PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 - time for another look?


Pages : 1 [2]

DCS99
8th May 2009, 15:17
Roger

Fair point.
I smell the hand of a journo "sexing up" her words.

When I saw her on CNN shortly after 911 she seemed quite reasonable to me, though she'd definitely bought some new clothes!

rgbrock1
22nd Jul 2009, 19:33
Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

The evidence was crucial because it undermined the official explanation
that Hani Hanjour crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon
at high speed after executing an extremely difficult top gun maneuver.
But to understand how all of this played out, let us review the case in
bite-size pieces...
In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official
investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission
transfered custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).[1] There, the records remained under
lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA
released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of
the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them
readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are
of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain
important new information.
As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until 2003---more
than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had
already done independent research and published articles about various
facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. The
Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour [AA Flight 77] had been flown "with
extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was
at the helm."[2] Yet, strangely, when other journalists investigated
Hani Hanjour they found a trail of clues indicating he was a novice
pilot, wholly incapable of executing a top gun maneuver and a
successful suicide attack in a Boeing 757. By early 2003 this
independent research was a matter of public record, which created a
serious problem for the 9/11 Commission...
By all accounts Hani Hanjour was a diminutive fellow. He stood barely
five feet tall and was slight of build. As a young man in his hometown of
Taif, Saudi Arabia, Hanjour cultivated no great dreams of flying
airplanes. He was satisfied with a more modest ambition: he wanted to
become a flight attendant. That is, until his older brother Abulrahman
encouraged him to aim higher. Even so, Hani Hanjour's aptitude for
learning appears to have been rather limited. Although he resided in
the US for about 38 months over a ten-year period that ended on 9/11,
Hanjour never learned to speak or write English, a telling observation
about his capacity for learning. As we will discover, he actually
flunked a written test for a driver's license just weeks before 9/11.
While it is true that Hanjour trained at various flight schools in the
US, the evidence shows he was a perpetual novice. Hanjour dropped out of
his first school, the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, located in
Oakland, after attending only a few classes. Next, he enrolled at
Cockpit Resource Management (CRM), a flight school in Scottsdale,
Arizona. But his performance as a student at CRM was less than
adequate. Duncan K.M. Hastie, owner of the school, described Hanjour as
"a weak student" who was "wasting our resources."[3]
After several weeks, Hanjour withdrew from the program, then returned in
1997 for another short period of instruction. This on and off pattern of
behavior was typical of the man. Hastie says that over the next three
years Hanjour called him at least twice a year, and each time wanted to
return for more training. By this time, however, it was obvious to
Hastie that his erstwhile student had no business in a cockpit. Hastie
refused to let Hanjour come back. "I would recognize his voice," Hastie
said. "He was always talking about wanting more training. Yes, he
wanted to be an airline pilot. That was his stated goal. That's why I
didn't allow him to come back. I thought 'You're never going to make
it'."
Rejected by CRM, Hanjour enrolled at nearby Sawyer Aviation, also
located in the Phoenix area. Wes Fults, a former instructor at Sawyer, later described it as the school of last resort. Said Fults: "it was a commonly held
truth that, if you failed anywhere else, go to Sawyer." Fults remembers
training Hanjour, whom he describes as "a neophyte." He says Hani "got
overwhelmed with the instruments" in the school's flight simulator. "He
had only the barest understanding of what the instruments were there to
do," said Fults. "He [Hanjour] used the simulator three or four times,
then disappeared like a fog."[5] I must emphasize to the reader, I am
not making this up. Other accounts by Newsday, the New York Times, as
well as the FOX network,
all confirm that Hani Hanjour was at best a novice pilot.
Evading the Language Requirement
In fact, because fluency in English is required to qualify for a US
pilot's license, Hanjour's atrocious English should have barred him
from ever obtaining a license. But it seems that Hanjour exploited a
loophole in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system, which for
years has outsourced the pilot certification process. According to a
June 2002 story in theDallas Morning News, Hanjour was
certified in April 1999 as an "Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial
Pilot" by Daryl Strong, one of the FAA's 20,000 designated pilot
examiners.[6] Although an FAA official later defended the agency's
policy of using private contractors, a critic, Heather Awsumb, took
issue with it. Awsumb is a spokesperson for the Professional Airways
Systems Specialists (PASS) Union, which represents more than 11,000 FAA
and Defense Department employees. She pointed out that the FAA does not
have anywhere near enough staff to oversee its 20,000 designated
inspectors, all of whom have a financial interest in certifying as many
pilots as possible. It seems that Hanjour evaded the language
requirement by finding an examiner willing to ignore the rule. Said
Awsumb: "They receive between $200 and $300 for each flight check. If
they get a reputation for being too tough, they won't get any
business." According to Awsumb, the present system allows "safety to be
sold to the lowest bidder."[7]
Later, Hanjour's horrible English prompted one flight school, Jet Tech,
to question the authenticity of his FAA-approved pilot's license. Jet Tech
was another school in the Phoenix area where Hanjour sought continuing
instruction. Peggy Chevrette, operation manager at Jet Tech, later told
FOX News: "I couldn't believe that he had a license of any kind with
the skills that he had."[8] She explained that Hanjour's English was so
bad it took him five hours to complete an oral exam that normally
should have taken about two.
But it wasn't just his poor English that failed to impress. In his
evaluation the Jet Tech flight instructor wrote that the "student
[Hanjour] made numerous errors during his performance and displayed a
lack of understanding of some basic concepts. The same was true during
review of systems knowledge....I doubt his ability to pass an FAA
[Boeing 737] oral at this time or in the near future." The 737 instructor
concluded his evaluation with a final entry: "He [Hanjour] will need
much more experience flying smaller A/C [aircraft] before he is ready
to master large jets."[9] The 9/11 Commission Report fails to
discuss or even mention this negative written evaluation, even while
presenting Hanjour's substandard performance in a Boeing 737 simulator
as sufficient evidence that Hanjour could fly a Boeing 757, an even
larger plane![10] The wording of the final report succeeds in giving
this impression, however dubious, even while obscuring the facts: an
amazing achievement of propaganda.
Early in 2001, Peggy Chevrette, the operation manager at Jet Tech,
contacted the FAA repeatedly to convey her concerns about Hanjour. Eventually
John Anthony, a federal inspector, showed up at the school and examined
Hanjour's credentials. But Anthony found them in order and took no
further action. The inspector even suggested that Jet Tech provide
Hanjour with an interpreter. This surprised Chevrette because it was a
violation of FAA rules. "The thing that really concerned me," she later
told FOX News, "Was that John had a conversation in the hallway with
Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to
speak English."[11] Evidently, the inspector also sat in on a class
with Hanjour.
FOX News was unable to reach John Anthony for comment, but FAA
spokesperson Laura Brown defended the FAA employee. "There was nothing about the pilot's actions" she said, "to signal criminal intent or that would
have caused us to alert law enforcement."[12] This is true enough. The
Jet Tech staff never suspected that Hani Hanjour was a terrorist.
According to Marilyn Ladner, vice-president Pan Am International, the
company that owned Jet Tech, "It was more of a very typical
instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the
air'."[13] Although Pan Am dissolved its Jet Tech operation shortly
after 9/11, a former employee who knew Hanjour expressed amazement
"that he [Hanjour] could have flown into the Pentagon. [because] He
could not fly at all."
We know that in the months before the September 11, 2001 attack Hani
Hanjour rented planes at several small airports on the outskirts of New
York City and Washington DC. The 9/11 Commission Report mentions
these local flights and suggests that Hanjour was scouting the terrain:
familiarizing himself with possible suicide targets.[15] But the record
also shows the same pattern described above. For example, on May 29,
2001 Hanjour rented a plane at a small airport in Teterboro, New Jersey
and flew "the Hudson Tour," accompanied by a flight instructor.
However, the next day, when Hanjour returned for a repeat flight the
same instructor "would not allow it because of Hanjour's poor piloting
skills."[16] The 9/11 Commission Report actually cites this incident,
but in a context that diminishes its significance.[17]
The pattern played out again on August 16-17, 2001 when Hanjour attempte
to rent a plane at Freeway Airport, in Bowie, Maryland, about twenty
miles from Washington. Although Hanjour presented his FAA license,
according to Newsday the Freeway airport manager insisted
that instructors first accompany him on a test flight to evaluate his
piloting skills. During three such flights over two days in a
single-engine Cessna 172, instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner
observed what others had before them. Hanjour had trouble controlling
and landing the aircraft. Afterward, Baxter interviewed Hanjour
extensively about his flight training and experience, and also reviewed
his flight log, which documented 600 hours of flight time. On this
basis she and Conner declined to approve a current license rating until
Hanjour returned for more training. On their recommendation, Freeway's
chief instructor Marcel Bernard refused to rent Hanjour a
plane.[18] Notice, this was less than a month before 9/11. When I
reached Bernard by phone he confirmed the details of the story by
Newsday.[19] So did Ben Conner when I spoke with him.[20] Conner also emphasized that the issue was not simply Hanjour's poor English. It was everything, i.e., his general ineptitude.
Curiously, The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges Hanjour's poor
English and sub-standard flying skills. The report even mentions that flight instructors had urged Hanjour to give up trying to become a pilot.[21] Strangely, however, another passage (in a footnote) describes Hanjour as "the [al Qaeda] operation's most experienced pilot," suggesting that the commission had a mixed opinion about Hanjour.[22] In the end the official investigation evidently
interpreted Hanjour's FAA license as sufficient proof that he had
"persevered" in overcoming his issues.[23] The word "persevered" is
straight out of the report.

rgbrock1
22nd Jul 2009, 19:35
But why did the commission ignore the multiple open-sourced accounts
cited above, all mutually corroborative, indicating that Hanjour would have
been lost in the cockpit of a Boeing 757 and was barely qualified to
fly a single-engine Cessna? It is notable that The 9/11 Commission
Report fails to mention the negative written evaluation by Hanjour's Jet Tech flight instructor. The omission is serious because a glance at the timeline
shows that Hanjour's 5-6 weeks of training at Jet Tech occurred in
February-March 2001, that is, after he had already earned his FAA
license.Perseverance obviously was not enough. The instructor's negative evaluation was based on Hanjour's actual skill-set at the time, license or no license. Nor does the final report so much as mention Hanjour's test flight at
Freeway airport, or the fact that he failed it. These are telling
omissions. Obviously, the commission screened out testimony that conflicted with the official narrative of what happened on that terrible day. However, this is not the full
story. As we are about to learn, the recently released 9/11 files have
raised disturbing new questions.

The Other Flight Instructor

It turns out that just three days after Hani Hanjour failed a flight
evaluation in a Cessna 172 at Freeway airport he showed up at
Congressional Air Charters, located down the road at Gaithersburg
airport, also in the Washington suburbs. Once again Hanjour attempted
to rent a plane, and again he was asked to go up with an instructor for
a flight evaluation to confirm his flight skills. The plane was the
same: a Cessna 172. Yet, on this occasion Hanjour passed with flying
colors and, later, this other instructor gave testimony to the
commission that turned out to be crucial. The final report mentions the
instructor's name only once in a brief endnote buried at the back of
the report. The note states:

Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight
supervised by
an instructor at Congressional Air Charter of Gaithersburg, Maryland,
landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor
thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he
used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev
interview. (Apr. 9, 2004)[24]

The note gives a name, Eddie Shalev, but no other information about him.
Indeed, his identity remained a mystery until January 2009, when NARA
released the 9/11 files.[25] Nonetheless, David Ray Griffin had already
identified the key questions in his 2008 book The New Pearl Harbor
Revisited. Wrote Griffin: "How could an instructor in Gaithersburg
[i.e., Shalev] have had such a radically different view of Hanjour's
abilities from
that of all of the other flight instructors who worked with him? Who
was this instructor? How could this report be verified?"[26]
These are important questions because the two assessments of Hani
Hanjour's
flight skills are so radically different that both cannot be correct.
The evaluations, made just days apart, are contradictory, hence,
mutually exclusive; which raises the disturbing possibility that
someone could be lying.


The FBI File

Fortunately, another newly released document, the FBI file on Hani
Hanjour, sheds
additional light on the case.[27] The file includes a timeline and
evidently was compiled to document the government's case against
Hanjour. I learned about it from a source on the commission, a staffer
who insisted to me in an email that it authenticates Hani Hanjour's
flight training. At a glance it appears to do that. However, on closer
examination the file is much less impressive and I have to wonder if
the staffer actually studied it. As we will see, the document not only
falls short of confirming Hanjour's flight skills, it shows signs of
having been "enhanced" to obscure the record.
Crucially, the FBI file includes not a scintilla of evidence that Hani
Hanjour
ever trained in a Boeing 757. Although Hanjour did some sessions a
Boeing 737 simulator, as we have already seen, the press accounts, more
importantly, his own instructor's written evaluation, offer a clear and
unambiguous assessment of his actual skills. It is also important to
realize that even if Hanjour had mastered the controls of a
Boeing 737, this would not have qualified him to execute a high-speed
suicide crash in a Boeing 757, a significantly larger and less
maneuverable aircraft. Such is the view of commercial pilots who fly
these planes every day.[28]

One such pilot, Philip Marshall, who is licensed to fly Boeing 727s,
737s,
747s, as well as 757s and 767s, recently authored a book, False Flag
911, in which he states categorically that the alleged 9/11 hijacker
pilots, including Hani Hanjour, could never have flown 767s and 757s
into
buildings at high speed without advanced training and practice flights
in that same aircraft over a period of months. As Marshall put it:
"Hitting a 90-foot target [i.e., the Pentagon] with a 757 at 500 mph is
extremely difficult -- absolutely impossible for first-time fliers of a
heavy airliner. It's like seeing Tiger Woods hit a 300-yard one-iron
and someone telling you he never practiced the shot."[29] Marshall
speculates that the hijackers may have received advanced flight lessons
from Arabic-speaking instructors at a secret desert base somewhere in
Arizona or Nevada, possibly arranged by complicit Saudi diplomats, or
by members of the Saudi royal family.[30] This is why Hanjour's
inability to pass a test flight evaluation at Freeway airport just
weeks before 9/11 is so significant: It tends to rule out Marshall's
theory of advanced instruction.
Close inspection of the FBI file also shows that someone padded the
record to
put the best face on Hanjour's flight training. This was done in a
curious way. Instead of simply informing us that Hanjour took courses
"x," "y" and "z" at such-and-such a flight school between certain
dates, the FBI file gives an itemized record of every single day that
Hanjour showed up for training at the various schools. The effect
creates the appearance of more extensive instruction than actually
occurred. Even so, the enhancement is transparently obvious. Imagine
the reaction of a potential employer if you or I engaged in this
dubious practice in a resume. On closer examination, another reason for
padding the record is also obvious. Enhancement tends to obscure
Hanjour's tendency to jump around from school to school and his
inability to finish anything he started.
The FBI file also conspicuously fails to mention the Jet Tech
instructor's
written evaluation of Hani Hanjour's flying skills. The omission easily
qualifies as suppression of evidence because we know the FBI had the
document in its possession. It was made public at the trial of
Zacharias Moussaoui when the document was submitted as evidence. This
means, of course that the 9/11 Commission also surely had it and
similarly suppressed it. (See note #9.)
The FBI file also grossly mischaracterizes what happened at Freeway
airport. The file mentions Hanjour's visits but wrongly indicates that
Hanjour received flight instruction. Not true. When I specifically
asked Marcel Bernard about this he denied the fact and emphasized that
Hanjour's test flights included no lessons and were strictly for the
purpose of evaluation.[31] The FBI should have known as much because
after 9/11 Bernard and his two flight instructors notified the FBI
about Hanjour's visit and were subsequently interviewed by FBI agents.
The file also conspicuously fails to mention that Hanjour flunked his
test flight evaluation! Whether through incompetence or deception, the
FBI failed on every point to state the facts correctly.
The FBI file does offer some fresh insights into Hani Hanjour the man.
On
August 2, 2001, according to the timeline, Hanjour showed up at the
Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in Arlington, where he
flunked a standard written test for a Virginia driver's license. The
fact is astonishing and ought to make us wonder how Hanjour ever
managed to acquire his previous Arizona driver's license issued in 1991
and his Florida license issued in 1996, let alone master the controls
of a Boeing 757.

There is another interesting item. The record indicates that on
September 5,
2001, just six days before 9/11, Hanjour showed up at the First Union
National Bank in Laurel, Maryland where he made four failed bank
transactions. The file cites bank records showing that Hanjour was
unable to make balance inquiries and withdraw funds from his account
because he failed to enter the correct pin number, which he evidently
had forgotten! Two days later, Hanjour returned to the bank, this time
accompanied by an unidentified male, and made another unsuccessful
attempt to withdraw $4900.

It is astonishing the FBI file was ever touted as authenticating
Hanjour's
flight credentials. The document falls short on that score and actually
raises new questions. How likely is it that a man who was unable to
remember his own pin number, and who just weeks before 9/11 flunked a
simple test for a driver's license, could have executed a top gun
maneuver in a commercial airliner? The odds, I would submit, are
approximately zero.

The FBI file includes one other curious entry. On August 20, 2001
Hanjour
shopped at Travelocity.com (http://travelocity.com/) for information about September 5, 2001
flights from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles. This suggests
that as of August 20 Hanjour did not yet know the date of the planned
attack, either because he had not been briefed or because the date had
not yet been selected. By the end of the month, however, the die was
cast. On August 31 Hanjour and another "middle-eastern male" purchased
one-way tickets for AA Flight 77 from a New Jersey travel agent. The
date of departure: September 11, 2001. Yet, given Hanjour's level of
skill, one has to wonder what the waif from Taif believed was supposed
to happen on that fateful morning.

So, Who is Eddie Shalev?

The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani
Hanjour's flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation.
Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the
other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a
Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel
Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the
very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention
of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev,
other than alluding to Hanjour's certification flight in a brief
endnote. This is curious, since it now appears that Shalev's testimony
was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear,
Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the
preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than
seven
years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January
2009 by the National Archives. The document, labelled a "Memorandum for
the Record," is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev
conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.[32] The document
confirms that Shalev went on record: "Mr Shalev stated that based on
his observations Hanjour was a 'good' pilot." It is noteworthy that
Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner,
as revealed by yet another recently-released document.[33] Although I
was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner,
who confirmed the conversation.[34] Conner says he fully expected to
testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never
came.
But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and
served in the Israeli army. The file states that "Mr. Shalev served in
the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster
on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April
2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air
Charters...[which] has subsequently gone out of business."

The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer's
strange
choice of words in describing Shalev's employment. What did Quinn John
Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev "was sponsored for employment"? Did
the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is
curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But
the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the
commission vet Eddie Shalev?Does his military record include service in
the Israeli intelligence community?
Real people have known addresses. But the whereabouts of Eddie Shalev
has
been unknown for years. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of
the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research
librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis
search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.[35] Recent searches by
Woodworth and myself indicate that an "Eddy Shalev" resided in
Rockville, Maryland as recently as 2007. However, the associated phone
number is no longer in service. The 9/11 memorandum raises the
possibility that Shalev may have returned to Israel.Clearly, the man
needs to be found, subpoenaed and made to testify under oath before a
new investigation, even if this necessitates extradition. Quinn John
Tamm
and the two Freeway instructors, Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, should
also be subpoenaed. All are key witnesses and obvious starting points
for a new 9/11 investigation.Given
his identity, the search for and possible extradition of Eddie Shalev
could become controversial. But 9/11 investigators must not be turned
aside. We must follow the trail of evidence, regardless. Should it lead
into a dark wood, we must resolve to go there; and if it takes us to
the gates of hell, so be it. When our search obtains a certain critical
mass, momentum will shift decisively in our favor. Public support for a
new 9/11 investigation will become irresistible.

The light of truth will do the rest.

Will Fraser
22nd Jul 2009, 20:09
I don't for one minute consider rg's account conclusive, nor should anyone. What is important in my view is the following.

In 1998 I was involved in an investigation into a fatal icy road crash in a western state. I was employed by the Defendant's attorney's firm. The Defendant was charged with vehicular manslaughter, a serious crime carrying serious prison time. Everything pointed to this being merely an accident, we were unsure why (and remain to this day mystified) the DA was pursuing the client so aggressively. In tracking down witnesses, we found a first arrival at the scene, an RN, who was also wondering why the criminal charge. She had given a medically experienced and professional account to the Officers present who had taken her statement. This file was nowhere to be found in the charged case. We inquired of the DA's rep about this 'exculpatory' statement ('tending to exonerate'), he said he'd make inquiries of the officers. The file was 'found' the case was dropped.

On a 'whim' a man was going to do prison time. In this county, one can hire a contract killer for 500 dollars. But with trillions of dollars and the security of powerful interests at stake, all is 'above board'?? Seventy per cent of adults in the US think Oswald did not act alone. A serious number of people think the '9/11' 'commission' was a put up job. I do not know one way or the other.

I distrust anyone who has an aggressive, absolute stance regarding 9/11, one way or the other.

Revisit the 'results' ?? absolutely.

con-pilot
22nd Jul 2009, 20:39
Oh for God's sake, not again. :rolleyes:

Take it to the 'chemtrails'.

chuks
22nd Jul 2009, 20:57
The last lot had it that the Pentagon was not struck by an aircraft. Now it is that it was struck by an aircraft piloted by someone incapable of hitting a "90 foot" target with a large aircraft.

Since when was the Pentagon a "90 foot" target? It is one of the world's largest office buildings so that I think it must have been pretty hard to miss. Or is this some goofy logic that only looks at where the aircraft did hit and not at where else it might have hit? You know, if it missed the outside wall then it could have done even more damage going into the interior.

I once had a little girl as my partner in a darts match, when she was not just useless but dangerous. We all took cover when she flung the darts but then we won the match when she threw a double 17. Such a small target and she nailed it. Go figure.

I guess what we need to do is put 100 crap pilots in a sim (but not all at the same time, they might suffocate!) and see how many can hit the Pentagon. Would one be enough? Well, not if you are a moonbat, I guess.

ChristiaanJ
22nd Jul 2009, 21:11
con-pilot,

Thank you... I kept seeing mentions of those "chemtrails", so I had to finally look it up.... I wasn't aware they were a conspiracy theory all of their own.

It was a late January afternoon last year, coming back from the Midlands to London in a car. As a front-seat passenger, I could watch the sky over LHR. Long-persisting contrail after contrail, both from overflights and from arrivals joining the stacks... spreading enough in the end to form a thin overcast.
Fascinating sight, and it's rare enough you get a chance to see it.

Those conspiracionists would have been shaking in their tinfoil boots.

CJ

con-pilot
22nd Jul 2009, 23:37
Since when was the Pentagon a "90 foot" target? It is one of the world's largest office buildings so that I think it must have been pretty hard to miss. Or is this some goofy logic that only looks at where the aircraft did hit and not at where else it might have hit? You know, if it missed the outside wall then it could have done even more damage going into the interior.


Actually, if you watch the video from the fixed camera the idiot did miss the Pentagon. He hit the ground first and then bounced into the building.

So yeah, he must have been a real crappy pilot. Because he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, the Pentagon in this case, without hitting the ground first.

BenThere
22nd Jul 2009, 23:52
As far as I know, none of the palletized UNID estrogen bags have been added, by my airline at least, to the oil filler ports of any aircraft originating and terminating in CONUS. Maybe they were reserved for Europe, but I wouldn't take a position on that without further confirmation.

Feminization of entire populations is a very serious charge, and to speculate that it has been induced is utterly beyond the pale.

brickhistory
23rd Jul 2009, 00:21
Feminization of entire populations is a very serious charge, and to speculate that it has been induced is utterly beyond the pale.


Psst, Ben, ever heard of the EU?
(But mum's the word, ok?)

Then there's:
Envisioning a World Without Men - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4725121&page=1)


"The Y chromosome is deteriorating and will, in my belief, disappear," Sykes told me. A world-renowned authority on genetic material



Every generation one percent of men will have a mutation which reduces their fertility by 10 percent," explained Sykes. Unlike most chromosomes, the Y does not travel through the generation in pairs, so can never repair itself from a mirror. Flaws are never repaired. "So if that goes on for generation after generation," Sykes argued, "eventually there are no functioning Y chromosomes left."



It's a long time, 125,000 years. But we men have a far more immediate problem: sperm counts have fallen by an incredible 20 percent in the past 50 years. Stress? Alcohol? Environmental pollution? Who knows, but it's deeply concerning for those of us with a vested interest in the survival of the male


And as far as 9/11 moonbats, etc, this guy has rumbled us. Out of all the intelligence agencies in the world, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists, even the History Channel, this guy is the one who has put 2 and 2 together in just the right way for the pattern to become clear.

Frankly, I'm glad the secret is out. It was getting really, really cramped in the large government warehouse where all of us 9/11 conspirators having been hanging out. Due to budget concerns, they lumped us in with all the moon landing fakers, and, to be honest, some of them are getting old and smell strongly of wee...

pigboat
23rd Jul 2009, 02:44
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/Siddley-Hawker/Tinfoilhat.jpg

con-pilot
23rd Jul 2009, 02:54
Pigboat wins!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

:D:D:D:D:D

LeandroSecundo
23rd Jul 2009, 04:28
Hi,

The fantastic job of Hanjour ????

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - View Video Presentation (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)

So I correct Con_Pilot :)

If after seeing the above, if you still feel that there is insufficient evidence to prove to you that American Airlines 77 did in fact not hit the Pentagon, this debate is over.

Bye.

El Grifo
23rd Jul 2009, 08:10
Hi Con,
it is a while since I "contributed" to the hallowed halls of Pprune, due to heavy travelling commitments, but after reading this :-

Actually, if you watch the video from the fixed camera the idiot did miss the Pentagon. He hit the ground first and then bounced into the building.


You have grabbed my interest.

I would dearly love to see this video, a video that would put the whole thing to rest once and for all and save some megabandwidth on Pprune at the same time.

Chuck me the link when you get a minute.

Cheers
El G.

chuks
23rd Jul 2009, 09:16
A "debate" implies two people arguing from reasoned positions. Here we have one side arguing with a vast amount of circumstantial and physical evidence plus their basic experience as professionals in aviation and the other side using very scanty and far-fetched stuff, such as that this hijacker was supposedly not capable of hitting a vast, sprawling building (described as measuring merely "90 foot" when that must be its height) with an aircraft.

Right there we hit our first problem, proving that negative, that a particular man could NOT have done something. Heck, I would have bet $100 that my little darts partner could not hit that double 17; her previous throws "proved" that. Then she went ahead and did it!

Should this debate prove another negative, that said aircraft did not hit the Pentagon? Well, you can posit that something else damaged the Pentagon that day (mutant termites using tiny cruise missiles?) but you cannot prove that it was not this, that or the other.

All that happens in a debate is that one side speaks, the other side speaks, back and forth it goes for an agreed span of time and then at the end the audience says, "You win!" to one of the two sides. They don't say, "Okay, you win by proving that X did not happen," for instance. It is simply that one argument is more persuasive than the other, not that the losers are crushed, humiliated and have to go into foreign exile after having been conclusively "proved" wrong.

For instance, we had years and years of debate over whether Alger Hiss was a spy for the Soviet Union. Back and forth it went with the Right saying that he was and the Left saying that he had been framed. Finally we got access to Soviet files that showed Hiss had indeed been one of their agents, which pretty much settled that. Even so, it didn't "prove" anything because, hey, those files could have been faked. That's extremely unlikely but... It just meant that anyone but a fanatic finally had to accept his guilt and the time for a debate is over.

Same way here, anyone but a fanatic will accept that aircraft hit the Pentagon for hundreds of very good reasons. What do we have that needs debating? First we had the argument that no aircraft hit the Pentagon, just look at the little, tiny hole. Now we seem to have one that, okay, it was that aircraft but it couldn't have been flown by this particular guy "because."

All this shows me is a persistent retreat from reason. To have a debate I really need a reasonable opponent, otherwise I just end up in one of these, "The evidence shows that..." when my opponent simply says, "No it doesn't!"

"Why not?" doesn't have to come into this for the moonbats because they are only in this to get attention. Hell, they know they are fools and oxygen thieves; people have been telling them that all their miserable lives. The problem for them is going ignored, when spreading lies about 9/11 sorts that one out very well.

Back when, Arlo Guthrie wrote a funny little song called "The Pause of Mr Claus" with an intro about being the "last guy," the biggest loser of all time. He mentioned how we can be down and out but we can always say that there is someone else worse off. So how about that last guy, the one worse off than everyone else? His solution was to drop a dime in a pay phone (which sort of dates this, doesn't it?) and call the FBI to tell them that you are a Communist. After that you should never be alone and ignored.

I think the modern equivalent is coming up with some nonsense about 9/11. Put it up on the internet and you can get people actually bothering to engage you in conversation about that, treating you as if you actually knew something and were capable of logical discourse, when you can then frustrate and even enrage them.

Why is that? Who knows, perhaps it is the lingering trauma of potty training or having been given a wedgie by that mean, muscley kid with the crew cut in 7th Grade. Anyway there's something wrong with your wiring there, moonbats, the human equivalent of Kapton insulation and now you need to mess around with the basic facts of 9/11 to work that off on the rest of us. About the only way to frustrate you is to ignore you but I think most of you are very used to being ignored so that's a feeble riposte.

Tyres O'Flaherty
23rd Jul 2009, 09:22
Hear hear Chuks, very well put

:ok:

Gainesy
23rd Jul 2009, 09:56
"Mr. Shalev served in
the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster
on a Boeing C-130.

Worrabunchawankers.

LeandroSecundo
23rd Jul 2009, 09:57
Hi,

El Grifo wrote

You have grabbed my interest.

I would dearly love to see this video, a video that would put the whole thing to rest once and for all and save some megabandwidth on PPRuNe at the same time.

Chuck me the link when you get a minute.You can see the video (video from the fixed camera the idiot did miss the Pentagon. He hit the ground first and then bounced into the building. ) ... in this video :)

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - View Video Presentation (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)

Bye.

chuks
23rd Jul 2009, 10:31
I cannot watch 81 minutes of whatever just to find out what really happened on 9/11. I am 61 years old!

Last time I was in your part of the world, Leandro, I went to visit the Escorial. What an unconvincing fake THAT is! Supposedly from the 17th Century, it has "No Parking" signs stuck all over it, when Gottlieb Daimler only invented the automobile around 1880. You Hispanics really need to do better than that, you know! If you want those tourist dollars then pay more attention to tell-tale details!

This Escorial was a real personal disappointment, much like the time I went to the Pantheon to see the Elgin Marbles to be told they never heard of them there. If we faked 9/11, well, you guys did it to us first!

Anyone else here had trouble with European fakery? I am sure we can come up with far worse examples of deceit from there, next to which faking 9/11 is just a blip on the great radar screen of life.

Dushan
23rd Jul 2009, 11:31
Anyone else here had trouble with European fakery? I am sure we can come up with far worse examples of deceit from there, next to which faking 9/11 is just a blip on the great radar screen of life.

Turks on the gates of Vienna? Bah, everyone knows the Serbs stopped them in their tracks, long before they had a chance to reach Vienna...

Cacophonix
23rd Jul 2009, 11:47
Turks on the gates of Vienna?


Hail Vlad the Impaler, a hero and all round good guy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg/200px-Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg)

Tonic Please
23rd Jul 2009, 12:06
Why not watch the video? It's not tinfoil hat stuff. It's blaringly obvious stuff.

Just watch it, stop being so stubborn because you're afraid of learning something slightly (ok, a lot), against what you 'think' you know.

I am not saying it was a conspiracy. I am saying "Look, that is that, and that is that". Ok, I will make my own judgements.

You lot who deny it and take NO time to even watch and learn, are up your own asses. Watch it and THEN make a comment. For goodness sake. :ugh:

chuks
23rd Jul 2009, 13:13
Not the truth about 9/11! Anything but that! It would be like Count Dracula deciding, "Time for a stroll in the sunshine..." something sure to end in tears if I were to take just one tiny peek at this video. I am sure that it must be one very powerful ju-ju you have there.

All my illusions shattered about 9/11, the Moon landings, chemtrails, the Royal Family... (Well, they might actually BE giant lizards, I will have to give you that one.) How could I deal with my entire vast edifice of false beliefs being brought tumbling down by this one video? No, there's just no way I am prepared to risk that.

Could you, perhaps, just summarise it for me in a short paragraph, about 50 words? I am willing to risk that much.

Too, at my age the old attention span just isn't what it used to be so that 81 minutes is way too much, unless perhaps it has Angelina Jolie with her tits out in it somewhere.

As to that other thing, once I got this Pantheon/Parthenon business sorted out with a trip across to Ancona, the ferry to Patras and a road journey to Athens, well, what is the big buzz there anyway? Still with the "Elgin Marbles? Never heard of them. You mean the freeze?"

WTF? 35░ in the shade and we are talking "cold weather" here? As if!

Anyway the whole place was falling down and just some sort of Dago copy of a bog standard US Post Office anyway so that my whole trip was pretty much a waste of time.

Okay, so we rope them in to look at this big hole where the World Trade Center supposedly was but then you still have stuff like the Battery, the Staten Island Ferry, Starbucks, the shopping at Saks Fifth Avenue... New York is definitely worth a trip, especially if you like being insulted and gypped in English instead of some Dago jibber-jabber that was all Greek to me, so that a little, tiny bit of 9/11 fakery can go safely ignored; we still give you value for money.

Dushan
23rd Jul 2009, 13:22
I see fakery, before we even begin. Tonic Please, but in Paris, France. Shouldn't it be Pastis SVP, or London, England.

Cacophonix
23rd Jul 2009, 13:33
the Royal Family... (Well, they might actually BE giant lizards


Ah so you know that too!

Of course the great lizard king Jim Morrison is alive as well.

Shh! Don't tell anyone.

brickhistory
23rd Jul 2009, 13:41
Just watch it, stop being so stubborn because you're afraid of learning something slightly (ok, a lot), against what you 'think' you know.



I learned on September 11, 2001 how to run (bravely) out of a great big burning Pentagon.

I learned how cooked humans smell. (Ialso learned how incredibly selfless some humans can be; there were some heroes in the Pentagon that day. Not me, of course, see the running away part above.)

I learned how much damage the energy of a large Boeing filled with fuel can do to a building.

Is that enough education for one lifetime on the subject?

Or do I still fail to see "the truth?'

Oh, and on the highlights reel they show all of us 9/11 conspirators to pass the time in our large, pee smelling of warehouse, there's a classic "C'mon, Hanjour, do some of that pilot sh1t!" caught on tape during the approach...

El Grifo
23rd Jul 2009, 16:33
Hey LeandroSecundo, I did watch the whole 81 mins whatever and found it very captivating.

Are the witnesses, including cops, aviator and pentagon heliport control tower dude, just a bunch of lying lefties, or is there more to the story.

Didn't see a bouncing Boeing anywhere though. Any pointers yet Con ?

El G.

con-pilot
23rd Jul 2009, 19:17
Didn't see a bouncing Boeing anywhere though. Any pointers yet Con ?


El G, if you have not seen the video of the pictures taken from the fixed camera at the entrance to a parking lot that has been shown timeless times, even here, and on about every TV News show in the world, you have obviously been living in a cave since the attack on 9/11, or 11/9 if you prefer.

I would also direct your attention the aerial views taken just minutes after the 757 hit the Pentagon shown the initial impact area just short of the building.

So I believe I need not prove anything to you, let alone do your research for you.

There is only one person here at Pprune that was there as far as I know. Of course that would brickhistory. So pardon me for taking his word that a Boeing 757 belonging to American Airlines hit the Pentagon over some peoples' rampant speculation.

LeandroSecundo
23rd Jul 2009, 19:25
Hi,

Are the witnesses, including cops, aviator and pentagon heliport control tower dude, just a bunch of lying lefties, or is there more to the story.
You forget the taxi driver :)
Pick all lefties you want there ..
American Memory from the Library of Congress - Browse by (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/911_archive/title_sound_recordingI1.html)
But I wonder why witnesses must be right wing for be credible ... your assessment is not simply that of someone full of prejudices? :)

Bye.

El Grifo
23rd Jul 2009, 19:46
Not a cave exactly Con, but a very small Volcanic Island off the coast of North Africa.

Send me a link.

That is all I ask,

I have seen shitty footage of a flash and an explosion. I have never seen an aircraft or an aircraft bounce for that matter. Just think, You could be the torch of knowledge that illuminates my understanding of the event.

I am not saying for a minute that it did not happen. I am simply saying that I am surprised that I have never been exposed to definitive footage, considering the terrain.

What is your take on the witnesses condradiction of the officially accepted flight path ?

I mean to say, we are allowed to question official versions of events, certainly on this side of the pond at least. We are not duty bound to accept the part line. We still have that small, but diminishing element of freedom. Lets at least enjoy it whilst we can :ok:

Leandro, La proxima vez en Ingles por favor :}

con-pilot
23rd Jul 2009, 19:59
Okay, here is a place where you can start, but that's all I'm going to do for you until you buy me a couple of beers.

American Airlines Flight 77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Security_camera_video)

The above video can be found on other sites where the speed of the video has been slowed down so you can see it in greater detail. In the frame just before the 757 hits the Pentagon you can see a cloud of dust come from where the 757 hits the ground first before hitting the building.

El Grifo
23rd Jul 2009, 20:19
Thanx Con, I will check it out.

As for the beers, not so sure, but I have just been presented with a bottle of Chris Blackwells's extremely special Jamaica Rum. Hard to get outside the Sceptred Isle.

It is lush.

Hop across to La Isla Mitica for a few days and I will gladly share it with you :ok:

Happy Daze
El G.

PS. have you checked out the previously posted video link.

It is a bit of a slog, but very compelling.

El Grifo
23rd Jul 2009, 20:30
Now Con, you are better than that by miles. That video is SHIT.

I can see a patrol car passing. That is for sure.

After that, I see what could be best described as a small white seagull streaking momentarily through a small section of airspace, followed by a fireball and no debris.

I would say that this footage definitely goes against the accepted argument, rather than with it.

Rum back it the cooler for now (less one shot) :}

con-pilot
23rd Jul 2009, 20:40
I can see a patrol car passing. That is for sure.


Well there you go, you've solved the whole conspiracy. It was the patrol car that actually planted a bomb and the streak you see just before the explosion is the patrol car leaving at high speed.

Now go to your front door and wait for a messenger from the Nobel Prize Committee. He'll be right along, his name is Hank.

Now, what ever you do, don't leave your door.

WhatsaLizad?
23rd Jul 2009, 20:41
Ok, tinfoil hat people, let's just stand back and think about this:

What conspiracy ringleaders with at least the average IQ, would have as their lynchpin of the entire operation the requirement that 4 scheduled flights of American and United actually depart ontime or within a short window from 3 northeast US airports?

I work as a pilot for one of the two carriers, and find it amazing you nutjobs believe someone would rely on the airlines to plan a war, ect.

Second point. If you believe explosives were planted in the WTC 1,2,7 towers, how did they get thousands of pounds by the legions of Union building employees who typically detonate in a nuclear fashion if a non-union person so much as changes a light bulb or moves an extension cord?

You may continue operating your feeble minds.

LeandroSecundo
23rd Jul 2009, 21:00
Hi,

I work as a pilot for one of the two carriers, and find it amazing you nutjobs believe someone would rely on the airlines to plan a war, ect.

Where and when you read this .. or it's coming from your imagination ? :)

Bye.

ChristiaanJ
23rd Jul 2009, 21:02
What conspiracy ringleaders with at least the average IQ, would have as their lynchpin of the entire operation the requirement that 4 scheduled flights of American and United actually depart ontime or within a short window from 3 northeast US airports?They were morning flights, no? They usually don't get that much delayed, no? Half an hour wouldn't have made much of a difference, considering the time it needed to get the USAF and the "authorities" to act.
Getting one out of four on target would already have created a major "event". As it happened, they got "three out of four".

CJ

Will Fraser
23rd Jul 2009, 21:38
I notice two things about the wiki 77 vid. I'd never seen the vertical stabilizer before, nor the 'dust'. As many times as I've watched that video of the impact, I simply did not see the dust or the 'added' aircraft.

For a trail of dust like in wiki, the a/c would have been sliding for some time, not 'bouncing'. Hitting the ground at 400 knots, loaded with fuel, and no flames until impact w/Pentagon?

The most damning evidence is scale. In the vid, the a/c appears to be perhaps a quarter mile from the camera lens. The impact and fireball appears to be ~200 feet. The length of the a/c on tape was "x" the fireball "50x". Measuring the a/c image as it would be over the fireball, impact area, the a/c would have been about five feet in diameter and parhaps 25-30 feet long. No sale.

Con, Wiki??

Dushan
23rd Jul 2009, 21:40
Second point. If you believe explosives were planted in the WTC 1,2,7 towers, how did they get thousands of pounds by the legions of Union building employees who typically detonate in a nuclear fashion if a non-union person so much as changes a light bulb or moves an extension cord?

You may continue operating your feeble minds.

I think you just solved it WhatsaLizad. That's what they did. They sent 3 non-union guys with light bulbs into the 3 buildings. At the moment of second impact at WTC they started changing the light bulbs in buildings 1,2,7 and the legions of Union building employees detonated in a nuclear fashion and brought the buildings down.

WhatsaLizad?
24th Jul 2009, 02:27
LeandroSecundo,

You think that link is funny?

Do you think I like some French piece of crap laugh and perform a comedy show over the slaughter of my coworkers and my companies passengers as well as my fellow citizens on the ground?

Do you think I like seeing you idiots run your mouths with your delusional garbage about the Pentagon plane, a aircraft I spent many flights in?

The real problem with the internet is the gutless keyboard courage of those like yourself who can spout their drivel without fear of getting their teeth rammed into their throat.

brickhistory
24th Jul 2009, 02:46
Whatsa,

Let it go. You'll never kill all the moonbats, they're like vermin, mutating to a new slimier form whenever exposed to the cold, hard truth.

Drink a toast to your comrades, remember them, don't let the bastards win.

shedhead
24th Jul 2009, 10:41
When I was a kid I always used to wonder about where the villains in the James Bond films got all those henchmen. it puzzled me, I mean did they advertise in the local paper or what? Now with the 9/11 conspiracy it is puzzling me again. Consider the number of people who had to be involved to make it work. Where would you get so many cold blooded psychopaths from? and how do you make them keep quiet? Still, that's me doing real world thinking not castle moonbat logic. I would recommend a read of "voodoo histories" by David Aaronovitch. then you can all come back and say he is part of the conspiracy as well.

chuks
24th Jul 2009, 12:25
When you watch the movies some security bod looks like your normal, brain-dead parking lot attendant or whatever but when James Bond turns his back the guy tries to strangle him! What in the world? Did the guy answer an advert for "Parking Lot Attendant Wanted. Must be willing to work unsociable hours, psychopathic tendencies an advantage..."

It could be that the bad guys just come from some scriptwriter's imagination so that boring details such as these just don't come into it. It's the same as asking what the Russians were doing while we faked the Moon landings, I suppose, or where are all the people who helped fake them? I mean, if there is one thing about an evil henchman I have learned from the movies none of them are blabbermouths. You never see one going down to his local and blowing his strangulation bonus on drinks for the crowd and then telling them who he offed to get it. These are very high-grade villains, eh?

Do they multi-task? You know, one week as the killer parking lot attendant, one week working on fake Moon landings, one week off at home with the wife and kiddies? Otherwise you might think boredom would set in, so that someone would just give James Bond a wedgie or send a wind-up toy across what is meant to be a Moonscape. Or he might even snap and tell the wife what he really does do for a living, why she's always trying to get fake Moondust out of his socks.

WhatsaLizad?
24th Jul 2009, 12:49
"Drink a toast to your comrades, remember them, don't let the bastards win."

Brick,

Thanks, "spot on" as our friends across the pond say. The tone of my post might lead one to believe I spent a wee bit too much time involved with these cretins. If I have a problem on the subject, I think I like to toast my comrades, those still around and those fallen, a wee bit to much :E

Dushan
24th Jul 2009, 14:01
When you watch the movies some security bod looks like your normal, brain-dead parking lot attendant or whatever but when James Bond turns his back the guy tries to strangle him! What in the world? Did the guy answer an advert for "Parking Lot Attendant Wanted. Must be willing to work unsociable hours, psychopathic tendencies an advantage..."



The problem with these guys is that none of them actually read the script, end-to-end, so they think that somehow they will be the ones who actually off Bond. Of course that is also known as the "4th man on new planet" syndrome in Star-Trek. We all know that the poor kid whom we see for the first time ever, being transported to a new, unknown, planet with Uhura, Chekoff, and Spok, is going to be dead meat ina matter of seconds.

brickhistory
24th Jul 2009, 15:11
Of course that is also known as the "4th man on new planet" syndrome in Star-Trek. We all know that the poor kid whom we see for the first time ever, being transported to a new, unknown, planet with Uhura, Chekoff, and Spok, is going to be dead meat ina matter of seconds.


We always called it the "red shirt" designated mortality.

The same guy is (almost) always wearing a red uniform shirt.



STARFLEET ACADEMY Graduation Date 25431.8

Our band of brothers, cadets who stuck with each other through thick and thin, learn their post-Academy fates:

Quinn: Hot damn, I got gold!

TeBag: I suppose I will be satisfied with blue.

Hot Legs: I got red, but it doesn't matter because I'm drop dead gorgeous.

Smitty: I got a red shirt.

The first three in unison: Aww, damn! It was nice knowing you. Be brave.

chuks
24th Jul 2009, 22:01
"Galaxy Quest" played around with exactly this idea, didn't it?

As to that new stuff that kicked things off: The mysterious Mr Shalev, the Israeli Boeing C-130 jumpmaster who was ever so hard to track down... about a minute on "faa.gov" shows 12 people by that family name, one of whom has a Rockville, Maryland address. (Rockville is just down the road from Gaithersburg.) He is shown as holding ATP, CPL and CFI tickets so that I assume he's the one this post refers to. This story making him out to be so shadowy and mysterious just seems to be a gross exaggeration if I could track him down that far in about one minute. To be "sponsored," well, he was probably working in the States, building time as an instructor on a visa he needed to be sponsored to get. That used to be a very common practice.

Another thing: Care to bet that I couldn't hit a 1-mm. target with an object tossed over my shoulder with my eyes closed? How about a bedsheet then, not very high but with a large area? To describe the Pentagon, one of the world's largest office buildings, as a "90 foot" target tries in a clumsy way to emphasise its low height but ignore its vast area, almost 30 acres.

I am a bit disappointed that El Grifo seems to be on the fence here about whether an aircraft hit the Pentagon or not, as if there really is some reasonable doubt. Okay, the videos Con Pilot referred to, due to the slow frame rate, don't show as much as one might hope but many well-documented historical events are not shown on video either; lack of a video isn't proof of a non-event, is it?

Is it that you are playing film critic here or do you really think there's merit in this latest stuff about 9/11, El G?

Personally I think this whole thing is a waste of time, except for the opportunity to goggle in wonder at yet more damned foolishness out here on the internet. It's just one more "seeker after truth" who turns out to be trying some clumsy conjuring tricks.

El Grifo
25th Jul 2009, 08:24
Sorry Chuky baby, just back from a stint in Egypt and Greece so feeling a little to "hard fired" to play Prune games just yet.

Yeah I watched the whole 81 minutes.

You see I am one, not of a closed mind.

What was the long held pillar of my philosophy yesterday, can be changed in a flash, if irrefutable evidence is presented to the contrary.

The evidence presented in the Video was far from irrefutable.
There were several leaps to conclusion.

What struck me as interesting though, was the evidence of the angle of impact presented by the "experts" and the flight path that would have to be prescribed to create that impact, set against the evidence of the eye witnesses present.

The independent eye witnesses, including a sprinkling of fairly "straight up dudes" all observed a flight path the took the aircraft on a very different path indeed with a high degree of concurrence

In a major, world changing event such as this. That is sufficient to make people stand up and ask questions and wish to look more deeply into the situation.

Governments, especially those of the ilk of the Bush Administration are never trusted.

So there you have it Chucks. There is one major flaw in the tale, a flaw major enough to create yet more questions rather than answers.

As a postscript, a note to Will Fraser.

A colleague of mine takes the same view as you. He has studied the non-aircraft hitting the pentagon video dozens of times in the past. Only now is he seeing the tailfin which was never visible (or present) before.

Funny old world innit ?

shedhead
25th Jul 2009, 11:10
It is indeed a funny old world. the conspiracy theorists will point out one minor inconsistency and then insist that the whole "establishment" theory must be wrong because of that single fact but will insist that you must disprove every single inconsistency in their story and even then they insist that they are still right.

El Grifo
25th Jul 2009, 13:03
Although I belieive your analysis to be slightly skewed, I realise it can not be pointed in my direction, due to my more balanced and logical breakdown of the actualitie.

El G.

chuks
25th Jul 2009, 13:04
Well, El Grifo, if you accept that the aircraft hit the Pentagon, albeit at a different angle, then I really do not see much of interest in this latest call for an inquest.

There are those two things I cited, one being the mysterious Israeli who turns out to have his name and address listed (as one must to hold a valid FAA licence) so that he's not mysterious at all. The call to seek him out wherever he is hidden seems a bit foolish given that his address is listed right there on the FAA website. The only mystery must be the Boeing C-130 that he was a jumpmaster on but I bet there's a simple explanation for that one too.

The other thing is the difficulty in hitting a so-described "90 foot" target. It turns out to be not very high, no, but it has an area of almost 30 acres so that there's no mystery in that one either; it's just a deceptive narrative meant to fool us into thinking something easy is difficult.

Anyway, as Con Pilot pointed out, the guy wasn't able directly to hit the building; he hit in front of it with the aircraft then bouncing or sliding or whatever into it. Even there we see that his casual description of the aircraft "bouncing," which is fair, gets nit-picked by those who need to raise doubts.

You know, did I "drop" something or did I "let it fall?" Who can say? So long as we agree it fell to the ground my intent there shouldn't matter. That airplane hit the Pentagon, the only real point of interest to me in this matter.

All that leaves us with is the obvious point that eye-witness testimony, especially to such a traumatic event as this, can be unreliable. How often do we read about an aircraft that crashed burning when it turned out later there was no in-flight fire? I think we all know to disregard this sort of stuff without much thought. It would be unbalanced and illogical to do otherwise.

El Grifo
25th Jul 2009, 13:50
Mornin Chuks, 32 and blowy here today, how with you ?

Well you know I am told it hit the pentagon, but who knows who to trust these days.

Surprising really the absence of any actual video evidence. You know the kind of thing, stuff that you can actually see with your own eyes. The likes of which we saw at WTC. The likes of what might have been available in the confiscated security cam tapes that allegedly existed.

It could have save a lot of people a lot of gob/keyboard time.

Why is that allowed to happen, why do they not just release the evidence and give us all some peace.

I hear what you say about unreliable witnesses but lets be fair chuks, this does not really appear to be the case here. Some pretty solid and joined-up tales really. It is hard to figure why they can all be so simultaneously incorrect.

Bottom line for me is, some bad shit happened. There must be/is plenty of solid evidence available.

Get it out in the public domain or let the clamour for some kind of inquest increase.

"Simples" as the diminutive Russian meerkat would say.

El G.

Point of interest Chuks, I am sharing a weekend/ bottle of Herradura/ bottle of Chris Blackwell, here in Casa Grifo with my old Czech/German/ Cuban amigo who was the one who told me he has incontrovertible evidence that old Fidel joined the great revolution in the sky over 18 months ago.

Should be some good stories tonight and some howling at the moon :-)

chuks
25th Jul 2009, 14:01
I might tell someone that you had a accident when you were not driving at the speed limit. No, the limit was 50 and you were holding 45!

You ate lunch at a restaurant and left without paying. No, your host paid for both of you.

Neither case above shows what we could nail as a lie but they do show deceit, same as describing the Pentagon as measuring "90 foot" or saying that a CFI is hard to find when his name and address are listed on the FAA website. The Pentagon is very low for such a big building and this CFI might be hard to find if you didn't look for him in the obvious place.

So when I read an unreliable narrative, do you suppose that I should give it much credibility? No, I tend to find the flaws and then tell myself that the writer is deceitful, so that I discount the narrative. We find this all the time with 9/11 "truthers," moonbats who want us to believe the Moon landings didn't happen, etcetera. What point is there in taking this stuff seriously, unless you want to annoy others with your seeming credulousness? You might as well argue that Bernoulli's Theorem is unproven.

brickhistory
25th Jul 2009, 14:08
Surprising really the absence of any actual video evidence. You know the kind of thing, stuff that you can actually see with your own eyes. The likes of which we saw at WTC. The likes of what might have been available in the confiscated security cam tapes that allegedly existed.


Why do you assume such evidence exists? Why do you assume the Pentagon had, on 9/11, such an elaborate surveillance system in place?
As you note, it "allegedly exists."

That is the heart of any conspiracy theory. Leaving aside the hundreds of witness - some whom I know personally, know their ability to debrief events accurately, as well as have implicit trust in their word - who saw the Boeing hit the Pentagon, the moonbats will always claim that "all the evidence hasn't been released."

Proving a negative. Neat trick.

This is the same government who no one wants to run anything because of incompetence. Yet, for this, they must have had a foolproof video system in place and operational. Really? And how do you "know" this?

Just like the moonbats claim that the air defenses were stood down to allow the attacks, the "simples" truth of we never even considered such a deliberate event as realistic. With the fall of the Soviet Union, air defense became such a small player in the military that only a few sites even had aircraft sitting on alert, much less one positioned to affect the events of 9/11.

Yet, ignoring the fiscal and political realities that drove air defense to such low levels is ignored and those defenses were "throttled" specifically that day in order for the attack to occur.

Let me wander over to the bridge table; some of those hundreds of air defense pilots on duty, including the squadron only 3-4 minutes away sitting cockpit alert - engines running - are holding a bridge tournament in the government conspiracy holding warehouse.

Why is that allowed to happen, why do they not just release the evidence and give us all some peace.


And what court of law standard do you have that all "evidence" hasn't been released? Again, it is the word of the government - never mind the hundreds of witnesses as noted above - against a moonbat who just "knows."


Oh, wait a minute, it may take me longer than I thought. Amelia Earhart is holding a symposium on open-water navigation that has caught my eye...

WhatsaLizad?
25th Jul 2009, 14:09
Here's another thought for the conspiracy theorists. Of course it doesn't fit their paranoid delusions, so little consideration has been given.

The Pentagon pilot hijacker screwed up. Although M. Atta was a murderous scumbag, he was very well educated and more than familiar with structural and building design. With the planning involved, a more damaging impact to the Pentagon would have been an oblique dive angle through the unreinforced roof, parallel to one of the rings, rather than a perpendicular impact on the exterior vertical walls that were publicly know to have been reinforced to withstand massive bomb attacks by ground vehicles.

The flaming debris pattern would have traveled far further and killed many more people had it propogated downward through the roof. Just witness the flames and debris from the explosion on the security cam videos, much of it was expended vertically outside after being deflected by the walls.

He could have overshot, hit dead on, or undershot and attempted to pull up resulting in the shallow trajectory, hitting the lawn and then the walls.

At any rate, focusing on the 90' walls as the target of a remote controlled aircraft, missile or some highly skilled pilot is idiotic, because it wasn't the way to cause the most damage.

Just some more common sense like that of the fallacy of using scheduled airlines or evading NYC Union building employees with tons of demo explosives to start a world conspiracy.

You fools may continue with your delusions.

El Grifo
25th Jul 2009, 14:13
I kinda thought we were talking about the several and varied eyewitnesses to the "ALTERNATIVE" flightpath supposedly taken by the aircraft in question.

There were a few of them, some fell in to the category of "reliable", and their perceptions broadly fell into line.

You, I, or the diminutive meerkat could say what we wanted and expect to be discredited.

A bit tougher with a broadly based/located/qualified/unconnected group of witnesses.

Geddit.

Brick, you are silly. Amelia Earhart is dead, you know that.

You fools may continue with your delusions.

Or refuse to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

brickhistory
25th Jul 2009, 14:30
Amelia Earhart is dead, you know that.



Really?

Has her body ever been identified?

Has there ever been DNA testing on it, if it was?

Is there any unassailable photographic proof?

Do you know for a fact that secret government medical research hasn't found a way for her to still be alive?

I say I see she's on the conspiracy government warehouse schedule for that navigation discussion.

Can you "prove" otherwise?

Or are you open to the possibility?

Dushan
25th Jul 2009, 14:39
Brick, you are going to give yourself a heart attack arguing with these people. Let Chuks joust with them. Go cut the lawn so when Mrs. Brick comes back you're not in trouble.

BOAC
25th Jul 2009, 14:47
I got a bit weary towards the end of the film, but did I hear a suggestion that the 757 did not actually crash into the Pentagon and was seen 'flying away? I missed the 'explanation' as to what then happened to it. Anyone help?

Dushan
25th Jul 2009, 15:00
I missed the 'explanation' as to what then happened to it. Anyone help?

Brick can give you the details, but basically it is parked on the apron behind the Government Conspiracy Warehouse with a number of other A/C, such as Amelia Earhart's. The passengers and crew are inside the warehouse. They are busy right now as Amelia is giving a seminar on open water navigation without GPS.

Will Fraser
25th Jul 2009, 15:07
I like an energetic discussion. Arguments are useless. Arguments are the domain of people who are intractable, or have some sort of faith that is implicit, and discounted by another.

Land on the Moon? I am 100 % convinced. It would take an enormous amount of evidence to dissuade me.

9/11 exactly as the Commission describes? This I doubt. Not hugely, but let me say if I was shown how some cowboys got involved with the wrong people and the 'truth' stood to hurt our country, I wouldn't be amazed.

Evil people executed acts of War on our Land, this is a FACT. Three thousand of our brothers and sisters were murdered, theoretically in the name of a "God", one I certainly don't understand, and would most likely risk my life to discredit, with extreme prejudice.

What is the undercurrent? Mistrust of the Federal government. And why not ? It isn't as monolithic as people think, it is huge, and disparate.
Anytime a few buds can get together and fail large corporations, while gifting others with billions of dollars, without oversight, and a total lack of intervention by the electeds, hmm, get my point ? There are disturbing waves of power echoing through our Republic, this is fact.

The one commonality of most targets of 'conspiracists' ??

The "Commission". From the Warren Report through the Watergate to the 9/11, DC assembles a clique of cronies and hacks to 'legitimize' the 'results' of an 'investigation'. This is presumptious and arrogant on the part of the 'principals'. To seal the Deal, DC collects gasbags and hangers on to 'convince' the public at large. Effective? Not to me. Divisive, yes.

Nixon would have weathered his crimes; Clinton would not have been impeached.

Lay it out, honor the public, carry on. Not the political way, evidently.

If you wonder why so many of us are cynical, look at Sacramento,
If you can bear the sight, as a freedom loving American.

Will

WhatsaLizad?
25th Jul 2009, 15:13
"Or refuse to have the wool pulled over their eyes."

No Grifo,

I keep looking at all points of view, including the opposing 9/11 views, to see if anyone has come up with something credible. Yet 99% of everything I read is narrow minded, paranoid nutcase garbage, and the other 1% an be thrown out the window after a little analysis.

I could stand up in front of a crowded 9/11 convention, and if I said I don't believe there should be a hole in the Pentagon outside the width from the left engine core to the right engine core, I would be ejected as some sort of a heretic. "Where are the wing holes!!" would be the shouts.

I would still be ejected even if I explained my analysis came from knowing the weakness of the wing aircraft aluminum compared to concrete walls, especially after many preflights of that exact same B757 that hit the Pentagon.

I'm as jaded about any explanation as anybody. I also have more than a vested interest in what happened since it hit a little closer than home for me than the average earthling. I keep waiting for some decent counter evidence, but have seen nothing but crap.

Dushan
25th Jul 2009, 15:27
We asked Saddam Hussein to prove that he did not have WMD. Then invaded him when he could not.

:hmm:

He was asked to allow a 3rd party to enter the facilities and inspect. He kept playing cat-and-mouse with that. Then when it became apparent that he is hiding something he got whacked.

con-pilot
25th Jul 2009, 15:31
El Grifo you have always struck me as an intelligent person. With that in mind, would please answer the following question.

If American Airlines Flight 77 did not, which you seem to believe, crashed into the Pentagon, what happened to the aircraft, the crew and passengers that boarded that flight on that fateful morning?

Now perhaps no one morned the loss of the 757, however, hundreds of people sadly morn the loss of the men, women and children that were on board that aircraft that never came home.

So, where are they?

Crayon
25th Jul 2009, 15:45
Dushan has the answer for you, Connie. They are in the "Government Conspiracy Warehouse":rolleyes:

PappaAlphaX-ray
25th Jul 2009, 16:54
Well, if y'all believe that four airliners could be comandeered at approximately the same time (by unsophisticated souls) without any prior knowledege from the establishment, your ignorance is astounding and you simply experienced it on the day. Wake up ! :ugh:

chuks
25th Jul 2009, 16:54
Logical conclusions, when you ask where the people are, if they weren't killed when that aircraft hit the Pentagon. These clowns want to have their sport and that means NOT jumping to the logical conclusion but instead letting them play their little, brain-dead logic condundrums. Why? Beats me. I refuse to play.

PappaAlphaX-ray
25th Jul 2009, 17:14
Since it is fair to assume that you did not go to the moon (physically) in 1969 and that you were not party to the arranging of 9/11, then your argument is equal to any and all. A forum is meant to be a space for debate ? Criticism of opinion is unwarranted. How will we ever learn/think otherwise ?

WhatsaLizad?
25th Jul 2009, 17:56
Well, if y'all believe that four airliners could be comandeered at approximately the same time (by unsophisticated souls) without any prior knowledege from the establishment, your ignorance is astounding and you simply experienced it on the day. Wake up ! :ugh:

Well, I know my goverment of the time, I know my company of that time. The same "head in the sand" attitude was everywhere in the corporation as well as with the FAA regarding security. The Air France airbus hijacking (stormed by the French on the ground) should have been the wake up call (they wanted full gas to pound the Eiffel Tower) as well as the increasing use of suicide bombers. The increase in cockpit intrusions by the general crazies before 9/11 should have have a wake up call too. It wasn't. General laziness and unwillingness to spend money kept the cockpits unsecured, along with many on Pprune wanting the inflight cockpit tour option kept open.

Were the signs and intel present for an attack? Yes they were, but it's more likely the same coporate/goverment "not my job, not my department" malaise that infects any large organization was at fault. It's the same crap how the US got hit at Pearl Harbor, the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger, 9/11 and whatever happens again in the future. One time, I even watched a guard of a "world leader" leave his bag of "toys" unattendend near me and a friend years ago. The "leader" was meters away, the "toys" were lethal. It was just a total --up by the guard. I'm still amazed at the conspiracy that would have been hatched had this mistake been done with a lunatic in my place.


Atta was a smart terrorist. He wasn't "unsophisticated". He didn't miss the fact that one nutcase can jump in the lap of a BA 747 skipper and almost wipe them out without any training. He also didn't miss (after test runs) the total idiots running security at our domestic airports.

I leave the "ignorance is astounding" retort to someone that can comprehend it.:ugh:

con-pilot
25th Jul 2009, 18:02
I leave the "ignorance is astounding" retort to someone that can comprehend it.

Err, it takes one to know one? Because that post by PAX is outstandingly and astoundingly ignorant. :p

PappaAlphaX-ray
25th Jul 2009, 18:04
Just a discussion. "ignorance is astounding" - you answered it. If you know/knew about what you posted, surely the Feds would know ?

WhatsaLizad?
25th Jul 2009, 18:12
It's public knowledge of the generic alerts known. There are plenty of books by sane people saying something was coming. Others probably said maybe not.

Problem was for those in charge, there is one side saying XYZ was coming, the other saying it was ABC. One of them was right on 9/12/2001.
Hindsight is always perfect.

Crayon
25th Jul 2009, 18:19
Criticism of opinion is unwarranted. How will we ever learn/think otherwise ?

It has been proven many times over on this board, you can have a decent debate. On neutral subjects such as politics/systems, religion, bringing up the kids, crimes, wars.. etc.
9-11 is not neutral subject for/to Americans. We lived the horror and witnessed what you over the pond suggest, our own government did to us. So forgive us septics, for entertaining your stupidity on this "conspiracy" subject.

Will Fraser
25th Jul 2009, 18:20
WhatsaLizad?

That pretty much sums up what I think about the cf that was pre-9/11 security. Not to mention that Jamie Gurelick did not want fibbies talkin' to spooks. Probably for good reasons, even Constitutional ones. Nonetheless, pants down, Murder for hire (or Glory to wtf's his name). My frig still has B-52's in UA and AA livery heading to Afghanistan. Probably always will.

WhatsaLizad?
25th Jul 2009, 18:26
My frig still has B-52's in UA and AA livery heading to Afghanistan. Probably always will.

I can't be sure of this, but I thought I remember a short story in our company "Pravda" about one instance where a B-52 was refueled over Afghanistan during the initial war, and all the pilots were AA and UAL guys who were Reserves/Air Guard/Military leave/ect.

Don't know if it's true, but I'd love to have a pic of it.

con-pilot
25th Jul 2009, 18:30
Okay PAX, you tell me and everyone else what happened on 9/11 or 11/9 if you prefer.

Now I want to know what happened to the original four airliners, the crews and passengers and where they are today.

I want you to tell me exactly what was used instead of the four airlines, what were they replaced with.

Who planned this attack?

When was the attack originally planed?

Who committed the attack?

Who flew the two airliners that millions of people saw flying into the World Trade Center, especially the second airliner that was filmed live and was seen live over the entire world?

If all four original airliners were not used, where are they?

Where are those four airliners, for that matter, just tell me where just one of them are located?

Where are the passengers and crews of those four airliners? Hell, I tell you what, you just find five people alive, that were on those airliners when they took off and I'll count that a "You Win". I'll go one further, just produce one body, intact with DNA evidence that proves that they were a crew member or passenger on any one of those four airliners and you'll win again.

Who placed the remains of the American Airlines B-757 into the Pentagon after the explosion? How did they get parts of that aircraft, identified by serial numbers, into the Pentagon so quickly seeing the aircraft was intact just hours before, hundreds of miles away, when it took off that morning?

You want some more questions? I still have plenty left.

Come on, you opened your mouth, it's time back up your statements.



(Of course I know you cannot.)

chuks
25th Jul 2009, 18:34
PAX: Do you guys all live under the same flat rock or is there some place with a whole lot of them close together? The internet, I guess.

Are you asking a question about a forum being a place for a debate, or are you making a statement that it is?

The problem is, to have a debate then you need rules and reasoned arguments when I just do not see any reason to arguing against the accepted facts about 9/11. There are always niggling doubts about the details, certainly but what of that? We are still arguing about the Kennedy assassination but at least no one denies that he died that 22 November.

You must have heard of Zeno's Dichotomy. That argues that if you shoot an arrow at a target it must first cover half the distance, then half of the remaining distance and then half of what is left... Basically the arrow must cover an infinity of distances so that it is logically impossible for it to reach its target!

Somehow you 9/11 truthers seem to build something like that up, a vast and shaky tower of false logic which begs us to ignore the obvious facts of what happened, when this is what you want to call a "debate." I can only hope that most of you are just doing this, making sport of mass murder, for some shallow personal reasons, that you are not actually foolish enough to believe this stuff.

Could we start with the basics and ask you 9/11 guys to write stuff in standard English? If you want to make a statement use a full stop: "A forum is a place for debate." If you want to ask a question then write it as a question: "Is a forum a place for debate?" You still won't get very far with what you are trying to sell, I hope, but at least then you won't be quite so opaque. If you aren't understood, how should you get the 5-minute argument?

El Grifo
25th Jul 2009, 18:38
Sorry for the tardy reply Con. Been busy sunnin meself !!

I think that you probably know deep down, that deep down I know that there is a very high probability that American 77 hit the Pentagon.. I do not belieive for one millisecond that it "flew past"

That would be verging on the absurd.

It is the circumstances, lack of visual evidence and conflicting opinions on flight path that piss me off.

I hate when a fudge takes place. It makes me naturally and healthily suspicious.

I view the circumstances surrounding this particular event, as a fudge of gargantuan proportions.

Do not be even sillier Brick. If Amelia were alive she would be 112 years old.
Not likely.

Now go on, get that grass cut before the wife gets back :ok:

Crayon
25th Jul 2009, 18:45
Connie,,,I think it's time for your daily dose of Scotch (make it double) and grilling/bbq-ing...off to the cellar/kitchen with you!


Do not let the windup merchants get you.

Dushan
25th Jul 2009, 18:47
Do not be even sillier Brick. If Amelia were alive she would be 112 years old.
Not likely.



World's oldest man, WWI veteran dies aged 113 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090718/en_afp/britainmilitaryhistorysenior) and we all know women live longer than men.

El Grifo
25th Jul 2009, 18:51
Dushan, ye of the starboard pinion.

If you stretch your credibility factor any further it is going to go twang, big style.

Will Fraser just about says it all for me.

Land on the Moon? I am 100 % convinced. It would take an enormous amount of evidence to dissuade me.

9/11 exactly as the Commission describes? This I doubt. Not hugely, but let me say if I was shown how some cowboys got involved with the wrong people and the 'truth' stood to hurt our country, I wouldn't be amazed.

Evil people executed acts of War on our Land, this is a FACT. Three thousand of our brothers and sisters were murdered, theoretically in the name of a "God", one I certainly don't understand, and would most likely risk my life to discredit, with extreme prejudice.

What is the undercurrent? Mistrust of the Federal government. And why not ? It isn't as monolithic as people think, it is huge, and disparate.
Anytime a few buds can get together and fail large corporations, while gifting others with billions of dollars, without oversight, and a total lack of intervention by the electeds, hmm, get my point ? There are disturbing waves of power echoing through our Republic, this is fact.

Dushan
25th Jul 2009, 18:57
Dushan, ye of the starboard pinion.

If you stretch your credibility factor any further it is going to go twang, big style.

't least my 'pinion' is backed by some credible evidence...

con-pilot
25th Jul 2009, 19:02
Do not let the windup merchants get you.

Oh I don't, actually I rather enjoy playing with their crazy ideas. They'll never answer a direct question.

Now, if some say that there was a lot of CYA (Cover Your A$$) going on after the attack, I would agree to that. But not because of any outlandish conspiracy theories, but because so many people dropped the ball going back to the Clinton Administration.

But a rocket/missile hitting the Pentagon, give me a break, that's just too funny to leave alone. :p

It's hard to get upset or mad at people that make you laugh so much.

Rhino1
25th Jul 2009, 19:24
I pretty much agree with con-pilot's statement just above. I actually know a BG who was in the Pentagon when it was hit along with some other folks, and I have REALLY hard time believing that he was lying about what he said he saw. Same for some other folks we know who were involved. I'm no great fan of what happened in response to 9/11, but consider it was more of a failure to identify and stop the threat (or even somewhere along the lines allowing it to happen) rather than an intentional US Gov. conspiracy.

Rhino

BOAC
25th Jul 2009, 20:50
Anyone know the answer to #307 please? Just to clarify for those who need it - what the video claimed happened to it and its pax.

Dushan
25th Jul 2009, 21:08
Anyone know the answer to #307 please? Just to clarify for those who need it - what the video claimed happened to it and its pax.


http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/12/amazonukbig.jpg

BOAC
25th Jul 2009, 21:12
'Thanks' Dushan - I got it the first time, actually.

Was that a still from the video?:ugh:

brickhistory
25th Jul 2009, 21:14
Hey, watch it, that's the lobby to our government conspiracy warehouse!

How'd you get that photo?



Don't mind him, folks, it's obviously photoshopped and a fake. Besides, if the government reveals this, then it's proof that they're hiding something else.

chuks
25th Jul 2009, 22:00
The most infuriating thing I read about was that FBI agent on the trail of one of the hijackers, when his interest was piqued by the guy wanting to learn to fly but not to take off or land. He was ordered to stop his investigation so that the plot went forward. My God! If he'd simply been allowed to continue investigating then the whole tragedy might have been prevented.

The airlines must have had some brain-dead policy of co÷perating with hijackers dating from that time when a hijack just meant a trip to Havana with no real harm done. Again, a missed opportunity.

I would find it so demeaning to treat any of this 9/11 "truther" stuff seriously. On the other hand, yes, I want to shoot these ideas full of holes, just so that they don't go unrefuted.

If I met one of these guys in person there certainly wouldn't be any, "Let's have a beer and a laugh about our mutual differences," no, not at all. Either they are quite stupid or ignorant or both or else they are putting whatever intelligence they may have to perverted uses. To deal so carelessly with a mass tragedy: what does that say about their humanity? These people are the dregs, small-souled losers.

con-pilot
25th Jul 2009, 22:08
307, what was asked way back there........I'll go look and see.

Ah, now this is new, I haven't hear this one before.

I got a bit weary towards the end of the film, but did I hear a suggestion that the 757 did not actually crash into the Pentagon and was seen 'flying away? I missed the 'explanation' as to what then happened to it. Anyone help?

As I have not bothered to watch the film I cannot answer the question, except to say that I have seen enough physical evidence to completely convince me, without the slightest hesitation or without a shred of doubt that in fact American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was in fact destroyed when it crashed into the Pentagon.

I missed the 'explanation' as to what then happened to it.

As for an explanation of what happened to the aircraft, you'll never get an answer from these loony toon conspiracy folks. They're really big on questions, but really, really short on facts and answers. :p

But what the heck, answer the man conspiracy folks, I always love a good laugh. :E

chuks
26th Jul 2009, 06:51
Con Pilot, one of the truthers must have blabbed, because you just mentioned their secret method. That is simply to raise niggling questions in puzzling ways and then if someone first manages to figure out what the hell they are talking about and then bothers to give them a coherent answer, they just ignore the answer and go on to ask yet another niggling question. Their stuff is right along the line of, "Please tell us when you stopped beating your wife," so obviously slanted as to be laughable if the subject weren't mass murder.

If they like they can do a sort of self-certification of a deep and lingering mystery by citing the fact that "There are so many unanswered questions about 9/11." Well of course there are, because 9/11 "truthers" keep asking them!

How about our very own El Grifo, who turns out not to doubt the basic truth of 9/11 but to be terminally annoyed that he hasn't been given a perfect narrative of what happened?

I love it! The rest of us can be content with the odd lie from our, not his, government (probably meant to cover up massive incompetence) but not him! No, he's over there with the moonbats out of sheer pique or so he tells us.

Come on now, El G, be a good boy and eat your fudge, pretty please? I am sorry that the videos aren't better quality so that our government has left you with the feeling that they didn't tell you everything you (non-citizen nobody) feel entitled to know. If you think the US goverment is lying about 9/11, what about your new moonbat friends? On a scale of 1 to 10 would you give them a higher score than our government or are they equally deceptive in your eyes? (While you are at it, are we behind Cuba in truth-telling? I just have to ask.)

In the case of the Pentagon first we had "It's a little bitty hole that couldn't have been made by a big airplane and anyway where is the wreckage?"

So people went to the trouble of citing eye-witness testimony, as here by Brick, video tapes, as here by Con Pilot, the facts of easily identifiable stuff such as corpses, aircraft engines, landing gear, etc. on the other side of that "little hole..." This is kind of pathetic, isn't it, dignifying such stupid questions with polite, well-reasoned answers?

Given their answers the moonbats simply retreated from stating that it wasn't an airplane that hit the Pentagon to stating that there was no way that particular hijacker could have flown that well, to hit a "90 foot" target. Well, it turns out, "Surprise!" that the Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world in terms of area although, yes, it is rather low. I think that means it shouldn't be that difficult to hit, even by a clumsy hijacker. A bedsheet is only 1 mm. high but I think I could hit it with my eyes closed if you spread it out in front of me.

As a hard-working moonbat you just have to throw everything into the mix, even making a great mystery of some Israeli CFI (obviously, probably, maybe, one of "them") who had a glancing encounter with the hijacker.

Well, anyone who holds a US FAA licence must keep his address up to date for it to be valid. A very short search of the FAA database shows a current address for what must be this very CFI, meaning that there is no mystery there at all, no need for a call to hunt him down wherever he is hiding as we see in the narrative. This shows any reasonable reader that the narrator is trying to deceive. Additionally, by mentioning that "Boeing C-130" he shows his ignorance of aviation when that matters since the narrative now involves the analysis of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

I think it's a much better idea to turn around to ask questions here of the questioners. Why should we bother giving answers to questions that have been answered already hundreds of times? I think it is much more interesting to turn and ask, "Why are you asking this question?"

I used to fly with a guy who wanted to operate our Cessna 441 at ten thousand feet and below because up in the stratosphere, "There ain't no air." I am sure he's just another one with many questions about 9/11.

corsair
26th Jul 2009, 11:15
Had a quick look at the film. As always superficially plausible but when you step back the credibility fails.

The first and most telling, to me anyway, is the filmmakers obsession with the fallen light poles. This a a deal breaker for them. They have to be explained away. So they chose to suggest they were placed there before the attack in order give the impression they were hit by an aircraft. This is almost laughable but it proves the length people go to in order to make a lie work.

The eyewitnesses prove once again the unreliability of eyewitnesses seeing the same event. But of course the makers selectively chose them to fit their preconceptions. There was an aircraft there, they can't get around that. So they have to make it fly away again.

I'm surprised though that they didn't try to eliminate the aircraft altogether. After all there is a version of events that claims there were not aircraft at the WTC and that all video footage was faked even the live shots. The fact that anyone can believe that simply demonstrates how absurd this conspiracy theory has become.

El Grifo, I know in some way you are simply playing devils advocate and enjoying the 'debate'. But there's a time to stop, several people here had personal experiences of this event and frankly it's obvious they find this crazy conspiracy nonsense to be offensive. It's up to you of course but sometimes it stops being fun.

Michael Birbeck
26th Jul 2009, 11:24
it's obvious they find this crazy conspiracy nonsense to be offensive. It's up to you of course but sometimes it stops being fun.

Such theories are offensive to the living, the dead and to the truth.

These theories are downright unfunny at every level and are never "fun".

ORAC
26th Jul 2009, 18:51
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20090726/lnq090726.gif

kangaroota
31st Jul 2009, 02:56
Where are they?
I presume there was an investigation.
And every other accident the CVR / FDR tapes are released within days of being found. Do they exist?
Why the silence?

galaxy flyer
31st Jul 2009, 03:39
No investigation, it was not an accident, BY DEFINITION.

As defined by the NTSB, this is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft where as a result of the operation of an aircraft, any person (either inside or outside the aircraft) receives fatal or serious injury or any aircraft receives substantial damage. The occurrence is also not caused by the deliberate action of one or more persons and that leads to damage or injury

No accident, no accident investigation. It is taught in about hour 2 of any aviation safety course.

About the recorders, never found or, if found, not released as they would evidence.

If you are into a conspiracy angle, try looking on the grassy knoll; might pan out better.

GF

UniFoxOs
31st Jul 2009, 07:38
The occurrence is also not caused by the deliberate action of one or more persons

Bit of a pointless definition, IMHO. If a crash is caused by a deliberate decision to ignore a safety item (for example using counterfeit spare parts, flying beyond the capabilities of the pilot/aircraft, not carrying out a safety check, ignoring ATC instructions) then it is not an accident by this definition, and should not be investigated. But investigators will not know that the reason is deliberate until they have carried out an investigation, so it gets investigated anyway.

UFO

grizzled
31st Jul 2009, 10:07
I figure the FDR's and CVR's for both of the World Trade Center aircraft are in

Roswell, NM.


;)

BenThere
31st Jul 2009, 12:38
kangaroota,

You a troofer?

galaxy flyer
31st Jul 2009, 15:09
UFO

That definition or something close to it is used by both the NTSB and ICAO. A deliberate act (not a failure to follow a procedure) is not an accident. TWA 800 was treated as a terrorist act for several days until the FBI turned it over to the NTSB. Criminal or terrorist acts are not accidents.

BTW, I am a little mystified that even one recorder was not found. I suspect, if it was, it has been treated as evidence and withheld.

GF

UniFoxOs
31st Jul 2009, 15:25
GF, surely a failure to follow procedure can be deliberate, to save time, for example. Going through a red light is a pretty common manifestation. It certainly can also be inadvertent, in which case it would presumably be accidental.

UFO

galaxy flyer
31st Jul 2009, 15:50
It maybe deliberate, but not rise to criminal or terrorist. There was not NTSB investigation because the 9/11 attacks were not under the NTSB's purview. If a pilot deliberately crashed his airplane to kill or injure someone on-board or on the ground, it would not be an NTSB issue. Move on.

GF

UniFoxOs
31st Jul 2009, 17:10
But the definition isn't "deliberate criminal or terrorist", just "deliberate".

Badly written, I would say.

Cheers
UFO

StaceyF
31st Jul 2009, 18:05
It maybe deliberate, but not rise to criminal or terrorist.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

You aren't in the UK, are you?

You get labelled a terrorist here for just about anything these days........photographers left right and centre are being arrested for innocent acts - heck, even the Icelandic Government had anti-terrorism legislation used against them a while back when their banks got into financial difficulties :confused::confused:

Put your rubbish (sorry, garbage) out on the wrong day.....the legislation that is used against you is related to anti-terrorism :ugh::ugh:

Now do try and keep up across the pond :rolleyes: