Originally Posted by Nonphixion The hijacker made an "expert" 180 degree descent-helix maneuver that exceeded both the capabilities of any passenger jet. But more importantly exceeded the limits of skill from any amateur "pilot" trained in private cessenas. That's what the s want everyone to believe. It's wrong. Analysis of ...
09-15-2006, 07:22 AM
| #21 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist 
| Originally Posted by Nonphixion That's what the 
 s want everyone to believe. It's wrong.Analysis of Flight 77 | ||||
     |
|
09-15-2006, 08:05 AM
| #22 | ||||
| Ron Paul '08  Libertarian Party Queens, NY
| Originally Posted by 7960 It's amateur, another source if you please. This is what puts me off from your link;
| ||||
| |
|
09-15-2006, 09:04 AM
| #23 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by Nonphixion How about posting a source that supports your helix maneuver?
And the guy was a navigator in the Air Force, he's not really an amateur. Last edited by Scrum; 09-15-2006 at 11:34 AM. | ||||
| |
|
09-15-2006, 11:24 AM
| #24 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by Nonphixion What does a lack of photos/video have to do with this "180 degree descent-helix maneuver" you're saying he did? I'm missing the connection.
I gave you a pilot who used piloting, common sense, and took a "most likely" approach to what happened and how. You're saying that "someone" somehow took a plane from american airlines, installed remote control software/hardware on it, and put it back into service. Then activated it that day and guided the plane into the pentagon by remote control. ????????? | ||||
| |
|
09-15-2006, 11:33 AM
| #25 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Oh, and a simple explanation for why there aren't any pictures may be because everyone was paying close attention to radios (or TVs), listening to what was happening in NY. There's an airport less than a mile away. The pentagon is (was) pretty much under the flight path for incoming planes. Why would anyone have thought this one was different? It wasn't on fire, it wasn't streaming smoke......there was no reason to pay attention to it until the last 30 seconds when it turned right. People stuck in traffic were *probably* listening intently to their radios. People who usually work outside were *probably* inside watching TV. People there for tourism were *probably* over near the tourist areas. The pentagon is not and has never been a tourist area. | ||||
| |
|
09-15-2006, 01:11 PM
| #26 | ||||
| im just sellin some oranges huntington beach
| if you watched the cnn rebroadcast a few days ago, they had several witness accounts of seeing a plane hit the building, i just dont understand how there wasnt a giant fuselage or wing sections | ||||
| |
|
09-15-2006, 01:16 PM
| #27 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by slosucks explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpRGLrkIsw | ||||
| |
|
09-19-2006, 03:28 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Audaces fortuna iuvat  Moderate Northern VA
| This is FAR from complete. I haven't really had the time to search for everything. Thanks for the PM. get information on who made the video, and who narrated it, produced by Korey Rowe. Written and Directed by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas look up the stories on the american free press, the style of newspaper First claim: 9/11 used fake planes and not real ones, passengers were dropped off Second claim: 9/11 was done by a missile, when the vid shown shows that it was in fact a plane Third Claim: The pentagon was hit by a military plane Fourth claim: The pentagon was hit by a missile Fifth claim: a missile launched by a military helicoptor shot at the WTC Sixth Claim: controlled demolition Seventh Claim: Flight 93 was nowhere near Shanksville, PA build a model of WTC strutcure to show the way it collapsed rememeber popular mechanics article 9/11 commission report, be sure to name all that were involved in drafting the report as well as the sources Northwoods - include other military "proposals" that never made it - find northwoods document in entirety. Northwoods was rejected. Remote control plane test, was done to test a specific fuel that was supposed to not explode. TDC ran an hour long special on it. The plane was dested because it was supposed to hit a specific target to simulate a normal crash, it missed. FEMA's report in 97, used the WTC because obviously, it was the only recent foreign terror attack to occur on US soil from an outside source: i.e. Bin Laden Drone (preadator, etc) was cruising at 32,000 feet because that is standard of all aircraft. Also, aircraft have no standard, it depends on weather and air traffic. it can be between 20,000 and 40,000 feet. NORAD tests - research June 2000 terrorism memo is probably the same as the FEMA report Rebuilding America's Defenses - get a hold of the entire report, and also when the members were actually part of it 10/24/2000 - NASCAU (sp?) pentagon airliner training. find out what other kinds of attacks were studied Charles Burlingame, supposed pilot of one of the planes was in NASCAU. Not mentioned that pilots are not assigned to planes, they jump around all the time. most commerical pilots are former military pilots. In this segment, the narrator uses the phrase "alledgly" 4:30 Changes to hijacking situations came about during change in terrorism dealings, no tolerance 4:40 most high level officials travel through private means because of a thread. Ashcroft was just appointed AG. CBS news article dated July 26, 2001 Bin Laden visited by CIA... point out he was visited/investigated for several years. UAE, do they have an extradition treaty and could he have been arrested there? Article states it is alleged, but the narrator did not mention that it was unproven 5:22 Silverstien's contract had a terrorism clause because the WTC had been previously attacked by a terrorist bomb. find out if the previous policy included the clause 5:38 put options, mention that the economy was falling, find the entire article shown: chicago tribune, 9/19/2001 "terrorist trade probe widened." Find out put option history on all commercial airlines, also the SEC investigation results 5:42 bomb sniffing dog issue... this was already refuted on OT, just need to find the actual post 5:54 more put option shit... use refuted claim from 5:38 6:15 newsweek report on "top brass" cancelling flights, newsweek 9/24/2001. find out what flights they were supposed to be on and also why it was done. 6:27 phone call to mayor by Rice advising him not to fly. article in the SFgate, "willie brown got low-key early warning about air travel" no date given on article 6:38, CBS news Jan 26, 2002. witness was a pakastini hospital worker. Narrator uses language to say "Urologists were replace to host thier special guest of honor" 6:58 Chantilly having a test, Chantilly is where dulles airport is, many businesses have those tests there 7:09 Vigilian Guardian. see how often tests are done, and that norad tests all air threats daily, hence why it's NORAD. 7:31 3 F-16 fighters flown to NC. Find out how many are stationed in Andrews, I've been there and there's a lot more than 3. 7:35 states there were 14 jets left to protect the US, which is completely false +++++ 9:16 playing tapes of those that say it was something else ~ 11:12 opening credits just show vid footage and random unnamed quotes 12:20 once again claims it was a missile using a Rumsfeld quote, however in context missile can be used as an adjetive: mis·sile (mis'l, -il') n. An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile. 13:00 330 degree turn at 500mph... talk to pilots on pprune about this, and also if the speed stated can be done or also recorded wrong. Also ask if the maneuvers that took place on 9/11 can be performed. 13:09 plane did not hit the pentagon, the plane bounced off the lawn and hit between the floors. use footage and the article on hand on OT 13:12 quotes Russ Wittenburg on WingTV says it could not have happened without stalling 13:59 states the pilots couldn't handle a 172... find out from pprune if it's harder to manually fly a 172 than crashing a 757 14:07 interview with instructor.. find the entire interview. they were already certified. private and commercial in Arizona 15:15 flight was uneventful, find out if he was able to rent the plane 15:17 quote by Danielle O'Brien, ATC Dulles says they thought it was a military plane. find rest of quote that it was just unexpected of a commercial airliner 15:31 CNN, november 22 2004 Plane Crash kills 3; was to pick up ex-president bush. find the type of plane and how large it was. also include comprabale landing velocity of the plane compared to reported speeds of the 757 15:50 it's stated that there was no damage to the poles, which is wrong because it shows the damage, and also claims no damage to the wings, which there is no way for the narrator to know. find distance from poles to pentagon wall. Also show how poles are barely bolted to the wall and if there's a reason for how they are mounted, if possible find out different kinds of mountings and what kind was on the highway and hobby airport 16:05 "you only have to look" once again pushes opinion. And nothing was ever claimed to bounce off the wall. 16:14 compares image of a plane not hitting anything, saying it should have looked like "this." show relative velocity (which is unknown on the featured pic.. if the plane crash in the pic is found, it would be helpful) and also the length of the skid 16:20 says there was not a single scratch on the lawn. show pics that do show the scratches, including the damaged vehicles shown on the same vid at about 15:50 16:27 says no trace of flight 77, when there are pics that do show the plane parts 17:05 point out it was the initial explination, and also compare heat temperatures to aluminum (the main component in an aircraft) 17:24 find out how the victims were identified, it is known about the DNS, but how they got the parts to identify them 17:34 states how the lab used was also used for flight 93. says keep that in mind for later so I'm noting it down 17:45 says that boeing refuses to state materials used in building an aircraft. find the materials 17:57 says 757 uses 2 P&W engines made of steel and titanium 1688 degrees celsius, find out mallebility temperature.. use this in a section devoted to metals and heat effects on them (will cover more in outline of vid). Also throw in additives to kerosene as Jet fuel is not a pure mixture 18:26 says it is "scientifically impossible" !!! to melt titanium given the duration of the explosion 18:34 says the two engines should have been found intact at the pentagon. use images of disenegrating engines from other crashes claims that there was only a single turbojet engine turbine found 18:45 American Free press article, no date "Controversy swirling over sept. 11 pentagon mystery" says READERS say it's from the APU. they are comparing an APU to a turbine. when asked if an APU is part of an engine, of course they're not going to say it's the same. In no part did the source even state if it is or not an engine piece, which is the point. In other words, the guy was asked, "is this part of an APU" and he said no. The only people assuming it was an APU are READERS from an Article.. no experts, no workers from aerospace. The rolls Royce expert, John Brown, says it's not from a RR engine, when 757's use P&W engines 19:46 Carl Swartz believes it's from an A3 Skywarrior. who is Carl Swartz. Showing a FEMA photo. It's not a recovered photo considering it's a new engine, what was the photo for, and was it actually stating that it was the same turbine? 20:37 claims it is not from a 757, when that is not the case. also labels everyone that believes how 9/11 happened is a "skeptic" a rundown: Narrator quotes a story in which unidentified readers say it's from an APU. Narrator then contacts APU company, who says it's not an APU. Then Narrator contacts Rolls Royce, who says it's not a RR engine. However, the Narrator never called Pratt & Whitney, who makes engines for 757s. 20:20 asks why pentagon photo of part shows no sings or scratches. it broke off before or during impact, so it is not scratched because it was ripped. It was also not singed because metal doesn't "singe." Also asks why with such a strong impact there was debris...when earlier (~16:14) he states that the SHOULD have been debris. This is the second contradiction. 20:47 diffuser case- find source of pic 21:10 states it's the first time a plane was "vaporized on impact" mind you this is HIS QUOTE, the plane was not vaporized, however the debris was widely scattered and fragemented. Other crashes at high speeds have shown the same results. 21:20 Compares to a hillside crah, not a nose down collision 22:03 damage to the pentagon not a plane shaped hole... this has already been refuted so can use sources already found 21:45 show overlay and point out the first floor 23:00 asks why windows were intact 23:04 says cable spools are untouched.. they are only 4 feet off the ground, and 1 was moved quite a bit 23:28 now says that it's 9 feet of concrete and that nothing could penetrate it. So, first the narrator says that it should've done more damage and gone into the pentagon, then says it SHOULDN'T have gone that far. also, keep in mind each wall isn't 9 feet. it's 1.5 feet. the space in between would offer no resistance. contradiction number 4 23:37 the nose didn't cause the hole, an engine did 24:49 plays audio of someone claiming a helicoptor when there is video evidence showing both planes hitting the WTC 25:00 April's claim, she says she was on the west side. find out the view from that side 25:28 says, "so if a 757 didn't hit the pentagon" already shows a bias against the plane, implying that there was absolutely no plane 26:14 find out more info about cordite. narrator says "a number of military personnel recall smelling cordite" yet the quote is from Don Perkal of MSNBC. Second quote is of Gilah Goldsmith of the guardian. If these quotes were from articles, there is no article source and nothing to verify whether it's authentic or even if the course was actually military or near the pentagon 26:25 uses wiki on cordite 26:46 explosion color is covered in one of the essays that debunks the vid 26:58 shows no flash, and the pic is taken well after the crash 27:14 quotes witnesses, with no actual source or position, when it's been known that witnesses were way off quite a bit. show conflicting reports about what hit, then show the ones that conflict the vids of the WTC being hit for empathisis also, one of them was anonymous. find out if there actually was a C-130 there. Also, a C-130 cannot launch missiles. 27:30 shows an "unmarked white plane" national airport is next door to the pentagon, and all planes are white underneath. show pics of white underbellies. timestamp says 8:53 or 9:53 EST. find out time of grounding and time plane was spotted. video also goes from x:53a to x:51a at the 27:35 mark 28:08 says national ground stop at 9:25 28:44 the second explosion was a false report 29:25 agree, the tapes should be released 29:30 they did not release the 5 frames leaked 29:54 find photo that shows white marking on lawn with date 30:00 the pentagon has been undergoing a milti-year remodel. just because ithit that side means nothing. in fact, if they wanted to make an impact, they would have hit a weaker side if that is what the narrator is implying (referring to northwoods and think-tank comment in the beginning) 30:24 milti explosions caused by other things in the building 30:45 shows close-up of the outer wall collapsing inward, not exploding with puffs of smoke as claimed 31:24 contains info about offices and documents in WTC 7 31:45 the building did not collapse because of the fire, but because of the effect the fire had on the design of the building. as to WTC7, need to find the determined cause of collapse as reported 32:03 compares to empire state building. show floorplans and difference in structure, also the velocities of the different planes 31:00 find out the scope of the previous fire 32:33 chicago fire, same point as the empire state fire 33:25 the upper floors fell, but the structure was not the same as mentioned 33:42 final word. all fires previously mentioned did not have an explosion or kinetic damage to weaken the structure of the building, including the core and vertical support beams 34:00 does not go into the actual floorplan, and glosses over the core, but doesn't talk about the spans, or lack of support from the core to the walls 34:50 announces that eywittnesses, video footage, and common sense proves that the towers came down by something else. 35:19 says the explosion was mainly to the outside, but show vid proving the explosion went in all directions (the other vids showed it coming out the other side) 35:30 uses galleleo's law but fails to account in acceleration through accumulation of weight 36:28 says will say EXPERTS, but gives only the few which disagree with official explination 36:38 Vam Romero quote. also he changes his mind. 37:36 Kevin Ryan of Underwiters Laboratories, is regarding melting, not weakening of steel, nor taking into account expansion due to heat 38:11 calls everyone that agrees with the official explination "so-called experts" asserting that only those that follow the loose change explination are genuine. If this is so, he is discrediting thousands of engineers and scientists 38:18 says Kevin Ryan was fired. find out why 38:47 introduces demolition explination right after, show multiple demolition footage, which includes the sounds that are unmistakable 39:11 explosions at lower levels.. explained by fire travelling down shafts 39:41 chief of police reports secondary device. follow up 40:25 guy explains fire explosion travelling down shaft. if possible find vid from inside WTC 41:00 secondar explosion was the building collapsing. it will make a lot of noise 42:00 infers that explosions are always created independantly. show how fires even in homes and office buildings can create explosions due to fuel and backdrafts 42:50 eyewitness saw flashes, may have been the glass blowing out from the collapsing floors above, the air being pushed out. reaffirm that everything regarding secondhand accounts in no way can be construed as pure fact 43:31 compare those booms heard with a demolition pop 44:11 the second boom he said sounded like it was right above him. it could have been louder, or it could have been the explosions travelling down the vents.. either way, a second boom heard does not support a demolition theory 44:50 claims that gas was not used in the kitchen, that they are class A kitchens. follow up on this 45:39 says the shafts were sealed to where an explosion could not travel down them. follow up on this 47:00 firefighter interviews 48:30 find the tape of the firefighters released to the NY times secondary explosion is a general term. as an example, from wiki: Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE): Explosion of a pressure tank containing an overheated material when the vapor expansion rate exceeds the pressure relief capacity (e.g., steam boiler or propane tank). If the contents are flammable, the rapidly released vapor may react in a secondary fuel-air explosion. in other words, any explosion that is caused by the fire is referred to a secondary explosion. a secondary explosion is not exclusive to a bomb going off and never should be assumed as such. 49:15..quote from 78th floor: 10-45 Serious fire related injury. CODE 1 - Victim deceased 49:38 CNN "chaos, pain of 9/11 revealed in recordings, documents" august 13, 2005 no bright flashes have been recorded of the WTC towers falling no audio at all of any popping find the transcripts 50:24 another showing of the American Free Press which claims that seismic data refutes official explination 50:40 seismic data - research 51:12 Mark Loizeaux President of Controlled Demolition - contact him. regarding AFP quote and also debris analysis after the debris were shipped off site, as well as the later demolition of tanks (55:20) 51:45 molten steel - research 51:58 asks "do you STILL think that jet fuel brought down the WTC" which implies that it was the fuel, not the secondary fires and explosions that rbought it down. The fuel sparked the fire, it is not what brought it down 52:00 minute "explosions" claimed. show demolition patterns. 53:55 talks about security evacuations and drills. find out the duration and also show how long it takes to rig up demolition wiring bomb sniffing dogs point again 54:39 Marvin Bush 55:00 concerning the debris being shipped off and nobody being allowed to look at it - research 55:40 the narrator's conclusion as a controlled demolition. 56:00 Flight 93 56:52 says flight 93 was nowhere near shanksville 57:00 interviews saying nothing was there. show valuejet images 58:16 Wally Miller, somerset county cornorer - contact regarding the vid, and what was found there 58:58 says flight 93 landed in cleveland says 11:43 WCPO states flight 93 landed shnews? staff, produced by Liz Foreman on 9/11/01 59:26 says the cleveland airport was evacuated 59:46 clearly shows it was flight 1989 and had the same flight pattern, however it was a Delta flight (show pic of actual plane) 1:00:11 what beacon? from where? where did this info come from? 1:00:25 says that a passenger said there were about 20, and that the manifest says there were 200 find out where exactly the passengers were taken 1:01:11 states flight 93 being there as FACT with only one source which is inaccurate. this is a case of taking information, and using bits and pieces to fit what you want it to fit 1:01:40 statement from OBL that he was not behind 9/11. find this statement 1:02:00 - Q&A What happened to original planes? - has no answer. uses lack of black boxes as a reasoning 1:03:43 says that the passport survived and that it's strange that the black boxes didn't. show if any other items survived the crashes 1:03:53 says all black boxes were not recovered 1:04:09 see if there are any other cases in which BBs were not recovered 1:04:20 "Behind the scenes: Ground Zero" claims black boxes were found 1:05:09 says there is a 3-mnute discrepency.. research 1:05:42 says the same tail number was seen in 2003 by David Freedman the image that shows it also says at the top that he doesn't want to be involved in any thwories, he just recorded the number. it's not shown what else he wrote at the top as it's conviently not shown 1:05:55 says two of the tail numbers are still valid - research this 1:08:00 says they're not even scheduled to fly on 9/11 1:07:00 phone call, asks why she's not scared or why nobody's screaming, assuming that there would be total chaos on board 1:07:50 says water and buildings... just because she didn't say manhattan doesn't mean they weren't there 1:08:30 sounds like someone who is being supervised by the call.. no assertions are made and assumed that none are implied to be anything so there's no reason to contradict this, except to point out that it's assumed it's not the hijacker next to him 1:08:48 if not released to the public, where did the highlighted transcripts come from that were shown? 1:09:10 physics 9/11 on cell phone usage at specific altitudes 1:09:48 find out about the installed cell phone cell and also using a cell phone at altitudes 1:10:03 states "the cell phone call were fake, no question about it" 1:10:14 expects us to believe that during the flight, within that hour, that all those voices were faked using technology at Los Alamos. find out the time frame and equipment needed. Remember, the family members got the call DURING that hour, not afterward 1:10:54 www.bbc.co.uk/f/world/middle_east/1559151.stm 1:11:00 research claims that most hijackers are alive, and the validity. and if valid, it may be possible the identities were stolen, as stated by the FBI they are unsure if the names are accurate. not everyone commits a crime using thier name, especially if they're on a possible watch list he's using the names, not the identities.. the people are there, it's unclear on thier names. so if I'm john smith and take Sam Johnson's name, and it's found out that I'm not Sam Johnson when I committ a crime-just because they don't know i'm really John smith doesn't mean I wasn't there 1:12:48 says that the man in the tape looks and acts nnothing like OBL claims that since the guy is right-handed that it must not be him claims that since he's wearing a ring that's forbidden by law that it's not him has a series of pictures and ASSURES the viewers that it looks nothing like him. does not mention other claims in other tapes by OBL about 9/11, plus financial traces back to him final points: Silverstien and insurance unclaimed put options convar and insider trading uses wiki as a solid date of reference 'Rumor has it' on goal amounts stored now pieces things together again to devise an explination. uses the rumor of gold to state that it was the gold recovered ah, the final word: "Bush can say and do whatever he wants" 1:18:48, Jimmy Walter uses the "siding with victims routine" rest is all opinion. gives permission to share this information, which means everything in this vid can be reproduced and used. | ||||
| |
|
09-19-2006, 03:47 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Member  libertarian New York City, New York
|  | ||||
| |
|
09-21-2006, 02:42 AM
| #30 | ||||
| Ron Paul '08 Libertarian Party Queens, NY
| This is a much better analysis than anything I've seen insofar  Originally Posted by Nonphixion
| ||||
| |
|
09-21-2006, 11:14 AM
| #31 | ||||
| Member libertarian New York City, New York
| I think it was held up more out of the gvt's fear of its incompetence being exposed than for any other reason. | ||||
| |
| vBulletin 3.7.2 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. | Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge |
