CIT Witness Account + Security Video Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory

reply to post by x555x


And what point is that?

reply to post by x555x


I see, asking question on ATS is not acceptable to you.
I know that style it called *hit and run* you need to stop!
I debate in here all the time and I do show where my sources come from. I have to if anyone is going to read my post.
So what are you implying?





[edit on 11/20/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 11/20/2008 by cashlink]

Originally posted by cashlink
People please! Why does everyone think an airplane even crash we have “no” proof! None, nothing! We were *told* a plane crashed at the pentagon by the media other than that it has never been proven.

Because we do have proof. Your 'technique' or method throughout all of these threads is simply to doubt and doubt and doubt wherever possible. No evidence could ever be conclusive enough to confirm a plane.

I've pointed this out before so I will point it out again. Nobody is interested in playing these dumb games with you where you deny all evidence presented. It's painfully obvious that you cannot be convinced by any theory, and so you must remain ambivalent. Oddly enough this is not how you behave though.

So, here's a direct question to you. You claim the government is lying, and that there was no plane crashed at The Pentagon, however you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Can you show me anything that meets your standard of proof to show that a plane did not impact the Pentagon? I suspect any evidence you can provide would easily be countered by stronger "official" evidence. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

edit: I posted this in the other thread which seems to have promptly died. This is the highest quality possible of the plane and smoke trail pre and post explosion that I have been able to extract. There has been virtually no modification to these images whatsoever, no smoothing or enhancement of any kind.

Video: 911db.org...
Images:


[edit on 20-11-2008 by exponent]

reply to post by exponent


From reading both of your arguments, your disagreement sounds semantical.

If you accept the information provided on Security Camera 2 as genuine, then you must accept that it is at least an aircraft due to the implied speed of the object and the lack of ground evidence of the passage of such a ground-based object.

There is nothing in the video evidence that allows you to conclude that the impact of the object caused the explosion or the resulting damage to the building.

Now I really may just start a thread discussing the oddities in Pentagon damage. You got me thinking about it again.

Originally posted by cogburn
From reading both of your arguments, your disagreement sounds semantical.

My disagreement with who specifically?

If you accept the information provided on Security Camera 2 as genuine, then you must accept that it is at least an aircraft due to the implied speed of the object and the lack of ground evidence of the passage of such a ground-based object.

I do, I should point out here that I am a supporter of the "official" theory, rather than any particular conspiracy theory. Theories such as LIHOP are not ruled out in my belief, but are also not substantiated by any strong evidence.

There is nothing in the video evidence that allows you to conclude that the impact of the object caused the explosion or the resulting damage to the building.

Occam's Razor allows us to make this conclusion. The video evidence supports a large jetliner approaching the Pentagon at high speed. This jetliner would undoubtedly contain a large quantity of fuel, and the impact would undoubtedly disperse it and provide an ignition source. The simplest and best supported explanation is that indeed the plane impacted the Pentagon and the caused this large explosion.

Now I really may just start a thread discussing the oddities in Pentagon damage. You got me thinking about it again.

Feel free, but make sure you read through some of the "debunking" sites first, there's a lot of information which is typically marginalised or ignored by many members of the truth movement.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by cogburn
From reading both of your arguments, your disagreement sounds semantical.

My disagreement with who specifically?

I was commenting on your conversation w/ cashlink.

Originally posted by exponent
Occam's Razor allows us to make this conclusion. The video evidence supports a large jetliner approaching the Pentagon at high speed. This jetliner would undoubtedly contain a large quantity of fuel, and the impact would undoubtedly disperse it and provide an ignition source. The simplest and best supported explanation is that indeed the plane impacted the Pentagon and the caused this large explosion.

Occam's Razor is one of my most relied upon logical devices. It is, IMHO, the best starting point for developing a hypothesis but it must be borne out by the reality of the situation to which you apply it. To restate it a bit differently, if you create a causal link between Event A and Event B with Occam's Razor, you must have facts supporting that causal link for the assertion to be validated as true.

My favorite example of this is the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003. Some of the most educated minds at NASA could not accept that a 2lb piece of foam insulation could have caused enough damage to the shuttle to cause a catastrophic failure. However when the exact force conditions of the launch were recreated in a full scale physical test, a 2lb piece of foam put a 2ft diameter hole in the leading wing of the shuttle. Occam's Razor failed in the face of a real-world test.

Originally posted by exponent
Feel free, but make sure you read through some of the "debunking" sites first, there's a lot of information which is typically marginalised or ignored by many members of the truth movement.

Putting forth all that effort to build a solid, cohesive theory for anything is only half the job. Once you have your new pet theory, before you submit it to peer review it is your intellectual responsibility to attempt to break it.

One calls something a theory because it has points at which new information could cause it to fail. It is the obligation of the one proposing the theory for review to not only fully investigate such failure points, but to also present those with the theory. It is only in this way that the process of peer review moves knowledge forward. Otherwise you are simply attempting to obscure the incompleteness of your own research.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
Occam's Razor is one of my most relied upon logical devices. It is, IMHO, the best starting point for developing a hypothesis but it must be borne out by the reality of the situation to which you apply it.

I agree. Occam's Razor can be misused with disasterous results.

Occam's Razor assumes that 'all things being equal' which is not always the case - particularly with an event where there could be possible sinister motives that go against the 'all things being equal' premise.

Particularly important is that Occam's Razor is less likely to apply when dealing with humans and their interactions. Humans do not follow logical patterns, they have emotional agendas that can sometimes confound Occam's Razor.

Your Space Shuttle example was a case that was devoid of human interaction and influence. However, the 9/11 event was deeply driven and influenced by human desires and experiences. It is false to consider 'all things being equal' when trying to unravel human experiences. Humans are not equal and they'll go to great lengths to cause and obfuscate their deceptions.

Not meaning to go off topic, but I think that Occam's Razor can be tossed aside with most of 9/11. The premise of 'all things being equal' simply does not apply.

I could not have said it better.

This is definitely worth discussing because it has direct implications to the behavior of the plane as dictated by the 9/11 commission report as it struck the Pentagon. Allow me to offer an example...

Pilots state repeatedly that no one could fly that kind of aircraft that low to the ground and not crash or at least "kick up some turf".

That of course, assumes two things that may or may not be in evidence:
#1 - The pilot intends to survive and
#2 - the pilot knows how to fly a 757.

What do I mean by #2?

The dimensions of the 757 are as such that the eye level of the pilot is 3.8m above the bottom of the aircraft. One of the hardest things to learn to do when learning to fly is properly estimate the bottom of the aircraft from your eye level. This is compounded by the fact that the pilot of a 757 CANNOT view the nose of the plane through the windscreen without pressing his face against the glass. This is extremely disorienting to the uninitiated.

If the pilots of Flight 77 were not well trained, it's conceivable that their true target was the 3rd or 4th floor and their mis-estimation of the bottom of the plane caused a crash into the 1st floor as well as their super-stunt flying.... it was totally unintentional.

It'd be interesting to review the comments of the flight instructors to see in what specific ways the 9/11 hijackers were bad pilots. If they constantly mis-estimated the bottom of the plane or proper approach angles it would support the assertion made above. It would also be interesting to see if you can determine if the ways in which they were bad pilots would be consistent with a conscious or obvious disregard for portions of training relating to proper safe flying.

It would also be informative to know exactly when it is surmised that the hijackers took over direct flight control of the aircraft. A noobie pilot would make noobie mistakes that might be apparent in the FDR while executing the simplest of maneuvers, much less the "death spiral" indicated by the radar tracks.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]



[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by exponent

Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder
First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions.

So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right?

This is what i get...

Summary.
"The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. " Full report here. NTSB report.
All reports from the NTSB for all 4 planes on Sept 11 are identical.

Ok, sounds reasonable. So lets check with the FBI reports.
www.fbi.gov...
Thats all i can find from the FBI.

So, lets go to the 9/11 Commission report.
"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 ....

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60...

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA064.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Arlington, VA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757-200, registration: N644AA
Injuries: 64 Fatal.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

www.ntsb.gov...

Now for the FBI report on flight 77 here it is.

www.fbi.gov...

American 77 maneuver according to flight data recorder.
(Please note: the FDR data seems to offset by 21-22 minutes in terms of longitude. Latitude seems to be accurate. Inquiry is ongoing.)

pilotsfor911truth.bravehost.com...

Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 150 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional

[edit on 11/20/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by exponent

Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 150 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.

patriotsquestion911.com...

American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data
Pilots for 911 thruth.org

video.google.com...

ASCE Pentagon builing Damage Report Analysis.
The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report
Arrogant Deception
- Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?

www.kolumbus.fi...
With all the Government distortions and lies and cover up Why would anyone Believe in what they say. The Government story is one big fat “lie”!
I think I have proved we have been lied to.
I have given you findings that proves the Government report are full of lies!
Now do you want to refute these finding that I just gave you?

I've pointed this out before so I will point it out again. Nobody is interested in playing these dumb games with you where you deny all evidence presented. It's painfully obvious that you cannot be convinced by any theory, and so you must remain ambivalent. Oddly enough this is not how you behave though.

So, here's a direct question to you. You claim the government is lying, and that there was no plane crashed at The Pentagon, however you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Can you show me anything that meets your standard of proof to show that a plane did not impact the Pentagon? I suspect any evidence you can provide would easily be countered by stronger "official" evidence. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

edit: I posted this in the other thread which seems to have promptly died. This is the highest quality possible of the plane and smoke trail pre and post explosion that I have been able to extract. There has been virtually no modification to these images whatsoever, no smoothing or enhancement of any kind.

I've pointed this out before so I will point it out again. Nobody is interested in playing these dumb games with you

I do not play games so you need to stop with your insults!

you deny all evidence presented.

Please! If I did that, then I would not waste my time in this thread, or any other 911 threads. I do deny, (false evidences) and unfounded science, and I do deny lies, and I deny “ignorants”.

It's painfully obvious that you cannot be convinced by any theory,

Painfully to whom? Your right! I cannot be convinced by any theories I am in here to find “facts”

So, here's a direct question to you. You claim the government is lying

Yes I am saying the Government is lying and any one that has done an hour of any research on 911 will come to the same conclusion, Please!

that there was no plane crashed at The Pentagon

I can say it has not been proven and I can debate you on that!
Do not waste your time showing me some pictures the FBI put all over the internet that proves absolutely nothing. Show me real documents that proves these airplanes where in services that day? Show me a work history on each airplane that was involved in the crashes on 911? Show me the time change out parts reports on each airplane from the begging of being in services to the last days of being in services? Show me one piece of airplane crash debris that matches serial numbers that belong to said airplanes? If you can provide some proof to my questions then maybe you can convince a plane crashed at the Pentagon.

however you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever

You are so right! However, I have a mountain of evidences that proves the Government has lied to us about everything they have told us and presented to us. If you want to get in to that, we will be posting for weeks with all the lies I can show you.

Can you show me anything that meets your standard of proof to show that a plane did not impact the Pentagon?

Yes, I have answered your question above in this post. We can go back and forth on this, however the Government has failed to prove a plane crash in to the Pentagon by stonewalling every investigation that has “ever” been done and has blocked all information concerning all four airplanes by using all available agencies at their disposal. The Government put gage order on United airlines and American airlines and FAA employees. This is just for starts!

I suspect any evidence you can provide would easily be countered by stronger "official" evidence. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Care to debate what I have shown you so far?


Mod edit: Fixed bold text.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by Hal9000]

I was thinking about making a post about how PilotsFor911Truth can be just as slanted, sloppy and pseudo-scientific as anyone else.

Being a pilot doesn't make you a reliable source for all things... it makes you a pilot.

Dissecting all that information would drag this thread further off topic than it should probably go.

reply to post by cogburn

I was thinking about making a post about how PilotsFor911Truth can be just as slanted, sloppy and pseudo-scientific as anyone else.

Wow! do you have proof to back that up?

Being a pilot doesn't make you a reliable source for all things... it makes you a pilot

.

Yes and being a “bloger” dosent make you a reliable source for all things…. It makes you a *BLOGER*.

Dissecting all that information would drag this thread further off topic than it should probably go.

No it wouldn’t drag this thread off topic only “you” can make that happen if you wanted to.

I have given a boat load of *facts* about flight 77 and this is all you have to say!
If you are in here to discover the truth, and to discuss the truth. Let’s talk about the truth. I have put up some damming evidences that the Government reports are lies, do you want to discuss these findings?

I cannot believe this is your response to these finding

slanted, sloppy and pseudo-scientific as anyone else

Please show where the sloppy pseudo –science is in my finding?

We are looking for facts people! I have presented some solid “facts” does anyone want to talk about these finding.






[edit on 11/21/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 11/21/2008 by cashlink]

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Clearly the P4T link in the OP of that post is attempting to say that the cover-up was the fact MSNBC removed the article and that it contained proof of contradictory statements as to where the black box was found.

The OP posted a link to the article on the Newsweek website and even attempted to show why it was no longer on the MSNBC site.

Well... read the post for yourself and make your own judgment as to the intellectual honesty of the P4T'er that responded.

If that were me I'd have said "Wow! You're right! Thank you so much! We'll make that correction!"

Why CT'ers can't accept new information and change little, tiny facts just to be all the more accurate is the thing that prevents anyone in any authority from taking them seriously.

That one post makes me wonder if P4T doesn't have a version of truth they are trying to sell.

EDIT: I'd instantly be suspicious of anyone trying to sell you truth to "continue their work".

[edit on 21-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn

Just wanted to let you know...

This page...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Is slightly in error.

It claims that the MSNBC article is no longer available, however that is not true.

The "Wasghinton's Heroes" may be found at the URL below.

www.newsweek.com...

My guess for the reason why it was removed is that since Newsweek printed the article originally in their special edition "The Spirit of America", MSNBC only had a limited license to reprint the article online. This guess is supported by the fact that the article is posted as a "Newsweek Web Exclusive".

The article appears on the Newsweek website in exact text as it was on the MSNBC site at the time.

Hope this helps.

Is this the article you are talking about? Lol This does not discredit Pilots for 911 Truth.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

However the first link takes you to this story, and I do have to thank you for your help.

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's

Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II
11/30/07 - Many may recall an article we published regarding location of American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (AA 77 FDR) in which we expose the govt story of the flight data recorder being found at the entrance hole and exit hole. Since the article has been published, the MSNBC article we sourced (www.msnbc.msn.com...) no longer exists and now redirects to an irrelevant Newsweek page (www.newsweek.com...). Why would MSNBC want to remove a page which explains the recovery of AA 77 FDR? Is it because we exposed the conflicting reports of location? It gets deeper.
Popular Mechanics sources a quote from Allyn E. Kilsheimer who states;


QUOTE
"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

www.popularmechanics.com...
(bottom of page)




The first statement which may stand out to many is how can any human hold a whole 757 tail section in their hands? Where are the photographs of this tail section? But that is not the most puzzling excerpt from his statement. The most interesting piece from his statement lies in the fact Allyn says he found the black box.

The original MSNBC excerpt we sourced in our article states;


QUOTE
Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. “We wanted to find live victims,” says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. “Finding the black box gave us a little boost,” he says.

—Debra Rosenberg


As shown, the original article at MSNBC which contained this report has been redirected to an irrelevant Newsweek page (msnbc.msn.com...). However, the archives can be found here (scroll to bottom 20% of page, just above portion titled: ‘WE DO WHAT WE DO BECAUSE THAT’S OUR JOB’).

Allyn E. Kilsheimer put together a very emotional story regarding his time spent inside the pentagon on the days surrounding September 11, 2001. Popular Mechanics found the story so compelling as to use it in their "Debunking" piece. Although, it appears Popular Mechanics didn't take the time to research this story thoroughly. A human who can hold a whole 757 tail section in his hands who also found the "3rd Black box". Could this be the black box found at the exit hole? Last we checked, the 757 only holds two black boxes. Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight?. Is this the reason the original MSNBC article reporting individuals other than Allyn as finding the Black Boxes is now missing? We find it puzzling that the MSNBC article was availble for years after Sept 11, only to have disappeared after we published our "Location" article.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth received data and information from the National Transportation Safety Board claimed to be from American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder through Freedom Of Information Act requests. Analysis of the Flight Data Recorder does not support the govt story of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the pentagon. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment (Pilots For 9/11 Truth Press Release).

I find it unbelievable that you are not willing to discuss my finding; however, I noticed you have taken such delight in trying to discredit me, and Pilots for 911 Truth. The proof is in your posting to me.

These people are pilots and who better to get some honest answers. These men “know “ FAA protocols, and “know” all about airplanes, and how to flying them. These Pilots also know all about NORAD protocols. Some of these guys are also fighter pilots for the USA AirForce, and some of them are commercial airline pilots and fly the Boeing 767 and 757 planes these men know the inside out of these aircraft. Some of these pilots have been flying for over 30 years.





[edit on 11/21/2008 by cashlink]

I didn't say it discredited them... I said it makes them misleading, inaccurate and, with that response from the P4T'er, intellectually dishonest. If you find one misleading or inaccurate statement, one must ask how many more are there?

Do you take everything that P4T tells you as truth?

EDIT: Let me put it another way... Do you think piloting a plane makes you an expert at terrorism, accident analysis, accident reconstruction, or architectural engineering?

They are trying to sell videos. They don't want to hear that one small easily correctable error in their information is misleading.

I'm sorry you disagree.

EDIT: As to your question, the only way to prove the Government wrong is to prove their facts incorrect or inconsistent or miscalculated. The only other thing you can do is provide an opposing theory that is equally likely to be born out by the facts.

Let's do it this way. What government distortions are you talking about?


[edit on 21-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cashlink
With all the Government distortions and lies and cover up Why would anyone Believe in what they say. The Government story is one big fat “lie”!
I think I have proved we have been lied to.
I have given you findings that proves the Government report are full of lies!
Now do you want to refute these finding that I just gave you?

You have posted lots of opinion. I don't care about people's opinion, I care about actual facts. For example when you deny the impact of Flight 77 you are ignoring 100+ eyewitnesses who saw it impact, you are denying the experiences of well over 100+ people who worked to recover DNA and wreckage. "He probably couldn't fly like that" is not acceptable evidence to refute this. Obviously your standards of evidence here are massively biased, when you require forensic levels of evidence simply to prove a plane impacted, but rely soley on opinion to try and show that it didn't.

I do not play games so you need to stop with your insults!

You are playing a game right now and it is clearly evident from your posts.

Please! If I did that, then I would not waste my time in this thread, or any other 911 threads. I do deny, (false evidences) and unfounded science, and I do deny lies, and I deny “ignorants”.

So would you claim that the people on the ground on 911 were

• Lying
  
• Ignorant

?

Painfully to whom? Your right! I cannot be convinced by any theories I am in here to find “facts”

Painful to all of us, you seem to have forgotten that there are plenty of very well informed people on this website who can see through your flimsy allegations and insults. We are actually aware of the facts of the matter, of the difficulty of Hani Hanjour's manoeuvres. You don't even seem to be aware that his flight instructor agreed he was capable of pulling off this type of attack.

Yes I am saying the Government is lying and any one that has done an hour of any research on 911 will come to the same conclusion, Please!

I have done several months of research into 911. I have not come to this conclusion, therefore you must be wrong in this statement. Do you care to admit this or will you claim that I am lying?

Do not waste your time showing me some pictures the FBI put all over the internet that proves absolutely nothing. Show me real documents that proves these airplanes where in services that day? Show me a work history on each airplane that was involved in the crashes on 911? Show me the time change out parts reports on each airplane from the begging of being in services to the last days of being in services? Show me one piece of airplane crash debris that matches serial numbers that belong to said airplanes? If you can provide some proof to my questions then maybe you can convince a plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Can you provide anything even remotely this reliable to show that it didn't crash? Can you show me eyewitnesses who were near the impact zone and saw only explosions? Can you show me parts found on the ground from other aircraft etc etc? No you can't.

The Government put gage order on United airlines and American airlines and FAA employees. This is just for starts!

Please present a copy of the gag order.

If you really honestly truly think that the opinion you posted counts as "evidence", then you have astounded me once again.

Originally posted by cogburn
It would also be informative to know exactly when it is surmised that the hijackers took over direct flight control of the aircraft. A noobie pilot would make noobie mistakes that might be apparent in the FDR while executing the simplest of maneuvers, much less the "death spiral" indicated by the radar tracks.

No doubt controversial but the FDR indicates the 180 degree turn back to east from the initial bearing of approx due west was done via autopilot in a very smooth fashion maintaining 35000' altitude with a constant bank of 15 degrees so it can be assumed that the actual takeover of the cockpit was complete just before that time (hijacker(s) sitting in the captain/first officers seat). Having the CVR would be nice to narrow down the exact timing and what went on in the cockpit.

08:25:50 autopilot (FO) engaged shortly after takeoff while climbing
08:54:22 180 degree turn on autopilot commenced
09:07:50 autopilot (FO) disengaged - descent from 24877' to 22959' on manual control
09:10:05 autopilot (CPT) engaged - descent to 7027' on AP
09:28:47 autopilot (CPT) disengaged
09:34:03 commenced final spiral descending turn (manual control)
09:37:4? impact

That final turn shows highly erratic control inputs which may be the 'newbie' characteristics you're looking for with the bank angle all over the place between 15 and 45 degrees, 'porpoising' evident in the pitch variations etc - very 'unsmooth' or unprofessional flying demonstration.

Another sign is in the resetting of the 2 altimeters for local barometric pressure as the plane descended through 18000'. No 2 was adjusted from 29.91 to 30.23 in 4 seconds while No 1 was apparently fumbled taking nearly 30 seconds to set the correct figure.

Let's try to remain on topic instead of bickering about each others opinions.

CIT Witness Account + Security Video Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory

It would be proper to discuss the events at the Pentagon, but beyond that would be considered off topic.

Thank you.

Ok I will throw my hat back in the ring because the author of this proven ridiculous thread has all but conceded that the entire premise is false over at this thread.

The reason I made a different thread regarding essentially the same premise is because this one was framed in a completely illogical manner.

It's impossible due to perspective (and the fact that you can not see a plane) in the grainy invalid government provided security video to determine ANYTHING about the exact trajectory or flight path and no self respecting official story skeptic would accept it as valid evidence anyway.

The fact here is that NoC is irreconcilable with the physical damage.

Now THAT my friends is a discussion regarding hard evidence and when faced with that "cogburn" failed to state his case (because he doesn't have one) and in keeping with his clear M.O. to try and spin & confuse, he failed to demonstrate a shred of integrity by conceding.

In the title of this thread he states:

"Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory"

If that's the case the burden is on him to demonstrate how ANY plane ANYWHERE on the north side of the gas station can cause the observed physical damage.

cogburn deliberately removed the discussion from the physical evidence because he knows he does not have a leg to stand on.

Let's see if he has enough integrity to admit that he was wrong since we know that all pilots, engineers, scientists, and the most hard core studied CIT skeptics unanimously agree.......it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane on the north side of the gas station to have caused the physical damage proving it could not and did not hit the building.




[edit on 21-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]