Jesse Ventura Speaks With Pilots For 9/11 Truth, The Pentagon Rating Options

[rob balsamo]

Guys, please try to stick to discussing the facts and not someone's identity. People who register here have a right to anonymity, unless of course I find evidence they are a Military Blogger, then I will have no problem exposing their ass.

I have not seen any evidence of such with "realitycheck77". I dont even care if he is a sock. We dont ban on technicalities if they can remain civil, and he has.

Last time we counted, i think William "Pinch" Paisley has about 10 socks here, some banned for his abusive behavior, others still active, but he doesnt stop by much anymore after we crushed him with the facts.

We have more than enough evidence to discuss the information. We dont need to stoop to character assassination as does our opposition.

RC77, care to address the rest of the post you quoted? Perhaps answer some of my questions you have also been evading?

[elreb]

State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP)
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, killing its 64 passengers and crew members and 125 people working at the Pentagon. The remains of all but five of the victims were identified through DNA analysis.

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed Dulles Airport, in the Washington suburbs, at 8:20 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Five al-Qaida hijackers seized control of the aircraft at some time between 8:51 and 8:54, turning it south, off its assigned flight course, at 8:54.

At 9:12, passenger Renee May called her mother to report that the plane had been hijacked. Shortly afterwards, passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, with the same news. At 9:29, the plane was flying at 2,130 meters (7,000 feet) altitude, approximately 61 kilometers (38 miles) from the Pentagon. At 9:34, 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the Pentagon, it began a 330-degree descending turn toward the building. At 9:38, it crashed into the Pentagon at approximately 853 kilometers (530 miles) per hour.

I think if we look at the entire package…almost everything in the “Official” story is wrong including the lack of “Proof” that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 aircraft, ever departed Dulles Airport…

The damn plane was missing for over three months…before the event

[onesliceshort]

We have more than enough evidence to discuss the information. We dont need to stoop to character assassination as does our opposition.

Mybad on jumping the gun, but Frustrating Fraud is despicably dishonest and not worth the time (I'm a little "war-weary" at the minute..too much time debating trolls instead of researching)

I take it back and leave the floor open to Realitycheck77 to answer the points raised.

Peace.

[Tamborine man]

"Adam Lawson is obviously deeply ignorant about the forces he is up against."

I don't know about Adam Larson but I realise witnesses can be mistaken and unreliable, and they are not always the witnesses you expect or want to be unreliable. That is the nature of unreliability. That item about witnesses, does it not apply to all witnesses ?

I sincerely hope you're not playing 'willful ignorance', as this would indicate to all that you're a
dishonest man not worth dealing with, so i'll assume there's another reason why you don't get
it, and will here respond accordingly.

When all the NOC witnesses saw a plane approach either over the annex or north of Citco, there
were no reason for them to experience anything other than a feeling of surprise or wonderment
or a WTF in its various nuances.
It was only when they observed that the plane was heading toward the pentagon and a possible
impact could be imminent, that shock and arising fear overtook them.

With this scenario in mind, try to read again the pertinent part in the post referred to, and i'm
sure that if you're an honest man you'll see everything in a completely new Light.
(Especially if it's true you're not A.L.)!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Dec 29 2010, 01:08 PM

[realitycheck77]

Guys, please try to stick to discussing the facts and not someone's identity. People who register here have a right to anonymity, unless of course I find evidence they are a Military Blogger, then I will have no problem exposing their ass.

I have not seen any evidence of such with "realitycheck77". I dont even care if he is a sock. We dont ban on technicalities if they can remain civil, and he has.

Last time we counted, i think William "Pinch" Paisley has about 10 socks here, some banned for his abusive behavior, others still active, but he doesnt stop by much anymore after we crushed him with the facts.

We have more than enough evidence to discuss the information. We dont need to stoop to character assassination as does our opposition.

RC77, care to address the rest of the post you quoted? Perhaps answer some of my questions you have also been evading?

Thank you. I hope haven't been evading anything ,but I have had a lot of replies of various kinds to write and not a lot of time to write them. I'll try to address any questions that are put to me.

[paranoia]

for the record and to refresh memories:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10771482
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10771486

rc77 - you never did explain what this was all about :

FORUM ASSIGNED TROLL KX44NM : Supplementry reply: Dateline 5-19-09: Have been quarentined: will report asap:
REMINDER: ALWAYS REMOVE PAGE HEADER BEFORE POSTING:

all you could come up with was this:

VENGENCE IS MINE SAYETH THE LORD..

VERGENCE IS MINE SAYETH THE NUTCASE.

im with OSS: highly suspicious of your motives and your presence here, no matter how civil you are or arent about it... but goin back to that above thread - are you STILL basing your conclusions strictly using the FDR data - as opposed to the path the plane actually flew on 9/11? nevermind the north of citgo facts (FOR A MOMENT), but what about the REALITY that the plane went east of the potomac versus the fdr path which shows it strictly over virginia and further to the west (which did not happen ON 9/11)? have you factored any of the witnesses' assertions into your "theory" or are you just blindly plowing ahead regardless of them? ironic that you would name yourself "realitycheck77" yet fail to properly observe the reality of what "77" in fact did on 9/11...

tell whoever it is that sends you your communicades and directives that the responses chosen for you to currently disseminate still equal FAIL, even if you now remember to remove the headers from them. i would've thought your superiors would be hip to the newer disinfo by now - accepting NoC but still claiming impact, so what you're pushing is outdated and moot! perhaps your bureau chief has neglected to get the updated disinfo plan and needs to get back in the loop... or maybe they've abandoned you (i imagine forgetting to remove the header from that one post may have been grounds for your dismissal or demotion), so maybe you're the one who is out of the loop, but is hoping to still prove his allegiance and worth as a disinformer... or maybe you go out of your way to post incredibly unbelievable and damning headers on your own posts, intentionally trying to paint yourself as the mysterious disinfo agent TROLL KX44NM, when in fact you are just another cognitively dissonant anonymous internet pseudo skeptic with too much time on his hands.

[realitycheck77]

for the record and to refresh memories:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10771482
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10771486

rc77 - you never did explain what this was all about :



all you could come up with was this:



im with OSS: highly suspicious of your motives and your presence here, no matter how civil you are or arent about it... but goin back to that above thread - are you STILL basing your conclusions strictly using the FDR data - as opposed to the path the plane actually flew on 9/11? nevermind the north of citgo facts (FOR A MOMENT), but what about the REALITY that the plane went east of the potomac versus the fdr path which shows it strictly over virginia and further to the west (which did not happen ON 9/11)? have you factored any of the witnesses' assertions into your "theory" or are you just blindly plowing ahead regardless of them? ironic that you would name yourself "realitycheck77" yet fail to properly observe the reality of what "77" in fact did on 9/11...

tell whoever it is that sends you your communicades and directives that the responses chosen for you to currently disseminate still equal FAIL, even if you now remember to remove the headers from them. i would've thought your superiors would be hip to the newer disinfo by now - accepting NoC but still claiming impact, so what you're pushing is outdated and moot! perhaps your bureau chief has neglected to get the updated disinfo plan and needs to get back in the loop... or maybe they've abandoned you (i imagine forgetting to remove the header from that one post may have been grounds for your dismissal or demotion), so maybe you're the one who is out of the loop, but is hoping to still prove his allegiance and worth as a disinformer... or maybe you go out of your way to post incredibly unbelievable and damning headers on your own posts, intentionally trying to paint yourself as the mysterious disinfo agent TROLL KX44NM, when in fact you are just another cognitively dissonant anonymous internet pseudo skeptic with too much time on his hands.

Just taking the first part of that ,I remember writing that- it was quite a while ago and it was a joke. I was just seeing what the reaction would be, having been accused of being a 'Pentagon assigned troll' or something to that effect. I was originally going to refer to it in the post to point it out, but I just thought I'll leave it there and see if anyone takes it seriously. I thought it would be recognised as a joke and I was a bit embarressed with the reaction to it and I think I was blocked soon afterwards anyway. That other response had nothing really to do with it - it was a response to someone who came up with a pretty strange diatribe ending with 'Vergence is mine sayeth the Lord'. What is OSS?

[onesliceshort]

What is OSS?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/HowDy.gif)

Any chance of an answer to the questions mate?
Take your pick.

Cheers.

[amazed!]

Office of Strategic Services?

One Slice Short? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[realitycheck77]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/HowDy.gif)

Any chance of an answer to the questions mate?
Take your pick.

Cheers.

OK , I just realised what it meant - he made it sound like some secret organisation.

[rob balsamo]

for the record and to refresh memories:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10771482
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10771486

rc77 - you never did explain what this was all about :

lol... i forgot all about that. Thanks for reminding me.


RC77, we're still waiting for you to address the rest of the post from OSS on the bottom of the last page and my questions from mid page.

[onesliceshort]

Office of Strategic Services?

One Slice Short? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[CuriousGeorge2]

Attention: Pilots for 9/11 Truth community

The following upcoming video needs more votes to get published on our news feed:

Another pilot instructor questions 9/11 scenario in new video

Synopsis: Veteran pilot and author Adam "Dewpoint" Shaw openly questions the official version of the September 11 attacks.

Presented by
911NewsCentral.com
Where YOU choose the news!

[CuriousGeorge2]

That voting link is:

http://pligg.911newscentral.com/story.php?...io-in-new-video

911NewsCentral.com
Where YOU choose the news!

This post has been edited by CuriousGeorge2: Dec 30 2010, 08:51 PM

[aerohead]

The tail of a plane is not vertical so if the tail of a plane hit a reinforced concrete floor edge on , the damage it seems to me would be unlikely to proceed vertically very high before the tail itself, made from far less durable material ,was obliterated. It would be like a plane flying at high speed under a highway overpass.

The tail of a plane is not vertical ? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Maybe not in your alternative universe, but i work on 757's
EVERYDAY and i can assure you they absolutely do have vertical tail sections.
Thats why they are called "vertical stabilizers".



(IMG:http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg)



See that sticky upy thingy on the tail ? Thats a vertical stab, and i think
its stout enough to break some windows and make a mark on the building,
not to mention the wings.


See those low hung engines? No marks on the lawn or damage to the foundation
from that "ground level impact" eh ?
And no holes where the engines (about 12000 Lbs. EACH) went through ?

Ive got nearly 20 yrs wrenching on nearly everything from F-4s to MD-11's. Your gonna
have to do ALOT better than claim that planes dont have vertical tails, to make that
plane fit in that hole. Now if you would have said that this was a NEW plane with an invisibility
cloaking device that is only initiated upon impact of a concrete structure to protect the brand
name of the company involved........ i may have given it some thought.
But i doubt it. Alot



Run along now............

[realitycheck77]

The tail of a plane is not vertical ? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Maybe not in your alternative universe, but i work on 757's
EVERYDAY and i can assure you they absolutely do have vertical tail sections.
Thats why they are called "vertical stabilizers".



(IMG:http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg)



See that sticky upy thingy on the tail ? Thats a vertical stab, and i think
its stout enough to break some windows and make a mark on the building,
not to mention the wings.


See those low hung engines? No marks on the lawn or damage to the foundation
from that "ground level impact" eh ?
And no holes where the engines (about 12000 Lbs. EACH) went through ?

Ive got nearly 20 yrs wrenching on nearly everything from F-4s to MD-11's. Your gonna
have to do ALOT better than claim that planes dont have vertical tails, to make that
plane fit in that hole. Now if you would have said that this was a NEW plane with an invisibility
cloaking device that is only initiated upon impact of a concrete structure to protect the brand
name of the company involved........ i may have given it some thought.
But i doubt it. Alot



Run along now............

You misunderstand me. The tail , as you can see in the photo, is not vertical , it is swept back from the base to the tip. The plane impacting at the facade of the Pentagon would have impacted the building with the base of the tail hitting somewhere near the floorslab dividing the ground floor from the floor above and the leading edge of the tail angled back away from the facade. The base of the tail would hit first ,edge on to the reinforced concrete slab and there would be a mutual destruction of the tail against the slab as the plane moved forward. Since the tail is not as strong as the reinforced concrete slab the tail would suffer more damage than the slab, with it's base being destroyed and the rear fuselage of the plane that the tail is supported on being mangled at the same time. How far up the damage would go would be determined by the strength of the tail relative to the building facade and also to the structure of the tail.
There was a circular chip taken out of a low concrete wall where the left engine would have been, you can see it in one of the photos. There was about a 95ft section of the facade removed by the impact. The engines in any case would probably have begun to disintegrate even before they reached the facade for one of them it took the clean-up crews hours to remove it from where it was embedded in an interior column.

[onesliceshort]

You misunderstand me. The tail , as you can see in the photo, is not vertical , it is swept back from the base to the tip. The plane impacting at the facade of the Pentagon would have impacted the building with the base of the tail hitting somewhere near the floorslab dividing the ground floor from the floor above

Sure about that RC77?
The ASCE report claimed that the floorslab was "damaged" to up to 40ft, before the aircraft "slipped" down through the first floor.

The directional damage was at 37º to the facade (based on the lightpoles allegedly "struck").

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/consp...flight-path.jpg

This image gives a better idea (lightpole 4)

(IMG:http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/lightpole_4b_sm.jpg)

This image is fairly accurate dimension wise regarding the facade and the alleged aircraft. The only difference is that the aircraft allegedly struck at an angle.

(IMG:http://www.kasjo.net/ats/sideview.gif)

The ASCE report also has the aircraft at a "tilt" to explain the generator damage. The image is deceptive because they have the aircraft almost straight on into the facade (and the left wing disappearing below the foundation)

(IMG:http://www.nbbk.sakura.ne.jp/911img/asce6_1.jpg)

The vertical stabilizer height coupled with the minimum 6ft altitude (lower half of engines, spools, generatot damage) is roughly 50ft.

(IMG:http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/docs/757outline.jpg)

You've simplified this beyond recogition RC77.

This is what you should be working from according to the official story:

(IMG:http://nomoregames.net/911/we_have_holes/pentagon_montage.jpg)

The engines in any case would probably have begun to disintegrate even before they reached the facade for one of them it took the clean-up crews hours to remove it from where it was embedded in an interior column.

An engine "broke up before it reached the facade"?? How so?
Could I have a link to where the column story comes from?

And any chance of answering those other posts made in response to other claims you made RC77?

Cheers.

[tnemelckram]

HI Realitycheck!

Since the tail is not as strong as the reinforced concrete slab the tail would suffer more damage than the slab, with it's base being destroyed and the rear fuselage of the plane that the tail is supported on being mangled at the same time. How far up the damage would go would be determined by the strength of the tail relative to the building facade and also to the structure of the tail.

Good description of your scenario. But it's hard for me to see how some readily identifiable parts of the mangled and sawed-off tail would not have been left outside. recovered, and identified as part of the "AA77" plane by ID stamped parts that the Government could readily have displayed to us then, later on, or display for us now. They can't even produce a written record of such an ID, let alone the mangled tail remnants themselves. ETA: Such a thing would be proper protocol for any air disaster investigation, and one would think that in the Special Case Of 911, they would do an even better job of it, to better nail those Terrorist Bastards' Asses.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Dec 31 2010, 06:34 PM

[SanderO]

I don't think a plane crashed into the building. However, I would think... and this is a guess... that a plane's tail is probably hollow with some aluminum structure and would be pretty much destroyed in a high speed crash with a reinforced concrete wall. This doesn't mean it disappears, but I would think it would be crushed, and broken, mangled there would be hardly anything recognizable.

One might argue that by the time the tail section got to the wall, the fuselage had absorbed so much of the energy of impact and the tail had decelerated quite a lot so when it hit the wall it was not moving fast enough... with as much energy to destroy it. I just don't know. But they should have found some of the no crushable parts - engines... landing gear and so forth to prove that the plane hit the building. The absence of those parts is telling.

We're told to accept evidence of a plane crash... without evidence that it happened!

[realitycheck77]

HI Realitycheck!



Good description of your scenario. But it's hard for me to see how some readily identifiable parts of the mangled and sawed-off tail would not have been left outside. recovered, and identified as part of the "AA77" plane by ID stamped parts that the Government could readily have displayed to us then, later on, or display for us now. They can't even produce a written record of such an ID, let alone the mangled tail remnants themselves. ETA: Such a thing would be proper protocol for any air disaster investigation, and one would think that in the Special Case Of 911, they would do an even better job of it, to better nail those Terrorist Bastards' Asses.

Hi tnemelckram,
There was quite a lot of small pieces scattered in front of the building and it would be hard to say what part of the plane they belonged to but in my view with a plane travelling at a few hundred miles an hour the parts would still tend to move forward and depending on how badly damaged they were might not be readily identifiable in any case. I certainly don't think the tail would recognisably in one piece after such a high speed crash into such a solid object. I have looked up NTSB reports and I haven't actually seen one where they say have a list of part numbers , engine numbers etc. that were recorded as being from that plane and then an identical list of part numbers recovered from the crash scene as some kind of verification that they match. I have seen various people say that it is normal practice in accident reports to have this kind of verification to show that the plane wreakage is a particular plane - maybe it is on some NTSB reports but I haven't seen it. I can't imagine though that if the FBI produced a list of part numbers from the aircraft manual and then a list beside it of parts recovered from the crash scene - would people accept that and say it is actually flight 77? I think some people would say they have just duplicated the list- even if they produced a photo of each of the parts with its serial number some people would still ask 'how do we know these parts came from the Pentagon?' There was the identification of the passengers but if people don't accept that as evidence that FL77 hit the Pentagon I don't see thata list of part numbers would convince them, maybe I'm wrong but that's my reading of it.
I meant to getback to you on another post of yours - apologies - maybe tomorrow - or next year!
Happy New Year.