No Plane Hit the Pentagon: Pilots for 9/11 Truth

[sagesnow]

Madison, WI (PRWEB) June 21, 2007 - A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission":

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6133

[wildbilln864]

1. Welcome to the dungeon, sagesnow. eom

[sagesnow]

12. I am going to have to change my screen name to.....

Dungeoness. :) (However, that makes me hungry for crab)

[Bolo Boffin]

2. 14 eyewitnesses on video

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2542954&postcount=1

[petgoat]

4. The Pilots are saying the witnesses saw a 757 but it flew at

least 100 feet over the building.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. There are witnesses that saw the plane hit the building.

104 of them, to be exact.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Hundreds of first responders and investigators were at the Pentagon on 9/11. For the claims that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon to be true, these people must all be liars or fools, as well as all the witnesses in the links above. Conspiracists scrupulously avoid contacting any of the 8,000 people who were on the scene after the crash, such as:
The Pentagon 3-person Crash Response Team
The Arlington County Fire Department
The Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
The Arlington, VA Police Department
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
The Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
The Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
The Fort Myer Fire Department
The Arlington County SWAT Team
The Virginia State Police
The FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams
The National Transportation Safety Board Investigators
American Airlines representatives
The HHS National Medical Response Team
The DOD Honor Guard
The Pentagon Medical Unit
The Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
The FBI Hazmat Team
The EPA Hazmat Team
The FEMA Incident Support Team
The FEMA Emergency Response Team
The FEMA Disaster Field Office
The FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
The US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County
The National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management
The U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
The U.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
The U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
The American Red Cross

[petgoat]

6. 104 witnesses saw the 757 hit the building? Honestly bolo, do you

have no regard for your credibility whatsoever?

[greyl]

7. Invincible Ignorance with a pinch of Ad Hominem.

From the lists above, 138 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon.

104 saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100 feet of the impact.

26 said it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

7 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

40 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 2 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

from boloboffin's link

[yes2truth]

8. Almost "overkill", all things considered

That's a lot of people, except when you consider the millions upon millions that saw a few pieces of "the plane" on that beautiful lawn in front of the building.

If numbers are important, I'd go with the TV, internet, and video witnesses. Too many of them for ANYONE to attempt to undermine THEIR stories.

Of the accounts of people who said they saw "the plane" fly over the Pentagon, were any of THEM employees (or relatives of employees) of the government (federal, state, local) or the media?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Employees or relatives of the government and the media?

In Washington, D.C.?

Gee, what do you think?

[yes2truth]

15. I think anyone that saw the plane fly over the pentagon...

would have enough sense to keep their trap shut if they work for the gov't or media, or if they are related to someone that does. I know I would, wouldn't YOU?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Why?

Plenty of government employees and members of the media saw the Pentagon attack and have talked about it.

Plenty of other people have too.

Hey, here's a link to Mike Walters:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

[yes2truth]

17. Are you asking why I'd keep quiet about seeing a plane fly over the pentagon?

Job security.

[Laurier]

19. Are you saying that you would knowingly cover up murder in the interests of "job security:"?

Really?

I sure wouldn't.

[yes2truth]

27. Are you saying that if you had been one of the witnesses that saw a plane

fly over the Pentagon on 9/11, that you would speak up about it, even if you worked for the Gov't or media, and you knew that by speaking up you would be putting your career in jeopardy, you would still do it? Really? I sure wouldn't.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. I would have.

And plenty of people were driving past that were not government or media employees or families.

What's their motivation for clamming up?

[yes2truth]

37. I'm not aware they all did "clam up". Some of the non-gov't & non-media

folks HAVE spoken up and talked in public about having seen a plane fly over the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Produce evidence that anyone has talked about a plane flying...

...over the Pentagon while the explosion was happening or withdraw your claim.

[yes2truth]

53. I believe "the plane" flew over the pentagon just prior to the big bang.

I didn't go back and reread my other post, but if I said "while the explosion was happening", then I misspoke.

Are you only aware of claims about "the plane" that were made by Gov't employees and members of the media?

As someone else here has pointed out, nearly all of the accounts of witnesses (regardless of affiliation or no affiliation with Gov't or media) who claim to have seen "the plane" crash into the Pentagon...nearly all of those accounts are worthless for one reason or another. Almost as worthless as the pitiful efforts to use the parking lot videos and the plane parts that can't be linked to AA FL 77.

Rather than get yourself all worked up and huffy, is it possible that you could set aside your bias long enough to examine all the available evidence and then try to think this thing through? After all, it's the Bush Administration that was in power when all that happened.

Have you supported the same position since 9/11 happened? Just curious.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. If the "plane flying over" wasn't there as the explosion was happening...

...then those testimonies are worthless.

Stop your rhetoric and produce your evidence immediately.

[yes2truth]

57. Okay. I didn't realize they had the timing down that perfectly.

Just goes to show that those people who try to rationalize what the Administration has told us by saying they're too incompetent --- well, those people are just wrong, wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Stop your talk and produce your evidence.

This is your third opportunity. Any further prevarication on your part will be interpreted as an admission of the falsity of your claim.

[wildbilln864]

73. blah blah

who made you boss anyway? :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Who's talking to you?

Don't you have crap threads to be kicking? Run along now.

[wildbilln864]

80. Nope! eom

[yes2truth]

79. May I just add a few blah blahs of my own. Thanks.

blah blah blah PRODUCE. Lettuce, spinach, radishes and cabbage.

[yes2truth]

74. Let's see what others have to say about my point.

You don't mind that, do you?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Just as I thought, you got nothing.

Why are you here spreading misinformation?

[wildbilln864]

81. ask yourself that one! eom

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. You did, when you balked on providing evidence. n/t

[yes2truth]

105. Wrong. I don't post disinformation. Do you have a mirror?

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

113. You keep typing everything but your back-up evidence.

If you had it, you would have produced it by now. You're posting disinformation. Why?

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

124. This is just fucking stupid.

Claiming that a poster is a Bush supporter because of their rejection of "alternate theories" about September 11th is a shitty logical fallacy called an "ignoratio elenchi" (aka irrelevant thesis). Please avoid this in the future.

[yes2truth]

146. That doesn't make any sense.

You said:

"If you had it, you would have produced it by now. You're posting disinformation. Why?"


What I posted is no longer there, and what WAS there was just a different opinion than yours.
If you had any back-up evidence that it was disinformation, you would have produced it. I'd think that you would want it to be left so all the world can see it.

[Bolo Boffin]

147. My evidence that you've got nothing?

Every post of yours where you don't post your evidence to back up your claims.

And my evidence keeps piling up.

[Flatulo]

85. I'll pipe in... ya got nuttin, kid. Like all the other 'truthers' out there. Nuttin.

[wildbilln864]

88. everyone has opinions....

just like assholes. Most of the time they stink!
:hi:

[vincent_vega_lives]

314. Gee, I never heard that one before!

Any more ORIGINAL thoughts? :eyes:

[yes2truth]

106. You're entitled to YOUR own brand of flatulation, Flatulo.

I'm not impressed and I wish you wouldn't stink up the place.

[Flatulo]

131. Wow, that wasn't a very nice thing to say.

I'm hurt. :(

[nebula]

120. Try this on for size

A partial list of witnesses who said it sounded or looked more like a missile, or that the plane they saw overflew the Pentagon.

Kelly Knowles from an Arlington apartment two miles away saw two planes moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed.

Tom Seibert, in the Pentagon, listened to "what sounded like a missile" followed by a "loud boom."

Lon Rains Editor, Space News, was driving up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington. I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

Keith Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery when they watched "the jet" approach and hit the Pentagon. Both saw another plane flying near the jet that crashed. When asked if the other plane could have been an airliner performing a normal landing at Reagan National Airport, Wheelhouse stated that he was not confused by normal airport traffic.

Alfred S. Regnery, on the freeway with the Pentagon not yet in view, heard a jetliner "not more than 200 yards above the ground" passed overhead, disappearing "behind black cloud of smoke" was pouring from a "gaping hole."

Comment: Another witness hearing the loud sound and seeing the jet liner and assuming that sound source and object sited are one and the same. But note that he saw an airliner and that it was 200 yards above the ground, not 20 feet.

Terry Scanlon interviewed a Hampton Roads woman who saw a plane following the jet that hit the Pentagon.

Christine Peterson, in her car in front of the heliport (near Riskus) saw the airliner. As it flew over she could read numbers on its wing. "My mind could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? ... But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire."

continued...

[Flatulo]

121. Thanks Nebula - at least you took the time to find some references.

wheras yes2truth has provided nothing. Nothing.

At least you have some integrity. You're still crazier than a shithouse rat though (JK) :)

Can you provide the source of those quotes? I noticed that about half of them still identified what they saw as a jet.

All other things being equal, I'd need to know what the experience was of the various witnesses. I know for a fact that my Mom could not tell an aircraft from a Cuisenart, but there were a lot of journalists (USA Today offices are close to the Pentagon, and a few of their reporters clearly saw one jet, and saw it crash). These guys are presumably trained observers. I wonder if any journalists saw a missile? Or saw two planes?

Even if all the witness were equally versed in aircraft recognition, I'd still have to weigh the physial evidence at the site - landing gear, turbine hubs, humn bodies, etc.

[Bolo Boffin]

126. You're going to have to do better than that.

Although, as Flatulo pointed out, you did bring something back, unlike yes2truth, who seems to say "no" to supporting his statements.

Kelly Knowles from an Arlington apartment two miles away saw two planes moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed.

In other words, Kelly saw a plane crash. One for my side, actually. The other plane that veered away was probably the C-130. Please note: "veering away" does not equal "flying over," not at all.

Tom Seibert, in the Pentagon, listened to "what sounded like a missile" followed by a "loud boom."

Nothing about a plane flyover here. Please review the definition of a simile.

Lon Rains Editor, Space News, was driving up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington. I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

Nothing here about a plane flyover. You do understand what's being asked of you, right?

"Was convinced." Past tense. I wonder what Lon Rains thinks it was now?

Keith Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery when they watched "the jet" approach and hit the Pentagon. Both saw another plane flying near the jet that crashed. When asked if the other plane could have been an airliner performing a normal landing at Reagan National Airport, Wheelhouse stated that he was not confused by normal airport traffic.

Plane hits the Pentagon. Not "flies over." Hits. I am not asking you to bring back proof of a second airplane. We all know that the C-130 was in the area.

You need "plane flying over the Pentagon" stories.

Alfred S. Regnery, on the freeway with the Pentagon not yet in view, heard a jetliner "not more than 200 yards above the ground" passed overhead, disappearing "behind black cloud of smoke" was pouring from a "gaping hole."

Comment: Another witness hearing the loud sound and seeing the jet liner and assuming that sound source and object sited are one and the same. But note that he saw an airliner and that it was 200 yards above the ground, not 20 feet.

200 feet, not 20? And the Pentagon was not yet in view either. According to the CDR, Flight 77 was descending about 50 feet a second in those final moments. So, three seconds after Regnery saw it, the plane was low enough to hit the Pentagon, and was probably a lot closer to it than Regnery.

And this still isn't "plane flying over the Pentagon." It is the plane flying over something, so you're getting warm.

Terry Scanlon interviewed a Hampton Roads woman who saw a plane following the jet that hit the Pentagon.

"the jet that hit the Pentagon"

Christine Peterson, in her car in front of the heliport (near Riskus) saw the airliner. As it flew over she could read numbers on its wing. "My mind could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? ... But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire."

The best one yet! The plane flew over and she could read numbers on the wings.

If she was near Riskus, then she was in a position to have the plane fly over her. Is this a story where she saw the plane fly over her, and you've brought it back thinking she saw the plane fly over the Pentagon?

It couldn't be. She says, "Where did the plane go?" If she saw it fly over the Pentagon, she would know exactly where it went. She would not be asking that question. She would be saying, "The plane flew over the Pentagon!"

It would be a puzzle but Christine's actual testimony is available, not the misleading summary that you've chosen to cut and paste here.

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

October 18, 2001 - Christine Peterson, '73 found herself in the thick of last month's terrorist tragedy, and submitted this report. It offers a personal perspective on the events in Washington, D.C., which have perhaps been overshadowed in the media by the scope of the horrors in New York. It was 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11th, and traffic was terrible. For all of my twenty-eight years living in the Washington, D.C. area, terrible traffic was a constant. I'd been in Boston the day before and gotten home late. That morning I repacked my suitcase because I was heading out to San Francisco on the 3:20 p.m. flight. I just needed a few hours in the office first, and now I was officially late for work. I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, "holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car" (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. (…) A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene.

Hmm. That part I've bolded shows that the plane flew over her car, not the Pentagon. "And then the plane crashed."

Not "And then the plane flew over the building," but "And then the plane crashed."

I want to thank you for bringing back so many pieces of evidence that prove MY point, but really you should continue by bringing back statements that prove YOURS.

[Laurier]

51. Yes, I would. Without hesitation.

Now, would you do me the courtesy of answering my question above?

[yes2truth]

55. You WOULD? Okay. It's still somewhat of a free country.

I don't know what the post # is, but I answered your question. It's somewhere up there. Did you know it's a loaded question? Talking about murdering people and all that. Why would you ask something like that? Just curious.

[wildbilln864]

56. "It's still somewhat a free country"

Not for much longer if we let this crime go unpunished! :hi:

BTW, have you watched this movie?

[yes2truth]

59. Well, that's a very good point, wildbilln.

I'm optimistic that we won't lose everything, but I'm not optimistic that the 9/11 perps will ever be brought to justice.

[Laurier]

152. Since you keep avoiding the question, and since you keep avoiding answering,

I thought I'd just bump this for your benefit.

Please follow the prior posts and respond to the question asked above.

[yes2truth]

159. I have the answers. Now, what is it that you want to know?

Do you have a legitimate, sincere question? If so, speak up. I'm happy to help any conspiracy denier who (honestly) is beginning to feel guilty about the whole mess. So, ask away. And, don't worry about your career. On the net, nobody really knows what it is. Didn't you see that famous New Yorker cartoon where two dogs are staring at a computer screen, and one says to the other: "don't worry. on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog".

[Bolo Boffin]

163. One more post to support my statement...

...that you have no evidence to support your statements.

[Laurier]

143. As you know,

I don't click on links that you post without any explanation of what the links are about because it appears that you spam such links for purposes of increasing views to tinhat nonsense all over the place.

If you would care to provide some context to the link that you are currently spamming in order that I might assess whether it's worth clicking on your undefined and random link, perhaps I will look at it, but I doubt that you will provide any such context and unless you do, NO, I will not fall prey to your spam.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Somebody who gratuitously insults employees of the government AND the media...

...AND their relatives really shouldn't whine about loaded questions.

[yes2truth]

60. WARNING: The next personal insult will result in an alert to the moderators.

That's uncalled for, and you should know better.

[AZCat]

61. Oh?

Why wait? Why don't you go ahead and alert on that post and see what the moderators think, instead of whining about it to us.

[yes2truth]

63. You might be right.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it some thought.

[AZCat]

64. "Alerting" on a post...

is not a guarantee of deletion. If it's questionable, let the mods know anyway and let them sort it out.

[yes2truth]

67. Well, thanks. Do you work here?

Just curious, since your opinion wasn't sought, but you weren't bothered by that, and just jumped right in with some gratutious "advice", so that's why I ask.

[AZCat]

68. Nope, I'm just a pompous asshole.

I'm sure you'll find plenty of corroborating opinions about that 'round these parts.

[yes2truth]

70. I see. Well, I'll try to remember your self-description, but you didn't have

to be so public about it.

[AZCat]

71. I've been posting here long enough...

that it's long been apparent to the other permanent residents of our little chunk of internet turf.

[yes2truth]

76. Yes. Are you the same way OFF the internet? EOM

nt

[AZCat]

83. It depends.

I aim for the "iron fist in a velvet glove" kind of effect, but rarely pull it off. Most of the time I'm a congenial nitwit.


I also happen to have been drinking this evening, so it is in your best interest to take all of this with a grain of salt. It has been a rough week, and it's only Wednesday.

[wildbilln864]

66. No don't!

I don't think I'd take the other poster's advise, but hey!

[yes2truth]

69. I'll keep my word, wildbillin. If he does it again, THEN I'll alert...unless

there's something going on that I don't know about - that makes you advise caution. If THAT'S the case, then I'd be more inclined to give weight to the advice of someone like you. Consider yourself THANKED!

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Excuse me, what?

Are you the one who's saying that employees of the government and the media and all of their relatives are keeping quiet about a Pentagon flyover to protect their jobs? Yes, you are.

Are you not aware that this is a foul, gratuitous insult of them? How could you not be? This is something anyone with enough intelligence to post on a website should be able to understand.

Perhaps you don't understand this. So I'll tell you. Your allegation against those people is a heinous insult, especially since you have ZERO evidence of anyone doing such a thing.

Quit it.

[yes2truth]

84. Ketchup. Definitely. Something wrong there, preacher.

Hush up with that trash talkin' stuff. You be nice. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, not whatever that right-wing place is called. Freeperville or Freepertown, or whatever it is they call it.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. No, you don't go into the "rightwing" slander.

I've got much more cred on that that you could possibly imagine at this point. Google me. Read my journal here.

Trash talking is making claims that you can't back up.

Back up your "people saw a plane fly over" claim, yes2truth. Back up that clam or back that claim up.

[yes2truth]

104. Look., you're entitled to your opinion. I think it's wrong, but you

have the right to cling to it, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. My "opinion" is backed up by evidence.

Your "opinion" is not, or you would have produced it by now.

Get busy! Time's a wasting! Won't it feel good to post all of that evidence you have and show me wrong?

Like when I do this:

http://hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/special/911/pentagon.html

Accounts of people inside the Pentagon.

Or this:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

A detailed examination of the jet engine pieces found at the Pentagon.

How about this:

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf

Of the five sets of human remains not identified (and thus suspected to be the terrorists), two of them are shown to be brothers by the DNA evidence. Nawaf and Salem al-Hamzi, who bought tickets and boarded Flight 77, were brothers.

You got nothing.

[yes2truth]

125. CREDIBLE evidence. All that baloney was debunked years ago.

You got nothing. Except debunked, planted, and INcredible BS that you parade around like it's the Holy Grail. Your views are interesting, but not persuasive. In other words, it has no appeal except to permanent conspiracy deniers.

[Bolo Boffin]

130. You wouldn't mind explaining exactly why it's so debunked?

Methinks the new poster protests too much. Deliver some debunking, deliver some evidence for your side, do something besides these desperate attempts to change the subject into me.

Produce your evidence for your claims. It really is that simple.

[Laurier]

153. How about backing up your post with some facts and evidence for a change, "yes2truth"?

Go ahead. The world waits with bated breath.

Edited to make it clear whose post I was responding to.

[yes2truth]

160. What would you like to know?

I'm happy to give you the benefits of whatever I know about whatever you're interested in knowing that you don't now know. Slow down, and in the words of (rhymes with polo), take an aspirin, then lie down.
It's going to be all right, dear friend.

[Bolo Boffin]

164. One more post to support my statement...

...that you have no evidence to support your statements.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

186. It's unwise to accuse another poster of being right-wing

or to insinuate it, especially without proof. It is against the messageboard rules.

[defendandprotect]

329. Oh . . . ? are they above human . . . royals, perhaps . . . holier than thou?

Don't think so . . .

MSM . . . Blackwater . . . "Bushed" . . . from EPA . . . to FEMA . . . "Bushed" . . .

Mockingbird . . Mockingbird . . .

[Laurier]

142. No, you didn't answer my question, actually

And it was not at all a loaded question. It flowed naturally from your post to which I responded. You answered my question with a question (illegitimately) but I answered your question and asked that you respond to my initial question, which you still have not done.

So, please do so.

[Flatulo]

114. So in other words, you claim that certain credible persons saw a plane

fly over the Pentagon rather than into it, but that said persons would never, ever admit such a thing.

Does this sound silly to you?

[defendandprotect]

336. None of this information requires that . . . all it requires is the ILLUSION of a plane . ..

causing an explosion at the Pentagon ---

Meanwhile, the plane banks up and off and it looks like the plane exploded into the building.

There's no necessity to complicate this any further than that ---

HOWEVER, obviously, whether we are talking about people working for media or the military --
and April Gallop, as I recall speaks as well to that issue of being pressured into NOT telling the truth --- we have to recognize that it does happen --

or we'd be confusing and deceiving ourselves ---

READ April Gallop ---
it's posted here at DU ---

[vincent_vega_lives]

174. Of course

Some here have a sense of duty and responsibility greater than to just themselves.

[Flatulo]

119. This is a logical fallacy.

Assume 100 witnesses see a hammer fall to the ground. They testify that gravity is real.

David Blane produces a video of a hammer falling upward and distributes it on the internet. Billions of people see it. They testify that gravity is not real.

Do the billions who have seen an illusion have more credibility that the hundreds who have seen reality?

[petgoat]

9. Very sloppy compilation.

No witness statements for many of the alleged 104 eyewitnesses to the
plane flying into the building.

Skarlett, Levi Stephens, and Terronez are counted as witnesses to the
plane flying into the building, but their statements do not state that.
I could investigate further, but why bother. The site is a crock.

[wildbilln864]

10. retracted....

:hi:

[FogerRox]

141. Several others were within 100 feet of the impact.

Did they live?

[Grateful for Hope]

11. In addition

eyewitness accounts of violent crimes, where the stress level is high, have been suggested to be unreliable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/24/tech/main626002.shtml

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Yet

when many eyewitness accounts are confirmed by the overwhelming amount of physical evidence available at the Pentagon attack, it becomes very reliable, indeed.

http://www.aesvn.org/resources/Pentagon-Shoring.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=21

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=printer

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf

http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

[OldschoolDem]

21. Impressive I must say

You sure have done your homework. I agree with you for the most part. If 9/11 was truly an inside job any hint that it was an inside job would be snuffed out immediately and you would think someone would have cracked by now.

[Grateful for Hope]

26. You can't determine how reliable

as people who have witnessed highly emotional events tend to be susceptible to suggestion -- and, how they are questioned is very important.

edited to add that I am not a "no-planer"...so my objections to the use of eyewitness accounts of a traumatic event as "evidence" are based soley on results of current studies concerning such accounts.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. As I said, Hope,

the overwhelming physical evidence corroborates what these people are saying.

[Grateful for Hope]

41. We will see, Bolo.

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

46. As soon as you follow the links I provided, Hope, you WILL see.

So stay away from them as long as you dare.

[Grateful for Hope]

103. Sorry, not impressed. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

116. None so blind as those who will not see. n/t

[defendandprotect]

337. What physical evidence . . . April Gallop and others walked out thru the HOLE . . .!!!! ????

At least one other survivor who were sitting right in the HOLE where the supposed "plane" entered
walked out thru the hole ---

No jet fuel --
No plane debris ---
no plane ---
no passengers ---
no luggage ---
na da --

[Bolo Boffin]

13. I have no regard for your estimation of my credibility, no. n/t

[petgoat]

28. Your site is a crock. A large percentage of your claimed

eyewitnesses have no statements attached, and I only had to look
through about 15 statements to find three that were claimed to be
eyewitnesses to the plane hitting the wall but the statement did
not support that.

Thanks for demonstrating your usual standard of research, bolo.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Your objection is a crock. Deal with the physical evidence that

corroborates the eyewitnesses who saw the plane go into the building.

I'd put my standard of research up against yours any day of the week, petgoat.

[petgoat]

43. My objection is a crock? So you think alleged physical evidence

corroborating a poorly researched claim makes the
claim well researched?

Your site is a crock. It does not throughly substantiate
its claims, and very quickly shows that misconstrues its
own evidence.

Thanks for so transparently demonstrating your standards of
research.

Might I suggest that you get out of the truth business and
into the sales business instead?

[Bolo Boffin]

48. You won't even look at it - how dare you call it "alleged"? n/t

[petgoat]

135. I have looked at it, and everything the gov't offers is "alleged." nt

[Bolo Boffin]

136. No, you haven't.

Because you would describe it as "offered by the government," if you had. There are multiple sources for all of that information. They can't all be liars, petgoat.

[yes2truth]

40. Some people probably honestly DID think they saw a plane crash and

maybe to this day aren't aware that many people believe they were simply mistaken...not realizing that
the plane they thought had crashed into or at or in front of the Pentagon, actually flew over the building. I think it's understandable how a mistake like that could have been made. If they were driving on a busy highway, they would have had to take keep their eyes pretty much on what was in front of them. Naturally, if they saw a plane approaching the Pentagon and then they saw a tremendous fire, a
lot of people would just put two and two together and assumed that the plane they had seen MUST have caused the explosion. After all, the plane would be nowhere in sight. That raises the question of where "the plane" went. Reagan National is very close by. Maybe it landed there.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Flew over the building? No way. Absolutely no way.

Passengers in these cars wouldn't have to "keep their eyes pretty much on what was in front of them." Would you think a minute about these things before you type them?

[yes2truth]

62. Yes, I stand by every word in the post. OVER the building. Not into it.

Thanks for your suggestion, but it's unnecessary. From your posts (at the ones I've read), YOU are the one who might benefit from thinking. Honestly, and I don't want to be unkind, but some of the things in your posts are frankly embarassing in their lack of logic and their child-like emotion.

Maybe you need more ketchup in your diet or else more exercise. Do you jog? That would help calm you down by providing relief from what must be a stressful situation for you.

[wildbilln864]

65. I agree completely y2t!

I believe it flew over as part of the deception while a missile hit the pentagon. No I can't prove it but the government can't prove otherwise either!

[Flatulo]

91. Can you prove that there are no leprechauns?

How do we know that you are not a sentient gas from Jupiter?

Let's knock it off with the negative proofs already.

[wildbilln864]

93. you don't make the rules....

get it!

[Flatulo]

94. Agreed, I do not make the rules, and neither do you. The mods do. However, it is

customary when one makes a claim about which there is considerable contention, to provide some sort of objective data to support the claim. You have been staggeringly derelict in providing any sort of supporting material to bolster the claims you make.

The only conclusion that a rational mind can come to is that your claims are nothing more than the products of an over-active imagination.

I could, with just as much credibility as you have, claim that the Pentagon was struck by a gigantic intergalactic exploding fart. I would have just as much evidence as you have shown, which is none.

I will repeat my request - please produce evidence that a plane flew over the pentagon and that a bomb or missile struck the building instead.

You can refuse, of course, which I fully expect you to. After all, I don't make the rules.

[wildbilln864]

96. Well said...

Yes that is my opinion that it flew over. One thing I do know for sure. The Bush/PNAC administration has lied to us about 911.
When/if we get a real investigation, these conspiracy notions may finally be put to rest. But til then, get used to it!

[Flatulo]

99. The official story is always to be doubted.

Governments lie all the time, as a matter of course.

I have no doubt that many lies have been told about the events of 9/11. But I do believe that the mechanics of the airplane strikes and subsequent loss of life is pretty solid.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. You have ZERO evidence of that.

No plane hit the Pentagon? Tell that to Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, and Jack Singleton, all of whom saw flight 77 approach and came within feet of being struck as it roared across the Pentagon lawn. Probst dove out of the way to avoid being hit by the 757's right engine, which tore through this fence and damaged the construction generator trailer...

Alan Wallace

Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo...It knocked over a few light poles in its way."
Mark Bright: "...at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."
Mike Walter: "...it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet."
Rodney Washington: "...knocking over light poles"
Kirk Milburn: "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles."
Afework Hagos: "It hit some lampposts on the way in."
Kat Gaines: saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles
D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles"
Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.
Penny Elgas: A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car. Now in Smithsonian Institution's 9/11 collection.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Killtown,

I am certainly aware of people like yourself who believe that those of us who suffered on 9/11 must be part of some giant plot, either as dupes or plotters. I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, I held parts of that aircraft in my hands, covered with fuel and oil, and I helped with the triage area. I helped a guy with a headwound, aided ambulances coming in, and suffer to this day with ongoing nightmares on a very regular basis. When one has seen what I saw, and had to do what I had to do, the images, the smells, the sounds, resonate in your mind forever.

I do not object to your desire to dispute the facts of that day. While I feel you are hopelessly naive and silly, that is your right. But please know that your page on the Pentagon crash is deeply offensive to the survivors such as myself. Again, it's not that you argue. But your tone is one of mocking, of making light of the greatest suffering I ever saw in my 25 years of military service. Your fake "quotes," your quips, all mock the pain of those of us that were there, and served that day. I am very likely one of the people in some of your photographs, and I assure you our thoughts were not about the grass (a silly claim you make, by the way), but were deeply, intensely worried about the people hurt, the people left inside. I will never forget that day, and while I can forgive your foolishness in not understanding the facts, the science, the reality of that day, I find it much harder to forgive your willingness to laugh at those who were so terribly hurt that day. Such an attitude shows you to be a cruel and heartless person, in addition to silly one.

LT Col Hal Bidlack
USAF Retired

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1849603&postcount=1

[yes2truth]

107. You're entitled to your opinion & your interpretations.

I think you're very wrong, but you seem to have a strong need/desire to be in the spotlight, and I don't even resent the applause you get from your loyal followers.

[Bolo Boffin]

117. I produce evidence for my "opinion and interpretation."

You do not.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

123. that plane was travelling at approx 500' per second..

those are some DAMN good reflexes for dude to dive out of the way of one of the engines. 500' per second.

[Flatulo]

90. Excuse me, but Bolo has offered up links pointing to eyewitness

testimony that is coraborrated by physical and photographic evidence.

You have provided... nothing. Nada. Zip.

And you then accuse Bolo of being illogical and emotional?

Pray, show us ONE piece of evidence that a plane flew over the Pentagon. One.

[wildbilln864]

92. are you bolo's protector now? eom

[Flatulo]

95. His data stands on its own merits.

Your data, on the other hand, is non-existent. Since I do not know either of you from a hole in the ground, who do *you* think an impartial observer would give greater credence to?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

100. If the Bush/PNAC cabal told you that gravity was real, would you believe them?

Do you really believe that thousands of people are in on a massive conspiracy? And that not ONE SOUL ha breathed a word of it in almost six years?

If so, I have some property in Florida that I'd like to show you... :)

[Big Pappa]

102. It's nerve racking isn't it.

A CTer's brain does just not function like others.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

118. Democrats are the "reality-based" party.

That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand. Produce some evidence to back up your wild speculations, and this Democrat will consider it.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. I ask for your evidence and you can only say I sound like Bush.

When did Bush ever ask for evidence?

Produce your evidence. Your smears of "right-wing Bush supporter" are forbidden in this forum. Take a look at the rules that are stickied at the top of the forum. Start abiding by them, and then produce your evidence for your wacked-out claims.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

110. And your evidence is .... oh yeah, we're still waiting to see it.

Evidence for Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon consists of photos of parts of the fuselage, mangled landing gear, turbine disks, human bodies smashed into the building, eyewitness accounts (hundreds), and cumputerized simulations of the flight path that correlate amazingly well with the physical path of destruction observed at the site.

If you think any or all of this evidence is questionable, then please tell us why and present evidence that is more credible. Please address the evidence point by point so that you can convince us that your ideas are the superior ones.

Otherwise your making a fool of yourself. You have nothing to offer except irrational bleating that "Bush said it, so it must be a lie."

Either put up some evidence of your own, or stop calling into question the evidence that has been presented. You can't discredit a theory based on your feelings. You need to put forth a better theory.

Frankly, dude, you sound like you are about 8 years old. Isn't there some important Nintendo discussion board that needs your expert input?

[yes2truth]

111. What you're calling evidence was debunked years ago.

Didn't they tell you that? You need a NEW pony. The one you're still trying to ride is getting on in age and gets more feeble every day.

[Flatulo]

112. Please provide citations.

If you have not yet learned yet, it is considered appropriate to back up one's claims with something resembling data. Oblique insults directed at those who disagree, and 'feelings' don't hold up very well here.

There are some pretty bright people here on DU. Please do them the courtesy of backing up your claims. You will get a lot more respect, even if we may disagree with you and/or you sources.

[Flatulo]

98. May I offer a suggestion?

With all due respect, please stop now before you embarrass yourself further. Your posts are really pretty lame. You have nothing to support your contentions. Nothing.

You then accuse others of a lack of critical thinking skills?

Critical thinking means being able to question your own theory as well as the ones you don't believe.

I don't believe that you have demonstrated an iota of critical thought.

Please don't take this as a personal attack - it's not. But dude, you really need to work on your presentation.

[Laurier]

144. I call BS

If you have any facts or evidence to support your claims, present them. So far, you have failed miserably in that regard.

[defendandprotect]

338. And . .. if the plane and the EXPLOSION were simultaneous .....

it would look exactly like the plane had crashed into the Pentagon.

The "Plane" may even have been running the circuit from NYC to DC and then PA ....
one plane . . . a mystery plane with no passengers ---

[leftofthedial]

29. there are witnesses that saw Bigfoot

[greyl]

30. "when many eyewitness accounts are confirmed by the overwhelming amount of physical evidence..."

Did you miss that aspect?

[leftofthedial]

32. I didn't miss anything, I don't think

eyewitnesses, although celebrated in popular culture, are known to be highly unreliable and of less use in a trial than physical evidence.

[greyl]

42. You don't think eyewitnesses are known to be highly unreliable?

Do I have that right?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. There is no physical evidence of Bigfoot...

...certainly not the level of physical evidence found at the Pentagon which corroborates that event.

[leftofthedial]

39. I responded to a list of witnesses and commented on witnesses, not "evidence"

The Pentagon attack is not the same as Bigfoot.

But unlike the video of the Pentagon attack, which shows either nothing or shows a missile, the films of Bigfoot do appear to show a large hairy hominid.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Well, check out the rest of the evidence then.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[leftofthedial]

101. the plaster footprint molds of bigfoot

also look like, well, really big feet.

[defendandprotect]

339. There are witnesses who have seen the Loch Ness Monster . . . and . . .

are you confident they saw nothing --- ???

[defendandprotect]

328. Witnesses who THOUGHT they saw plane hit the Pentagon though it flew off ---

Evidently, the plane which came in from the left side of the Citgo came close and low near the Pentagon but then flew up and off --- and the EXPLOSION coincided with the approach of the plane.

Needless to say, it would then look to witnesses like the plane had hit the Pentagon.

[sgsmith]

331. Has anybody reported...

A B-757 departing the area? And at a low enough altitude to have performed a roof top fly-over of the Pentagon? Straight through the arrival or departure path of Washington National Airport? And virtually straight over the Mall? And close enough to National that a radar skin paint is virtually assured.

Find one person who has described such a plane. Just one person.

[defendandprotect]

340. None of the witnesses describe a large passenger plane . . .

they're not even sure in most cases that they were passenger planes --- they usually describe something smaller, something not really clear as a passenger plane.

There were witnesses who said there were no windows ---

but whatever anyone saw, no plane went thru the hole at the Pentagon . . .

[sgsmith]

347. Windows can be hard to see

Over the past weekend, I observed a Cessna Citation as it perform what was probably a circling approach to runway 7 at the local general aviation airport. The plane was at a low altitude - probably about 1,500 feet above ground level, and was less that a quarter mile horizontally from my position. The gear was up, and I could see that flaps were deployed.

But I couldn't see the side windows.

[defendandprotect]

348. Anything coming into the Pentagon would be LOW . . .. and windows easily seen ---

As for the PA flight --- sounded more like a drone --- or missile --

The WTC planes look like Hollywood ---

and most of the evidence suggests that people reacted to the EXPLOSIONS ---

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. 14 eyewitnessess hallucinating

[Grateful for Hope]

3. Pilots for Truth did not write this article

Please be advised when reviewing the article entitled "New Study From
Pilots For 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 Hit The Pentagon" the following.
These (relatively minor) points are made in the interest of historical
accuracy. Pilots for 9/11 Truth did not write it and some corrections need to
be stated. Click here for more information. Thank you.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7372&st=15&#entry9361808

[Grateful for Hope]

44. I am surprised that no one has commented on this post n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Who cares about provenance for crappy CT articles?

Let Fetzer and Rob Balsamo fight it out in a vat of jello, for all I care. Crap is crap.

[defendandprotect]

341. This isn't a "fight" or war . . . this is an effort to find truth ---

and that takes patience and open-minds ---

[Big Pappa]

18. Once again

if a plane did not hit the Pentagon, what did?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

23. asl Donald Rumsfeld

[Big Pappa]

24. It is strange

that truthers would never believe any of the Bush regime, but when a truther is questioned, I am always told to ask Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. That is completely illogical. Once again, if a plane did not hit the Pentagon what did.

[Beam Me Up]

25. No, what is illogical is that you'd think we'd know.

We do not know.

[greyl]

31. Where did you get the wild idea that he thought you would know? nt

[hack89]

45. So the available evidence

does not even hint at what hit the Pentagon? How convenient for you.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

132. if you ask me I think it was a truck bomb

but I wasn't there at the time

[vincent_vega_lives]

133. OK so where are the wheels, axles, engine

tire tracks on the lawn, explosive residue, crater?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

137. that's a heckuva crater!

I'll settle for a plain....bomb then

[Bolo Boffin]

138. Why stop at a plain bomb?

How about a jet fuel bomb, hm?

How about a plane-bomb?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

139. you mean a missile?

[Bolo Boffin]

140. What is a missile? n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

155. You know of course

that a "plain bomb" would leave a crater as well. High explosive detonations expand in all directions including downward.

No crater.

No pieces of facade ejected out and away from the building.

How bout fuel Air explosion you say? Still no upward velocity evident. Fuel air explosives are designed to create a shockwave. The video shows a large fireball but little damage to the building above the explosion.

Signature indicates a pure, low velocity fuel explosion.

[defendandprotect]

345. No -- it's not ----

Nothing hit the Pentagon ---

the explosions were internal and made by efforts to punch holes in two or three rings ---

see the report on that --- right here at DU!!

[defendandprotect]

342. What did? ---

If you look at this section, you'll find a thread on a military system for breaking into walls/buildings ......

The hole it makes --- via an explosion --- looks exactly like the hole at the Pentagon --
in fact, there are a few holes.

There couldn't have been a plane ---
first of all because people on the scene -- including a CNN reporter --- made clear that there was NO PLANE --

Also, a NORAD report states that Gen. Larry Arnold sent a jet to inspect the Pentagon MOMENTS after
the explosion events and the pilot reported back that "no plane hit the Pentagon."

Meanwhile . . . ON THE INSIDE . . . survivors were sitting the area of the hole where the plane supposedly flew in ---

April Gallop recognized a bomb/Explosions --- NO PLANE
She walked out through that hole -- with her child

At lease one other survivor shared the same circumstances --- sitting in the hole area --
walked out thru the hole

April Gallop tells us there was no plane --
no jet fuel
but a smell of "cordite" connected to a bomb --
and she had received training in the military which would make her qualified to judge this ---

OK -- so no plane inside and no plane outside ---

The explosions which made the holes --- are what hit the Pentagon ---
and those explosions were probably timed with a plane flying over ---

[William Seger]

134. Pilots for 911 Profit

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

Rob Balsamo knows very well that the animation shows the approach path incorrectly simply because the Pentagon graphic has not been aligned correctly. He also knows very well that that has absolutely nothing to do with the FDR data, and he knows that the heading recorded by the FDR puts the plane directly over the Washington Blvd bridge and the light poles. Let me say that again: Balsamo knows all that, yet he keeps using that meaningless error in the animation to promote his for-sale video.

Balsamo also knows that he has not yet conclusively established where the plane was, relative to the Pentagon, when any of those altitude data were recorded, because that can't be done using just the FDR data. Even though he accurately says that the data "stops at least one second prior to official impact time," Balsamo has no idea what the "at most" time would be, yet all of Balsamo's assertions about the altitude as the plane passed over the bridge and hit the Pentagon are made by assuming that A) the timestamps on the data are perfectly synced to the "official impact time," and B) that there was no delay between the time the altitude was measured and the time it was recorded in the FDR, and C) that the raw measurements were accurate within a few feet. Balsamo knows that those are dubious assumptions, yet he persists in stating assertions based on them as facts, to promote his for-sale video.

I assert that we know very precisely how high the plane was when it hit those lightpoles -- as reported by numerous witnesses and contested by none -- and we know very precisely how it was when it plowed into the Pentagon -- as reported by numerous witnesses and contested by none -- and we know that there was abundant physical evidence to support those reports, including the fact that the very FDR Balsamo is talking about was found in the Pentagon. Which is more probable: that all those witnesses are either lying or mistaken and all that physical evidence was faked by some extremely extraordinary but unspecified means, or that there's simply something wrong with Balsamo's altitude assertions?

If you want to buy what Balsamo is selling, literally or figuratively, then go for it. A fool and his money (or mind)...

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yes2truth]

149. Excellent post. No conspiracy denier will accept your challenge. They

always have an excuse (or ad hominen attack) whenever they are challenged to respond to facts that threaten their position. How often have you ever read a post by a conspiracy denier who admitted that
certain facts, logical deduction, or even common sense makes more sense than whatever aspect of the official 9/11 storyline is being questioned?

[Bolo Boffin]

150. On the contrary.

At 9/11 Blogger, Rob Balsamo posted that he'd challenged Mark Roberts to a debate. When Mark finally found out about it, Mark challenged Rob back. Rob accepted, then withdrew, then banned Mark from the Pilots website, and then called for Mark's death.

So perhaps people are not jumping to debate Rob Balsamo for reasons other than the paucity or strength of his claims.

And, yes2truth, this post of yours does count toward the evidence I continue to accumulate of you having nothing to support any claim you make thus far in this forum.

[johndoeX]

156. As usual the spin continues.

Gravy claims i 'falsely challenged' him - wrong.

I challenged the anonymous so-called 'experts' they have at JREF to a debate regarding the FDR and threw in Gravy for good measure.

Gravy twisted it and started to dictate the terms of debate. Essentially wanting an "Internet debate". I declined an internet debate as i dont have all day every day going back and forth with his spin on a message board as JREFers live for. He declined a face to face debate with our team.

The others, "Anti-Sophist", "Apathoid", Kieth Beachy have never replied and sunk into the shadows. Kieth Beachy does still post regarding me. I dont think i have come across one of his posts that doesnt call our team a bunch of nuts...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

Stay tuned to above page.. we're adding a 3rd Accident Investigator once i confirm.

Let me know if you people need links to the real story.


And bolo - if you're going to quote my post.. quote the whole thing... people might think you're cherry picking to suit your bias.. (typical).

Now can anyone address the facts of the post? A-S 2 seconds? .5 seconds from L3? Or will you only cherry pick. Gotta love the spin.

By the way... our hits are doing just fine.. 5-15,000 per day depending on news. :-)

I would post this at JREF, but they banned me and deleted/censored "Debunking FDR Debunking" -- guess they dont want to address it. Not surprised. Think bolo will post this post in full at JREF? I think not.

Cheers!
Rob

[Bolo Boffin]

165. JREF standards don't allow me to quote whole posts, Rob.

They call it "spamming" and I don't blame them. I left a link where anyone interested could come back and read your trash.

Let's see - trust Mark Roberts' account or trust yours. Hmm. Well, that was an easy choice to make. Those hits, are they unique hits - actual different people? Or just the same old tired gang?

[johndoeX]

184. Mark Roberts?

you mean the Tour Guide in NYC? He is a Tour guide.. right?

I think i trust LtCol Jeff Latas, L3 Communications, The NTSB who put together the information and several professionals over a tour guide anyday...

But you are certainly entitled to trust a tour guide... the company you keep i suppose.

Cheers!
Rob

[Bolo Boffin]

190. Yes, the tour guide who you threatened with death, Rob.

I trust him far more than you, because he has actual evidence properly interpreted on his side.

[johndoeX]

219. Oh please...

If Mark Roberts continues to defend war criminals who are dismantling the Constitution, i have a duty to defend it should we plunge into civil war..

You know the duty dont you Beachy?.. kinda like the oath you took.. supposedly. The oath you ignore till this day while you defend war criminals trying to suppress the American people from getting answers from their govt with your spin and ad homs.

You are just as guilty and hopefully one day, you will be brought to justice as well.

But we're glad to hear you trust a tour guide over FAA/NTSB/L3 Communications, et al.


Spin it up... :-)

Rob

[superbeachnut]

203. Not

It seems all your experts are so outclassed by just one tour guide. You have made a mistake and do not understand real research. Rob, you are the person who does not know how many feet are in a nautical mile, you are the pilot who does not know a radar altimeter works in the microwave frequency range. Seems like most the world knows more than any member of the p4t on 9/11. That is the truth, that is your problem, lousy research and made up junk.

[johndoeX]

220. yeah...

you said all that above.. i replied above. Try to keep it to one post Beachy.. go read and answer the questions you have been dodging for months now...

Again folks, dont think these people are set up as fake opposition by our team. I know their argument is pretty weak.. but they are the real deal. They arent with us... lol

[superbeachnut]

230. Rob please post a fact.

No facts on your web site http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ , no facts posted here.

You just keep posting http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ and that is the greatest wasteland on 9/11 tripe yet. Good job, at least you avoided saying anything worthwhile. What a fraud. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Please just post one thing you guys have right about 9/11. One. I will list all the good stuff on 9/11 from your web site.

1.




Empty set - FF

I find much more entertainment reading about John Lear! Your famous John Lear is much more entertaining than the lies you try to say about 9/11. I am still reading about his aliens, the aliens John Lear has found. I find it hard to believe John Lear has any idea what you guys are trying to lie about, he seems too far gone to form rational thoughts about much, yet alone 9/11. I think an organization is it's members, and you have got the correct members.

To tell you truth that is how I find you. Rob after looking at your web site I have found you to be incapable of rational thought and logical conclusion on 9/11. When you make changes please tell me so I can see if you can do better.

People, check out how not to do research; http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

[johndoeX]

238. Since you continue to fail to click links to our press release...

I put the facts in this reply to your other similar spam posts..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=161557&mesg_id=162846

[superbeachnut]

197. yes, they all seem to be nuts on 9/11 and a few other topics

John Lear, look him up. He is a nut. He has aliens all around us. I you believe in aliens and you want more of the same fraud, go, no rush to p4t. Check out the rest, not one fact on 9/11. And Rob wonders why I use the 101st famous word. NUTS

It is not my fault they have such low standards of reality at p4t.

Rob, present some facts, learn how many feet are in a mile, learn what part of the electromagnetic spectrum the radar altimeter works in, and you could actually have something to talk about besides junk you make up about 9/11.

[yes2truth]

161. I feel the same way about your spin. But some of it IS funny.

Since you are the only poster here that openly brags about who you are, and since you are so passionate about getting to the truth and trying to convince everybody else that you know what it is, then why don't YOU debate them?

[Bolo Boffin]

166. One more post to support my statement...

...that you have no evidence to support your statements.

[johndoeX]

185. need phone numbers?

Email us...

:-)

[Bolo Boffin]

154. Ohhhhh.

Of course this has nothing to do with your post. I don't know why I even posted it here.

[johndoeX]

157. LOL!

Not according to my stat counter...

With the help of you people. .our hits are doing quite well.. and growing... :-)

[Bolo Boffin]

167. Well, that's my point.

Things getting slow and sluggish, and Rob Balsamo runs around to various forums and whips up a little controversy.

[johndoeX]

182. i didnt start this thread... nt

[Bolo Boffin]

191. That has crap all to do with my statement, Rob. n/t

[superbeachnut]

200. visit them and see how dumb some professionals can be (truth)

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth Go sign up and see how open minded fools are. Ask a few questions and become banned like trying to get soup from a the soup-Nazi, you will not get truth from the censor-Nazi, Rob. http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth

Go see the truth at p4tF. It is censorship and real dumb guys playing bad researchers.

[superbeachnut]

198. hits are people learning how dumb you guys are

They are seeing how stupid some people are about 9/11. p4t are some of the most challenged truthers on the planet. (john lear is not from the planet, ask him)

[William Seger]

169. Anyone who still takes you seriously, JDX...

... hasn't been paying attention. You are a huckster, trying to make a buck exploiting the most gullible "truthers."

> "Edit to add... Will .. you're a pussy filled with spin.. when are you going to contact us for a real debate face to face? Dont have the guts to go up against LtCol's of the USAF? Thought so.. pussy. (sorry for my ad homs.. but Will deserves it as he really is a pussy.)"

Spin this Balsamo: We know very precisely how high the plane was when it knocked over the lightpoles and how high it was when it plowed into the Pentagon. Your analysis HAS been debated, and your side lost. Get a real job and forget it.

And no thanks, I'm still not interested in giving my phone number to someone who may well be mentally unstable, and certainly not to "debate" something as idiotic as Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon. I happen to be visiting my parents in Alexandria now, and I was just talking to a neighbor of theirs who saw it happen. Here's what he had to say about you and your ilk, and I quote: "They're full of shit."

Ditto.

[Beam Me Up]

170. Oh yeah, Rob is rolling in the doh

:eyes: Your spurious accusations are just that, not backed up with anything. The idea that anyone like Rob is in this for the money is nothing more than a laughably ignorant insult. Yeah, Rob is raking in the big bucks with his DVD sales (NOT!). I'm sorry that he called you a name, something he shouldn't have done but something he did in reaction to your ridiculous and personal accusations and attacks.

As for eyewitnesses, every prosecutor knows they are the least reliable sources of evidence. If you're going to site "eye witnesses" as proof that AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then you have to include the hundreds of eyewitnesses, including NYFD first responders who reported hearing explosives BEFORE the WTC towers fell; the account of Willie Rodregues who heard explosions BEFORE the first plane impact; and now we have a recorded account from a WTC 7 security officer who says that a stairway gave way underneath him between floors seven and eight BEFORE either tower collapsed.

I don't doubt people (who aren't government/media plants) tell the truth as they perceive it. For example, we have on film http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802">two Pentagon police officers in uniform stating emphatically that they saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. They were at the, then, CITGO station just outside the Pentagon. They are on video independently drawing a line on an arial photograph of the flight path they witnessed. They say they saw the plane fly over and then it hit the Pentagon. (Note: they did not actually "see" the impact; rather they saw the plane and then the explosion and assume the first was causative of the second). I do not doubt one bit that these uniformed Police police officers are telling the truth as they believe it to be.

The problem is their eye-witness accounts contradicts the physical evidence. The knocked over light poles and the damage within the Pentagon itself define a very clear path that allows for very little deviation -- fractions of a degree. However, the plane that these two government employees say they saw was approximately 15° to the north of that -- WAY outside any margin of error. In fact, if something hit the light poles, it would have been BEHIND where they were standing and OPPOSITE the direction in which they were looking. Moreover, if that isn't strange enough, the data in the FDR confirms the flight path that these eyewitnesses saw.

Many of the Pentagon eye witnesses who received press/airtime were either Republican operatives, media or government employees:

• Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.
• Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."
• Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.
• Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.
• Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars.
• Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.
• Dennis Clem is a Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
• Penny Elgas sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President George H.W. Bush.
• Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
• Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner is a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
• Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest.
• Colonel Mitch Mitchell serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant.
• Patty Murray is a United States Senator (D-Washington).
• Rick Renzi is a United States Congressman (R-Arizona).
• James Robbins is a contributor to National Review, a national security analyst, and a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council (I, by the way, have decided that I should refer to myself as a Senior Fellow at the Center for an Informed America).
• Vice Admiral Darb Ryan is the Chief of U.S. Naval Personnel.
• Elizabeth Smiley is an intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters.
• Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn is the deputy director of military support to civil authorities.

Source: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html

Not that this in itself proves these people are lying or innacurate about what they saw but it does open up reasonable questions.

The problem is that the data from the FDR does not match the physical evidence of the knocked down light polls and the damage in the Pentagon. You can say all you want that the FDR data pilotsfor911truth.org has has been 'debunked' but this is not the case. If you are an honest citizen and not a government plant, then you'd be wise to look more thoroughly at both sides of this discussion without dismissing out of hand its impossibility. We KNOW that the policy of the Bush administration is to SEEK THE EVIDENCE THEY WANT to bolster the conclusions they've put forward. We know this happened with Iraq and WMD, for example. We know that they will use government agencies and government employees to DISTORT information, even cook it up out of whole cloth, to validate their agenda.

The very idea that they wouldn't do this with the events of 9/11 is preposterous on its face. They LIE and LIE and LIE and LIE -- and the consequence has been and continues to be a RADICAL shift in both domestic and foreign policy based on an event that has all the earmarks of a black-op, false-flag, counterintelligence operation.

[greyl]

176. Straw argument. Seger said "TRYING to make a buck". nt

[johndoeX]

180. Is that why its free on the net?

Google, youtube, 911blogger, many other independent websites who have uploaded our work in which we are only in it 'for the money',

I wish Sony or Paramount who are really 'in it for the money' had the same philosphy as pilotsfor911truth.org business practices. We'd get alot more music and movies!

lol

[superbeachnut]

196. what a line of junk

It is a proven fact, by posting partial product and product, helps sales go up. Sorry, but you be making up some more junk.

Of course if the product is pure lies and junk, sometimes it just does not sell. Which is yours?

This is like Loose Change saying the sell it for cost. I can produce DVDs for less than 45 cents, and Loose Change was selling at 4.50. That is not a lot of profit, but I would take it. OMG, i have to mail it out?

Rob sells T-shirts and other junk for p4t. What a fraud. Buyer beware; you can beat p4t prices any-day.

[johndoeX]

222. Beachy...

You off your meds again? lol

[superbeachnut]

232. meds?

Do you have extra meds for me? What do you have to take to believe p4t? What part of critical thinking a logic do you have to give up to make the leap to fantasy world of p4t? When will you learn how to research and stop saying Hani can not fly? Gee, when will the p4t be able to fly as good/bad as Hani? Gee Hani hit the Pentagon, your pilots failed to hit buildings. What is wrong with the experts? Are you guys on meds?

If you plot 1.5 DME, the last data point from the FDR, from DCA and take the final tracks of 61.2 true or 71.4 mag, you have a point is space that lines up with the Pentagon and downed light posts. And the data comes from you! Debunked by your own work. Woozer.

[superbeachnut]

171. JDX, aka johndoex, aka Rob Balsamo

Anyone wishing to debate our team of real professionals that actually put our name on this work.. step up to the plate. Keyboard commando behind your screen is just that. Sorry if the above doesnt come through with proper links as i dont have time to deal with the obvious spin.. but i will debate anyone face to face regarding this information as so many have spun as apparent by prior posts. Email us to set it up. Bring FBI/NTSB with you as you'll need it.

If you know PFT, do not laugh too hard when he post "professionals". It should read, nut cases who can not use logic and reason to figure out 9/11. Pro?

I should not call him nuts for making up lies about 9/11, I am sorry I called him nuts.

As for FDR not missing seconds of data, JDX has not told the whole story but those with true research capabilities can lookup, it they have the time, many aircraft cases where data is missing from the FDR. Yes, we are always improving FDR and saving data, and new standards and experience will save more data in the future, but alas, in the past we have lost data. Maybe the pipeline data was still making it way to the chip when 77 killed those in the Pentagon and on-board due to terrorist. But do not make the mistake of thinking PFT have something, flight 77 hit the Pentagon and unless you are able to ignore thousands of pieces of evidence, then 77 hit the Pentagon. If you wish to believe lies, go get a dose at PFT from the liar of 9/11, Rob Balsamo.

Edit to add... Will .. you're a pussy filled with spin.. when are you going to contact us for a real debate face to face? Dont have the guts to go up against LtCol's of the USAF? Thought so.. pussy. (sorry for my ad homs.. but Will deserves it as he really is a pussy.)

Your LtCol's have zero facts to support any idiot non conclusion you have never made. Remember Rob denies that 77 never hit the Pentagon, I have no idea what his conclusion are except he want another investigation of 9/11, cause he knows it plays to the crowd of idiots who buy his junk at PFT. Rob, wake up, learn physics and learn how a radio altimeter works, it is real sad to see an announcer know a radar altimeter works in the microwave section of the electromagnetic spectrum. Why are you not very good at flying stuff?

Also, Rob knows where the plane was on the last FDR second recorded. (unless he is too challenged to plot simple stuff like most pilots can do) All you have to do is take the DME from DCA and draw a circle/arc from DCA on a map. Then take the final heading from 77 FDR and you have a position 77 was on 9/11 before it hit the Pentagon. Rob is holding evidence and only release the junk he wants to support the non conclusion of his "truth". It is all funny, he say he is saying nothing but then says the nothing he is saying. I would tell you what he says but he will say he did not say it. I know, I have trouble figuring out why he makes up stuff about 9/11. He likes to team up with other who think aliens from outer space are among us. For all the people who believe crazy ideas, PFT have some on 9/11. (the 1.5 DME makes 77 4 or 5 seconds out from hitting the Pentagon. JDX, you have to learn math and physics, or how to plot DME. BTW, JDX did not know how many feet are in a nautical mile; sad, he says he is a pilot?)

PFT present lies, they make up stuff about 9/11 and do not present the whole story behind each of their points. Simple lies from pilots who are challenged to do real research. What is their latest lie? Rob, update us on the latest attempt to earn the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the 9/11 super plot from PlanetX. Come on, we know you have enough nuts to come up with some real weired stuff, set loose those expert professional nuts, who one time flew. Did he tell you the PFT are the only group of pilots on earth who can not hit buildings, even kids can do it, and even the terrorist are better pilots than the PFT. Sad.

[johndoeX]

177. Said the man who hides behind his screen...

The only thing Keith Beachy has to offer in every one of his posts...

"Nuts", "liars", "kooks", "idiots"... on and on.. day after day. He is totally obsessed with us.

When asked if he will debate a team from our organization? "Why would i debate nuts!?"

As he continues to post day after day regarding our organization.. following us around like the good little puppy he is. Thanks for the added exposure Keith! Many people have watched the interview with "nutcase" LtCol Jeff Latas who the USAF thought he was such a nut, they made him USAF Accident Investigation Board President. Have any experience close to that?

Happy 4th Folks!

(and thanks for the hits... this thread is now referring 10% to pilotsfor911truth.org...). Those who go there can see what is happening here. :-)

Cheers!
Rob

[superbeachnut]

192. p4t

As Rob hides behind lies, I hide behind a screen? All you need is nuts, kooks and liars when you have a bunch of idiots who make up stuff about 9/11 without facts or evidence. I cannot help it if you are challenged on what I most people can learn in the 4th grade, the electromagnetic spectrum. You are challenged on the facts, and have zero evidence to support the conclusions you can not make. I have a hard time understanding what you p4t guys are trying to say. As for all your expert pilots, you seem to have about 3.4 pilots per million, and that is the rate of nuts on certain issues. Look it up.

Gee, I was an accident board president, and I happen to be of equal rank to your expert LtCols(O5s); now please note fellow Air Force and Soliders, I and the fellow zeros are arguing, and as you can see they lack facts! So as a zero, I have to say, the p4t zeros are zeros (agreed?). Wowzer. Seems like you p4t guys want to lie about 9/11, and have left behind judgment and knowledge for bias and stupidity (not what pilots are taught!)

Name a fact you have to support the non conclusion you do not state. Rob, you can not even plot an arc of 1.5 dme and then draw a line with the correct heading to see that 77 is over 4 seconds away from hitting the Pentagon based on data your crack team decoded. Fraud is p4t. Sad but true. When you wake up from your life of bias and fraud, welcome back.

When will you make a stand? When will you have some facts you can even argue? Why are the guys form p4t too shallow on facts to even state a position? Why is Rob unable to plot the final position with the data he has? Why do they make claims that are false about the FDR data? Shallow on facts, zero conclusions, p4t.

[johndoeX]

206. Beachy...

Can you ever put together a coherent post? You post the same BS everywhere..lol


Need facts?

Here they are...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html


By the way Beachy.. i know its hard for you to comprehend the .5 second lag regarding FDR's. But the .5 seconds is from when power is lost. Still waiting on your theory as to how power was removed from the FDR 2-6 seconds away from the pentagon wall when the NTSB themselves plot the aircraft being 1 second away. Oh thats right. .you know more than the NTSB. haha...

Perhaps you want to use apathoid's theory that Hani pulled the breaker..lol

Feel free to copy and paste this reply to all your other rants as they are all the same.

Cheers!
Rob

[superbeachnut]

214. facts from p4t? That will be the day.

Rob, if you ever find a fact on 9/11 you will not be presenting it. You would ruin your video of false statements. Still not able to tell the truth or figure out how many feet are in a nautical mile. You must be one of the worse researchers in the world.

Rob, when you find a fact please tell us. BTW, your web site http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html is absent of facts and any logical conclusions. It is a do over.

No facts, no evidence, no conclusions. All you have at p4t are real challenged researchers who make up stuff about 9/11. They also have aliens from John Lear. What else do you need to have a weird nut site on the web? If you do not want facts, and you like some really far out members, go check out p4t.

You are right, you have no facts so we can only call you kind of a poor researcher. Same old story, the ball is in your court. What lies can you make up now. Have you looked up a nautical mile yet? What about radar altimeters? Working on that ATP yet?

I tried to find some facts at p4t and failed, just found false information to mislead others.

[johndoeX]

217. Still waiting beachy...

Anytime you want to tell us your theory for the FDR losing power 2-6 seconds away from the pentagon wall... feel free.

Anytime you want to point out your calculations for pressure altitude, true altitude, ground elevation at the time plotted by the NTSB, showing how you are more correct than the NTSB.. feel free.

Or i suppose you can continue your rants... your choice. However im sure all you have to offer is ad homs as you have been. Typical.

Rob

[superbeachnut]

225. p4t have no conclusions or rational thoughts on 9/11

First Hani can not fly, yet not one p4t pilot is able to hit buildings in simulators. I have flown kids in 707 simulator, a harder plane to fly than 767/757, and the kids all hit the buildings. So we have terrorist who can hit buildings 3 out of 4, pilots for truth ZERO, and kids with zero flying experience 11 for 11. And this has been done by other pilots with people with no jet time. Sorry Rob, you are just a false statement wrong type of person, a type F person.

Anyone can plot where 77 was before it hit the Pentagon from p4t data.

The fact is the final position of the FDR from the PFT show 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. The final heading or track is 61.2(true track), 70 (mag heading), 58.8 (true heading), 71.4 (mag track); heading is the direction the plane is pointed, track is the path of the plane over the ground. Wind drift is the difference. On 9/11 the wind was from 330 degrees or so, 5 to 10 knots. With simple trig you can see track vs heading.

http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/navaid-info?id=DCA&type=VOR.DME&name=WASHINGTON Plot the 1.5 DME from this location. 1.5 DME is in nautical miles you can use 9000 feet, or you can use a real nm feet, just ask Rob, he does not know how name feet are in a nm, he is a challenged pilot. But you can look it up, there are stories about nautical miles and you soon learn more than Rob.

Anyway plot the arc, take the headings and you have a location 3000 feet from the Pentagon, with lots of time left to take out light posts as people saw 77 do, and then hit the Pentagon as many people actually saw with the EYE! Yes folks eye witnesses who saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Yet we have few nut case pilots who make up stuff from nothing.

Many aircraft accidents have lost data on the FDR. Sorry Rob but you do not even know the speed of bits to the CHIP is at the real time rate it is collected. Therefore the data comes from a unit which collects it and then it is transmitted to the CHIP. The CHIP from the Pentagon flight 77 was damaged. And the CHIP holds data from all the flights for 24 to 25 hours. He did not tell you the unit has to erase the data and then add the data, and he does not even know how it does it! I have cheated and I worked on many accidents and worked with FDRs. Sad to say, but Rob and the p4t have less experience than I on FDRs. From a practical stand point I find their trash on the FDR to be like baby talk. Rob cannot tell you how much of a delay is in the storage from processing. He does not even understand it. I worked on avionic systems at the Wright Aeronautical Labs after I earned my masters degree in Electrical Engineering. Gee a pilot who can design and build his own avionics. The stuff Rob will never understand about FDR fill volumes. Anyway, since Rob forgets to tell everyone about all the other accidents there have been where data was lost from the FDR Rob says cannot loose data, this becomes the old Titanic type statement, FDR can never loose data. But then there are so many examples. When Rob explains why 5 to 6 seconds of data could not be lost due to the back up in the data pipe line, which speed in bits per second equals the data for one second, then I may not call him nuts too much. Yet he is nuts, he can not figure out how many feet are in a nautical mile, or the frequency band a radar altimeter works at, how can he know things the best engineers developed. He does not even understand 9/11. Got it all wrong a true type F person.

Remember plot the arc of 1.5 DME from the VOR DCA, and take the final headings 61.2(true track), 70 (mag heading), 58.8 (true heading), 71.4 (mag track); The different headings actually confirm the flight path seen by many witnesses on 9/11. Poor Rob. Use the track 61.2 on a map with true north, or 71.4 magnetic track on a mag north map that you plot the arc on. Now you see exactly how Rob has messed up 9/11, ignores hundreds of eyewitnesses and thousands of pieces of evidence found at the Pentagon. Disrespectful people, p4t. Poor research = p4t (the only truth about it)

[johndoeX]

237. Once again Beachy evades.

Beachys' "arguments" over the past year as he has been following us around...

- p4t has no pilots - wrong
- p4t faked the data and it didnt come from the NTSB - wrong
- p4t doesnt have any real pilots who are flying - wrong
- Rob will never fly again - wrong
- The NTSB FDR data is missing 2 seconds - wrong
- The NTSB is missing 3 seconds due to buffer - wrong
- The NTSB data is missing 6 seconds - wrong
- p4t claims the FDR can only miss .5 seconds after power loss - wrong.. that claim is made by L3, the manufacturer of the FDR.
- 1.5 DME is 1600 feet off the wall - wrong
- 1.5 DME is 2800 feet off the wall - wrong
- 1.5 DME is 3000 feet off the wall - wrong

When Beachy finds out he is wrong on all of the above in each succession, he add's "nuts" and "dumb" to his argument.

Beachy, even using your 3000 feet off the wall argument, the aircraft would need 11,000+ fpm decent rate to hit the very top of the first pole. And then pull out from that dive instantaneously, 40 feet above the ground, to be parallel with a ~300 fpm sloping lawn as seen in the DoD video. But i forgot, you use the excuse that its 'fish eye lens'..lol


Again folks, Beachy is not with us set up as fake opposition. The statements you see made by Beachy are really his own. He really doesnt have a clue what he is talking about and only offers weak argument.

And Beachy.. here is your 61.2 degrees true... the wingspan doesnt hit pole 1. (i guess you missed it the 10 other times it was posted)


The reason this heading does not reach pole one, is because the csv file was altered..
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5083

Fact - The information/data is provided by the NTSB
Fact - The information the NTSB has plotted stops the data 1 second from the wall.
Fact - The data at that time stamp provided by the NTSB shows the aircraft too high to hit the light poles.
Fact - The NTSB plotted the aircraft north of the govt story flight path
Fact - There are no system indications within the NTSB data to suggest an impact with any object
Fact - Based on the data provided and plotted by the NTSB, the vertical speed is too great, whether using pressure altitude or radar altitude, in order to be level with the pentagon lawn.
Fact - The NTSB/FBI refuses to address the above facts which do not support the govt story.
Fact - Beachy refuses to debate us in person in a proper venue and instead wants to waste him time behind his screen day after day calling us dumb and nuts while proven wrong by even his own team Anti-Sophist who said numerous times the FDR can only be missing up to 2 seconds. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10503&view=findpost&p=13772994
Fact - According to L3 Communications, the FDR cannot have any more than .5 second of data missing due to regulation and design, after power is lost.
Fact - Beachy continues to dodge giving his theory for the FDR to have lost power based on his "2-6 seconds missing".
Fact - Even if the FDR was missing up to 3-4 seconds, its still too high and would require extreme descent rates at or near 10,000 fpm in order to strike the light poles at 40 feet above the ground.
Fact - Beachy has zero argument and wastes his time obsessed with "dumb pilots who are nuts" daily.

I can come up with many more facts, but i've already wasted too much time with Beachy.

Anytime you want to come out from behind your screen old timer, email us.

Keep reaching with your 'possible errors' and moving your distance further away each time you are proven wrong. Doesnt it suck that you have to tell the NTSB/FAA/FBI and L3 themselves that they are wrong in order to hold onto your theory? You dont even get help from your own govt. Must be so frustrating for you. :-)

Rob

[superbeachnut]

246. 61.2 degrees

There is no data from the FDR on the headings as 77 hits the post Rob. Sad, you forgot the FDR is missing data you can not explain. What is wrong you have the experts, tell us why the plane is over 3000 feet from the Pentagon when the data stops.

Please, the heading can be plus or minus one degree after the data stops, but not too much change since the plane was not turning much. So the plane did hit the posts, people saw it silly Rob.

Poor Rob is challenges with such large complicated systems involved such as aircraft, navigation and accident investigating. Rob has a problem. Rob wants something to be different about 9/11, but he is afraid to say it.

Rob, why are you unable to tell us where 77 was when the data in the FDR stopped. I mean the last data set.

Let me tell you Rob, we know data is missing from the FDR decode because we have proof 77 hit the Pentagon. If you were to go to court you would be laughed out and be paying court costs. It is pathetic you are able to ignore real facts and manufacture you own reality.

Rob cannot tell you were 77 is a the last data point because it is counter to his DVDs already pressed and selling!

He is selling junk and he can tell the truth. Sad stuff Rob.

Rob has to be the poorest pilot I have met trying to explain this boring pilot junk. He presents enough in his post above to prove his stuff wrong. And then he loves to cherry pick and make up stuff. Hurry and use this junk too Rob.

I am not behind a screen, I am on my real time voice generated computer system playing unreal and posting to you between frags. My typing skill is eclipsed by my voice recognition box, comma,,, coma, duh

But Rob the facts prove what every junk you have on your DVDs wrong, and your web site too. But since the evil empire is so afraid of you they have to let you post your fraud, cause there is no law against selling lies to fools. And you seem to be one who wants to cash in on 9/11 junk. Who cares. You are just plain wrong, and you can not prove yourself right. Go cherry pick some more, and please do not plot your final fixes.

1.5 DME from DCA, 71.4 magnetic track, 61.2 true track. Yes, if you plot this information there is only one path that mets up with the Pentagon damage and post knocked down as witnessed by over 100 people. You have some trust issues, and worse, you have zero research capabilities to get anything right about 9/11.

Rock on (please somebody ask him to plot his own data and show us where 77 is when the data ends on what was recovered from the FDR,.)

[johndoeX]

247. NTSB is nuts? Liars?

The NTSB plotted the data Beachy.. not us...





Go ahead Beachy.. use the excuse you used to use that the above data is not from the NTSB. Perhaps you might have more luck..lol
Beachy.. stil lwaiting for you to offer your theory of how the FDR lost power 2-6 seconds out (better use 6 seconds because anything less is still too high).

Do we have to ask 10 more times?

[superbeachnut]

252. dumb pilots know not of animation

Rob you used a working copy with a map showing the Pentagon below the aircraft and the map is rotated 20 degrees the wrong direction. Silly person, the final track was 61.2 degrees true not 81.2 as you show. Wrong again Rob. Sad to say this but you have problems understanding reality.

The NTSB animation map is not connected to the aircraft, it was placed in a working copy and never fixed. Ask them Rob. Ask them why they call it a "working copy" in the very letter you cherry pick. Wrong again.

You have the data that shows the final heading and with the FDR even an idiot can see the NTSB video had the Pentagon place 20 degrees off. This is a common error when pilots or lay people use variation. Sorry, you are wrong, but some training can bring you back from failure.

All your work wrong, no wonder you are ranting, I would be upset if all my work was a big mistake, a big fraud. You could fix it!

If I were you, I would hide so no one can pick up your whole video fraud for free. Hope no one exposes you for the fraud you really are. Run.


Funny, you use a working copy for your proof, and the data for the working copy came from the FDR found in the Pentagon prove by you to be flight 77s FDR cause it has many previous flight still on it! p4t prove FDR real! News! You even posted at your web site or in your forum how the animation is made, and you made it clear the map is not connected to the data used to make the plane move. Sad, debunked by your own stuff. I cheated, I am a schooled USC, accident investigator. A real college educated old timer, over the hill, but gee, i insist people should try to debunk you from scratch and see how easy it is. I have no special power, but the p4t are easy to debunk. See for yourself. This is DIY project, save your time, DIY.

[johndoeX]

254. NTSB notes errors...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ntsbfoia.html



Does it duscuss any other errors in the animation besides the clock annotation? -- Nope

Does it try to explain any errors when called? -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4 -- nope.

Keep reaching Beachy...

Beachy thinks he knows more than the NTSB, L3 Communications et al. Too funny.

Have a great day Beachy.. we'll be waiting for your theory of DFDR power loss 6 seconds from the wall.. I know we have asked 10 times by now and i realize why you evade the answer... but we'll keep asking till you do.. ;)

[superbeachnut]

258. The NTSB video was a working copy

It is a working copy. The NTSB working copy of the video does not place the aircraft with respect to the ground properly, and you confirm this when you p4t talk about how the type of animation is made. Too simple to figure out and to hard for you.

The NTSB video does not show where 77 really was it was an animation to present the flight data of the airframe, not where the plane was. If you do not understand this, then Rob you are too challenged to make any conclusions about 77. Oops, you did not make any. Good job Rob.

Your .5 second no delay super FDR, well you must get a ticket for the Titanic, it is unsinkable and with your FDR that does not loose data, we can find out what happen to you when the unsinkable sinks.

[johndoeX]

259. Psst Beachy..

The Titanic sunk in 1912. You cant compare it to an DFDR in 2001.

Have a good day my old timer friend.

[superbeachnut]

262. yes I did!

Actually you are making a claim of unsinkable to the some aspect of the FDR, and like the Titanic being unsinkable, your statements are false. There you have it, I can and did compare your claim to the Titanic claim. Oops, did it again.

[superbeachnut]

265. p4t junk Fact

p4t junk Fact - The information/data is provided by the NTSB
The data is provided by the NTSB, the animation is a working copy, the data that the plane represents is correct, the map is not. Working copy!

p4t junk Fact - The information the NTSB has plotted stops the data 1 second from the wall.
Wrong again. The NTSB does not say where 77 is when usable data ends. The data set only has navigation data that puts 77 well over 3000 feet from the Pentagon, the p4t have not repeated this much. But the best data for placing 77 is the 1.5 DME and the true track of 61.2 degrees. The places 77 on the path that many people saw 77 on when it flew past on 9/11. Bad research shows up as false information.

Fact - The data at that time stamp provided by the NTSB shows the aircraft too high to hit the light poles. WRONG, what does this mean, this is just junk.

p4t junk Fact - The NTSB plotted the aircraft north of the govt story flight path. WRONG, the NTSB did not plot 77 anywhere, you must remember the animation was a working copy they had not place the map relative to the aircraft animation with any accuracy.

p4t junk Fact - There are no system indications within the NTSB data to suggest an impact with any object. There is no way to record the impact because the data stream is not instant to the CHIP which stores the data, it is like an old mp3 player, slow data, at impact the last seconds would be lost in the pipeline since the impact was so severe, in other accidents subsystems survive and the FDR is able to record the pipeline data. In this FDR, the data stream was very slow, any delays in the data stream would mean more data is backed up. Oops, we are starting to learn why many seconds are missing. Darn, you should not post, soon everyone will know rob has never plotted 77’s final position, have you rob? He can not answer questions, he can only make up junk about 9/11.

Fact - Based on the data provided and plotted by the NTSB, the vertical speed is too great, whether using pressure altitude or radar altitude, in order to be level with the pentagon lawn. WRONG again, the plane was never level, you can plot the angle of impact. 77 flew the final 10 to 20 seconds in a decent of 4 to 6 degrees. The camera lens is not accurate and bends the world. Get an expert on optics.

p4t junk Fact - The NTSB/FBI refuses to address the above facts which do not support the govt story. Why would they talk to idiots and nuts who cannot rationally think? I have to label p4t to be idiots since they ignore the data and make up stories. Sorry.

p4t junk Fact - Beachy refuses to debate us in person in a proper venue and instead wants to waste him time behind his screen day after day calling us dumb and nuts while proven wrong by even his own team Anti-Sophist who said numerous times the FDR can only be missing up to 2 seconds. RIGHT and WRONG, there are no points you have based on reality. Plus I can not debate, I am terrible, I can remember how nuts you are and would be too nice. I know your stuff is junk, but you make it up as you go, I would be unable to stop laughing as you make up stuff out of the blue. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.ph... You post woo woo places of woo

p4t junk Fact - According to L3 Communications, the FDR cannot have any more than .5 second of data missing due to regulation and design, after power is lost. This is like saying the Titanic is unsinkable. Many aircraft accidents have lost more data. They have failed to state which FDR this applies too, the FDR used on 9/11 is not a modern FDR, it is a pre 2001 FDR, since 2001 many aircraft have lost more data. I can not help it if p4t want to cherry pick and leave out why data is missing. The data stops and 77 is not at the Pentagon, the best position at that time is 1.5 DME from DCA on a true track of 61.2 degrees, that means all the posts were clipped at a heading close to 61.2 degrees and it fits 9/11 damage, and witnesses who saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Too bad.

p4t junk Fact - Beachy continues to dodge giving his theory for the FDR to have lost power based on his "2-6 seconds missing". I never said the FDR lost power. I am waiting for p4t to tell me why 77 FDR data stopped over 3000 feet away from the Pentagon. The p4t have never plotted 77 position. Ask they why? Why?

p4t junk Fact - Even if the FDR was missing up to 3-4 seconds, its still too high and would require extreme descent rates at or near 10,000 fpm in order to strike the light poles at 40 feet above the ground. Even if the FDR is missing more than 5 seconds the decent rate is still 4 to 6 degrees. End of Story. This is junk from p4t, I checked the light posts and 4 to 6 degrees fit, and the FDR supports that. P4t are unable to read data and figure it out.

p4t junk Fact - Beachy has zero argument and wastes his time obsessed with "dumb pilots who are nuts" daily. P4t seem to be dumb on 9/11 junk, and are nuts to ignore the data. They have to refute thousands of pieces of evidence, and hundreds of witnesses. They have failed to do that. P4t lack facts to make conclusions which they fail to make but imply. They say real fantasy stuff like 11,000 feet per second descent when the witnesses just saw a steep dive (4-6 degrees), normal landings are 2.5 to 3 degrees. 9/11 descent was twice normal and almost 3 times faster. The plane was aiming at the Pentagon for over 20 seconds and it hit as seen by witnesses and then there were thousands of pieces of 77 all over the Pentagon. What do p4t want to say? They try to make up stuff about 77. I think they are upset about the terrorist pilots able to hit buildings and they cannot do the same in a simulator like most people can who have never flown. Flying is easy, they are upset some idiots were able to fly better than them? What is it?

I urge all fence sitters to go fly. It will only set you back a 100 or 200, and you can see how much freedom you have flying when the road is all over. Do IT. Fly, and see why these few idiot pilots are nuts and must be upset about being grounded or something?!

[johndoeX]

273. Replies to warped logic.

"The data is provided by the NTSB, the animation is a working copy, the data that the plane represents is correct, the map is not. Working copy! "

The NTSB states their animation is a working copy. They also state (as Beachy omits regularly), the NTSB wants everything as accurate as possible when supplying data through the FOIA. The reason they state it is a working copy is that they did make an error in the clock annotation and they note that in their cover letter. They do not state any other errors except they want everything as accurate as possible which Beachy continues to dodge and the NTSB/FBI refuse to answer. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ntsbfoia.html

"Wrong again. The NTSB does not say where 77 is when usable data ends."

They dont? They made a plot of it in the form of an animation with grid lines on the ground connected to the airframe/flight path by yellow poles.




Regardless of how many times Beachy tries to sell it to himself that the plane is not connected to the ground in the animation, one look above will settle that issue (although Beachy will still be in denial). Once again, Beachy, who is obssessed with a pilot group he thinks is nuts.. thinks he knows more than the NTSB.

"The data set only has navigation data that puts 77 well over 3000 feet from the Pentagon,"

First is was 1600 feet.. then it was 2800.. then it was 3000.. now its "well over 3000"? Make up your mind Beachy...

"the p4t have not repeated this much. But the best data for placing 77 is the 1.5 DME and the true track of 61.2 degrees. The places 77 on the path that many people saw 77 on when it flew past on 9/11. Bad research shows up as false information."

The NTSB places 1.5 DME at 09:37:43 on the csv file the NTSB has provided themselves. The NTSB notes the 'impact time' at 09:37:45. Based on speed, distance, time calculations and slant range, according to the NTSB, the 1.5 DME calculation could only come from the north path as they have plotted with the grid lines on the map in their own animation, and being 2 seconds from 'impact'. Based on speed and the NTSB time stamp, it can only be ~1600 feet from the wall. But im sure he will say the NTSB is wrong here too.


"There is no way to record the impact because the data stream is not instant to the CHIP which stores the data, it is like an old mp3 player, slow data, at impact the last seconds would be lost in the pipeline since the impact was so severe,"

Completely wrong and inaccurate. The pipeline is not like an old mp3 player (perhaps it was in Beachy's days, but not today according to L3). The lag buffer in the pipeline is .5 seconds. The most data you can lose is .5 seconds once power is lost. Period. Beachy is being intetionally dishonest if he really knows the truth, or just plain ignorant. Even his own team member Anti-Sophist realizes there can be no more than 2 seconds lost (that is because Anti-Sophist thought it was a 2 second buffer.. but L3 says its .5 seconds). The accidents he uses to argue more seconds/minutes missing are the type that had inflight emergencies such as TWA800. TWA800 lost power to the FDR when it exploded in mid air. (yes.. Beachy actually tries to use TWA800 as his argument). We are still waiting on Beachy to explain to us his theory for AA77 FDR losing power 6 seconds from the pentagon wall. Perhaps AA77 exploded beside the Navy Annex and made it to the pentagon in pieces?

If the data was damaged, we would have huge data blocks missing. Not just a few seconds.. according to L3. Once again, Beachy refuses to call L3 himself or debate us in person. It is clear why.

Not gonna even bother with the rest of his rant as most of it is completely twisted and spun. For example.. 4-6 degrees working back from the 'impact hole' will also not hit the poles... (Bill tried to use this alternate analysis a way back.. .backfired on him as it is on Beachy)
Picture is to scale..



Happy Weekend folks!

Rob

[superbeachnut]

274. what?

The FDR is an old FDR. Not today, not new. I am an Electrical Engineer, I looked up the data rate that the FDR sends the information to the Chip. It is slow. Sorry but Rob did not post the speed. When he post the data rate we can talk. Rob, do you need help.

So Rob is wrong, I am right about the data rate being slow. Until he can prove me wrong, I am right.

The rest Rob is making up. If you think Rob is right, you may be nuts too.

The NTSB does not know when 77 hit the Pentagon. The FDR does not know. Time is relative, and unless all the clocks on 9/11 were synchronized, then Rob is talking trash about time.

Data rate, find it quick so we can see if Rob is right or wrong. Data rate?

[johndoeX]

275. DFDR Buffer Lag

The FDR is a DFDR solid state recorder. Ed was asked specific make and model. When asked, L3 Communications told us not only is it regulation that buffer not exceed .5 seconds, but also that they design ALL their recorders to that standard and have been for years. We were told the old tape FDR's (like a cassette tape) did have more lag (probably what you are used to, or intentionally trying to cause confusion). But the solid state recorders are regulated by ED-55 and TSO-124 set as standard .5 buffer lag in the late 80's early 90's. Look it up Einstein. However i suppose you think AA77 had the same recorder in its tail since the airframe was built in Sea-Tac till Sept 11, 2001. lol.

If you dont care to look it up as is your research ability shows.. you can listen to Ed Santana yourself from L3 Communications here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Scroll down to Calum Douglas presentation in London - starts at 36:20.

The .5 second regulation make sense when used for something regarding flight safety. Beachy likes to think lives depend on old mp3 player technology.

We went over this 10 times by now and you still dont get it. Only now are you starting to read what has been written. Either way... doesnt matter to us.

The only argument you constantly offer is "Everyone is nuts but me and i, Keith Beachy, am right... everyone else is wrong!". You are certainly entitled to think what you want Keith.

So Beachy.. tell us, what is your theory for the DFDR losing power 6 seconds from pentagon wall?

Even apathoid and Anti-Sophist realize what we are saying here. At least apathoid did give some excuses. You just remain in denial.

[superbeachnut]

278. FDR

Data rate, or you have nothing. Got data rate for the 717? Come on, present some facts, you are just doing the hearsay shuffle.

Did you go to school? Do you have a degree? Everything you do is hearsay, junk, and made up. Ed did not say the FDR would have all the data after a big impact. You are the cherry picker king hearsay dolt of truth. Too bad.

What does .5 second lag have to do with 77 FDR? Since the data rate is the same rate as the amount of data, the .5 second lag does not pertain to storing the data. In fact the pipeline data could be a frame behind. Frame - 4 seconds. Oops. Maybe you should get an Electrical Engineer to do the research, I am one. Darn, out classed, I know more engineers then you have on your team of idiots. Sorry, but you do not understand how many feet are in a nautical mile, you do not know microwave is the frequency band of radar altimeters, and you now think you understand and have facts on FDRs? You are challenged on the facts, have no idea on 9/11.

Fact - Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Fact - If anything fishy was going on at the Pentagon on 9/11 my fellow soldiers would expose it. Sorry you are a fool and an idiot who is selling lies for 9/11 "truth".

Fact - p4t is just trying to make money off of junk about 9/11. No facts just lies.

[johndoeX]

282. Data Rate from Measurement To Recording.

I posted this before Beachy.. but it seems you still did not read it...
We asked several questions to L3 via email as well. Here were their replies (other questions asked were not pertinant, therefore are omitted).

"4: What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being
generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to the
protected memory of the recorder?

L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds,

5: Is the size of this recording delay regulated by industry or just
minimized by good design?

L-3 Response: Regulated per ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance
Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems.

6: In the case of a major accident like CFIT (controlled flight into
terrain) how much data (in terms of seconds of flight) is typically
lost? (For example signals still being processed by the DFDAU).

L-3Response:

With the use of the Solid State Flight Data Recorders,
typically, data is only lost at the point when power to the recorder or
FDAU is terminated."

So i ask again Beachy.. (as apathoid and Anti-Sophist understand and do give some excuses), what is your theory for the FDR losing power 6 seconds away from the pentagon wall?

We also called them to confirm it. It seems you havent bothered to listen to the recording yet.

Here, i'll make it really simple for you...

From the time the measurement is taken, aileron angle, altitude, airspeed.. etc etc.. till the time it is recorded in the protected area of the FDR is .5 seconds max. Not 2, not 3, not 4, not 6. It is not hearsay.. it is not junk.. it is directly from the FDR Manufacturer. Capisce?

Beachy. .have you ever worked with commercial recorders? Because Ed does say Mil FDR's are a completely different animal. He said it in the recording we have.. if you listened.

Someone else try to explain it to the old timer, as it seems after numerous posts.. he still doesnt get it.

[superbeachnut]

291. no facts just talk, learned from Griffin the hearsay king

If you never say anything you can not be held accountable. Rob has learned from Griffin, he just says what other people say. He never commits or says anything himself. How can he, he does not even know how many feet are in a nautical mile, a unit pilots use.

No facts, not data rates, and he has never told us what the heck the .5 seconds means for 9/11. There are many examples of data missing from FDRs. Since Nixon was not responsible, then other factors were. Rob, you know data can be missing, and you should know the data 77 FDR is stored in 4 second frames. The data frames are compressed so you can store 24 hours on the chip. The data rate to the chip is important, it blows away the data lag. The FDR is based on a system you have failed to give a good grasp for the dolts who may buy your DVDs. I think the less you talk about the FDR the better. Your last post is just hearsay, no data rates, no real meat.

As usual Rob has no idea what is real in the world. Rob says I can not work on civilian FDRs, Rob needs to check what kind of planes the Air Force has bought in the past 30 years, and what planes we use. What planes we use? Many Military planes do not have FDRs, everyone knows this, and Rob had no idea. Yes Rob most military FDRs are different, they do not exist. This is typical junk from Rob and p4t, they are so challenged with research they get everything messed up. They have a perfect recored for doing the worse research on 9/11.

Just a simple data rate Rob, prove you really are not the worse researcher on the web. Find some simple facts. Data rate (717)? Plus why not list the commercial FDRs I may of worked with in the Air Force.

Now ask p4t, who between them have zero FDR understanding, how many planes have lost data on the FDR? Your .5 second lag does not mean anything for missing data on a FDR. Sorry Rob, but .5 second lag requirement, has nothing to do with missing data. Many flights have lost data from a FDR. Look up the data rate, and Rob, you can not even explain what the lag means, and when it was adopted, or can you? But like an unsinkable title for a ship, the .5 second lag has does not mean data can not be lost.

You are poor researcher, you and p4t missed the fact 77 hit the Pentagon, you can not even correct errors on your web site, and you post silly charts showing the wrong heading. You say 77 could not hit the post due to a heading you do not even know, and are wrong since people even saw the plane hit posts. Darn people saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Oops, we found the DNA and bodies of the Passengers in the Pentagon. Oops, we have witnesses of all of this in the hundreds. Oops, we have all the parts of flight 77 in pieces at the Pentagon. Oops, we have some really poor researchers at p4t who have to make up false information and doubt about 9/11 to sell the "truth" for 9.95, 14.95, 15.95, and you get a deal for three pieces of false "truth". Sad stuff, but gee, if it was the truth movement it would be less money, even other frauds sell the junk for 4.95, why does Rob sell this junk to the not smart enough to see the dead bodies of passengers found in the Pentagon, and the fact the people in the Pentagon do not plant dead bodies and airplane parts! Rob you are selling false information, and made up junk.

Questions and Answers needed to prove you are not full of it---
Why was the DNA of passengers on 77 found in the Pentagon?
Why were all the aircraft pieces from 77 found at the Pentagon?
Why was the damage to the Pentagon found to be due to an Aircraft Impact at the speed 77 was at?
Why did over one hundred people see 77 hit the Pentagon and lamp posts?
Why did the fuel explosion at the Pentagon equal that of the exact fuel on 77?
Why was the damage of the impact the exact damage energy a 757 would do?
Why was the FDR for 77 found in the Pentagon?
Why was the heading and track data the exact heading of 77 on 9/11 and confirmed by the winds on 9/11?
Why were all the flights of flight 77 on the FDR?
If 77 did not hit the Pentagon as you try to say, who put the dead people in the Pentagon, and why are your implied conclusions so stupid?

[johndoeX]

293. Repost for Beachy

Since he didnt read it the last time... Beachy. .do you know what 'measurement to recording' means?

Read this again.. really slowly... i'll bold the parts you evade or have failed to comprehend.


I posted this before Beachy.. but it seems you still did not read it...
We asked several questions to L3 via email as well. Here were their replies (other questions asked were not pertinant, therefore are omitted).

"4: What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being
generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to the
protected memory of the recorder?

L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds,

5: Is the size of this recording delay regulated by industry or just
minimized by good design?

L-3 Response: Regulated per ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance
Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems.

6: In the case of a major accident like CFIT (controlled flight into
terrain) how much data (in terms of seconds of flight) is typically
lost? (For example signals still being processed by the DFDAU).

L-3Response:

With the use of the Solid State Flight Data Recorders,
typically, data is only lost at the point when power to the recorder or
FDAU is terminated."

So i ask again Beachy.. (as apathoid and Anti-Sophist understand and do give some excuses), what is your theory for the FDR losing power 6 seconds away from the pentagon wall? (9th time asked.. 9th time evaded by Beachy.. Beachy. .why cant you answer this question? TWA800 is not a good example..lol)

We also called them to confirm it. It seems you havent bothered to listen to the recording yet.

Here, i'll make it really simple for you...

From the time the measurement is taken, aileron angle, altitude, airspeed.. etc etc.. till the time it is recorded in the protected area of the FDR is .5 seconds max. Not 2, not 3, not 4, not 6. It is not hearsay.. it is not junk.. it is directly from the FDR Manufacturer. Capisce? apparently not.

Beachy. .have you ever worked with commercial recorders? (my add - Now Beachy wants me to guess what commercial recorders he worked with instead of giving us the information or researching for himself what type we are talking about) Because Ed does say Mil FDR's are a completely different animal. He said it in the recording we have.. if you listened.

Someone else try to explain it to the old timer, as it seems after numerous posts.. he still doesnt get it.

Beachy. .you are a waste of space who offer nothing for debate except what the govt tells you, ad homs, slander, libel and personal attacks. You may trust this govt.. you are entitled. I dont. Im done with you. If you want a debate where i dont have to say the same thing 10 times in a row while you evade everything only offer ad homs as retort, please email us as i have asked you to do over rthe past many months. It is clear why you do not want to debate us in person. Your debate style is nothing but ad homs and your comprehension skills are poor. Not sure if its due to age or what. I wish you well old timer.

[superbeachnut]

307. Repost for people challenged by facts and logic

Over 100 witnesses confirm flight 77 hit the Pentagon and clipped lamp post. Darn, there goes the false conclusion which Rob is too afraid to make.

The FDR for flight 77 was found in the Pentagon with many flight recorded by flight 77. Oops, proves flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The entire remains of all flight 77 passengers were found in the Pentagon on 9/11, confirmed by DNA. Oops, p4t implications are proven wrong.

Rob talks of a .5 second lag for the FDR. What does that have to do with data missing on the FDR? Darn, nothing.

Rob is not reading and comprehending, most the planes I flew in the Military did not have any FDRs. However, some of the military planes had FDRs, and I have used data from FDRs to figure out accidents. Gee, I was board president on a board and it involved FDRs and data from FDRs. I am an electrical engineer and have not found any facts presented by p4t that mean anything about 9/11 and flight 77. They have zero evidence for zero conclusions. They fail to make a singe logical point, and when you know flight 77 was found in the Pentagon, you must assume they are nuts on their ideas.

If anyone understands what p4t are trying to do besides make money off of 9/11, please post it.

[superbeachnut]

313. false statements

L-3Response:

With the use of the Solid State Flight Data Recorders,
typically, data is only lost at the point when power to the recorder or
FDAU is terminated."

So i ask again Beachy.. (as apathoid and Anti-Sophist understand and do give some excuses), what is your theory for the FDR losing power 6 seconds away from the pentagon wall? (9th time asked.. 9th time evaded by Beachy.. Beachy. .why cant you answer this question? TWA800 is not a good example..lol)


Funny, that is a false statement by L-3. Class we must understand the difference between a requirement and meeting the requirement. Example is the unsinkable Titanic, oops, it sank. So we all know what we want and what we get are not the same.

Who said the FDR lost power? I will say again for Rob, many aircraft have lost FDR data. Funny Rob brings up flight 800, another nut case show case of dumb CT ideas. Funny stuff rob.

Rob could tell you more times data has been lost from FDR, but instead he brings up some ED-55 european design requirement and fails to present the source or the FAA requirements, or the fact we are working with an old SSFDR, when data transmission rates were slower. Funny stuff, Rob fails to tell you the FDR had 25 hours worth of previous flights made by flight 77 before 9/11. Kind of proves the FDR was flight 77's FDR. Debunked by himself, over and over again.

I bet they were upset when they found the exact flights verified by wind data for the previous flights by flight 77. It is even more ironic the p4t post the winds for the terminal area when 77 crashes into the Pentagon verifying the wind drift recorded by the FDR! Ironic the p4t fail to figure out the very data they collected. Irony, how can anyone be so ineffective in finding correct conclusions?

[superbeachnut]

315. Funny stuff, funny facts, p4t continue the poor research

L-3, are these the same guys who for another accident airplane, the FDR built by L-3 Communications, was a Model 800. This particular recorder had a reputation for poor performance and had been disapproved for new installations. Good guys making statements about 9/11 stuff. Sounds like losers making up stuff about other stuff they are unable to make right in the first place. These are your experts? Wow, I may be over the Hill, these guys are stuck at the bottom, never made a good start!

Next, the standard you say makes flight 77 FDR not able to loose data, is a european standard that came out after the FDR was on flight 77. Oops, using a requirement that did not exist as proof of something you say cannot happen on FDR that was not covered by the stinking standard you bring up. Standards, standards published after 77 FDR was installed, we do not need your stinking standards. Once again we have "truth" sold for 9.95 to 15.95 and lots of error, no facts.

Yes it seems ED-55, some european standard, was published after the Boeing 757 that was flight 77 on 9/11 had its FDR installed many years earlier. Darn, more junk from p4t, so far they are batting zero.

[superbeachnut]

349. "expert" is a sales manager! wow; Standards? jdx does not understand

Love the p4t/jdx experts! Ed, Ed Santana is a Sales Manager. Their FDR expert is a sales manager! p4t, pilots for truth, experts who are not. Superduper. Here is what jdx and p4t said really (maybe they are fudging their statement now)

Also note that L3 Communications says there can be no more than .5 seconds missing as per ED-55 and TSO-124. Its regulatory and mandatory since 1980. If you know how FAR's work, you will see why we put our name on this work and record the FBI/NTSB trying to get answers while our professional reputations are on the line.

ED112 replaced ED55 (May 1990) and ED 56A (December 1993) in March 2003

TSO-124 is 1992, not 1980? What is up with this? Darn, jdx/p4t are just making up dates that anyone, if they take the time can check it out. 12 years off! All p4t/jdx junk is off, it is only a question of how much off it is.

Oops, ED55 is from May 1990, p4t/jdx truth said 1980; is this a lie or just another error in their work. Only off 10 years on this. P4t/jdx has major problems with trying to apply some standard p4t/jdx fail to understand. But why should 9/11 truth profit from research and experience of others, it is funny to watch the 9/11 truth movement make up false information and invoke the expert stuff when their expert is just a sales manager. Wonder if Ed knows he has joined in with the people with false ideas, made up ideas, about 9/11.
Actually the .5 second means something jdx/p4t can not even figure out. (this is not the fires time a small technical problem as caught jdx with his numbers and flying knowledge short. The leader of p4t, jdx, did not know how many feet were in a nautical mile, and had no idea what part of the electromagnetic spectrum (5th grade stuff) the RADAR Altimeter operated at!) A good engineer can, do we have any out there who want to weigh in and explain why jdx/p4t fail to understand basic engineering and flight standards? BTW, this is not all on standards, it gets worse for jdx, but why confuse him with facts; facts being foreign to his group of "expert" pilots who have yet to find a fact or some evidence to prove their failed implied conclusions.

[Sweet Pea]

350. I've been trying to read thru that P4T Stuff for a while now

Biggest buch of crazy malarkey I've seen - aside from when the Troofers have their annual convention.

[johndoeX]

351. Watch Beachy Squirm and delete his posts when proven wrong

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1

Beachy, im not really sure of Ed's title at L3 as he isnt "our expert", rather one who we were patched through to at L3 for FDR Questions. Do you have a source for your claims? Does it really matter his title?

However, sales managers have to have product knowledge and are also engineers. They have to be better than the engineers. After all, they have to sell the product to airline fleets worldwide. Ya think? He certainly knows more about FDR's than you do. You didnt even know what ED-55 and TSO-124 was last year on this very thread. You called it "hearsay...". lol... today.. almost a year later, you confirm it. Thanks!

Beachy, regardless of ED-55 and TSO-124, you still cannot come up with a figure to support the govt story. Each figure you have claimed, you have been shown is still too high. Then you delete your figures after being quoted and proven it doesnt support the govt story. You're not too honest, are you Beachy.

By the way, its good to see you're actually looking into this information, instead of just claiming you were an "FDR Expert". Took you how long, almost a year? Pssst... 1990 is still before 2001. Beachy trying so hard to prove "P4T wrong" has in fact incriminated himself and his story once again. ED-55 is .5 sec buffer lag standard. If it was effective in 1990 as you claim (which you are wrong here too), it was effective for 2001. New regulations that superede do not become more liberal with "buffer lag" as you have claimed is 4 seconds. Ya think? Every FDR manufacturer touts as being ED-55 and TSO-124 compliant.

You lie, you been caught. Beachy, you are not what you claim. You have never worked on FDR's. Your "4 seconds buffer lag" claims are all over this thread. Today, you just confirmed ED-55 .5 second standard buffer lag was effective on Sept 11, which you avoided last year. Although, your effective date is still wrong, but it still serves the purpose.

One day, if i feel like it, i'll pull out the regs and prove you wrong regarding date. But the fact remains, as you claim, ED-55 was effective prior to 9/11 ,more than 10 years prior according to you.. it set the standard for .5 second buffer lag proving your 4 second claim a lie, and you cannot come up with a figure to support your precious fairy tale. When proven it doesnt support your fairy tale, you delete the content after already being quoted. Poor form Beachy.

Also, thanks for spreading this all over the net. Im not surprised you dont come to our forum to discuss it, but we are getting hits from every old thread you bump. Its ironic i just put up the "Media Blackout" article the other day for all to see when they click the links in the threads you bump. Thanks! :-)

(disclaimer: i know many of you "critical thinkers" may be thinking Beachy really works for us as controlled opposition as his arguments are easily spotted as a typical strawman, but i assure you, this is just the way Beachy is.... he's an old timer, so we give him some slack.)

[superbeachnut]

352. expert, is a sales manager

Your expert is still a sales manager. I wonder if he knows you have pathetically used his words to support your implied ideas of fantasy. Was that a transport delay specified by the standard. .5 second transport delay max? What does that mean?

But yet, you have not posted the specification, or shown the FDR was covered. Can you post the specification as it appears in the regulation? Or are you hiding it with all your evidence to blow this story sky high?

Expert sales manager. Good job on that one. I deleted much of this post to save space. Oops, darn, I had tons of good stuff, but you missed it.

So, is he an engineer? Does he know you make up stuff about 9/11? False stuff? Why are you stuck on 4 seconds? It could be 6 seconds. And how many feet are in your nautical mile? Have you checked with some 5th graders to help you out with the electromagnetic spectrum so you know what frequency the RADAR Altimeter works at?

jdx, I see, pilots for truth has grown by so much, it is hard to keep the list on one page. At least most pilots are not as dumb as those guys Richard Gage signs up at A&E for 9/11 truth, but then a lot of them are fake. How are those aliens Lear has stalking us? You guys are a hoot. ... ...

How is that ATP coming? You sure made it sound so hard to pass on your video with Hani! How you have to pass tests and the 5 hours verbal by the FAA check pilot/examiner. Sounded so hard, yet you dismiss the ATP as trivial pursuit anyone can do? You must of flunked it. The big hint is do not argue with the examiner, he might know what he is talking about; like feet in a NM, and frequency range of a RADAR Alt. lol

Funny, you make it sound too hard for Hani to do FAA stuff, but you say it too easy to get an ATP for me. I guess for you p4t guys who can not hit a building in a simulator, yet the kids without training have done just that in simulators, as did the terrorist; that makes the p4t pilots the worse pilots in the world behind the terrorists and kids who have never flown before! Lol

Wow, FAA stuff is tough, but not tough. Ironic stuff flows freely at p4t … kind of quiet over at p4tf, and your exponential growth of new pilots is really super...

You should have Lear get the aliens among us to sign up as p4t guys; are they all pilots? That should swell your growth of rational members right off the charts…

[Laurier]

151. Exactly.

Balsamo is just trying to profit from the deaths of thousands. Sad, really.

[johndoeX]

158. not surprised

Im not surprised someone would attack the support structure of an organization who is up against a multi-billion dollar propaganda machine complict to a corrupt govt.

Why not go after 419 scams instead of real Americans trying to get answers? Perhaps you have an agenda?

[yes2truth]

162. You might be right. On all counts.

"Perhaps you have an agenda?"

[Bolo Boffin]

168. One more post to support my statement...

...that you have no evidence to support your statements.

[superbeachnut]

229. agree

I wonder if he is a challenged with research or just misleading on purpose? I think it is on purpose no one can be that dense. Are they?

[defendandprotect]

343. Catch up with the information . . please . . . Citizen investigators ....

interviewed people --- including police officers who were at the Citgo area ---

the official story suggests a plane flying to the right of the Citgo station ---

The police officers are clear that it flew over to the LEFT of the Citgo station ---

Also, the police officer disputes that the poles were knocked down by the plane in the area
which is indicated by the official story --

There's film on this -- YouTube or probably even here at DU ---


Additionally, let's all please take note that some of these "alleged" flight were NOT SCHEDULED TO FLY THAT DAY . . . ACCORDING TO THE AIRLINES --- AMERICAN, I THINK!!

As soon as I come upon that report again --- I'll post it for you all ---

[Bright Eyes]

145. My question would be....

If the NTSB was in on the plot, why didn't they just alter the black box data? or refuse to release it on grounds of "national security"?

[johndoeX]

181. Excellent question!

How about we gather together and ask the NTSB/FBI?

We tried.. but got stonewalled.


Others who are in denial and take the gvot story as gospel try to come up with every possible excuse they can (along with multiple ad homs when their excuses dont work).

Perhaps they trust this govt... they are certainly entitled.. i mean what.. we have 27% who still support it?

As for me... i like to question the source when their story doesnt add up.

[Flatulo]

224. But this still begs the question... why would the NTSB provide

you with data that bolsters your case against the official record?

If the US Gov can fake the whole 9/11 scenario, it seems to me that faking a CSV file would be child's play.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this - I thought that P4T had obtained the FDR data under a Freedom of Information request. Is this not true? Was there an alternatet source for the FDR data?

[superbeachnut]

227. no one can be this challenged, can they?

Are you really this challenged on 9/11 research, or are you just trying to sell junk?

Come on fess up. Your web page http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ is full of faulty junk. I find it disrespectful as do 99.9 percent of all pilots.

Your few pilots cover very old politically biased fools to nuts who see aliens all around. What a crew. Rob, you need to stop ranting about 9/11 and how the government did it and get back to rational thought. Yes Rob, there are airliner Captains who are nuts, but the airline did not know they were nuts when they were hired, but in your case they have prior knowledge.

I can understand why you do not trust the government, maybe you are a Tim McVeigh idiots type or just anti government, good for you, but making up stuff to sell trinkets and DVDs is sad. Even a guy at the corner washing windows is an order of magnitude above you in prestige.

[superbeachnut]

327. Maybe they think you are nuts. But making the claims you make supports the nut theory.

With members in your group who have seen UFOs, it is not a hard to dismiss you ideas as fraud. You are implying that 77 did not hit the Pentagon. You have actually said it.

These ideas about 77 are almost as bad as the Beam Weapon nuts, and the thermite dolts. Have you disproved the DNA yet? If you had the ability to understand the FDR, you would know what frequency the Radar Altimeter works at. That was the funniest broadcast I listened to you as you did not know what part of the electromagnetic spectrum a Radar Altimeter works at (the host even knew); I was laughing so hard every time the fourth and fifth graders list the Radar Altimeter in the chart, placing it against the correct frequency band.

With your lack of understanding, you did not even know how many feet are in a NM, of technical aspects of flight; it is no wonder you lack the capabilities to understand anything about the FDR, or the events of 9/11.

Hopefully for you, there are enough suckers to buy your failed videos. You may have the last laugh making money selling your false ideas to suckers. Why are you unable to research and understand 9/11?

[defendandprotect]

344. If you're referring to black box info which suggest voices recorded in the passenger cabin . . .

unfortunately, the black boxes don't record that ---

ONLY VOICES FROM THE COCKPIT ARE RECORDED . ..

Additionally, the phone calls, of course, were faked --- didn't happen.

[superbeachnut]

172. p4t, no facts, just poor research

More BS from p4t. Parallel to the ground, and those p4t experts figured this out from observing a fish-eye, or worse, lens from a super slow camera? Are they nuts, making a false statement in a news release?

I like how the p4t say real dumb stuff, like the FDR was made to loose no more than .5 seconds. Have these experts heard of the "unsinkable" Titanic? It can be seen on the bottom of the ocean on specials. They also fail to tell others of many planes who FDR has lost data. I guess this is the reason PFT is a ghost town without real facts about 9/11. Notice how they hide the truth to visitors? http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/

Go sign up so they can add you to the list of people. They brag about the number of people who sign up! But you have to sign up to see the junk. What a ploy.

[vincent_vega_lives]

173. Hi Superbeach

I assume you're a pilot?

[johndoeX]

179. Beachy pilot?

He was a pilot... now he's a grumpy ol' timer with alot of time on his hands who refuses to debate real professionals in the proper venue. It is clear he cant offer anything but point a finger and say -- "Nuts!"..... nuts...

then go onto the next website and post the same thing.


:-)

[superbeachnut]

195. old pilot

I am old, over the hill, but not challenged like the p4t. Anyone can fly a jet, and the terrorists were no exception. Can they fly better than most, no, most reading this can fly better, and have the potential to fly better than I. I would have to say, most who see the p4t as a sad lot, can fly better than I and 10 times better than any p4t now or ever.

As soon as the p4t make a conclusion and present the facts, we could see if they are still nuts. But so far I call anyone who cannot take the thousand of pieces of evidence and make a conclusion about flight 77, nuts. Rob refuses to even commit to a conclusion, but makes up junk about 77.

I have to say, after plotting the data I got from p4t, I found flight 77 to be over 2800 feet from the Pentagon on course to take out the light posts, on glide slope to hit the light posts. I got the data from Rob! His own data refutes his stuff. He can not even tell you where 77 was before it hit the Pentagon, and if he uses his own data it ruins his video! Bye, Bye Money!

Rob, you are a young X-pilot. I will be flying many years from now, I will be teaching others how to use their knowledge and judgement to think for themselves. What happen to you?

Bring on the facts, or are you hiding behind the screen with junk talk? Come on with some facts.

I can start a list of your facts.



oops, empty set

[superbeachnut]

199. pilot

I hold an ATP (Airline Transport Pilot rating), and have served on accident investigation boards, analyzed FDR data, been an accident board president, been in charge of the aircraft accident scene within minutes of the accident, and have flown heavy aircraft (large jets, 4 engines), and other aircraft since 1973. But you do not have to be a pilot to see the p4t have no facts or evidence to support the non conclusions they want you to make.

[jberryhill]

175. Another Iceberg Theorist

Have these experts heard of the "unsinkable" Titanic?

...which also flew over the Pentagon, btw.

No steel-hulled passenger steamship was ever sunk by an iceberg except the Titanic.

Therefore, it didn't happen.

[johndoeX]

178. nuts nut nuts..

liars liars liars... kooks and nuts... blah blah blah.. you got anything else to offer Keith? You say the same exact thing in every post you make.

Hey Keith. .you know more than Ed Santana at L3 communications? You call him a liar too... You also call Anti-Sophist a liar.


Is Anti-Sophist lying when he says in numerous posts that only up to 2 seconds can be missing?

It seems Beachy needed a hobby.. he has found one going around the web calling everyone he disagrees with.. "nuts!"


lol

[superbeachnut]

194. nuts and nuts

It seems only the p4t and most 9/11 truth movement people have a problem supporting their conclusions with facts.

p4t is unique, they have no conclusions. So what is there to debate.?

Rob still cannot plot 1.5 DME from DCA with the final heading on the FDR. BTW, the final heading is backed up with 4 separate headings, which independently confirm each other. If anyone has a question about the final headings I can try to explain, since Rob is too challenged to even know how many feet are in a nautical mile, the kind of miles pilots use!

Yes, the hits at p4t are up, because the people what to see nuts. It is hard to believe there are idiots who post junk and make no conclusions on 9/11. Everyone wants to see the guys who can not even hit a building in a simulator, that the terrorist did first time at the controls of a heavy jet. p4t zero, terrorist 3. Terrorist bad, p4t stupid.

[johndoeX]

183. Ed Santana L3 Communications

beachnut said -
"I like how the p4t say real dumb stuff, like the FDR was made to loose no more than .5 seconds."

Q&A with L3 --
"4: What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being
> generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to
the
> protected memory of the recorder?
>
> L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds,
>
> 5: Is the size of this recording delay regulated by industry or just
> minimized by good design?
>
> L-3 Response: Regulated per ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance
> Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems."


There is also a recording on our front page with Ed Santana saying the same thing. It appears Beachy also thinks L3 Communications is 'nuts' and 'liars'. Unfortunately for Beachy.. L3 made the FDR. Need L3 phone number Beachnut?

lol

A recap --

Beachnut thinks he knows more than a USAF Accident Investigation President, another USAF Accident Investigator, the NTSB who provided the data, Anti-Sophist (who is on his same side) who said numerous times there can be no more than 2 seconds missing, and L3 Communications who gives us a real figure of .5 seconds.

One would think if Anti-Sophist was a real FDR Expert. .he would have known about the .5 second lag... perhaps he did, but didnt want to mention it... but then again.. he cant get his own Data Frame Layout either...


Beachy, you're better off sticking to calling us all 'nuts' i guess...lol

Also.. all the aircraft accidents Beachy uses with multiple seconds missing are aircraft accidents that cannot be compared to "AA77". In other words.. they had inflight emergencies... ie, they blew up inflight.. eg TWA800 (yes.. he actually uses this one to argue his case).

Beachy offers intellectually dishonest arguments. I think its intentional. But of course. .we're all "nuts".

Hey Beachy.. why dont you tell us your theory for the FDR losing up to 2-6 seconds? Perhaps you want to use Apathoids' gem that the "hijacker" pulled the breaker doing 400+ knots a few hundred feet above the ground? lol

Does anyone wonder why Beachnut, Anti-Sophist, Apathoid and Gravy do not want to debate our team in a proper venue? Why are they the ones making excuses? Why is most of their online debate style offering ad homs? If we are truly 'nuts', they can use that to their advantage in a proper debate regarding this FDR information. .no? Why are we so confident.. and they are not? Speaks volumes...

[William Seger]

187. "proper venue"

Get a clue, JDX: Nobody in their right mind wants to participate in your ridiculous Short Attention Span Theater "telephone debate." The "proper venue" for such a debate is on the web, where you can take as much time and space as you need to post all the information and analysis you have, with graphics and reference links -- and so can the rebuttal! -- and everyone can take as long as necessary to scrutinize the data and the arguments. Of course you want a different "venue": You always lose those online debates because the only debating tactics you know are unsubstantiated assertions, pointless distractions, outright dissembling, childish insults, and laughable attempts at intimidation. It's painfully obvious that you're just hoping those tactics will work better in a telephone pissing contest.

As I said, anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.

[SkyIsGrey]

189. Short attention span theater, huh...

Completely unlike that this forum has turned into.:sarcasm: I swear to god it's like entering kindergarten room with three-year olds screaming at each other. No disrespect to everyone on here though. I mean to come on here and read through these posts and have someone like yourself with the twisted logic of trying to explain to someone that they should debate on the web as so there can be a proper rebuttal and logical discussion and then explain to him the only reason he doesn't debate in the venue like that is that he will throw childish insults, by throwing childish insults at him is really really twisted.

This is probably the main reason I don't like posting on here. I neither have the time and or the patience to deal with people like yourself. In the industry that I work in there is quite an abundance of the childish mindset that seems so prevalent on this form. An example of how things are in the area that I work. Any problem presented that can't be readily explained, easily solved or brought into a simple one-sided explanation, the person always winds up in a position of complete narrow focus. This results in that person only focusing on what they think is the answer and holding dear to it until someone comes along and tries to explain another approach, which results in a person ranting like a child, because theirs is the only solution. No matter how much logic or rationality, with maybe some notable insults thrown in which is kind of expected because the person is acting like a complete fool, that said person will never deviate from that path. This does hold true for both sides in this. In the industry that I'm in currently in, we commonly refer to these people as "Hacks".

I'm not here to take sides or to hold one possible theory over another. I just want the truth. What ever that may be.

Now if this is a little too long for you. I'm sure somebody could shorten it for you for your attention span. Just kidding(:



Edited for gramarical error.

[johndoeX]

218. lol

You dont want to participate? Seem you flock to every thread on the subject but refuse to have a proper debate.. hmmm... not surprised.


too funny...

You and Beachy might want to rethink your strategy, people might actually think you're on our side and set up as a fake opposition. Your arguments are too weak.

Cheers!
Rob

[superbeachnut]

233. fake rob, with no real conclusions on 9/11, what debate?

Rob, you have no conclusions to discuss. Your want your data to prove 77 did not hit the Pentagon but you never want to own up to it. Are you challenged on making decisions too? You have proved your knowledge base is flawed with errors in the number of feet in a nautical mile, false statements all over your web site, and the lack of knowledge in avionics as in radar altimeter, not knowing what frequency range it works at. How can you analyze stuff and have no idea what you are working with.

It comes down to the fact you have to ignore thousands of pieces of evidence to try to say the stuff you are not saying. What is your conclusion. You have zero final conclusions, why? What kind of fraud are you up to? No conclusion, just making up junk about 9/11. Notice how Rob never makes that final conclusion. Why?

(now rob is going around saying a FDR can not be more than .5 second of delayed data or some thing like the unsinkable Titanic, tell rob the Titanic sunk, and anyone can see from other accidents many seconds of data are missing in an unsinkable system, that never misses data! why is rob so challenged on the facts about everything? look at his argument, please explain what saying the data can not be missing helps you when the data is missing?! How can someone say it can't happen when it did? Yes, rob, sometimes things do not work, ships sink that are unsinkable and data is not stored due to big problems, or system operations you will never be able to understand. Believe me Rob, anyone who has shown as many flaws in knowledge about aircraft terms and symbols as you, will never grasp the complicated system associated with the FDR)

Weak, Rob you supplied the final data point before the FDR data ended some 3000 feet away from the Pentagon. 1.5 DME from DCA and the final headings were 61.2 true track, and 71.4 magnetic track. Even the winds confirm the FDR data on the heading/track information. All from your own site.

Yes the final position recorded on the FDR, the last bits of decoded data were 1.5 DME from DCA, and 61.2 true track, 71.4 magnetic track. From p4t. They take real data, and then try to make up non conclusions. I know Rob is confused because he can not plot 1.4 DME from DCA and draw a line at 61.2 true/71.4 magnetic track.

A kid can do it, but the experts make up junk, they do not produce any truth. Go ahead super pilot Rob, plot your own stuff! He can not do it! Can't do it! Challenged or just a fraud trying to make money. Which is it?

[johndoeX]

251. Click the link Beachy...

How many times was this provided now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=161557&mesg_id=162846

Beachy. .still waiting for your theory of FDR power loss 6 seconds from the wall...

ok.. enough fun with the old timer for today.. Beachy.. hopefully tomorrow you will show us your theory and prove the NTSB wrong.

[William Seger]

244. You seem to forget

I wasted a lot of time "debating" you once before on this board, re the NTSB animation flight path. First, you tried to distract attention away from the fact that you persist in using that misaligned graphic to promote your for-sale video, despite the fact that you know damn well the FDR heading puts Flight 77 over the bridge and the lightpoles. (And I see that it still shows up as the first item in the OP review of your "research.") Then, you tried to pawn off a misaligned graphic of your own to show the plane flying over the bridge, closer to the FDR heading but slightly missing the lightpoles. Then, when I attempted to correct your error, you tried to "prove" that your graphic was right by pasting a compass graphic on it, but you rotated it several degrees from true north to match your flight path. And then, when I caught you at that, you made a death threat.

My description of your "debating" tactics was 100% accurate, and as I said, anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.

[johndoeX]

250. Geeze this again?

Will..

read our pentagon page.. look in the right margin.. we plotted the csv file heading back in Aug 2006.

Not too observant... tisk tisk...

Then look at the picture i posted numerous times here which doesnt line up with physical damage.

Although, we arent concerned with flight path as much as we are the other parameters... but i can see why you would want to focus on it with your spin and lack of observation that shows we plotted the south path in Aug 2006

;)

[William Seger]

253. You plotted it incorrectly...

... and you still haven't explained why you persist in using that meaninglessly misaligned flight path in the NTSB animation to promote your for-sale video.

Tsk... tsk...

[johndoeX]

255. This is incorrect plot?

Done Aug 2006 Will. You arent too observant..

[William Seger]

260. Maybe another death threat will help

That graphic doesn't show enough detail to show the precise path over the lightpoles. I'm sure you must know I was referring to the graphic you posted above with the blue flight path (although I see you've improved the fudging of the compass). When I get home tomorrow night and have access to a decent graphics program, maybe we'll revisit that, seeing as how accuracy is so important to your search for the truth.

And once again, you dodge the issue of why you persist in using the faulty flight path in that NTSB animation to promote your for-sale video.

[William Seger]

276. "not too observant"

Here is a graphic with the 61.2 degree track and the 757 wingspan accurately plotted. (And, for comparison, the blue line in the graphic you posted, purporting to show that the plane missed pole 1, is at about 62.5 degrees. You are not too precise, are you?)



Oh, and by the way, anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.

[johndoeX]

277. Try using a compass next time...

Next... try looking over the study done by a mathematician/statistician who determined the headings in the csv file and animation were altered and shows step by step how it was done...

http://911files.info/blog/?p=58

http://911files.info/blog/?p=101

As for people who are willing to "take me seriously" and put their name on it...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

Keep an eye on it as i have to add a few more.. havent had time...

Will,

The flight path is secondary to us. We spend all of a little over 1 min in a youtube video and about 5-7 mins in our film. You like to only focus on flight path as your main argument because you are unable to argue other facts. We have told you our primary concerns in the past, you seem to ignore it and focus mainly on an issue you cherry pick. So be it.

For all your flight path needs with Pentagon Police Officers describing where they saw the aircraft, please visit http://thepentacon.com/Topic1.htm

[superbeachnut]

280. headings were not altered

You have to show his work in a form that makes sense. Total idiot rant from that guy. You can not explain it, so you post your hearsay links of lies. Good job, Rob who does not understand nautical miles or radar altimeters. Facts, present some or go hide and sell your lies labeled as truth, and go censor you forum of dumb white guys with low IQs, a group of mental morons as seen post by post.

There were no headings altered, and you can not present anything to prove it. You would not understand it if it was.

Just talk, no facts, no math, no understanding of 9/11. p4t, they sell truth for 9.95, 14,95, 15.95 and have a package deal! Wowzer.

[Name removed]

283. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

281. LMFAO!

So, sloppy alignment on a crappy compass graphic is really how PFT do precision analysis, huh? No thanks, instead let's try something a little more precise, and you don't even need a graphics program to verify it. I've cropped your image so that the ends of your blue line are directly in the corners. You can use your browser's image info to see that the graphic is now 706 x 371 pixels:



Maybe you can consult with your mathematician/statistician friend to verify that the angle of the image diagonal is the arctangent of 706/371. My calculator says that's about 62.3 degrees.

So the Befuddled Blue Collar Republican is still at it, huh? The last we heard from him around here, he was claiming that an apparent helicopter flying over Rt.95 in the Sheraton Pentagon video was actually a jet fighter flying at fantastic speeds a few miles away. (To his credit, he eventually abandoned that claim.) I happened to check in on him a little while later, and he was claiming that an apparent light-colored vehicle in traffic on the 95 bridge in the same video was actually Flight 77, and he was calculating some fantastic speed changes for it. It seems that BBCR has a consistent bad habit of being so enamored with his own (bad) assumptions that he's willing to discard simple explanations for things and instead prefer the fantastic conclusions he draws from those assumptions. So, I hope you'll understand if I take any analysis by BBCR with a grain of salt.

I skimmed through the first article that you linked to and found it to be so poorly written that it's very difficult (maybe impossible) to discern what he's trying to do and what data he's trying to do it with. Given BBCR's track record so far, it's not immediately obvious to me why I should take time to try to untangle it, either, but I did find this in the second article:

I will attempt to explain why the animation is so critical. The fdr and csv files are altered in heading and coordinates (latitude and longitude).

Now, BBCR does admit that he doesn't know anything about FDRs, and in that same article we can see him making unwarranted assumptions about the grid lines in the animation and jumping to conclusions based on those assumptions. So for starters, do you PFT FDR experts agree with the above assertion -- that the "heading and coordinates (latitude and longitude)" were altered in the CSV and the FDR?

[johndoeX]

284. Nice stretch work

Next time dont stretch the compass into an oval...


lol

Again Will, the flight path is secondary to us... we dont spend much time on it.. if you need help with flight path.. ask the people who were there...



http://thepentacon.com/Topic1.htm

Have you interviewed any witnesses Will? Didnt think so..

All we are concerned with regarding flight path is why the NTSB refuses to offer any correction for their plot. It seems you arent too concerned and would rather make excuses instead spending day and night behind your screen fighting with people who you think are nuts.

Wow.. such a waste of time.. have a good day folks!

[Make7]

285. It looks like he simply cropped a picture that you posted.

In post #237, you posted the uncropped version of that image after saying, ".. here is your 61.2 degrees true... the wingspan doesnt hit pole 1."

William Seger simply cropped the image you supplied to demonstrate that your indicated heading was in error by more than a degree. To which you replied:

johndoeX wrote:

Nice stretch work

Next time dont stretch the compass into an oval...

lol

The first image that follows is the one that you posted, with the displayed area matching the cropped image posted by William Seger. You can verify that the image is the one from your previous post by checking the web address in the image properties using your browser.

The second image is the one from William Seger's post.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/pentagonASpaint1.jpg


http://opendb.com/images/jdx-path.jpg

They look identical to me. Perhaps you can point out the stretching that was performed.

- Make7

[William Seger]

286. I wonder if SkyIsGrey is paying attention yet

> "Nice stretch work. Next time dont stretch the compass into an oval... lol"

That would be a bald-faced lie, Balsamo. It's hard to believe that you would lie about something that anyone can so easily check, but then, you are hard to believe, period.

> "Again Will, the flight path is secondary to us... we dont spend much time on it.."

Yeah, well, you didn't spend much time and all the other Pentagon crapolla you threw into your for-sale video, either -- Hani a crappy pilot, couldn't fly a Cessna; did oh-so complicated turn instead of just diving in from 7000 feet; hit the newly reinforced part of the building; offices next door were investigating "missing" Pentagon budget -- you really wanted to give the "truthers" their money's worth with that video, huh. Of course, it wouldn't be much of a video if all you had was your hokey FDR altitude analysis, would it.

And you would like for people to give you their phone numbers so you can do your Horseshit Two-Step song-and-dance in a "telephone debate," eh?

Anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.

[johndoeX]

294. We can draw lines all day long...

But im not surprised you have evaded to acknowledge the people who were there and have drawn their own line...

Here are the pictures again. .for the third time...





Will.. we already acknowledge.. on our site.. the south flight path/headings..



Its been there since Aug 2006. You continue to spread your slander and lies that we dont acknowledge it. You are wrong as usual.

Again i tell you and will bold it since it didnt sink in the first 20 times. The flight path is secondary to us. Our time spent on the flight path in our youtube video (about 1 min) and film (about 5-7 mins) reflect this aspect. We have asked the NTSB for a correction. They refuse. You dont seem concerned by this and make excuses instead. You may trust this govt. I dont. We want answers. You make excuses to remain in denial that such a govt couldnt possibly lie to you.

Will, again, we acknowledge the south path on our site. Its been there since Aug 2006 (i know i repeated this many times here.. but it doesnt seem to sink in with you). You constantly use libel/slander and personal attacks combined with lies that we do not and you will be proven wrong time and time again once one looks at our right margin of the pentagon page labelled Final Approach Path.

Fact- The NTSB plotted the path north of the govt story flight path.
Fact - Eyewitnesses place the aircraft in the same area that were filmed on location.
Fact - The csv file and animation headings were altered (John Farmer has read your replies and deciding if he wants to register here to explain the complex wording of his blog that you do not understand, to you. He said he may rebut your argument in his blog and not bother to register).
Fact - The NTSB says they want to offer the most accurate information through the FOIA. They note the clock annotation error but refuse to comment/correct/retract any other possible errors (if in fact it is filled with errors as you want to believe). You seem to be ok with the average layman getting error filled information through the FOIA regarding one of the most controversial events of our time with perhaps one of the most corrupt govts of our time. I want corrections/retractions/comments. So do these people.. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html. And these people.. http://patriotsquestion911.com. I could go on and on.. Its a growing list..

"We were set up to fail.. we didnt have enough time.. we didnt have enough money.. alot of people have things to hide.. almost 100 people!" - Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair 9/11 Commission. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4648624627192508186&q=pandoras+black+box&total=39&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 Start time 09:10.

You seem to make excuses for that statement. I want to know the truth considering ground zero workers are dead or dying, our liberties are being sacrificed, and we are in two wars planning a third based on an investigation that was set up to fail.

How do you look yourself in the mirror Will when you know you are defending war criminals? If we are wrong, we find out the truth (although i dont know how someone is wrong for asking questions). If you are wrong, i hope you are put up for obstruction of justice with your spin, lies, slander and libel in order to suppress the American people from questioning their govt based on an investigation set up to fail

Shame on you Will.

If you know for certain it was 19 evil terrorists guided by OBL. Why are you not showing the same outrage to our govt regarding such porous borders and the fact the FBI doesnt even list OBL as a suspect for 9/11? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm due to "no hard evidence linking OBL to 9/11"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=no+hard+evidence+fbi+9%2F11+osama&btnG=Google+Search
Why are you not outraged of dismantling the CIA Team that was set up for 10 years to track down Bin Laden? Why are you not showing the same outrage regarding this picture?


They hate our freedoms so much that they cant find their way over the border with the million other mexicans to explode so much as a bus bomb? Why arent you standing on that border protecting it? How much does it take for you to start waiving your BS flag on one of the most corrupt govt's in history of the US? You much rather attack those who question this govt and hold their feet to the fire regarding dissemination of accurate information? What is your motive Will? What is your agenda?

Email us if you can face our team of professionals, members of victim families and actual victims and tell us all why we should not question the govt based on their 'error filled' information they submit through the FOIA, the report that was 'set up to fail' and the 100 people that have 'things to hide'. I want to see you sit there with a straight face and tell families who lost loved ones why we should not question this govt. Why we should not raise funds to combat a multi-billion dollar propoganda machine known as Fox News and MSM (perhaps you think MSM is truth?). I know you would much rather hide behind your screen. I dont expect to hear from you. You are as guilty as the perps who are covering up the truth, thats a fact.

Done with you...

Rob

[AZCat]

295. Regarding language...

If you don't know what libel and slander mean and aren't sure which one to use, just ask - we'd be happy to help you, but using both just makes you look like an idiot.

[johndoeX]

296. Not surprised

Im not surprised you are already trying to draw up your own defense for defending and making excuses for war criminals based on an investigation set up to fail.

Im well aware of what slander/libel is. It happens to our .org on a daily basis by the likes of you people trying to suppress the american public to not question this govt with tactics such as throwing ridicule, slander and libel in their direction. You are going to lose. Your desperation is already showing.

[AZCat]

297. And how, exactly...

are "the likes of you people" "throwing ridicule, slander and libel" in the direction of the "american public"? By criticizing you? What a load of arrogant tripe.

[johndoeX]

298. Care to tell us your real name AZCat?

I havent read any of your posts till now.. but i can see by most of your topic titles you prefer to defend a report that was set up to fail and a corrupt govt known for lies and commuting sentences of the guilty.

Tell us your real name and im sure people can look over your posts to see if any possible libel case can be brought against you. If we are such idiots, you have nothing to worry about giving us your real name... We do it..

Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org

Either that or i suppose you too can hide behind your screen already drawing up your defense.. :-)


Troy from WV is on your side.. he is learning quick...
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=8edf762c6559d731509655f1bc044673&showtopic=1883&view=findpost&p=23877

Reminds me of Beachy and Wills' tactics... awww.. poor Troy.. lol

[AZCat]

299. Is this the only reply you have when stumped?

Why is it so important that you have someone's name? This is the internet - the only thing that matters is the content of the post, not the identity of the poster. It's the ultimate democracy. If you're so convinced there is a lawsuit waiting to happen in my posting history, feel free to contact the administrators of this site to express your concerns. I'm sure they'll evaluate your arguments in the manner they deserve.

There were so many reprehensible things in your post I almost missed a prime one. You state

I havent read any of your posts till now.. but i can see by most of your topic titles you prefer to defend a report that was set up to fail and a corrupt govt known for lies and commuting sentences of the guilty.

I can't tally the number of times I have been accused of coddling the Bush Administration, but it's getting a little old. If you'd actually read my posts you'd realize this, but perhaps that is asking too much. I'm going to repeat this because it apparently requires multiple exposure before sinking in: not supporting your theories does not equate to supporting the Bush Administration. Got it?

[Name removed]

300. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

301. Ahhh, the venerable strawman argument.

Me, i just think you're another boring keyboard commando hiding behind his screen with nothing better to do with his life so you pick arguments with people you think are nuts for even questioning the govt based on data that doesnt support their own story.

Point out where I have called anyone nuts for questioning the government. On the other hand, I do think those who continue to ask questions even when the answers are provided (multiple times, from multiple sources) have something wrong with them.

I don't go after superbeachnut because I generally agree with his conclusions. I might not choose to use the same language as him, but that's a personal preference. As far as the admin having a problem with your "tactics" you'll have to take it up with them rather than me, but I don't imagine you'll get far.


Regarding "theories", don't be fucking stupid. You have a theory, whether you've openly stated it or not. Your theory is that the flight of AA 77 did not end at the Pentagon, nor did it follow the path claimed by the NTSB. Only a fucking idiot would try to claim this is not a theory, regardless what some website says.

I almost forgot to comment on the wonderful trip down memory lane you provided with your link to the "disinfo tactics" guide. An ex-poster here used to be fond of bringing that up all the time, and it is as relevant now as when he did it back then. I noticed you coupled this with the assertion (once again) that I am "protecting war criminals". Total bullshit, of course - but you are aware of that by now.

[yes2truth]

303. Why don't you just take the 5th?

You said: "I can't tally the number of times I have been accused of coddling the Bush Administration, but it's getting a little old. If you'd actually read my posts you'd realize this"

YES, we DO realize that you've been repeatedly accused of that.


Then you said: "I'm going to repeat this because it apparently requires multiple exposure before sinking in: not supporting your theories does not equate to supporting the Bush Administration. Got it?"

I GET IT. You are willing to say what doesn't equate to your support of the Bush Administration, but you are UNwilling to state what your position actually is.

JUST BETWEEN US fellow DUers, I think you'd be better off just asserting your 5th Amendment rights. You seem unable to stop digging yourself into an increasingly deeper hole.

[AZCat]

305. Why again am I asserting these rights?

Under whose authority do you demand I state my opinion? If (as I suspect) you actually have no authority to do so, then there is no reason for me to assert those rights.

And has johndoex given you permission to speak for him? The posts were in response to his posts (and the accusations contained within) so when you say "we" do you also speak for him? Because if he doesn't get it, then I'm going to have to keep repeating it. Since you seem to have grasped what is a pretty simple concept, I hope I can leave off reminding you of this in the future.

[superbeachnut]

312. Talking

No matter how much you talk and make up stuff about 9/11, it does not change 9/11. You seem to have problems with finding facts to support your ideas on 9/11 and refuse to make conclusions that others do with your misinformation. Misleading people is your business, you make money off of it. So what? I think it stinks, but there is no law against making up stuff and saying it is true (expects in certain ways). You have lost so many freedoms you can not name, yet seem to exercising the freedom to sell false information to people and talk about 9/11 with no real facts.

I can not help it if people think your ideas are nuts, and you lack facts to back up your talk. It seems some people who can not think for themselves think you have a conclusion that 77 did not hit the Pentagon but even though you actually say that, you refuse to say it officially. Sad, you can not even say the things you imply. You have nothing on 9/11 to support the nut case ideas you seem to generate. I have no idea why you produce misinformation except to sell the misinformation as 9/11 truth, at 9.95, 14.95, and 15.95, or buy the combo for some small discount. I should try to sell 35 cent DVD for 3.50, I could beat my other investments. We still have the freedom to sell dumb ideas to dumb people, buyer beware.

If you had some facts you ideas would win the Pulitzer Prize, but you just sell ideas like the old snake oil salesmen of yesterday. You are an excellent teaching tool for learning how misinformation sells to dumb fools. With no real facts and evidence you sell junk with no support in reality. You ignore reality and sell misinformation.

[William Seger]

306. Did I mention...

... that anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention?

Oh, yeah, guess I did...

[AZCat]

309. But in my ever-so-humble opinion...

it cannot be repeated enough. Rob seems to have found a few more followers among the faithful, and while that's no reason to suspect any inroad among the rational it doesn't hurt to post roadsigns warning of treacherous logic ahead.

[johndoeX]

317. "Followers"?

Well.. i guess you can call it that...

Keep an eye out for a major update on our core members page coming soon (i havent had a chance to update in a while). You guys arent going to be too happy when you find out our new "followers".

lol

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

[AZCat]

318. I don't really give a shit who your members are.

This is what we call an argumentum ad populum. In other words, the number of people you've convinced doesn't change that you're still fucking wrong.

[William Seger]

319. You still here?

Good, since I forgot to respond to this:

> "Have you interviewed any witnesses Will? Didnt think so.."

Why yes, as of last week, I have. You forgot the one I mentioned above: my parents' neighbor who says of people who claim the plane flew over the Pentagon, "They're full of shit." And those two guys you keep posting pictures of say what? That the plane hit the building.

This is really not very complicated: If your altitude analysis were correct, then the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon, right? Reductio ad absurdum, your altitude analysis debunks itself; it cannot be correct. Your "followers" apparently don't understand how idiotic it is to think that unless someone can identify the exact flaw in your analysis, then we are forced to ignore all the physical evidence and every single eyewitness and conclude that the plane must have flown over the building. Beats me why anyone wants to voluntarily jump on that list, but you're deluding yourself if you really think it makes any difference.

[superbeachnut]

320. new members, still no facts about 9/11

Wowzer, no facts and adding more minds unable to see how messed up the ideas of p4t are. Even your sources get it all wrong.

[johndoeX]

321. P4T Welcomes Another Accident Investigator and 4 New Members!

It is my honor and pleasure to introduce our newest core members to Pilotsfor911truth.org.

Experience and Qualifications as follows:

Captain Steve Nieman
30 year Capt with Horizon Air
Q400

Joel Skousen
USMC Fighter/Attack Pilot (Vietnam Era)
1000+ TT, F-4, A-4, F-9, T-2C, various civilian planes
Commercial Pilot w/ Instrument, multi-engine ratings
EAA and AOPA member

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135
and Kc-135. Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

John W. Travis, MD, MPH
Preventive Medicine, (Johns Hopkins)
Founder, first wellness center in US
Retired Pilot


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html


Welcome to the organization gentlemen. Thank you for speaking out and for your support!

Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org

[superbeachnut]

322. New members, but only 0.00031 percent of all pilots believe 9/11 truth/lies

Sad, a few more pilots and fools unable to see disinformation on 9/11. Still no facts, no evidence, no idea what happen on 9/11, and the p4t have said so. Must be more politically biased dolts who are unable to use rational thought to make decisions on 9/11 but can imply false conclusions on 9/11. When will p4t actually come up with some conclusions on 9/11? 5 years and still wrong; p4t. A perfect record of no facts on 9/11 from p4t. But they sell the "truth" for $9.95 to 15.95 or you can buy a package of "truth" for some other package price. Or you can see for free how a few fringe pilots and such are able to make up pure junk on 9/11 for free on the Internet. Funny stuff. I remember when the guy who sees aliens all over, John Lear, was the premier p4t new guy who would change 9/11 for everyone.

[superbeachnut]

193. Titanic

Yes, even the unsinkable sank. Now Rob is saying no way a FDR can loose more than .5 seconds. Just look it up. Even Google can render Rob a poor fool. Yes, FDR have lost seconds. No, Rob you cannot have it anyway you want, either FDRs can loose more than .5 seconds as history has shown or they are unsinkable like the Titanic. Which is it?

Sad you are so challenged and state spurious facts without the whole story. Sad. Tell us when and how Rob the .5 works and why other FDRs failed this .5 second standard.

Since you have acknowledged there has been data lost on FDR more than .5 seconds you have proven you own rant wrong. Thank you again, as always truthers, like p4t, debunk themselves. This is too easy.

[superbeachnut]

308. ED55

Why not post ED55 for real people to read so you can show all of us the .5 second does not explain why data is missing from FDRs when aircraft have problems.

You forgot to mention the data rates involved in the FDR, or the compression of data, or how the data is collected. But the biggest problem you have at p4t, they have to ignore all evidence that proves them wrong and shows flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Sounds like some european requirement, but FAA, please find an FAA source? But the lag does not explain data lost in FDR.

Funny thing is, the NTSB decode 1 second more than the p4t. Why? How did the p4t fail to decode the next second of data? So how much data was in the SSFDR and was not able to be decoded? Why is the p4t data missing a second the NTSB decoded since we have the magic .5 second european requirement? And then how does this make flight 77 not impact the Pentagon? How were over 100 people wrong about flight 77 hitting posts and the Pentagon, and NOT one person saw a plane swoop down and miss the Pentagon?

[johndoeX]

316. Does this explain Beachy Behavior?

Keith, you're like a MKULTRA experiment gone bad... lol

Didnt you say you once worked at Wright-Pat AFB?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA

I will pray for you old timer... all my best.

Rob
:-)

[superbeachnut]

323. Keith, you're like a MKULTRA experiment gone bad... lol

Funny stuff. This is your problem, you believe in this stuff, fantasy. You are unable to think rationally and you make up stuff about 9/11 due to your lack of knowledge. You did not know how many feet are in a NM, you did not know Radar Altimeters work in the microwave spectrum, and you have no clue what happen on 9/11 so you make up stuff. You are a CT guy, and you are the one who is going bad with ideas you fail to make conclusions on.

Yes I worked at WPAFB, and thus I am not old now, but using the alien technology, I am young~~~. Sorry, you cannot have your fantasy both ways. I worked at WPAFB, but only to work on AF projects and go to school. WPAFB has some of the top experts in the CIVILIAN world in engineering control theory and advanced engineering areas. THE top. I was just a humble student and served my country. I am a naive person, I actually buy into the apple pie stuff. What is your problem? You try to mislead others on 9/11 and sell junk. Buyer beware. You sell misinformation, I only want people to be independent and think for themselves so they can see you as a snake oil salesman for the 21st century.

[truth01]

188. Perhaps that is why the Pentagon is hiding the videos...

Perhaps the Pentagon has something to hide.

Flying a plane over the Pentagon timed with a bomb or a missle attack would explain a lot.

The military told the 9/11 commission 3 separate stories, so we already know they have been lying about 9/11.

[Flatulo]

201. Here's an obvious question...

I apologize if its been asked before...

If P4T got the flight data from the NTSB, and there is some kind of conspiracy to cover up the actual flight path of 77, why didn't the NTSB just fake the flight data?

It seems to me that if some Lex Luther-class mastermind went to all the trouble of orchestrating a missile attack on the Pentagon, amazingly timed to coincide within milliseconds the overflight of 77, and then managed to hide a jumbo jet filled with people who must now vanish, all coordinating nicely with the other events in NYC, that adding some offsets to a table of CSV data would be child's play.

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

Caveat: I am not impuning the credentials or motives of the P4T, nor do I pretend to understand anything about flight data.

[superbeachnut]

202. NTSB

The sad part of p4t is the FDR was found in the Pentagon along with DNA of the passengers. All without being planted by some evil government. Since the Pentagon contains people like all of us, there is no cover-up, no lies, no made up aircraft parts that thousands of Pentagon employees would see being planted. p4t are sad pathetic group who are making up lies about 9/11 for some pathetic reason they will not tell you.

p4t are making up stuff and leaving out the facts. They are unable to make rational conclusions based on the pathetic cherry picking of half baked research they present.

p4t have half baked junk. They still use the Hani, the terrorist pilot on 77, cannot fly junk. Even the instructor who would not rent a cessna to Hani said he could hit the Pentagon easy after stealing the plane from the real pilot. Sad junk from p4t, go see how outdated their junk is. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html Outdated and wrong. How can a group of so called experts get the 9/11 story more wrong everyday?

[johndoeX]

221. Debunking FDR Debunking

The recent list put together which JREF deletes/censors, do not want to address and does not want you to see...


Claim - There are No pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org (Beachy used to use this one all the time...lol)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

All above names who are pilots certified by the FAA can be cross referenced here...
https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/



Claim - The FDR is missing 2-6 seconds of data (another one of Beachy's favorites)

FDR Recorders built to .5 sec lag maximum standard
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7152

Radar Altitude Confirms too high
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801


Claim - There is altimeter lag in the animation and csv file due to flying outside the aircraft envelope.

Airdata Calibration and Measurement
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=103

FDR Vertical Speed - Altimeter lag issues Addressed
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=73

Radar Altitude Confirms too High
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801

Reserved - more info forthcoming



Claim - The Information that P4T has analyzed may not be from the NTSB (P4T may have fabricated the information and claims it came from the NTSB) - Another Beachy tried to use initially, till he found out he was wrong again...

csv file download and cover letters provided by Undertow
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64

Raw data decode provided by Undertow
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4574

Animation cover letters/envelope provided by Snowgrouch
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=375

Animation cover letters provided by Mick Harrison
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=6205

Reserved - More forthcoming

Animation provided by Third party on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405&q=AA77+Animation

George Washington University NTSB Data
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

NTSB FOIA Website
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

NTSB FOIA Contact - Melba D. Moye
202-314-6000

NTSB FOIA Request form -
http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.asp



Claim - The csv file and animation show a heading along the official flight path.

csv file heading does not line up perfectly with physical damage


csv file was altered to show southern approach
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5083

Animation Alterations, Citgo Gas Station Video, witnesses
http://911files.info/blog/?cat=8

ThePentaCon
http://thepentacon.com


Claim - Pilots For 9/11 Truth has not provided all the data

We have provided all data which pertains to all published research and analysis that is not proprietary in nature. All information/data can be found on links above. The only information we cannot and do not provide is a proprietary Data Frame Layout which does not change our analysis in any way. Undertow can expand on this more when he sees this post.




Claim - Cover Letter Dated March 22, 2007 says Animation not "Official" that its a "working copy"
Animation cover letter provided by Mick Harrison
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=6205

Animation isnt the only information we have. We also have a Raw file and csv file (see above).

However, the cover letter states the animation "was not used for official purpose" which means it was never used in an investigation. It is an official copy since it was officially provided through the Freedom Of Information Act and from the NTSB. The NTSB notes in the cover letter that they want everything as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA, however they note one error which was made to the clock annotation. They do not account for any other possible errors regarding the animation in this cover letter.

Given the fact that all we really need is the last data point - we offer the following article.

FDR Recorders built to .5 sec lag maximum standard
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7152


Claim -
The Flight Data Recorder was found in the Pentagon. How can it be too high?
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7322

You will have to register to read most of the links. Unfortunately our forum has come under attack of many spider bots/spam/porn so we have required registration recently which will only be temporary until the bots subside.

[superbeachnut]

226. he is paranoid, poor rob

As I said, with the data supplied by p4t from the FDR recovered at the Pentagon on 9/11.

The fact is the final position of the FDR from the PFT show 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. The final heading or track is 61.2(true track), 70 (mag heading), 58.8 (true heading), 71.4 (mag track); heading is the direction the plane is pointed, track is the path of the plane over the ground. Wind drift is the difference. On 9/11 the wind was from 330 degrees or so, 5 to 10 knots. With simple trig you can see track vs heading.

Even the wind of 9/11 helps confirm the FDR is real. Check it out, p4t post the winds for 9/11, what a bunch of dolts, they need to clean up the real evidence is they want you to believe the idiot rant of p4t.

Take the 9000 feet, 1.5 DME, or use 6076 feet for a nautical mile. Do not tell Rob it is 6076 feet he does not know. Plot 1.5 DME/9000 feet or the real figure, remember slant range this low is almost negligible, but Rob was thinking it was a big deal!!! funny man.

Plot 1.5 dme from DCA, and use the final heading of 71.4 magnetic track or 61.2 true track on a map with true or magnetic north. From these headings you can see how some technician at the NTSB plotted the Pentagon and rotated it 20 degrees in error. Pilots mess up headings all the time due to variation.

Remember after you plot this position you are 3000 feet away from the Pentagon. So the headings as 77 hit the light posts may vary as much as a degree one way or another but not very much, cause the plane was going so fast and did not bank (turn) much in the final 8 seconds prior to impact.

As you read Rob's .5 second FDR lag, remember the Titanic. And the many aircraft accidents where many seconds of data are missing. OOPS, Rob why do you try to say things cannot happen when they did? Rob may have problems with data and facts. I know he lacks knowledge on flying topics, and that is a proven fact, Rob did not know how many feet were in a nautical mile, or radar altimeters work in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum which we all learned in the fourth grade. Sad, disrespectful, I give you the p4t, always dumb and on display being dumb at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ ; you have to see it to believe there are a few true real dumb guys who deserve a refund on their higher education.

[johndoeX]

240. Consilidating Beachys' spam

Beachy.. how many times are you going to post the same thing?

Geeeze..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=161557&mesg_id=162846

[superbeachnut]

243. how many times are you unable to answer the questions

Why are you unable to plot 1.5 DME from DCA and use the track of 77, 61.2 true, and 71.4 magnetic, to show everyone 77 was over 3000 feet from the Pentagon at the last set of data from the FDR recovered from the Pentagon on 9/11.

Yes folks the FDR was recovered from the Pentagon, it is missing data, or the data is not able to be decoded. There is some damaged data presented. They forgot to tell you they have the numbers to show where 77 is.

Yes, I have to remind people as you just post places to see junk, that you failed to even plot your own data and instead sell false information about 9/11.

How many time will you make up stuff and sell it?

You do not even use your own data, why? Because it refutes the conclusions you are not willing to make.

Pooooor Rob, unable to refute his own numbers, and failing to present facts. When can we expect the Pulitzer Prize from your work? Oh, it is fiction, sorry. Yes, you ignore the facts about 9/11 and make up your DVDs to make money. So?

Selling false information does not make you right, it just makes you money. Make your money off of fools too dumb to look it up for themselves. Someone needs to support you, I would rather have idiots do that than tax payers. Good job finding niche of fraud just for people like you.

You cannot even show where 77 was on the last data point. You use the NTSB video for your position or some such junk. The NTSB video does not show position with respect to positions on the earth. (the biggest problem with the NTSB video is it is a working copy, not to be used for the kinds of conclusions Rob is too afraid to make) Sorry, you do not even understand what you have posted on the web, or you would understand how the NTSB does animation of planes. You even posted the key. Sad, when you collect your own evidence against your work of woo.

[johndoeX]

245. Click the link Beachy...

This link has been provided for you numerous times including in the post you just replied to..lol. Perhaps you need to dig out your glasses?

>>>>> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=161557&mesg_id=162846 <<<<<

[superbeachnut]

248. challenged pilots who are not too good p4t

No Rob, at 3000 feet 77 only has to do about 6 degrees to hit everything. That is not 11,000 million feet per second, or other nonsense.

Yes super pilot Rob, fish eye or distorted lens, the plane was not level. Sorry you should have taken some photography courses and learned about perspective. You are not showing your lack of facts.

How do you get 11,000 feet per second? Eye witnesses did not see that maneuver, sorry you be wrong by evidence again.

If someone needs help showing why I can call Rob a nut after this post he wants me to see, then please ask. But Rob I have to assume most people are smart enough to use evidence to show themselves you are nuts. And you post is the proof. I do not want to call you nuts, but you keep posting nutty ideas on 9/11 and I got you to do it again.

>>>>> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... <<<<<

Yes this post is proof of how nutty p4t are on just 9/11 ideas. See for yourself and if you have problems finding out why his list is nutty please ask. Poor Rob. We should stop teasing the challenged p4t. It is rude to tease real dumb pilots on what they think is truth. It must be neat to be too challenged to know it.

[johndoeX]

249. 3000 feet from the wall.

Cant do the calculations yourself Beachy? Dont know ground elevations? No wonder you dont want to debate us in person... its 11,000 fpm descent Beachy.. do the calculations. But if you want more accurate numbers, why not use the numbers from your "FDR Expert"?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10503&view=findpost&p=13772994

Really.. click the link Beachy.. others will. We have Anti-Sophist words well archived. At least he is a bit more reasonable than your wacky theories. Albeit he is still wrong according to L3 Communications.



How come the NTSB didnt stop the data across from the Navy annex as you suggest? Why do they stop it above Wash Blvd? Are the NTSB Nuts and liars as well? You already think L3 Communications are nuts and liars. When was the last time you actually looked at a Solid State DFDR old timer?

[superbeachnut]

256. FDR

You have messed up everything. The NTSB video is a working copy, it is not the correct position when the data ends relative to the ground. I have worked with FDRs, and used the data correctly to make conclusions for accident investigations. So you are a want to be, and you have failed to correctly use the FDR data, and you now prove it by using a working copy of a video the NTSB tells you can not be used for what you have done. Proved wrong by your own post.

Got you

We need some more got some?

[johndoeX]

257. Stop spamming Beachy

You're posting the same thing 5 times over in numerous posts...

Click some links please...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=161557&mesg_id=162864

Beachy.. .you are saying that you.. as an old timer.. have more experience in todays DFDR technology than the NTSB and L3 Communications. Perhaps that is why you only have one anonymous "FDR Expert" on your side, who disagrees with you, and CTers who claim "Fakery!" when they cant justify, rationalize, the information. Just like you did when the NTSB animation/data first came out.
Now all of a sudden you're an expert and everyone else is nuts.

You do know we have interviews on our front page with real life experts still flying the line and working for L3 communications currently ....right?

Ok... enough with you today..

Anytime you want to tell us what caused power loss on the DFDR 6 seconds from the wall.. please do. Because that is the only excuse you can use. Of course it will be theory while we have the facts which the FBI/NTSB refuse to address.

[superbeachnut]

264. what?

Sorry, but in 2001 I was still on active duty, and current on state of the art FDRs then. Too bad you have proven yourself wrong again. I am current the 2001 FDRs, you are not. Too bad. And I have to repeats things you never do learn. But there is hope.

You know 77 was over 3000 feet from the Pentagon, and you do not understand why 6 seconds could be missing from a FDR damaged in a big crash. I have to say you are not very experienced at this. Lesser accidents/crashes have made aircraft lose more data. I think you could learn, but you ignore facts.

So my abilities to understand 1980-2001 FDRs is current for 9/11. Sorry you messed this up.

[johndoeX]

223. Replied above...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=161557&mesg_id=162535

[superbeachnut]

228. oops

Rob is still here? I was wondering when he would tell us how many feet are in a nautical mile.

So how are John Lear's aliens doing? Do you have to have some research disability to become a member of p4t, or crazy rant about aliens like John Lear. What other hidden talents do your member have that make them unable to get anything right about 9/11? JAQ!

I like to look up the other side of your members, they are a hoot!

I love flying but I backed up my career with a degree in Electrical Engineer so I would have something to think about on those 10 hour flights to Diego Garcia so I could fish and gather 100s of lobster. But is it seems all your members in p4t stopped using their brains years ago. Not one single correct assumption about 9/11 from p4t, how are you guys able to keep up the perfect record.

See it for yourself, and if you have problems seeing their false statements and faulty logic, go back to school and save yourself. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

[superbeachnut]

234. keyboard challenged and fact challenged, Rob of p4t

Posting posts, of posts and his every faulty web site - http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

a self critiquing web site of false information.

[superbeachnut]

239. p4t, have truth for sale at 15.95

Yes Rob, we understand the truth is 15.95 and you can use paypal, how great. Fraud, buyer beware, only idiots can not see p4t are full of junk and false stuff packaged in a DVD. So pay your 16 bucks and prove you are dumbed down enough to fall for junk, junk that is free on the web for the searching. Fiction at p4t, paypal is there to part the fool and his money.

How many upset people have bought the truth and found it was not? Based on your postings, you will need the money from your fiction to support yourself, I think flying may be too challenging for the pilot of p4t who can not even do what the terrorist did on their first flight. Just random thoughts on your new enterprise.

Have you plotted the 1.5 DME, guess you have problems cause you could not figure out how many feet were in a nautical mile! Any luck yet?

[johndoeX]

241. really beachy

Please get your meds... lol

[superbeachnut]

242. truth 15.95 $$$

I am sorry, you can also buy some truth for 9.95, and 14.95, all faulty logic and false statements, some silly statements on why the young terrorist pilot did not just push over the plane into the Pentagon from 7,000 feet, but since I expect idiot statements on a fiction that is p4t videos, who cares.

What a bunch of junk. Good luck selling tripe.

Meds, that is the best you can do? I am not the one selling false information and junk about 9/11.

You still can not plot your own data?

Besides thousands of pieces of evidence, which you can not refute and eye witnesses, your entire web site and videos are pr oven false. Sad stuff. Are you the one with medication problems?

I could sell videos like you, but include facts. LOL, when will you post some facts? Too bad you truther dolts are such a minority, if you actually were big time the real news could do a story on how you frauds operate with the help of real stupid people who have fallen for your junk. There is a story but you guys are so small. Like 6 sigma but different. In a bad way. When are you guys going to stop fooling people? I am happy to see out of millions of pilots only a few are dumb enough to join you. So 99.99 percent of the pilot force still has the ability to use judgment and knowledge.

Got facts?

[Chippy]

204. More than 100 people actually saw an object hit the Pentagon, smarty pants

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

[yes2truth]

205. Meaningless claim

Anyone can say that they saw an object hit the Pentagon.

[Bolo Boffin]

207. And anyone can type the words "meaningless claim." n/t

[yes2truth]

208. What I typed is the truth. What you typed is trifling.

Now, back to your normally polite, respectful, considerate, harmless OCTish obsessions.

[Bolo Boffin]

209. Nuh-uh. n/t

[yes2truth]

210. Your post is silly. Really. It's almost embarassing...

and it seems to be a regular feature of your posts at DU. Is your "blog" or journal or whatever you call it filled with similar comedic material?

[Bolo Boffin]

211. Until you start posting your evidence, it's all your posts deserve.

Because that's all you're saying.

[yes2truth]

213. Some people are just incapable

of feeling embarassed. It's non-stop and in a way it's not only funny, it's good to know that the most vocal conspiracy denier here is unable to prove the case for his point of view. Silly posts may suit a purpose, but that purpose sure isn't to try and make the case for conspiracy deniers.

[Bolo Boffin]

215. One more post to support my statement...

...that you have no evidence to support yours.

[yes2truth]

216. One more post that shows you got no evidence

that proves Osama bin Laden and 19 young men were able to defeat the entire U.S. national security and defense systems. The only thing you've proven is that YOU have been "fooled" and that you spend hours and hours day and night posting messages here - most of which are either silly, extremely rude and disrespectful, or else just plain old-fashioned OCT nonsense that was debunked literally years ago.

[AZCat]

231. Yet you, when asked, have provided no evidence of said "debunking".

Will you soon be presenting this "debunking" that occurred "literally years ago" or do we have to spend another week or two reading through your fact-less posts?

[yes2truth]

261. You are free to leave the building & never read ...

another post that threatens your viewpoint or that contains information that you are sensitive about.

[AZCat]

263. I don't have to worry about that with your posts...

because they don't ever contain information of any sort, much less information that I am "sensitive about" (whatever that means).

Changing this approach would mean providing evidence backing your claims. It's not difficult, unless you're prone to making baseless speculations - they're a bit tougher to support.

[yes2truth]

266. I'm still waiting for your calculations that support

your claims. MATHEMATICAL calculations, please. Not calculations for changing the subject or avoiding the issues.

[AZCat]

267. Still flogging that lie, huh?

Just to recap, you are the one who has made claims (over here, if you need reminding where to find it). You stated

First of all, there's no credible proof that any kind of aircraft crashed at the Pentagon, but even if one DID, as you noted, it would have disintegrated upon impact with the exterior wall.

(emphasis mine)

This claim has gone unsupported since you made it last Thursday, and all you have posted is repeated attempts to place any blame for lack of evidence on me, even though I was not the one to make the claim - you were. "Changing the subject or avoiding the issues" are techniques that you have been using, apparently to avoid producing any supporting calculations for the claim made in the original post. This is a childish tactic and, one would hope, below posters on a site like DU. I am saddened to see that I am wrong.

[yes2truth]

302. Still waiting for you to produce

credible evidence for your position, which I presume is that AA FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon. I don't believe it did and I've yet to see any credible evidence that it did.

If it's your position that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon, that puts the burden on you to support your position with credible evidence. You've yet to do that, and I don't believe you ever will, because I think you're just pretending to believe that particular OCT lie.

[AZCat]

304. Go on - keep making assumptions.

It's what got you in that hole in the first place.

Let's reiterate for the thick-skulled:
1. You made an assertion.
2. You refused to back it up.
3. You accused me of being negligent of providing evidence contrary to your assertion.
4. When that failed you assumed I am a proponent of a particular position (oddly enough, the inverse of your assertion) and again tried to put the onus on me to provide evidence.

This is a transparent evasion tactic. While you don't have to provide any supporting evidence for your claims, it's recommended. That way you won't look like a total idiot.

[superbeachnut]

311. evidence vs nut case ideas with no support

No, sorry, you must prove 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Since only nuts ignore the entire aircraft was at the Pentagon, the FDR was recovered at the Pentagon. Bodies, body parts, and DNA of the passengers were recovered at the Pentagon. Over 100 people are on record seeing 77 hit the Pentagon. The exact damage was present at the Pentagon that would be done by an aircraft at the exact speed and weight and fuel at the Pentagon. Darn, seems like you have to produce evidence to the contrary or just keep making nut case ideas about 77.

Which is it, you have some real evidence to prove 77 did not hit the Pentagon, or are you just repeating nut case people ideas about 9/11? Come forward with the Pulitzer Prize evidence that the Passengers, whose bodies and DNA confirmed they were there, on flight 77 were not killed at the Pentagon. Come on and try, or just be a challenged by the facts truther, who can not produce zip.

Not one person has produced any evidence to support 9/11 truth ideas. Why is the truth movement so challenged by the facts?

[vincent_vega_lives]

310. Ironic

Dude, if some get flip with you it's because we've seen the same arguments, same illogic, same ignorance here over and over again since 2002. Not much new under the sun.

[superbeachnut]

236. poor truther thinks opinions are facts

Why?

[yes2truth]

268. That smoke from an explosion obscured

the view of the Police Officers who said they saw "the plane" hit the Pentagon? That's why they said they didn't actually see a plane impact the building. I think their accounts are credible. I also think the perps were smart. Sounds like they had the timing down pretty well. Set off an explosion with a whole lotta smoke just as the plane gets real close to the building. "the plane" then flew over the building and can't be seen doing so.

Questions: 1. why didn't the officers say they saw "the plane" hit the building and THEN a big explosion resulted? Since that wasn't their testimony, if a plane HAD hit the building, would they have been able to see it do so?

[William Seger]

287. Well...

> "That's why they said they didn't actually see a plane impact the building... Questions: 1. why didn't the officers say they saw "the plane" hit the building and THEN a big explosion resulted? Since that wasn't their testimony, if a plane HAD hit the building, would they have been able to see it do so?"

It's been a few months since I watched it, but I seem to recall Lagasse not only saying that he saw the plane hit the building, but also saying he saw the tail of the plane turn to the side when it hit. That doesn't sound like he was saying it just disappeared into the smoke, and the tail turning to the side would be an odd detail to just imagine.

The rather serious problem with the "illusion" theory is that it would only work (maybe) for people looking at it from the approach direction. If the plane flew over the building just as the explosion went off, anyone watching from the side would almost have certainly thought that a low-flying plane dropped a bomb on the Pentagon. There were over a hundred published reports by people who said they say the plane hit the building, many of them from the side, and it's hard to say how many other people saw it but were never interviewed. (I just talked to one this past week, in fact.) Frankly, the idea that the "illusion" would work for all the witnesses is ridiculous, and the idea that anyone would plan a hoax based on the assumption that nobody would see what really happened (or not report it for some reason), or possibly even video or photograph it, is beyond absurd. If you really find this theory to be credible (and I don't doubt that you do), I genuinely feel sorry for you.

[yes2truth]

288. Frankly, your theories are as absurd as your

phony claims of sympathy for the truth. Enjoy your illusion and if you really believe your "phoolium" theory is credible (and I DO doubt that you do), I genuinely feel nothing for you...except that I hope your career in I.T. is satisfying.

[William Seger]

289. Nothing phony about the sympathy

You are a true victim of opportunists like Rob Balsamo, who hopes to make a career of conning people like you.

On 9/11, a neighbor of my parents was coming out of D.C. on Rt.395. He says he was where the highway swings past the south Pentagon parking lot when the plane hit. From that description, I managed to snap this picture of the approximate view he had. (I didn't see him again to confirm the precise position -- the Pentagon can be seen for quite a distance along this road -- but it's safe to say that this is a view that many people had that morning.)



This is the southernmost corner of the building, and the plane hit the wall immediately around the corner on the left. He says he only noticed the plane a second or so before it hit, saw it swoop in but couldn't see the actual impact from where he was, but did see the fireball over the roof. From the map, I figure that we as just about perpendicular to the flight path. He claims that he saw the plane well enough to say that it was too low to have possibly pulled up and missed the building.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to convince me that the plane flew over the building but people on just this one highway -- bumper-to-bumper going into D.C. -- were fooled by the "illusion" of the plane flying through the fireball. It's likely that many people who were on this road didn't see the plane come in, but looked over after it hit. Can you really convince yourself that they wouldn't have seen a 757 fly over the roof and just fly away? If you are that determined to make a mystery out of what happened, then yes, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

[yes2truth]

290. Are you a funeral director, by chance?

Or minister of the Gospel? Rabbi? Iman? For someone filled with so much sympathy - and who offers it so freely, it would be hard to believe that you're actually something else. Don't tell me that you're really a salesman, PR agent, or maybe an Ad man. No, it's gotta be something in the "healing" professions. Busted you, didn't I!

[superbeachnut]

292. con man Rob who says nothing

Rob and p4t say nothing about what happen. They are selling junk and lies to fools. They charge from 9.95 to 15.95 for the "truth". Only an idiot would believe 77 did not hit the Pentagon for over a thousand pieces of evidence prove that wrong. So what kind of idiots are dumb enough to buy junk from p4t?

If you have some facts from p4t that prove any implied conclusion please post it now.

[yes2truth]

212. This is persuasive. Unlike the Purdue simulation cartoon.

When you combine this study with the lack of credible evidence in support of Barbara Bracher "Olson's" alleged calls to Ted Olsen, it's hard to believe that anyone would still be claiming that the OCT is an honest account of what happened on 9/11/01.

[superbeachnut]

235. it would be cool if some truther actually had a story

What is the great story of 9/11 all the truth movement has? Who did it? What the truth movement has taken years to mess up was solved in a few minutes by those passengers on flight 93 who took action. We have posting idiots of the truth movement with zero facts and no ability to take action and we have people in a time critical situation make the correct decision. 5 years and a bunch of nuts have messed up every possible fact, and we have heroes, who acted with limited time and were correct.

I give you the heroes of flight 93, and the losers of 9/11 truth. Pitiful bunch, the truthers, who get more wrong the longer they have to research. Contrast! How can people mess it up so much, and some people get it so right.

[waleska]

269. Enron's Second Quarter (6)

May 2nd 2001: President George Bush pretends like he had never heard of something called energy trading (even though the top 60 utility companies in the nation were doing it) and orders all federal agencies in California to cut power use in an effort to find a solution to the state’s energy crisis.

On May 9th, The Street.com posts one of the first articles publicly discussing Enron’s suspicious financial transactions

8 days later the terminator, Kenneth Lay and Michael Milken meet at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles. I am about 60% sure that this was legit information, but it is purely pop trivia anyway.

The following day, Saudi Arabia announces that it “picked eight companies to participate in three projects that are expected to total $25 billion over several years”. Included are Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Group, BP, TotalFinaElf, and Enron Corp., the only non-oil company chosen.”

Enron even fooled Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Abdullah? Get outta here.

Two days later a California poll finds that President Bush is faring far better then Gov. Davis amid the state’s power crisis. The same day, a Mumbia poll finds that Bush is faring far better then Gov. Davis amid Maharashtra state’s power surplus.

The next day on the 22nd of May, as if the California Attorney General Bill Lockyer doesn’t know how the energy trading game is played, Lockyer blames Reliant and Enron and Lay, personally saying he would “love to escort Lay to a 8 x 10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says “Hi, my name is Spike, Honey.”

Electricity? “Spike” get it?

Doesn’t Lockyer know Enron’s “problems don’t start” until December?

At this point there are a lot of people that are onto Enron’s games but Sharron Watkins (the whistle-blower) hasn’t even entered the picture yet.

It is now June.. and it is the last month Enron accountants cook their books so if you are thinking about selling your shares at a profit, this month would be the last opportunity.

June highlights: Louis Freeh steps down. To put things into perspective Freeh presided over the FBI during “The Era of Greed” while Bristol Meyers Squibb was misstating years of earnings. Louis now sits on the Board of Bristol Meyers Squibb

June: Cheney raises Enron concerns over payment of Dabhol energy in meetings in Washington with India’s Congress Party, Sonya Gandhi which now controls Maharashtra. Again, this is not only pure theatre but in a little while we find out that Gandhi is actually Italian (the Indians in the world’s largest Democracy were totally taken by surprise by this one). Sonya had been giving some consideration to opening a chain of restaurants after she ends her stint in “public service” called “Gandhi’s Traditional Pizza”

June: Karl Rove sells his shares of Enron (this is big money)

June: Kenneth Lay donates 25K to Governor Rick Perry (this is small money)

Note: In the bigger picture, campaign contributions are “small money” which is why the “liberal” media and politicians and so-called “watch-dog” groups focus so much on campaign contributions. Following the small money makes it appear that somebody is actually following ANY money. As a rule, if there is “much fanfare” regarding financial transactions it is either a diversion or it is relatively insignificant.

Here are three examples:

John Kerry and Enron: The small money that was followed here was “dividends”
When Monika was getting started with Bill in December of 1995, Heinz Kerry announced that Kenneth Lay will serve as a member of the Heinz Center philanthropy, then John Kerry’s Heinz family trust bought between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of Enron’s stock.
Lets do the math. Enron is trading at $18.00 per share when they buy it and its trading at about $21.00 per share when they are “reported to” sell it. $500,000.00 would have bought about 28,000 shares. 28,000 multiplied by $21.00 is about $588,000.00. Net profit: $88,000.00
So the both the “liberal” and “conservative” media reports that the Heinz-Kerry ownership and sale of stock brought about $5,000 to $15,000 in “dividends”
The trivial amount diverted attention from the net profit. Leave it to the money-counters to assume that the gain in “dividends” is more significant than the gain in share value.

Martha Stewart and ImClone: The small money that was followed here was the short term loss.
On the 28th of December 2001, the FDA decided not to approve Erbitux. The day before the FDA decision, Martha Stewart sold her 3,928 shares of ImClone stock.
The Wall Street Journal claimed that by selling before the news Martha avoided a loss of $51.222.00
Now this math sounds like Arthur Anderson is around here somewhere
ImClone was trading at $75.00 per share ($294,600.00) when she sold. When the s—t hit the fan in June of 2002 the shares were trading at $7.00 to $8.00 per share ($31,423.00)

$294,600.00 – (minus) $31,423.00?

It appears Martha avoided a loss of a little bit more than $263,000.00 but then again nobody was actually counting money back then anyway.

I wonder what kind of “a loss” Peter G. Peterson, John Mendelsohn and George H.W. Bush from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center “avoided”?

Insider trading is one thing but insider trading in fictitious money in a corrupt company run by a corrupt CEO is another.

October 23rd of 2010 is when Sam Waksal gets out of prison

Example #3: George H.W. Bush and Global Crossing: On the 16th of November 1999, when everyone was expecting the DOW to reach 36,000, George and Barbara decided to play it safe so they sell their 100,000 shares of Global Crossing for a reported $4.45 million. These were the shares he got for free for a speech he vomited at in Japan.
Lets say Global Crossing is reported to have donated $30,000 (small money) in 1999 to the Bush campaign.
Here is the math the liberal press can’t seem to compute:
What is $30,000 (small money) subtracted from $4.45 million (big money)?
Actually, even the published amount was wrong since Global Crossing was trading at $52.00 per share at the time of the sale.
Rush Limbaugh got the Terry “Global Crossing” McCullife part right but he never made any references to Barbara or George “Global Crossing” Bush?
Half of history and half of the facts have always been good enough for the King and his Court.

The big money is in corporate holdings in corrupt companies. Follow the big money – not the small money.

Now, back to events in June just before Enron starts counting their money accurately in Q3:

Sami al Arian and some 130 other Muslims attend a White House meeting with President Bush.

In June of 2000, Sami al Arian was campaigning for George Bush in Florida (this would be during the war we supposedly didn’t was going on at the time)

I’ll be writing on a mishap in 1999 often referred to as the “U.S.S Cole bombing” to put this Muslim meeting and many other unlikely events in 1999 into clearer perspective.

Suffice it to say, at this point in time there should have been a U.S.S. Cole mindset among government leaders.

On the first of June the “Premium Processing Program” begins. Foreign celebrities, athletes, executives and other types of workers will be able to pay $1,000 to get work-visa applications processed within 15 days instead of the usual 3 months or more.

3 months? Isn’t that a business quarter?

Remember? The function of all government is to pretend to fail

So wouldn’t you know it.. the “visa express” program expedites the entry of both Abdulaziz Alomari and Salem Alhamzi.

Let me get this straight. The agencies responsible for keeping Americans safe from foreign terrorists were having such a difficult time gathering, assembling, and coordinating information from visa holders for approval within a waiting period of “three months or more” they decide to shorten the approval period to 15 days?

One would think that after seeing the August 6th 2001 document: “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States” Condoleezza Rice would have suggesting suspending the new “Premium Processing Program”?

On the 18th of June, the FBI pulls agents investigating the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole out of Yemen due to a “specific and credible” threat against them.

Two days later, Yemen arrests 15 people suspected of plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Sanna. Meanwhile, a reported recruitment videotape from Osama bin Laden’s group claims responsibility for the Cole bombing and is viewed by the AP in Kuwait

The next day the INS announces that it “has no plans to actively target H-1B workers for deportation”. The INS spokeswoman says she “doesn’t know of any H-1B workers who have been deported simply because they have lost their jobs.”

The “most recent” contact between Kenneth Lay and Dick Cheney occurs at a conference on the 24th of June.

To try to help Enron collect a $64 million debt from Dabhol, on June 27th Cheney lobbies India’s opposition leader, Sonia Gandhi on behalf of Enron shortly after the Cheney energy task force specifically recommended promoting energy production in India

Then next day in an attempt to make it look like he doesn’t understand the book-cooking energy business either, the Wall Street Journal’s, Daniel Pearl, writes “AES Expresses Interest In Enron’s India Project”
“AES offers to buyout troubled electricity venture. Dabhol hasn’t produced power for more than a month”

Those bumbling fools at AES. Dabhol isn’t paying Enron – why would they pay AES?

As if India was ever expected to pay Enron.

The same day of Pearl’s piece, Bush names Elliot Abrams to the top national security post and the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that immigrants who commit crimes can’t be held in prison indefinitely, if the U.S. can’t deport them.

Huh? Its that damn ACLU I tell ya!

Enron’s second business quarter is over.


July 01, 2001: This is the first day of the first quarter that Enron counts its money honestly since 1993.

Eventually every financial scam comes to a point where it needs to invoke its exit plan.

What is Enron’s exit plan?

July 01, 2001: California Senator Diane Feinstein who is on the Intelligence Committee warns CNN “Intelligence staff tell me that there is a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months.

Next three months?


Isn’t that a business quarter?

[waleska]

270. Anthrax & Enron (1)

On the 17th or 18th the five letters were mailed.

On the 17th the FDA wrote a fake letter to Merck about the "favorable" cardiovascular safety profile of Vioxx

On the 19th Kenneth Lay pretended to request a meeting with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham who pretended to deny the request.
On this day Enron pretended to invoke a clause in its Dabhol power plant pretending India was liable for $5 billion.

Question: Why pretend?
Answer: If you really wanted India to pay for your Dabhol plant you don't go and shred your business documents and indite your executives.
The construction started immediately following the first WTC bombing in Feb 1993.
India was never expected to pay for its energy upgrade.

It is worth remembering "the anthrax is in the mail"

Also on the 19th Waksal told Imclone investors "We do not have any worries about the FDA"

On the 20th Bush invited Hamza Yusuf to the White House to ask him about his "points of view" then Bush met with Porter Goss minutes before his speech to the nation.

The same day Kenneth Lay hosted Elizabeth Dole's Senate seat fund raiser in Houston.

On the 21st an oral report was made to Kenneth Lay on Vinson & Elkins "findings" (this would be the attorney firing Gonzales, Novation,Tenet, GPO, Medicare Vinson & Elkins).
As if Lay needed an oral report on how he had been cooking the books since 1993.

Starting the next day nine people are incorrectly diagnosed
(but whomever sent the thrax knows the diagnosis)

On the 26th Lay urged his employees to buy Enron stock.
"We have stopped cooking our books for the first time since 1993 - this is a good time to buy Enron stock"

On the 1st of Oct Blanco was hospitalized

On the 2nd Stevens was admitted

On the 3rd Cheney met with India External Affairs Minister Jaswant Sing regarding Dabhol "talking points"

On the 4th Stevens was "publicly confirmed to have anthrax"

On the 5th Stevens dies

Starting the next day two more letters were mailed

Next day is day 1 Afghanistan bombings

Next day Ridge was sworn

On the next day Todd Graves was sworn in (Tenet, GPO, Novation, Lipari)

On the 15th NBC turned over its letter

Let the dog and pony show begin.

On the 15th Donald Evans hooked up Sig Rogich with Kenneth Lay and the Vinson & Elkins report is submitted to Lay.
(Again they are pretending India was ever expected to pay its energy bills.

[salvorhardin]

271. Don't you find it more than a little bit sad and creepy?

When posters reply to their own posts?

[salvorhardin]

272. Why yes, yes I do

It seems like a cry for attention to me.

[waleska]

279. Enron Anthrax (2)

On the 15th of October Daschle's letter was opened

The next day Enron reports a "big third quarter loss" of $618 million and reduces shareholder equity the following day by $1.5 billion to account for transactions involving limited partnerships

This is also the day that Rebecca Smith and John R. Emshwiller claim as the "start of Enron's problems" in their book "24 days" published by Harper Collins

First off.. the start of your problems do not begin when you stop cooking your books

The start of your problems begins when you start cooking your books because the questions that should be answered are "Why" and "Why then?"

If the "start" of your problems is on the 16th of Oct then why would the SEC and CFTC documents destroyed in the WTC matter to shareholders?

What is noteworthy about Q3 is what happened the month before and the month after day 1 of Q3 (July 01, 2001)but that is another story

Coincidence or not.. at this point in time anthrax is now covering up Enron's stock market debasement

This loss report is the first time Enron had been honest about a quarterly balance sheet in almost 7 years

The question to ask is not: "Why did you cook your books?

The question is: "Why did you stop cooking your books?"

The next question should be: "Why did you stop cooking your books on day one of Q3?"

The possible answer offered might be: "Because Sherron Watkins blew a whistle."

Not!

She was a phony whistleblower set up by Toffler from Harvard

By the way.. day one of Q3 is about as far back as SOX (now referred to as "SARBOX" is required to investigate.

On the 17th it is reported that "Enron shareholders stand to make millions from Enron partnerships." and 31 capital workers test positive for the presence of anthrax and the House of Representatives adjourns

The following day David Iglesias (New Mexico) is sworn in

Keywords again here are: GE, Tenet, Novation, Lipari, pulse oximetry, safe harbor, medicare fraud, kickbacks, GPOs

At this point in time the CIA is briefing Cheney on Niger uranium

On the 19th the New York Post letter is found

Here begins the theater

On the 19th Ridge briefs the media on "potential anthrax threats" and Enron freezes its assets in its 401K employee retirement plan and bars employees from selling company stock trading at $32.20 per share.

Employee stock is unfrozen on November 19th with shares at $11.69

This is exhibit "a" on how power plants in India get paid for and don't assume this nation building reality goes over the head of India's Prime Minister

GE pulled this same stunt with India's first hydroelectric plant in 1902 and the crash of 1903 paid that invoice

[defendandprotect]

333. Like your post .... but I think primarily Anthrax was to cover 9/11 and 2000 steal ---

They shut down Congress for months essentially to block the public from getting in touch with representatives ---

presumably, lots of information and leads would have been lost ---

and pressure on Congress to get investigations going ---

how could they?

[MRM]

324. Are you kidding?

"too high to hit the poles". "too high too high to hit the Pentagon"

So this data tells you the events of 9/11 didn't happen at all?

I mean, if the black box #'s you critique are correct then the plane was there but didn't hit the Pentagon at all. Why would that be? And if the Black box info was simply faked in order to further a conspiracy, why wouldn't they (the conspirators) take the time to get it right? Are you telling me that people trying to pull off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind are THIS reckless?
Could it POSSIBLY be that the conspiracy crowd has (yet again) taken an innocuous piece of information and turned it into something it's obviously not? Nah, can't be.

[defendandprotect]

334. A lot of 9/11 was illusion . . .

The airlines are now saying that at least 3 of the flights were not scheduled to fly that day ---
but notice the damage done to the airline employees with destruction of unions, pensions, layoffs, etal....

No one is saying 9/11 didn't happen --- just not the way the official story suggests.

ONE plane may have been flown around -- actually bypassing the targets ---
the Pentagon "plane" having pulled up just before the EXPLOSIONS went off --
and the explosions were used to open round holes in the fascade.

There were also NO cell phone calls --- that's all faked -- lies.

There is no such thing as a perfect crime --- that's why the coverup is so important ---
and those who keep things covered up ---

[MRM]

325. No plane hit the Pentagon?

I simply want you to tell the families of those who DIED in that crash what "actually" happened to their loved ones.

A whole plane load of people had to go SOMEWHERE, right? Where did it go and what happened to them? Not a one of them came home. Though the personal effects of a few of them turned up at the Pentagon site. MUST have been a set-up, eh?

Please let the poor misguided folks who believe their family members died in that crash know what ACTUALLY happened to them. I don't care if you are incapable of rational thought, don't denigrate others memories of their loved ones with this kind of crap.

The disrespect shown by the conspiracy crowd annoys me more than their total disconnect from common sense does. You people don't CARE how stupid your theories are or who they hurt.

Throw your theories around all you like, but don't disrespect those who lost their lives that day!

Now. Where did flight 77 go if not into the Pentagon?

WHERE??

Proof, damn it.

The families of those who were aboard NEED to know!

If what you claim is true, they absolutely DESERVE to know.

So what is the actual PROOF? Anyone who claims the official version is a lie MUST know the TRUE version, right? How else could you possibly KNOW the official version was untrue? So, I ask again, what is the TRUTH of what happened to the people on flight 77?

Don't know? Then STFU because we are talking about real living, breathing people who greatly miss the people who were on board flight 77.

When you have PROOF of this claim, you'll be a hero. Until then you are nothing more than a thorn on the ass of family members who suffered a great loss that day.

[defendandprotect]

330. You have no idea who may have "died" on this alleged flight or not ---

We have no idea or proof if there ever were four planes hijacked ---

Or if one was hijacked flown around in four different locations and then crashed into the ocean!!!


In fact, I don't think that Flight 77 was scheduled to fly that day . . .
Isn't that one of the flights they just made the announcement on???

And, the families who do seem to be the sharpest and most aware are saying that it's the government which has the answers they need -- held in secrecy -- behind lies.

[superbeachnut]

326. Are p4t sill around?

When do fringe groups like p4t finally go away? How can they sell false implied conclusions to anyone? Are there people that dumb?

How dumb to you have to be to be fooled by a group of idiots who think 77 did not hit the Pentagon but can't even say it?

[defendandprotect]

332. eh . . . isn't Flight 77 one of the flights that wasn't scheduled to fly that day --- ????

Where is the airline's report . . .

How late does news get to this site --- ??? Wow ---

[Make7]

335. "Flight 77 ... was a Boeing 757 scheduled to fly to Los Angeles." - CEO American Airlines

 

"Flight 77 had taken off from Dulles Airport at approximately 7:20 a.m. Central Time and was a Boeing 757 scheduled to fly to Los Angeles." - Gerard Arpey, President and Chief Executive Officer of AMR Corporation and American Airlines.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-27.htm

defendandprotect wrote:

Where is the airline's report . . .

Perhaps you could produce an official report where American Airlines states that Flight 77 was not scheduled to fly that day.

defendandprotect wrote:

How late does news get to this site --- ??? Wow ---

From reading your prior posts, it seems that you are the one behind the curve regarding 9/11 research - perhaps you could take a look at the archives to see if an issue has been covered here already before deciding that it hasn't.

- Make7

[defendandprotect]

346. My god . . . !!!! Yes, American Airlines has said that some of these slights ---

WERE NOT SCHEDULED TO BE FLOWN ON 9/11 . . .

NOW . . . let's all go look for that info . . .

and let's understand who benefitted when the airline laid off personnel, pilots, broke unions and wages --- and pensions --- !!!!

When I locate the info again, I'll be happy to post it ---

[SDuderstadt]

353. "When I locate the info again, I'll be happy to post it"

I have a simple question, D & P. Why do you never seem to have the info but offer to post it "when you locate it again"? That's sounds suspiciously like "I don't really have any sound basis for my claim, but I'll pretend like I do and you'll eventually forget that I never provided any evidence of my goofy claims".

BTW, I know for a fact that "truthers" are all aliens from the planet Xxyrx and are here on a mission to take over the earth. When I locate the info again, I'll be glad to post it.