Hello - I'm Confused. Options

[wishIwasapilot]

paranoia wrote: wishiwasapilot - i believe this page might address some of the ntsb vs. commission contradictions:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77

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

Have the assertions made in the above link by Pf911truth been debunked by anyone?

[wishIwasapilot]

"The pilot of AA77 was blinded by the morning light, the Sun, so he made the big turn to try to find his intended target, the WH, and failing that took the pentagon as an alternate target."

Flight 77 to The White House?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fM8_EnpvMo4

[amazed!]

But hotel, gas station videos were not rare. What gave the FBI the right to waltz in and confiscate personal property, ie. videos?

They have no lawful authority to do that, only the force of government. Obviously, they did it on orders from superiors. The coverup was from the highest levels.

[excontroller]

Why perfect timing of missile?
How about perfect timing of planted bombs?

Excellent point! The premise totally removes ANY NEED for perfection. I really don't expect this to EVER be resolved. I mean, after 51 years since Kennedy was murdered, the media, when mentioning it, still say Lee Harvey Oswald, the gunman who shot Kennedy.....and the HOUSE Select Committee on Assassinations SAID that a CONSPIRACY apparently DID exist. It's THEIR LIE, and they will simply keep telling it.

[excontroller]

Nice post (from another non-pilot). I second the motion for a "consensus compilation" of aviation-related anomalies, as a concise summary of the most jarring phenomena. Some of it is covered in the 911 Consensus Panel stuff, but there are probably other things this community would highlight.

Emphasis on *consensus*, which would require a process of determination (a decently representative panel that can unanimously agree on certain points), which could be tough on some points.

For example, I believe it is predominantly the contention of experts here that no plane hit the Pentagon, based mainly on the "too high" FDR data and the witness statements about the approach path vis-a-vis the Citgo station. Personally, while I respect that view and understand that a strong case can be made for it (also taking into account the "too small" hole, paucity of debris, weird exit hole, smell of cordite, Rumsfeld's slip-of-the-tongue about a missile, etc.) -- I remain agnostic on that point. I have trouble discounting the other witnesses who claim to have seen the plane come in and hit (I acknowledge the problems with their line of sight), I have trouble with the idea that such a plan would depend to a non-fail-safe degree on a) perfect timing of missile and fly-over, and b) nobody catching the maneuver on their iPhone.

In short, with available evidence, can a true consensus be formed on that point? I am doubtful. On the other hand, "ain't no way Hani Hanjour pulled off that descent" seems virtually incontrovertible to me. So, basically, I love the idea of consensus points and I urge a rock-solid, critique-proof product (to the extent possible) that anticipates and addresses objections.

That's probably my two cents for the year, over to the experts!

Never forget......IF you pay someone enough.....witnesses are EASY to find. You may not even have to pay them much over the long haul.....they just wind up dead in a ditch if they complain.