyeagle409]

Can't wait for his answer to that one Sky.

I know we can't expect honesty:

"There is no such evidence, anywhere..."

I heard that!! .

[Likely Guy]

... And christ, when on earth am I going to get another star? I'm sick of Ectoplasmic Residue. If only you earned them by word count instead of post count...

Chin up. You get to be a 'two stars' in seven more posts. After that, it's every 125. After 1000 posts you can call yourself anything you want.Word count's one thing, quality's another. Either way, you're good!

Edit: As an aside I used to post in a treasure finding/metal detecting forum. There was one **** who posted "Nice find!".

He had about 7,000 posts and 99% were "Nice find!".

/god that was annoying

P.S.: I forgot to mention that from post 875 to 1000, you're officially a 'Conspiracy Theorist". I thought that you'd enjoy that.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Likely Guy

[skyeagle409]

skyeagle, you might be next bro, did I see you agreed or something with Roswell?

Yes! Because I felt so strongly about what happened, I actually wrote to my representative, but there is much more to the story as to why I decided to write that letter.

[Babe Ruth]

Unfortunately, I don't own a 757 that could be configured like the one on 9-11. I don't see the point on getting my hands on a Falcon or a Gulfstream just to do the Hani Maneuver (... )

Executing basically a standard rate right 330 I did long ago, even descending. I

We don't need a 757. My bet is that the average person could not accomplish the described maneuver in any airplane, ESPECIALLY the average Cessna pilot flying a 757 for the first time.

And depending upon which story you read MID, it was a left turn, not a right turn. And to refresh your memory, the left turn would be a bit easier as the left seat pilot would have a slightly better chance of keeping his target in sight while turning left, as opposed to turning right.

But heck, you and I will never get to fly together, so you will never get to put your skills and claims (about the ease of the maneuver) on the line. Bummer. I could have won big money from you!

[MID]

Nah, you just can't climb up into a NASA T-38 and have a ride.

Of course, I could let you, but I'd probably have to eject you if you decided to talk aboard like you talk here.

[skyeagle409]

We don't need a 757. My bet is that the average person could not accomplish the described maneuver in any airplane, ESPECIALLY the average Cessna pilot flying a 757 for the first time.

You just proved once again, that you have no flying experience because I have preformed a similar maneuver as a low-time student pilot. Nothing difficult at all.

And depending upon which story you read MID, it was a left turn, not a right turn.

Do you really think that people reading your post were born yesterday?!

[MID]

You just proved once again, that you have no flying experience because I have preformed a similar maneuver as a low-time student pilot. Nothing difficult at all.

Do you really think that people reading your post were born yesterday?!

It does get humorous, doesn't it?

Not 9-11. Frankly, I always hated talking about the details, especially during the investigation. I hate what happened that day...but

It's over, it was settled long ago, we know exactly what happened, who was responsible, and oddly enough, have killed most all of the planners and folks who organized it.

But today, we get posters like BR, and others, who argue idiocy...idiocy they invented!

You can't take it seriously, and it does provide some fun in the face of the actual investigation.

If you can have fun with it, clown, and laugh a bit, it's beneficial, especially when dealing with the truth about it.

[skyeagle409]

Nah, you just can't climb up into a NASA T-38 and have a ride.

Of course, I could let you, but I'd probably have to eject you if you decided to talk aboard like you talk here.

BR, becomes his own worst enemy whenever he post.

We don't need a 757. My bet is that the average person could not accomplish the described maneuver in any airplane, ESPECIALLY the average Cessna pilot flying a 757 for the first time.

I guess you were unaware of these stories.

Man Takes Stolen Jet On 1,600-Mile Joyride

AP May. 25, 1988

A flight mechanic who did not have a pilot's license stole a private jet in Virginia early today and flew it 1,600 miles to Denver,

The day an Air Force mechanic commandeered a North American F-86.

• Air & Space magazine, November 2011
  

And then there was Airman First Class George R. Johnson. A 20-year-old mechanic at Williams Air Force Base in Arizona, Johnson skipped the preliminaries; on the evening of September 20, 1956, he took a Sabrejet up for a ride. Up to then, Johnson’s piloting experience amounted to two hours with an instructor in a Piper Cub.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Mind-If-I-Borrow-It.html?c=y&page=1

Mechanic Steals C-130

A C-130 crew chief cranked up a C-130 at Mildenhall AB in England, taxied to the runway and took off. An airplane that normally requires a minimum of pilot, copilot, and flight engineer!

Remember, the terrorist pilot who flew American 77 into the Pentagon didn't have to learn how to takeoff or land a B-757.

[MID]

We don't need a 757. My bet is that the average person could not accomplish the described maneuver in any airplane, ESPECIALLY the average Cessna pilot flying a 757 for the first time.

Really? Not in any airplane?

And yet, you mention an average Cessna pilot flying a 757 fior the first time??

Kinda comical.

And

depending upon which story you read MID, it was a left turn, not a right turn. And to refresh your memory, the left turn would be a bit easier as the left seat pilot would have a slightly better chance of keeping his target in sight while turning left, as opposed to turning right.

aND... ...depending on which flight data recorder you decide to look at data from... ...it was most certainly a right turn, not a left.... Holy crap, man! Try again.

But I will make you feel better:

While you're certainly correct in saying that a left turn would've been visually better from the pilot's perspective. I'm also correct in a) describing the right turn that was actually made, and telling you that, as I explained before, there was a "pilot" in the right seat, who certainly would've acted as eyeballs during the right turn, to guide the guy with the stick toward his target (Jeez...).

"OK, there it is, keep turning, a little more, no....a little less, another 20 degrees right here, stay smooth...Allah be praised, there it is, a little left, ok, infidels die! Well, we do too, but it'll be a fun night!"

Getting it?

[MID]

And depending upon which story you read MID, it was a left turn, not a right turn. And to refresh your memory, the left turn would be a bit easier as the left seat pilot would have a slightly better chance of keeping his target in sight while turning left, as opposed to turning right.

As I said, depending on whether you could actually interpret the FDR data or not (I can), it was a right turn, not a left.

And, remember, there was a guy in the right seat who could've guided the "pilot" around the circle, and been eyes to line him up coming out of the right turn.

This was explained long ago, right here.

Uh...maybe try again???

[skyeagle409]

As I said, depending on whether you could actually interpret the FDR data or not (I can), it was a right turn, not a left.

BR, has been playing in the left field for so long that his left field mindset has now interpreted right turns as left turns.

[MID]

BR, has been playing in the left field for so long that his left field mindset has now interpreted right turns as left turns.

Copy that, Sky, and I think you might have something there!

[Q24]

What, exactly, do academic debates have to do with scientific journals? That is not their purpose. Did this journal state that they were going to be hosting a debate?

After publication of a paper there is a window for discussion and closure papers – these are a type of formal discussion/debate surrounding the initial paper.

It doesn't really make much sense to me insinuate that there is some unfairness on the part of mainstream journals when said journals have no obligation to anyone; they certainly are not under the obligation to allow longer articles beyond their general word limit guidelines. Do you have any record of a journal refusing to accept a submission because of the political sensitivity, or even mentioning it at all?

Exactly – which is why it is biased that Bazant was allowed to break the word limit guideline when Gourley was not. Especially after JEM had promised Gourley that Bazant would be required to adhere to the guideline but then published his extended article anyway. And even more unfair that Bazant was allowed to criticise Gourley for his limited paper when there was nothing Gourley could do about that due to the word limit being upheld in his case.

To your question - it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.

And as I think boony said, this whole 'unfairness' point in the context of science is just plain whiny. Nothing is preventing them from continuing their work and research. I'm sorry that they have to do just as much work and convincing as every other scientist and professional on the planet to get their ideas published.

The truth movement must do more work and convincing than other professionals who already have the media and political establishment on their side.

I agree that the truth movement has the opportunity to continue their work and are doing so – that is my main point since booNy challenged that they were not in mainstream avenues, rather than this side-point of ‘fairness’ you have jumped on. In fact, there is another article to be published in JEM this month, by yet another physicist pointing out error of the official theory: -

http://911blogger.co...t=450&width=850

It will be interesting to hear how Dr. Grabbe is treated.

Maybe he has the political and media establishment on his side because he is correct? Why do you act like this is not a possibility? This is the problem with almost every single argument or evidence point we've gone over in the last few months; there is always, in my and many others' view, at the very least an alternative explanation to every point you bring up, many of them I'd even say are more accurately called a 'more probable' explanation (*cough* 'media had foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse' *cough*). Yes, you can occasionally use circumstantial evidence alone successfully in court, but that tactic is devastated by simply pointing out that the circumstantial evidence also supports a different explanation or multiple scenarios. I know I've said this before, this is what makes you so easy to dispute, it is the overall vulnerable spot in your overall argument, your certainty is out of proportion from the evidential support. Maybe ultimately we will find out you are correct, but that's going to require a lot more data, there's gobs of it missing at critical places in your argument. But you act like that missing data is no hindrance at all, and forge on feeling justified referring to people as criminals and insinuating that people, that may be 100% innocent, are implicated in some way in the mass murder of thousands.

Because the media and political establishment very apparently held a pre-conceived conclusion from day one.

It is always possible to fit another answer to the evidence. As I said elsewhere... when the suspect with a grudge against the victim was witnessed at the scene, found in possession of the murder weapon and with the victim’s blood on his shirt... that was due to a chance meeting, planting of the weapon and cross-contamination... right? Through such explanations people claim that no thorough investigation is needed.

But I actually like your paragraph above, because I could throw it all right back at you – that official story with it’s information gaps. And I say to you again: my argument supports a thorough investigation, what matter if my certainty were unfounded? Your argument props up a war, what are the stakes if you are wrong? I really think it's official story adherents that needs to keep their confidence in check, not I.

I'm kind of surprised you respect that because I see almost none of it from you: "I'm not sure". And you have mischaracterized me, I've already grasped and stated it, it's amazing that it even needs to be said again: they are not being biased if their standards are not met.

The paper would not have been published if the journal standards were not met.

Nice try, 'editorial' and 'political' need to be divided by more than a slash. Of course, it's a an editorial decision: they didn't 'limit' Gourley, they gave him the same amount of words they give most of their submissions, they treated him fairly. They gave Bazant more words for reasons unknown, possibly because of political sensitivity, maybe because he's a luminary, maybe because he's just plain correct, maybe because they had extra space that month; only one of those is what I'd call 'biased'. Especially since this isn't a debate, no one was crowned the winner.

I've been meaning to rip into you about pretty much flat out misleading me that Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed as that term is used in reference to normal papers, it appears that this was an editorial review which is different, but it's Friday we'll let it go. I will say that I have felt a little guilty that I've gotten too busy to respond to many of the posts you've made on TT, but when I have to unpack your statements and see if, surprise, surprise, I think you are significantly overstating them, I don't feel so bad as you're essentially making me check out nearly everything you say.

None of those points you mention make it anymore ‘fair’ on Gourley’s argument.

I’m sorry if you feel I misled you about the review process, though it made no difference to the point - that the paper met standards of the journal - and I’m still not convinced myself that Gourley’s paper received no peer-review – it doesn’t seem right that a technical paper can be published with no such review.

Do you realize how much credibility JEM would gain by standing against these pro-war elements, providing the evidence of the attacks, and showing that their commitment is to what they say it is: science? I know you don't realize the fame and fortune, of not just a celebrity but a historical nature, awaiting anyone that could really demonstrate your case with a lot of good evidence.

The consequences are a potential civil war and political overhaul the likes of which have not been seen in our lifetime – you don’t initiate that lightly on the chance of gaining some ‘credibility’ or ‘fame and fortune’ which might not even be recognised until after we’re all gone.

Again, I really haven't seen much expertise demonstrated that I should give your opinion of scientific papers that much merit. And we went over this months ago: there ain't no 'proving' in science.

You cut the supportive expert opinion I provided from Quintiere out of my post and then isolate and attack the point as my opinion? That’s kind of.. wrong. Not to mention that my argument is based on that of an attorney and demonstrated to be more widely backed by thousands of architects, engineers and scientists.

What a poor argument. Can you show me all the experts who have evaluated alchemy and disagree with it?

I’ll take that as a “no”; you cannot provide numbers of professionals who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me, to rival the truth movement professional membership. If you want to use alchemy as a comparison, we would first need a large group of professionals who still agree with the practice.

[Babe Ruth]

MID

You can get us a NASA T-38? Awesome!

I did get to fly a T-38 simulator years ago, attending my brother-in-law's graduation in Columbus MS. Awesome airplane.

Betcha ol' Hani could fly it like an ace, eh? Lookin' for those virgins and stuff, full of religious zeal, eh?

[skyeagle409]

MID

You can get us a NASA T-38? Awesome!

I did get to fly a T-38 simulator years ago, attending my brother-in-law's graduation in Columbus MS. Awesome airplane.

Betcha ol' Hani could fly it like an ace, eh? Lookin' for those virgins and stuff, full of religious zeal, eh?

The fact of the matter is, he flew a B-757 into the Pentagon.

[skyeagle409]

You cut the supportive expert opinion I provided from Quintiere out of my post and then isolate and attack the point as my opinion? That’s kind of.. wrong. Not to mention that my argument is based on that of an attorney and demonstrated to be more widely backed by thousands of architects, engineers and scientists.

I don't think so.

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

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

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

[MID]

The fact of the matter is, he flew a B-757 into the Pentagon.

Yep, he did, but BR couldn't understand that any more than he could understand piloting any aircraft or the idiocy of flying a jet aircraft into the Pentagon, or the WTC towers.

[DONTEATUS]

Heres all thats left of the Tower,Its in the Newseum In D.C.

[booNyzarC]

The truth movement must do more work and convincing than other professionals who already have the media and political establishment on their side.

I agree that the truth movement has the opportunity to continue their work and are doing so – that is my main point since booNy challenged that they were not in mainstream avenues, rather than this side-point of ‘fairness’ you have jumped on. In fact, there is another article to be published in JEM this month, by yet another physicist pointing out error of the official theory: -

http://911blogger.co...t=450&width=850

It will be interesting to hear how Dr. Grabbe is treated.

After browsing through just the first few pages, I don't anticipate that he will be treated well, and deservedly so. Not only should his editor be fired, the initial facts that he has presented are nothing short of blatant error. I don't expect the rest to be much better, but I'll continue to read either tonight or tomorrow.

So far, this is just more of the same kind of garbage we've all come to expect from the truth movement.

[booNyzarC]

The beginning of his book is utter garbage. If you get your hands on the scientific paper, I'd love to read it.

[flyingswan]

If you get your hands on the scientific paper, I'd love to read it.

Here's the draft version from Grabbe's website:

http://www.sealane.o.../Bazantrpy.html

and the first page as published:

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EM.1943-7889.0000362?journalCode=jenmdt

Usual stuff, lots of claims, nothing to back them up. Where on earth does he get the "four times gravity" stuff - he doesn't give a reference? Top of the building being accelerated down by enormous rockets?

Hoffman's ridiculous energy claims have been long demolished.

Edited October 16, 2012 by flyingswan

[booNyzarC]

Here's the draft version from Grabbe's website:

http://www.sealane.o.../Bazantrpy.html

and the first page as published:

http://ascelibrary.o...rnalCode=jenmdt

Usual stuff, lots of claims, nothing to back them up. Where on earth does he get the "four times gravity" stuff - he doesn't give a reference? Top of the building being accelerated down by enormous rockets?

Hoffman's ridiculous energy claims have been long demolished.

Thanks Swanny, I'll try to get to reading this today. After reading the opening of his book last night I'm in shock that he could get anything published at all to be honest.

[Babe Ruth]

Yep, he did, but BR couldn't understand that any more than he could understand piloting any aircraft or the idiocy of flying a jet aircraft into the Pentagon, or the WTC towers.

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR, to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God, to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

Too many flies in the ointment for your story to be true MID.

[booNyzarC]

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR, to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God, to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

Too many flies in the ointment for your story to be true MID.

We have more than enough pieces of the puzzle put together to reasonably conclude that an aircraft impacted the Pentagon, that this aircraft was in fact AA 77, and that it was piloted by HH.

But of course you are free to continue claiming that you see a duck where there is none.

Enjoy your ignorance. I hear it is very blissful.

[skyeagle409]

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.[/

But, you have been saying that the aircraft passed north of the gas stations and now look what you are posting. Furthermore, you have failed to provide evidence that there was no B-757 involved, which there isn't considering there was wreckage of a B-757 spread inside and outside the Pentagon, which proves beyond any doubt the aircraft was a B-757, not a P700 anti-ship missile you threw in. What is the purpose of an anti-shop missile anyway? Did you consider the Pentagon as an ocean-going ship?

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

Already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77, which was a B-757, crashed into the Pentagon. Now, as a challenge, where is your evidence that refutes what I have just said. Either post your evidence, or you have no case.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR,...

Now wait a minute!! You have been saying that no B-757 was involved and now look what you are saying. You said that the aircraft passed north of the gas station and a doctored FDR was taken from that aircraft. You get so wrapped up in your own distortion routine, that you are trippin' over yourself again.

...to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God,

How amusing when I performed a similar maneuver as a low-time student pilot.

...to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

How amusing when I have used a cell phone in flight, and look what you posted!! BTW, only two phone calls were made and those were made below 5000 feet, while on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of phone calls were made from air phones, but you knew that and you knew that cell phones were made because I made available to you, the cell phone records made from that aircraft.

Here are more examples.

Unsafe At Any Airspeed?

Cellphones and other electronics are more of a risk than you think

Is it safe to use cellphones on airplanes? The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) thinks it may be. In December 2004, the agency began soliciting comments on proposed regulations that would allow airline passengers to use cellphones and other electronic devices.

Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.

http://spectrum.ieee...at-any-airspeed

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

Pilot Speaks to Wife on Cell Phone during Flight

The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan.

The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.

http://www.aircrafto...01208X06269.asp

Edited October 16, 2012 by skyeagle409