IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Pilots, Please Respond, My Survey of Pilot reactions

TampaDave
post Sep 23 2013, 10:00 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



Pilots, how many of you had this response, and how long did it take you to come to it:

1) The first strike was enough to convince me this was almost surely no "accident".

2) Poorly-trained amateurs couldn't have done what the WTC pilots supposedly did, from long-range navigation, to the "turning final approach" to the buildings.

3) Probably no pilot could execute the steep, tight descending turn to the Pentagon in a 757.

4) No one could keep an airliner on the trajectory/speed (almost touching the ground at 500+ mph) just before the Pentagon was hit: ground effect rules that out.

5) Look at the pics of the hole in the ground near Shanksville, read that burning debris fell miles away, can you guess the plane was not crashed intact as they told us?

6) Normally for even 1 of 4 planes to get through US air defenses to attack cities would have been unbelievable. Airliners are cream puffs to military aircraft, with no speed, countermeasures, maneuverability, etc. Does the USAF really perform as badly as to let 3 fat turkeys (out of 4) get to their intended targets, far from their hijack sites? Why do only Truthers ever mention Able Danger and the other exercises?

7) Which of the above (if any) was most important in your first realization that 9/11 was not what it was sold as.

Thanks for your responses, everyone. I have always thought these pilot-oriented points would make for some great discussions. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_e...lt/pilotfly.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 23 2013, 10:30 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (TampaDave @ Sep 23 2013, 10:00 PM) *
1) The first strike was enough to convince me this was almost surely no "accident"


On Sept 10, 2001... I went to sleep with NBC on my TV while watching Conan. I use to sleep with the TV on... I hit mute.. and rolled over.

I awoke the next day to my alarm clock set at 08:50... to get ready for my flight I was supposed to fly out of LGA at 12 noon. As I turned off my alarm... and clearing my eyes... I looked at the TV and saw a huge hole in the North Tower billowing smoke... I said to myself.. "Oh cool!... what movie is this coming out?" (I thought it was a trailer to a new movie).... then I saw Matt and Katie... said to myself... "Oh shit.. .what the fuck is going on in the city...." ... and knew it wasnt a trailer to a movie. I took the TV off mute... and watched...

Witness after witness were describing a small aircraft... while the The Today Show filmed the hole in the North Tower. I was saying to myself.. that was no small airplane. I was confused.. I (mentally) tuned out the dialogue coming across my TV.. and said to myself.. how could something so large hit the WTC on such a gorgeous day. I remember the day as vividly as if it were today. As a Pilot.. I have seen many gorgeous September days in the Northeast before going to work. But this day... was exceptional... it was absolutely gorgeous outside. I was really looking forward to flying that day.

While watching the TV, trying to figure out how such a large airplane could hit the WTC on such a gorgeous day in the NYC area... i remember thinking.. "could this be an attack?"... I then saw the South Tower explode... I was jumping up and down... literally... screaming at the TV... "WHERE ARE THE FIGHTERS!"...."WHERE ARE THE F-16's!?!?!" (thinking of the F-16's out of ACY)

I knew it was an attack.

QUOTE
2) Poorly-trained amateurs couldn't have done what the WTC pilots supposedly did, from long-range navigation, to the "turning final approach" to the buildings.






QUOTE
3) Probably no pilot could execute the steep, tight descending turn to the Pentagon in a 757.




QUOTE
4) No one could keep an airliner on the trajectory/speed (almost touching the ground at 500+ mph) just before the Pentagon was hit: ground effect rules that out.


Click here regarding Ground Effect...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10741011

QUOTE
5) Look at the pics of the hole in the ground near Shanksville, read that burning debris fell miles away, can you guess the plane was not crashed intact as they told us?


Click here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html

QUOTE
6) Normally for even 1 of 4 planes to get through US air defenses to attack cities would have been unbelievable. Airliners are cream puffs to military aircraft, with no speed, countermeasures, maneuverability, etc. Does the USAF really perform as badly as to let 3 fat turkeys (out of 4) get to their intended targets, far from their hijack sites? Why do only Truthers ever mention Able Danger and the other exercises?


Click here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22410

QUOTE
7) Which of the above (if any) was most important in your first realization that 9/11 was not what it was sold as.


Click here...
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html#Balsamo

Hope this helps...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Sep 24 2013, 01:01 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



Who could have asked for more? Thanks, Rob!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Sep 24 2013, 02:42 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE
1) The first strike was enough to convince me this was almost surely no "accident".

It was not even the second strike 17 minutes after and the whole thing was live on every TV channel in Europe just ~5 minutes after the fact - I know well, because I watched it live from the very beginning (by accident) - somebody way closer to the top than we knew surely too.
QUOTE
2) Poorly-trained amateurs couldn't have done what the WTC pilots supposedly did, from long-range navigation, to the "turning final approach" to the buildings.

the second plane was according to all available evidence flying so outside the envelope, that I don't even wonder some seriously believe it was a CGI.

QUOTE
3) Probably no pilot could execute the steep, tight descending turn to the Pentagon in a 757.

except sitting comfortably somewhere in front of a drone controls terminal, preferably in Langley, VA.

QUOTE
4) No one could keep an airliner on the trajectory/speed (almost touching the ground at 500+ mph) just before the Pentagon was hit: ground effect rules that out.

Why on earth hit the 5gon on the ground level in the first place?

QUOTE
5) Look at the pics of the hole in the ground near Shanksville, read that burning debris fell miles away, can you guess the plane was not crashed intact as they told us?

Was it ever crashed? I see on radar another plane nobody ever talked about circling the site just after the alleged "UA93" crash and then disappear. Did it crash there too?

QUOTE
6) Normally for even 1 of 4 planes to get through US air defenses to attack cities would have been unbelievable. Airliners are cream puffs to military aircraft, with no speed, countermeasures, maneuverability, etc. Does the USAF really perform as badly as to let 3 fat turkeys (out of 4) get to their intended targets, far from their hijack sites? Why do only Truthers ever mention Able Danger and the other exercises?

What I see on radar are the fighterjets from Andrews go far south in NC, circle and wait getting back exactly when 5gon attack happened, what I see on radar are te McGuire fighters (one with no squawk at all) go far north to Maine (even with a tanker in tight fomation, one has problems to discern there the 3 planes), passing the "AA11" and "UA175" without other move than away from the targets long after it was clear they're hijacked according to the official accont, then exactly when WTC attack happened go back, eventually switching the combat squawk and pretend defending NY after the fact.

QUOTE
7) Which of the above (if any) was most important in your first realization that 9/11 was not what it was sold as.

Really first was the amount of the unusually sophisticated braiwashing on TV shortly thereafter. I was quite sensitive, because I studied psycholgy and shortly before I wrote a disertation about psycholgy of terrorism. I smashed the TV and that was all, I haven't had a clue where to start, nevertheless the magnitude of implications I realized only when Iraq war was imminent and all that nonsense about the alleged Saddam 911 link was circulated (which I knew absolutely for sure was a bunk).
But when it comes to aviation then the number of military planes in the air close to the targets before, during and after the fact - literally many dozens of them flying back and forth in the east coast airspace - in case of 5gon almost no other planes than military ones (but squawking mostly civil codes) around - how I discern them from civil planes? - I tracked tham back and forth to military bases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flysouth
post Sep 24 2013, 06:20 AM
Post #5





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-January 13
From: South Africa
Member No.: 7,177



QUOTE
1) The first strike was enough to convince me this was almost surely no "accident".


Living in South Africa near Johannesburg, this all hit the TV screens at around 14:30h due to the time differences. That day, as most days, I was working in my home office which is separate from the main house.

My wife came in to tell me to come and watch the TV as there was something about an accident, airplanes and New York - she knows I am interested in all things aviation since I have been a Private Pilot for many years and owned my own light aircraft. She has probably flown 1000 hours as passenger with me, so she also has a bit of knowledge about airplanes and flying.

As I walk into the lounge I see the tower with smoke billowing from the top. I sat down and immediately my mind thinks of the B25 flying into the Empire State Building in the 1950s - have we got a repeat of that accident? But wait, the weather is CAVU so how could a pilot accidentally hit this WTC building?

Here in JHB we had an incident in the 1980s where a guy flew a Piper Cherokee 140 (PA28-140) into the 4th floor of an apartment block trying to kill his ex-wife. So I am thinking of that incident also as my mind races to try to make sense of what I am seeing. But of course this WTC is a vastly larger, taller building and the damage, to judge by the smoke is enormously more than in that incident and how could a small airplane which weighs less than many cars do such damage as the billowing smoke indicates? In the Piper incident the aircraft penetrated what was the front (almost all glass) wall of the apartment and crashed through one inner wall of single-brick. From the road one could see the tail end of the aircraft but the remainder of the building was virtually untouched. There was no fire, even though the Piper used Avgas not JetA1 - Avgas is gasoline, much more flammable.

All these thoughts happened virtually simultanously but are rejected leaving only puzzlement.

Then there is a close up of the hole made by the aircraft in the North Tower - I knew in that instant, when I could see that this was no light aircraft but a very large aircraft that there was no 'accident' here, given my knowledge of air traffic control systems and how commercial flying works.

QUOTE
2) Poorly-trained amateurs couldn't have done what the WTC pilots supposedly did, from long-range navigation, to the "turning final approach" to the buildings.


As to the skills of the 'pilots', I think that poorly-trained amateurs could perhaps have flown the WTC missions since the targets are so huge and so obvious from the air. But there are serious questions regarding the speeds and structural limitations of the aircraft. Also as an experienced pilot with 2000+ hours logged, I can assure you that speed makes a huge difference in the three-dimensional activity which is flying. Without proper training for many hours pilots who have flown successfully in 150 mph airplanes as I have, would have difficulty simply 'keeping up' with accurately flying the aircraft at 300 mph, let alone the speeds claimed here.
QUOTE
3) Probably no pilot could execute the steep, tight descending turn to the Pentagon in a 757.


But when it comes to the Washington strike on the Pentagon I have the deepest doubts that these guys could have one what is claimed. That 330 deg descending turn is a remarkable feat of control. At times descending at up to 5000 feet per minute the pilot controls the airspeed with a few knots. An amateur would probably have that airplane in a screaming 'death spiral' in no time flat as the speed ran away and the turn radius tightened. To rescue the situation he would have to level off to try the whole maneouvre again. Either way his target is lost and he would need to reacquire it.

Now there is another thing to consider and that is the 'blindness' of newbies to ground features visually-speaking. I have seen it in myself when learning to fly and in many passengers where one cannot easily pick out and identify stuff on the ground - you just do not see things in a way which lets you identify them or to use them as landmarks for positioning and navigation. It is not normal for human beings to enjoy the viewpoint of an eagle! Thus the mind does not process the visuals easily until one has flown quite a few hours and become 'acclimatised'.

QUOTE
4) No one could keep an airliner on the trajectory/speed (almost touching the ground at 500+ mph) just before the Pentagon was hit: ground effect rules that out.


I agree. The bottom of the engine cowlings would have to be inches above the ground - some have calculated below the ground! I have never experienced ground effect at such speeds as claimed but I have experienced it many times at 150 mph - even at that speed it is powerful and does one of two things, depending on one's skill and ability to exploit it - a) it can increase the aircraft speed or b) it can cause the aircraft to 'balloon' upwards until the effect is lost at a height of around 50% of wingspan. With careful control therefore it is used in aircraft racing close to the ground whereby it boosts the aircraft speed. But it only operates within half-wingspan height above the ground.

Hani Hajour who could not control nor land a C172 at 100 mph could apparently 'fingertip-finesse' this large airliner at 500+ kts to a height of mere inches above the lawn, whilst knocking down 5 lamp-poles - you gotta laugh! BTW, nobody has ever questioned the possible serious damage to the aircraft wings, to the point of possibly removing sections of, or the entire wing on impact. Where would those wings or sections end up?

These are presumably steel poles, very strong and securely and strongly fixed and concreted in the ground. Aircraft structures are made of the lightest, thinnest possible aluminium (Alclad 2024-T3 is a commonly used material) and have strength only against aerodynamic loads not against mechanical loads and impacts.Has anyone ever seen the serious damage done to a light aircraft which has contacted telephone wires at 130 mph. I have and nothing in this Pentagon deal makes any sense!

His descent at the speeds used and rate of descent recorded, BEFORE levelling for the final run-in to target, would almost certainly have caused him to plough straight into the deck before his mind would register the need to take the actions needed to level the aircraft - things were happening real fast in that cockpit even from an experienced pilot's viewpoint - Hanjour could not have done this.

QUOTE
5) Look at the pics of the hole in the ground near Shanksville, read that burning debris fell miles away, can you guess the plane was not crashed intact as they told us?


The Shanksville story is ludicrous. An engine was found 8 miles away FFS! What more is needed to counter the official story? See my other posts and follow the links in those posts here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22436

QUOTE
6) Normally for even 1 of 4 planes to get through US air defenses to attack cities would have been unbelievable. Airliners are cream puffs to military aircraft, with no speed, countermeasures, maneuverability, etc. Does the USAF really perform as badly as to let 3 fat turkeys (out of 4) get to their intended targets, far from their hijack sites? Why do only Truthers ever mention Able Danger and the other exercises?


The American people have been betrayed by a supposed 'failure' of the defence system. If such a monumental and fundamental failure could really have happened where then is the news of the heads that would have rolled and the sweeping changes made? Instead many were promoted it seems.

QUOTE
7) Which of the above (if any) was most important in your first realization that 9/11 was not what it was sold as.


I think it was the Pentagon attack specifically that raised alarm bells big-time for me. I had always understood that the Pentagon has it's own air-defence system of radar and missiles along with several close-by air force bases, and I had seen aviation charts showing the prohibited area around Washington shown to me by American pilot-friends. It was in fact they who told me of the Pentagon defence system. It was clear to me that what was claimed just could not have happened, unless the air-defence system had collapsed totally - not in a thousand years could such an inadvertent series of 'errors' have occurrred.

Immediately post 911 I began to search for more in-depth facts beyond what the media had reported. For several years after the event I continued as more material became available online and others expressed the scepticism.

To my dismay I saw whacko theories bandied about. The problem there is that serious people who question the official report (I include myself here) get lumped in with the fantasists. I then left it as I could see it was going nowhere and it was very likely, from some stuff that I saw, that there could in fact have been a disinformation campaign on the go to help discredit the sceptics.

The 2013 anniversary prompted me to relook at things. I am happy to say that it appears that the tin-foil hatters are being pushed out of the space by those with reasoned argument and there is much new material which deals with the many questions in a logical and proper manner. The real data available has coalesced into something more ordered and accessible. Organisations such as Pilot for 911 Truth and Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth have gained credibility over time since they have avoided the whacko claims and dealt with observed factual elements.

Whilst in the few years immediately post 911 I was not entirely convinced that we are being fed a lie in total, I am now coming to a point of approaching that truly appalling realisation - ultimately it is appalling because of it's dreadful implications!

Perhaps the debunkers simply cannot bring themselves to face those implications?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flysouth
post Sep 24 2013, 06:32 AM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-January 13
From: South Africa
Member No.: 7,177



Apologies - there are a few typos above but the system will not let me edit them!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 24 2013, 09:06 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (flysouth @ Sep 24 2013, 08:02 PM) *
Apologies - there are a few typos above but the system will not let me edit them!


Dear 'flysouth'

There is editing available, but it takes a little while to get your head around it.

Don't waste your time on what you have already written, your reasoning and logic comes through, just as with the poster before you, and those who have found their way around the editing still stuff it up every now and then anyway.

Just a point in your discussion, you are assuming an aeroplane made of 'aluminium', what if the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was principally from some other material, composite material?

What was the line of people walking across the lawn area picking up and putting into paper bags?
Whatever it was would not have been all that large if it was spread all over the place not visible other than by people scanning the ground very carefully.

There are those that argue no aircraft hit the poles, but what proof do they really have, but to argue that another aircraft was observed to be flying further north, with various other evidence suggesting that what ever that was did not get close enough to the ground to hit the Pentagon building.

There was plenty of debris around the place outside of the building, none of it appearing to be of the appearance of smashed aluminium components from a Boeing 757.

Some of the debris was on the roadways well before the actual Pentagon precinct, other bits hurtling down towards the gatehouse at the northern end.
These latter bits of whatever it was not looking like aluminium.

Something prettty solid hit the firetruck that caught fire.

Most aeroplanes have at least one engine, other wise they are called gliders.

What is there to say that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon did not have only one engine?

Assuming there was an aircraft, the engine had to end up some where.

There was no engine revealed in the building, let alone two engines.

Engines do not always have to be wing mounted, in the case of one engine they are mounted on the fuselage.

The engine does not have to be at the front of the fuselage.

Quite a few aircraft have engines mounted at the rear of the fuselage.

As a rule this generally allows a much more substantial mounting to the fuselage.

In impact the engine does not take the brunt of the impact forces.

A monoque fuselage construction can be very strong, especially if it is designed to be that way, with the other components, ie skin components being very light in construction not really forming part of the airframe structural integrity.

Such a construction could probably survive reasonably intact, and if it was not found inside the bulding, it had to go somewhere, outside of the building.

Look forward to constructive thinking about this.

Robert S


ps hey where has the editing gone lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flysouth
post Sep 24 2013, 10:09 AM
Post #8





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-January 13
From: South Africa
Member No.: 7,177



Robert S,

My statements above rest on the assumption that what we have been told is true (I no longer actually believe that of course) and a Boeing did indeed hit the Pentagon - somehow and by some extraordinary feat of piloting and skill! LOL!

You raise many other possibilities which could be correct - and I find it beyond strange that the FBI which confiscated some 86 video recordings from 86 cameras around the Pentagon within hours of the strike, flatly refuses to release anything other than 5 frames of footage. Releasing all those videos IN FULL would be the simplest way and the transparent way to put any allegations to rest and to visibly confirm the official story since a Boeing must, simply must, be visible on some of them - without question, verified, identifiable as the very aircraft claimed to have flown across that lawn.

The other amazing and to me very, very suspicious thing is that on the 5-frame clip which was released, there IS a flying object, not identifiable as a Boeing or any recognisable aircraft, light or heavy, propeller or jet, which is travelling in one frame, flying level and horizontally to the ground at very low altitude - about 10 feet is my guess.

But one might say, why is this guy (me) then questioning the video if he is prepared to give credence to 'conspiracy theories'. That clip supports the conspiracy claims, not so?

The answer is this; if you believed that the FBI has been part of a cover up and then that same FBI releases footage like this which would tend to contradict the official story, one has to ask, why would they do this? Surely they are helping to boost the conspiracy theorists then?

One could then assume that perhaps the FBI did not examine this clip in close detail before release and released a clip which they erroneously thought contained no image of any airborne object - that is not believeable is it?

Or perhaps the FBI is not involved in any cover up, and therefore has done it's duty with integrity. The difficulty there is that the FBI in releasing this clip stated that this and this alone is the only clip with anything relevant on it - also just not believable.

Re. that clip, which is available in many places online today, I already see some very different interpretations of the object on the clip. Thus confusion begins, and perhaps that is what a disinformation campaign is intended to primarily achieve - utter confusion and a cacophony of voices all claiming different deductions and theories! The end result of that scenario to the 'layman' is to say, "They are all nuts" - FBI pats itself on back and says "mission accomplished"?

Have you seen two extremely important pieces of video which are, I think genuine and un-doctored. The first is of Rumsfeld himself helping on the lawn of the Pentagon, as a stretcher-bearer (whaaaaaat?) at a time when he as Sec. Defence had the primary and urgent, compelling, unavoidable, over-riding duty to be directing the defence-affairs of an America under attack?

The second is the testimony of Mr. Mineta, I think Sec. Transport, testifying at the 911 Commission about the curious exchange between a military aide and Rumsfeld as the Boeing was being radar-tracked on it's long - very long and well observed on radar from at least 50 miles out - approach to the Pentagon. 'Does the order still stand Mr. Secretary?"

"Of course it does - have you heard anything to the contrary" replies Rumsfeld sharply. This when the aircraft had been reported to Rumsfeld and the others in the room with him, including Mineta, progressively, 30 miles out, 20 miles out etc and had now reached 10 miles out.

Since there is/was already a standing protocol whereby any such aggressive approach of an airplane would be dealt with by force if needed - i.e shoot down by missiles or by fighter jets from nearby airforce bases, why would any person ask that question? Can anyone believe that the aide was asking if the 'standing orders' STILL 'stand'? - standing orders are just that, they stand unless countermanded by authority. It would appear by any logic therefore, that those standing orders for an aggressive response, had already been countermanded in advance perhaps and the aide was posing the question to Rumsfeld because he simply could not believe that the 'new' order (not to shoot) could now continue to stand in the face of what was clearly an attack actually underway!

In my opinion, and from purely aviation standpoint, events at the Pentagon and surrounding Flight 93 and WTC7 are the keys for investigators to unlock the truth of 9/11. Whereas the credible theories and questions regarding the attacks on WTC 1 & 2 appear to be based largely today on the engineering analysis of the collapses there is much more flight analysis available within the other attacks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Sep 24 2013, 10:25 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



"As to the skills of the 'pilots', I think that poorly-trained amateurs could perhaps have flown the WTC missions since the targets are so huge and so obvious from the air."

See Rob's response, where he describes how experienced pilots were unable in several attempts to hit the towers in a simulator, unless they slowed down to landing speed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Sep 24 2013, 10:29 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



[quote name='tumetuestumefaisdubien' date='Sep 24 2013, 01:42 AM' post='10809761']

"Why on earth hit the 5gon on the ground level in the first place?"

And why circle around to the back, to his the part that was almost abandoned because of remodeling, including the addition of steel-reinforced walls?

This post has been edited by TampaDave: Sep 24 2013, 10:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 24 2013, 10:55 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (flysouth @ Sep 24 2013, 11:39 PM) *
Robert S,

My statements above rest on the assumption that what we have been told is true (I no longer actually believe that of course) and a Boeing did indeed hit the Pentagon - somehow and by some extraordinary feat of piloting and skill! LOL!

You raise many other possibilities which could be correct - and I find it beyond strange that the FBI which confiscated some 86 video recordings from 86 cameras around the Pentagon within hours of the strike, flatly refuses to release anything other than 5 frames of footage. Releasing all those videos IN FULL would be the simplest way and the transparent way to put any allegations to rest and to visibly confirm the official story since a Boeing must, simply must, be visible on some of them - without question, verified, identifiable as the very aircraft claimed to have flown across that lawn.

The other amazing and to me very, very suspicious thing is that on the 5-frame clip which was released, there IS a flying object, not identifiable as a Boeing or any recognisable aircraft, light or heavy, propeller or jet, which is travelling in one frame, flying level and horizontally to the ground at very low altitude - about 10 feet is my guess.

But one might say, why is this guy (me) then questioning the video if he is prepared to give credence to 'conspiracy theories'. That clip supports the conspiracy claims, not so?

The answer is this; if you believed that the FBI has been part of a cover up and then that same FBI releases footage like this which would tend to contradict the official story, one has to ask, why would they do this? Surely they are helping to boost the conspiracy theorists then?

One could then assume that perhaps the FBI did not examine this clip in close detail before release and released a clip which they erroneously thought contained no image of any airborne object - that is not believeable is it?

Or perhaps the FBI is not involved in any cover up, and therefore has done it's duty with integrity. The difficulty there is that the FBI in releasing this clip stated that this and this alone is the only clip with anything relevant on it - also just not believable.

Re. that clip, which is available in many places online today, I already see some very different interpretations of the object on the clip. Thus confusion begins, and perhaps that is what a disinformation campaign is intended to primarily achieve - utter confusion and a cacophony of voices all claiming different deductions and theories! The end result of that scenario to the 'layman' is to say, "They are all nuts" - FBI pats itself on back and says "mission accomplished"?

Have you seen two extremely important pieces of video which are, I think genuine and un-doctored. The first is of Rumsfeld himself helping on the lawn of the Pentagon, as a stretcher-bearer (whaaaaaat?) at a time when he as Sec. Defence had the primary and urgent, compelling, unavoidable, over-riding duty to be directing the defence-affairs of an America under attack?

The second is the testimony of Mr. Mineta, I think Sec. Transport, testifying at the 911 Commission about the curious exchange between a military aide and Rumsfeld as the Boeing was being radar-tracked on it's long - very long and well observed on radar from at least 50 miles out - approach to the Pentagon. 'Does the order still stand Mr. Secretary?"

"Of course it does - have you heard anything to the contrary" replies Rumsfeld sharply. This when the aircraft had been reported to Rumsfeld and the others in the room with him, including Mineta, progressively, 30 miles out, 20 miles out etc and had now reached 10 miles out.

Since there is/was already a standing protocol whereby any such aggressive approach of an airplane would be dealt with by force if needed - i.e shoot down by missiles or by fighter jets from nearby airforce bases, why would any person ask that question? Can anyone believe that the aide was asking if the 'standing orders' STILL 'stand'? - standing orders are just that, they stand unless countermanded by authority. It would appear by any logic therefore, that those standing orders for an aggressive response, had already been countermanded in advance perhaps and the aide was posing the question to Rumsfeld because he simply could not believe that the 'new' order (not to shoot) could now continue to stand in the face of what was clearly an attack actually underway!

In my opinion, and from purely aviation standpoint, events at the Pentagon and surrounding Flight 93 and WTC7 are the keys for investigators to unlock the truth of 9/11. Whereas the credible theories and questions regarding the attacks on WTC 1 & 2 appear to be based largely today on the engineering analysis of the collapses there is much more flight analysis available within the other attacks.


Dear 'flysouth'

It seems you may be getting your Rumsfeld and Cheney muddled up.

But let's take a normal crime scene, which there can be no doubt the catostrophic events of 9/11 were, not only against the poor American souls and other nationalities that were murdered that day, but against the whole of humanity who were not involved in its execution.

Where does investigation normally start in such events.
(1) A command centre of investigators would be set over the circumstance immediately by the appropriate authority.
(2) The crime scene is immediately cordoned off.
(3) All evidential material is secured where it is, for forensic consideration, recorded, by photograph, scene measurement and careful and thorough interview of anybody that had association with that piece of evidence.
(4) The resulting investigation would then work back from the recognised last point of the crime, meticuously recording any further evidential material, evidence of witnesses, the cordon of control ever broadening as necessary.

Did any of this happen anywhere on the day of the crime?
The answer can only be a catagoric NO.
The absolute contrary applied, with wilfull removal of material evidence, and recorded evidence, false account so patently biased for causing confusion, media misrepresentation from the very first instance, unsolicited opinion, then coverup.

It can therefore never be considered that it was intended by any of the authorities to execute their duties and moral responsibilities properly.

That is the sad situtation such actions have left everybody in, which will only be worked through by very careful considerations, based only on what evidence is available, being meticuously considered without emotions, fixed views, arguments structured and forced by these views, laced with personal attacks upon individuals, unfounded comments and pure maliciousness.

Let's hope all of us grow up over this, somewhere a conception can come into place, which will have influence in rectifying these problems.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Sep 24 2013, 11:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 25 2013, 03:55 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Besides the theatrical effects to augment the story, the only reason the Pentagon was blown up was to get rid of the auditors from congress and the Office Of Naval Investigations. Yes, Mission Accomplished, as most of the casualties, especially the KIA, were from ONI.

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, Karl Schwarz and V.K. Durham did some research, and it's most interesting.

http://www.doeda.com/y911.html

This post has been edited by amazed!: Sep 25 2013, 03:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Sep 25 2013, 04:06 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 25 2013, 02:55 PM) *
Besides the theatrical effects to augment the story, the only reason the Pentagon was blown up was to get rid of the auditors from congress and the Office Of Naval Investigations. Yes, Mission Accomplished, as most of the casualties, especially the KIA, were from ONI.

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, Karl Schwarz and V.K. Durham did some research, and it's most interesting.

http://www.doeda.com/y911.html


Yes, the people tasked with finding out what happened to the missing $2.3 Trillion (yes, with at "T") that Rummy had only the day before (coincidence # 2,421?) announced was missing. Guess we will never know now. (Rummy heaves a huge sigh of relief).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Sep 25 2013, 04:12 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 25 2013, 02:55 PM) *
Besides the theatrical effects to augment the story, the only reason the Pentagon was blown up was to get rid of the auditors from congress and the Office Of Naval Investigations. Yes, Mission Accomplished, as most of the casualties, especially the KIA, were from ONI.

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, Karl Schwarz and V.K. Durham did some research, and it's most interesting.

http://www.doeda.com/y911.html


Well, there is one more reason the ONI had to be decimated: like John O'Neil (who was killed in the WTC attack -- coincidence # 2,422) they were investigating the very people the administration would later blame for the attacks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 25 2013, 08:46 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Robert)
There are those that argue no aircraft hit the poles, but what proof do they really have, but to argue that another aircraft was observed to be flying further north, with various other evidence suggesting that what ever that was did not get close enough to the ground to hit the Pentagon building.


Robert, there's a whole thread dedicated to this "other plane" and every other speculative, dismissive response to the NOC testimony that nobody who spouts them has bothered their arse to address:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392

There is no "solving the case" of 9/11. Whatever unidentified scraps labelled "debris" of alleged "Flight 77" that were shovelled up are long gone. The government and their dog's bodies say a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on the first floor having gone through the lightpoles, generator trailer and exiting through the "punchout hole". That's the official story.

All of these other unfounded "theories" that actually give wriggle room to the OCT, and that intentionally subvert the solid claims of aerodynamic and pilot control impossibility and the witnesses that prove that all of the directional damage was staged, are no better than the government supplied horseshit!

@Tume

Good to see you back thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Sep 25 2013, 11:04 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 24 2013, 08:06 AM) *
There are those that argue no aircraft hit the poles,


Can anyone tell me what kind of aircraft could have hit those poles hard enough to bring them down with the aircraft remaining controllable for even a short time?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 26 2013, 12:21 AM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 26 2013, 10:16 AM) *
Robert, there's a whole thread dedicated to this "other plane" and every other speculative, dismissive response to the NOC testimony that nobody who spouts them has bothered their arse to address:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392

@Tume

Good to see you back thumbsup.gif


Dear 'onesliceshort'

YES, and who got anything to say on it but you ???

Onesliceshort, please get the message that you are not conducive to healthy debate.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 26 2013, 08:30 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 26 2013, 05:21 AM) *
Dear 'onesliceshort'

YES, and who got anything to say on it but you ???

Onesliceshort, please get the message that you are not conducive to healthy debate.

Robert S


Depends what you mean by "healthy" Robert. Let anything slide?

The link is there Robert. It's been sitting gathering dust now for weeks! Argue your case there.

There's a lot of hard work gone in to it. Don't be afraid to break a sweat rolleyes.gif

If I come across as a pain in the ass it's because I'm pissed off seeing people heap an even heavier workload on researchers.

The OCT. OCT mark 1. Mark 2. Mark 3. __insert blank__. I mean, you're intent on removing the directional damage and witnesses from the equation. Just like Honegger.

It would be different if you, or Honegger, pointed to the staging of the directional damage as proof of an inside job but you guys shimmy on past it as if it were an inconvenience. Just to push the idea that something blew up in the area even though there is no path through the northside lightpoles and the aircraft would have to pull off an impossible dive, completely desintegrate within 100ft of the Pentagon facade and leave no crater, a helipad area where the painted "H" isn't even scratched, and window frames that are blown out the way, while the facade isn't even chipped!

The Titan fire engine had superficial damage to the engine cover while the rear left tyre was buckled underneath it. There was no major debris of any sort beside it. There were two undamaged vehicles blocking the path of any alleged debris from the "impact zone". Not even the windows of these two vehicles were cracked!

I repeat

Whatever unidentified scraps labelled "debris" of alleged "Flight 77" that were shovelled up are long gone. The government and their dog's bodies say a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on the first floor having gone through the lightpoles, generator trailer and exiting through the "punchout hole". That's the official story.

All of these other unfounded "theories" that actually give wriggle room to the OCT, and that intentionally subvert the solid claims of aerodynamic and pilot control impossibility and the witnesses that prove that all of the directional damage was staged, are no better than the government supplied horseshit!

Mods can move this comment if they want. Apologies to TampaDave.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 27 2013, 09:51 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



TampaDave

Regarding the 2.3 trillion, Rummy did not announce the day before that it was missing. That fact was known for at least months before. We know that because on the day before, McKinney's committee was holding hearings about the missing funds.

That means that because of the slow response time of government in general, and congress in particular, it had to have been known months in advance SO THAT an investigation and hearings could be started.

Dov Zakheim went to work at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Rummy had been in office only months when the hearings were held, but the funds had been missing for at least many months, perhaps a few years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lasthorseman
post Oct 6 2013, 08:41 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 848
Joined: 23-December 06
Member No.: 360



Details of 911 are relatively irrelevant in the broader scope of the destroy America for it's freedom for all themes. The false green movement based upon Gore's carbon Wall Street ruse is one. Our war on drugs is another considering we have years upon years of direct to consumer big pharma drug ads asking us to ask your doctor for and I wonder why a drug test is mandatory to get a job at Burger King. Corporations assume you are defective as a potential employee yet are proud to proclaim they do not discriminate yet they do, hey I am 58, I have international patents in my name yet I have a sucky temp job in this Potemkin village they call America. There are thousands like me who have real skills but are not certifiable via standards made up by the minions of Satan Human Resource professionals who know nothing of what needs to be done nor how or what it takes to make it so. When I hear lamestream talk of the unemployment rate I immediately barf as the unemployment rate is a totally bogus indicator of economic activity. In fact when I hear about anything lamestream media promotes I immediately ask why they are diverting attention away from far more meaningful world happenings they are NOT reporting on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th August 2019 - 04:58 PM