9/11 OS Challenge.., page 7

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 09:42 PM

link

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by GoodOlDave

As usual, you spin facts, events and statements into your personal interpretation of them:

...deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.

This is called LYING or PERJURY, not "slipping on banana peels."

I'm going by YOUR OWN POST that they were concealing their incompetence, so it's actually lying AS WELL AS slipping on banana peels, but the fact still remains that it doesn't invalidate the testimony from the other witnesses. How does the Pentagon's embellishment refute Mohammed Atta's girlfriend testifying that he had pilot's licenses from every country he visited, and that he was such a sociopath that he dismembered her kittens after an argument? How does that invalidate a deputy fire chief's testimony that the fires in WTC 7 were out of control, and that there was a three story bulge in the side of the building? How does that invalidate the FBI being so hog tied by legalities and political correctness that it couldn't even share information between its own departments?

The fact remains that after we gave the evidence to our NATO allies showing Bin Laden was behind the attack, they compared it to what their own intelligence services were reporting and they found it credible enough to invoke articke 5 for the first time in history. Please, explain to me how the Pentagon concealing their bumbling changes any of this.

I am sure you are aware that the company responsible for security at the airport where Mohammed Atta boarded the plane was run by Israelis. I am sure you are also aware that Mohammed Atta's father states that his son was set up, and that the man seen in the airport video is not his son. What evidence is there that it really was Mohammed Atta, and not someone falsely calling himself Mohammed Atta, who boarded the plane?

wcitizen

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:30 AM

link

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Just a refresher for the truthers

Originally posted by Six Sigma
1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

I am sure you are aware that there was quite a bit of confusion about the identities of the highjackers - for example, some of them reported to the FBI that they were alive and had not been involved in 9/11 AFTER they had been named as the highjackers who perpetrated the attacks and been killed in doing so.

So, what evidence is there that:

a) The men who allegedly purchased tickets under their own name were the really those people and not substitutes using those names?

b) The four alleged highjackers who 'boarded the plane' were the really the people whose names are given in the OS.

Was identity of the alleged highjackers established through DNA analysis with an unbroken evidence chain?

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the plane's seatback Airfones.

Yet again, you are simply reiterating the OS and stating it as fact. What you somehow forget to address is the fact that in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet.

While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.

From 'Project Achilles'
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible." — 'Project Achilles' - Final (Third) Report and Summary of Findings

So,the cell phone calls are a central piece of the OS 'evidence', and one of the main pillars on which the OS rests, however, the stories of cell phone calls from Flight 93, cannot be substantiated and are deemed, by experts, to be impossible, so they are clearly a hoax.

Not only that, but hey, the OS script writers had an uncomfortable suprise a few years later,

Dan Reed, USA Today, 2004-07-19: In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test

The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.

Ted Twietmeyer, 2004-08-23: 911 Cell Phone Calls From Planes? Not Likely

2005-04-05: Inflight Mobile Phone Use — A Step Closer to Reality
OnAir has partnered with the Airbus facility at Buxtehude to develop and seek certification for an airborne system for the commercial use of mobile phones on board aircraft.
"This airborne system is fundamental to OnAir's business objective of making mobile phone use a reality on short and long haul flights for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft," said OnAir CEO, George Cooper, speaking at the opening of Aircraft Interiors Expo 2005 in Hamburg today.

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

What incontrovertible evidence is there that the black boxes allegedly found have been totally 100% confirmed as being those from the 9//11 flights?

Why the incredibly long delay in releasing the black box serial numbers?

What incrontrovertible proof is there that the tapes/transcripts actually were from the black boxes which were allegedly found?

Why was there the prolonged delay in releasing the information on the tapes?

And what about the explosion which the man locked in the bathroom is reported to have heard?

From UK Guardian: "At 9:58am, an emergency dispatcher had answered a telephone call from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom on United Airlines flight 93 ... The plane was 'going down,' he said. He had heard some sort of explosion and said there was white smoke coming from the aircraft."

This explosion obviously occurred before the plane plowed into the field. What caused it?.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

FDR Report Flight 93

ATC Report Flight 93

Flight Path Study Flight 93

This in no way excludes the possibility that the flight was shot down.
Has it been proven beyond any possible doubt that the aircraft which crashed was, in fact, the Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 (registered as flight 93)?

DNA to prove the 'highjackers' were indeed who they were said to be?e]

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

And there are equally many people who report hearing an explosion/explosions before the plane crashed, and reports of people seeing a second plane.

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

Unbroken custody of evidence? Incontrovertible proof that the alleged recordings did in fact come from the black boxes of flight 93? Incontrovertible proof that the aircraft was indeed flight 93?

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

source

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.
[/quote[

By process of elimination?
You say: Quote: The remains of every victim was positively identified Unquote.
What about positive identification of the hijackers?? DNA?.
And what would be the odds of finding SIX items, still identifiable as belonging to the 4 alleged hijackers from the plane, given the immense impact and the huge fireball?

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

Now, let me get this right, the same people who claim that there were 13 calls from cell phones on this flight, and which has been established as impossible, and who made mistakes in the identity of some of the hijackers, also examined the aircraft and found no explosives. Yeah, right!

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

wcitizen

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Maybe if you knew more about why JFK was assassinated (his opposition to the Vietnam war, secret societies and his threat to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces"), you'd better understand 9/11.

and that's why they'd mindlessly swallow the just plain bad information they're churning out.
.

As opposed to mindlessly swallowing the statements of a known liar, an ex-President who lied under oath, no less - and who stated 9/11 was not an inside job. (as per your signature)

Well, must be true then coming from him.

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

CynicalM

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link

This thread was not meant to be a thread where "OSers & Truther" tried to explain their theories..

It was meant to encourage "OSer's" to start their own threads, showing proof of the OS...

I know the Mods have it tough trying to keep threads on topic, but off topic is what this thread has become...

I have yet to see a true OS agreeing thread so I guess the challenge has NOT been accepted...

As the author of this thread, I will not answer another question unless it is on topic..
ie: relating to someone starting a thread in defence of the OS...

waypastvne

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link

reply to post by wcitizen

Did you read my post, or is this selective memory loss?

Did you read my post, or is this selective Truther facts only?

The debris which was found at 6 miles and 8 miles from the crash site

Indian Lake where most of the debris was found is 1.6 miles from the crash site, Not 6 miles. This is a fact you can not dispute it. The marina is 2.3 miles and New Baltimore is 8 miles. Go to google earth and check it for your self. I posted a photo, Did you look at it? The debris fields are strait down wind. This is not a coincidence. Here it is again,

The debris which was found at 6 miles and 8 miles from the crash site included much more than paper. It included: bone, plastic, parts of the airplane, human remains, burning cushions. I mean, have you actually read what I wrote, or are you simply pulling any old excuse out of thin air without a moment of serious thought?

There were no human remains found at the lake. The bone found there was not human. There was nothing found at the crash site that could not be carried there by the wind. the only aircraft parts found at the lake were carbon fiber / honeycomb. Below is a drawing showing the parts of the plane made from carbon fiber. Notice the tail is made of carbon fiber.

Carbon fiber shatters on impact.

Photo of carbon fiber with honeycomb laminate.

Descriptions of the carbon fiber and honeycomb appear in numerous witness statements.

"Investigators crawled through the debris field, bagging bolts and bone fragments. They found chunks of seat cushion foam and honeycombed sound insulators. Then a shoelace, some shirt buttons, and a wedding ring."
The resin in carbon fiber is flammable and will burn away leaving the carbon cloth.
Below is a perfect description carbon fiber cloth; she just has the burnt and unburnt reversed.

'And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.'

All evidence found at the debris fields indicate 93 crashed intact and the debris was carried down wind.

This is so very typical of debunkers. The intention is not to look at the facts and have a reasonable discussion, it is simply to twist information to avoid the real evidence.

This is so very typical of truthers. The intention is not to look at the facts period.

Now, perhaps you would like to explain

a) How that kind of debris could have been carried 6 or 8 miles on a 9 knot light breeze?

Wind is stronger at altitude than ground level. A 9 knot wind at ground level is normal 12 knots at 1000 ft.That's 15 MPH. .

b) How debris could have been falling on the lake just minutes after the explosion?

At15 MPH. it would take 6 minutes to travel from the crash site to the lake. Tumbling paper is flying during the flat part of its tumble. If it is tumbling with the wind it travels faster than the wind, If it is tumbling against the wind it travels slower. Look at the folded paper @ 1:50 in the video it is fully flying. As long as it is pointed down wind its airspeed is added to its ground speed.

I have looked very closely at all the evidence from flight 93 i can find nothing out of place.

edit on 26-9-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

wcitizen

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by wcitizen

Did you read my post, or is this selective memory loss?

Did you read my post, or is this selective Truther facts only?

The debris which was found at 6 miles and 8 miles from the crash site

Indian Lake where most of the debris was found is 1.6 miles from the crash site, Not 6 miles. This is a fact you can not dispute it. The marina is 2.3 miles and New Baltimore is 8 miles. Go to google earth and check it for your self. I posted a photo, Did you look at it? The debris fields are strait down wind. This is not a coincidence. Here it is again,

The debris which was found at 6 miles and 8 miles from the crash site included much more than paper. It included: bone, plastic, parts of the airplane, human remains, burning cushions. I mean, have you actually read what I wrote, or are you simply pulling any old excuse out of thin air without a moment of serious thought?

There were no human remains found at the lake. The bone found there was not human. There was nothing found at the crash site that could not be carried there by the wind. the only aircraft parts found at the lake were carbon fiber / honeycomb. Below is a drawing showing the parts of the plane made from carbon fiber. Notice the tail is made of carbon fiber.

Carbon fiber shatters on impact.

Photo of carbon fiber with honeycomb laminate.

Descriptions of the carbon fiber and honeycomb appear in numerous witness statements.

"Investigators crawled through the debris field, bagging bolts and bone fragments. They found chunks of seat cushion foam and honeycombed sound insulators. Then a shoelace, some shirt buttons, and a wedding ring."
The resin in carbon fiber is flammable and will burn away leaving the carbon cloth.
Below is a perfect description carbon fiber cloth; she just has the burnt and unburnt reversed.

'And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.'

All evidence found at the debris fields indicate 93 crashed intact and the debris was carried down wind.

This is so very typical of debunkers. The intention is not to look at the facts and have a reasonable discussion, it is simply to twist information to avoid the real evidence.

This is so very typical of truthers. The intention is not to look at the facts period.

Now, perhaps you would like to explain

a) How that kind of debris could have been carried 6 or 8 miles on a 9 knot light breeze?

Wind is stronger at altitude than ground level. A 9 knot wind at ground level is normal 12 knots at 1000 ft.That's 15 MPH. .

b) How debris could have been falling on the lake just minutes after the explosion?

At15 MPH. it would take 6 minutes to travel from the crash site to the lake. Tumbling paper is flying during the flat part of its tumble. If it is tumbling with the wind it travels faster than the wind, If it is tumbling against the wind it travels slower. Look at the folded paper @ 1:50 in the video it is fully flying. As long as it is pointed down wind its airspeed is added to its ground speed.

I have looked very closely at all the evidence from flight 93 i can find nothing out of place.

edit on 26-9-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Yres, this coming from the person who sought to prove his point by proving that 'paper' could travel that far, therefore concluding that the debris could, ignoring the testimony of eye witness about what debris they saw, and about the timing of the falling debris as stated by them.

And where's the trail of debris between the different areas?

Regarding the pieces of debris which you do show in the photos - is there absolute, irrefutable confirmation that there was an unbroken custody of evidence? Because, you know, some people can be a bit carless and lose things.

I guess it's a question of whether the government story emerged from a careful and irrefutable analysis of all the data, or whether the data was selected on the basis of the pre-scripted story.

Now, bear in mind that this government also had another pre-scripted story - about weapons of WMD in Iraq and that it is a fact that they manipulated the evidence to suit their script. ie. they lied. On the basis of this lie, hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed. Murdered, actually. So, do I think they were capable of lying or manipulating the evidence? Yes. Do I think the eyewitnesses were more likely to be the ones who manipulated their story and lied? No.

Did those witnesses who heard explosions prior to the crash lie? I don't believe they did. There was absolutely no reason for them to do so.

You see, a true, minutely details explanation of 9/11 will cover all anomalies, not just brush them aside as irrelevant because they don't fit the story, as debunkers do.

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Six Sigma

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link

waypastvne Has done an exceptional job responding to your post. I couldn't have done it better myself.

Here is another map of the debris field. Once again note the wind directing for that time.

What you are doing is typical truther behavior. You have ZERO and I mean ZERO evidence that any of the evidence was tampered with. You stomp your feet wanting "absolute, irrefutable confirmation"..... You have your Conspiracy Blinders on and are unable to determine what is factual and what is fantasy. You talk about some witnesses that claim an explosion was prior to impact? That is quite possible as witnesses (as you know) are not always the most reliable. Taking witness statements along with physical evidence is the appropriate way to do an investigation.

How many witnesses saw a fire on the plane as it crashed? How many saw smoke? If you bothered to read the FDR data, you would have seen that the plane was operating :

Cabin pressure - NORMAL. Hydraulics - NORMAL. Cargo fire - NORMAL. Smoke - NORMAL. Engines - RUNNING. Engine RPM (N1) 70% . Fuel pressure - NORMAL. Engine vibration - LO. Wind direction - WEST. Wind speed - 25 kts. Pitch angle - 40 deg down. Airspeed - 500 kts. Heading - 180 deg. Roll angle - 150 deg right. AoA - 20 deg negative

Or the NTSB Flight Path Study:

From 10:00 to 10:02 there were four distinct control column inputs that caused the airplane to pitch nose-up (climb) and nose-down (dive) aggressively. During this time the airplane climbed to about 10,000 feet while turning to the right. The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots (563 mph) in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The time of impact was 10:03:11.

There is no evidence to support the plane being shot down.

edit on 26-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

exponent

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link

Originally posted by CynicalM
I have yet to see a true OS agreeing thread so I guess the challenge has NOT been accepted...

On the contrary, I accepted your challenge in the third post

waypastvne

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link

Truthers: You can get mad at me if you want, but remember, you asked me to look at the evidence. You ask everybody to look at the evidence. Well, I did, and this is what I found.

You told me that "The lights flickered " and that this was evidence of Flt 93 being shot down, so I looked at that.

I found that not only did the lights flicker, some people lost power completely. This does not sound like some mysterious "Radar Zap" to me, so I looked at the power lines near the crash site.

In the picture below, I have the power poles marked with a red dot. Notice how they stretch across the the area of burnt out trees that were hit so hard the tops were knocked off. I can see an OBVIOUS reason that the lights might flicker here,

Also in the photo is an arrow pointing to the piece of debris that is circled in the next photo.

Notice that this piece of debris is directly under the the power lines marked with red arrows.

Notice that it is black with jagged edges just like carbon fiber (carbon fiber is conductive)

Notice that it is curved just like the shroud of the engine.

Notice that it is half way between the crash site and the pond, and in line with the pond where the port engine fan was found.

Another thing I noticed was the power trucks captured in the video footage.

Was the Somerset County power department in on it too? Are their trucks equipped with "Radar Zappers"?

Remember: You asked me to look at your evidence.

edit on 26-9-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

weedwhacker

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link

reply to post by Six Sigma

waypastvne Has done an exceptional job responding to your post.

Yes, he has. Although, being HUMAN, has made minor mistakes. Lest they be made an example of, in future, I noticed only(and not commenting on the gist, just the details):

One post used a reference of a "Boeing 757-300". While a minor point, it COULD become fodder for some "denier" in future. It is a really minor mistake, IMO.

Secondly, later in another post, the United Airlines flight number was written incorrectly as "94". AGAIN, this bears NBO, and I repeat NO reflection in the negative sense on teh data that waypastvne brings to this Board.

On the contrary, the inclusion of the data (once the minor typos/human mistakes are ignored) is significant!!!!

Kudos!!

I merely bring the (minor) mistakes up for attention, BECAUSE they are so minor. Lest, as I said at the beginning, they be used for a distraction ond diversion in FUTURE.....

waypastvne

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link

reply to post by weedwhacker

You are correct, I did make those mistakes Flt 94 was a typo, and I grabed the wrong drawing from the boeing web site, I will find the right one and post it.

edit-
That drawing seems to cover both the 200 and 300 series it is the only composit location drawing in the 757 fire and rescue information.
(last page)

www.boeing.com...

edit on 26-9-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

weedwhacker

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link

reply to post by waypastvne

Yes, you are correct.

For all intents and purposes, the ONLY differences between the -200 and -300 series, when discussing the Boeing 757 family, is that the -300 has a longer fuselage (because of inserts, in the fuselage construction stage at the factory....much in the same way the B-737 was "stretched")....and some changes in the Main Landing Gear structure, to accomodate the increased Gross Weights, as a result of the inceased ability for payload capacity, DUE to the "stretch".

The FUEL capacities remain mostly unchanged, between the various versions.

Although, IF DESIRED by the customer, additional fuel tanks may be installed....with the proviso that some CARGO (baggage) space, under the normal cabin area that most people are familiar with, will be sacrificed. To make room for that "AUX" tank space.

But, as usual....those who wish to "believe" so vehemently in nonsense scenarios, and make-believe, will not be swayed by facgts and reality. Shame....

vipertech0596

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link

reply to post by wcitizen

The sworn statements of the airline personnel who dealt with him that day. Not to mention, his dad now takes pride in his son's actions.

wcitizen

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link

Originally posted by Six Sigma

waypastvne Has done an exceptional job responding to your post. I couldn't have done it better myself.

Here is another map of the debris field. Once again note the wind directing for that time.

How many witnesses saw a fire on the plane as it crashed? How many saw smoke? If you bothered to read the FDR data, you would have seen that the plane was operating :

Cabin pressure - NORMAL. Hydraulics - NORMAL. Cargo fire - NORMAL. Smoke - NORMAL. Engines - RUNNING. Engine RPM (N1) 70% . Fuel pressure - NORMAL. Engine vibration - LO. Wind direction - WEST. Wind speed - 25 kts. Pitch angle - 40 deg down. Airspeed - 500 kts. Heading - 180 deg. Roll angle - 150 deg right. AoA - 20 deg negative

Or the NTSB Flight Path Study:

From 10:00 to 10:02 there were four distinct control column inputs that caused the airplane to pitch nose-up (climb) and nose-down (dive) aggressively. During this time the airplane climbed to about 10,000 feet while turning to the right. The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots (563 mph) in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The time of impact was 10:03:11.

There is no evidence to support the plane being shot down.

edit on 26-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

Nor is there any evidence to prove the evidence wasn't tampered with, by the same government and its agencies who lied about WMD.

With the exception of a partial transcript of Flight 93's CVR, the contents of the black boxes remained unknown to the public until August of 2006, when the long-hidden NTSB Reports including flight path and other studies of the commandeered flights were obtained on the basis of a Freedom of Information request.

Why the 5 year delay in making this information available?

Now, if you had bothered to read the concerns of the pilots seeking the truth of 9/11, you would be aware of the inconsistancies they have raised:

Professional pilots who are seeking to establish the truth about 9/11, assert that the flight data is not consistent with the OS.

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.

2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.

3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.

4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.

5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

video.google.com...#

You stomp your feet wanting "absolute, irrefutable confirmation".....

Yes,lol, I have been doing that on purpose, because that is what the debunkers do CONSTANTLY to truthers. They constantloy stamp their fists on the table like spoilt children and demand proof, proof, proof, proof.

But in fact, where it is indeed possible for fed authorities to establish irrefutable proof, nothing less is acceptable in a valid investigation. This has not been the case.

The personal attacks are such a common tactic used by OS supporters, and frankly, though tedious, are of no consequence to me. I confess to have indulged in this myself a little on this thread, kind of trying to get into the 'role' of typical OBS trusters abusive mindset. But, you know what, I find it pollutes my mind. Don't like it.

If you think that this continual puerile hurling of insults will stop me or any other genuine truthers, you are living in cloud cuckoo land, along with those who concocted the OBS and thought they would get away with it.

One day the real truth will be fully exposed.

Until then, those who defend the OBS and those who are paid to disrupt online discussions between truthers will continue to try to squash, discredit and distort. They will continue to assert, illogically, that the OBS and MSM statements prove that the OBS is true, and that the truth seekers are dishonest, incompetent and deranged.

But the fact is that there are way too many inconsistencies, anomalies, confused and contradictory statements, real questions based on solid evidence, 'unexpected deaths of significant witnesses, and too many glaring attempts to sidestep, withhold and distort information for this to every be considered a proper - and particularly objective, impartial and unbiased or even complete investigation, and especially not a truthful one.

There is precedent for believing the most heinous lies have been told - as clearly illustrated by the falsified documents they presented to congress to hide the lie about Iraq's WMD. They not only lied, they acted upon those lies and as a result committed mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people, including US servicemen.

These same 'leaders' - aka the POTUS and his side-kick would not even testify under oath to the 9/11 commission. In a court of law, this would be enough for their statements to be considered completely baseless. Although the majority of OBS'ers won't even acknowlege grounds for doubt.

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

wcitizen

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by wcitizen

The sworn statements of the airline personnel who dealt with him that day. Not to mention, his dad now takes pride in his son's actions.

Those airline personnel who made those sworn statements. They actually knew MA before that date, so they could swear that the man they saw in the airport was indeed the genuine MA?

Or did they swear that a man, calling himself MA, arrived at the airport to board a flight?

Six Sigma

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link

Originally posted by wcitizen
Nor is there any evidence to prove the evidence wasn't tampered with, by the same government and its agencies who lied about WMD.

Sorry, wcitizen are you are looking for me to prove something didn't happen? You and the truthers have created, without evidence, a fantasy. It is up to you to prove it.

With the exception of a partial transcript of Flight 93's CVR, the contents of the black boxes remained unknown to the public until August of 2006, when the long-hidden NTSB Reports including flight path and other studies of the commandeered flights were obtained on the basis of a Freedom of Information request.

Why the 5 year delay in making this information available?

Because, I believe it was to be used as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

Now, if you had bothered to read the concerns of the pilots seeking the truth of 9/11, you would be aware of the inconsistancies they have raised:

Oh, I am well aware of the unemployed pilot, Bob Balsamo. I am also aware of his pathetic website were he pimps wall clocks and coffee mugs. I have read his claims and have appealed to other pilots who laugh at him and show him how wrong his math consistently is. Weedwacker, a member here has shown his many mistakes here, and real engineers at the JREF forum shown him his many math errors.

Bob constantly posts his trash here under different socks. One time pretending he was a NASA Rocket Scientist. Now, I hear he is pretending to be a cute woman from LA?

Yes,lol, I have been doing that on purpose, because that is what the debunkers do CONSTANTLY to truthers. They constantloy stamp their fists on the table like spoilt children and demand proof, proof, proof, proof.

YOU accuse a government of killing 3K + people without it. ZERO reliable proof. I posted 10 SOLID points of evidence that not a soul (including you) have been able to refute.

The personal attacks are such a common tactic used by OS supporters, and frankly, though tedious, are of no consequence to me. I confess to have indulged in this myself a little on this thread, kind of trying to get into the 'role' of typical OBS trusters abusive mindset. But, you know what, I find it pollutes my mind. Don't like it.

If you think that this continual puerile hurling of insults will stop me or any other genuine truthers, you are living in cloud cuckoo land, along with those who concocted the OBS and thought they would get away with it.

Besides this post regarding Bob Balsamo, I have not attacked anyone personally. I have made my posts concise and to the point. I offer very hard evidence that has not even been reasonably questioned.

Until then, those who defend the OBS and those who are paid to disrupt online discussions between truthers will continue to try to squash, discredit and distort. They will continue to assert, illogically, that the OBS and MSM statements prove that the OBS is true, and that the truth seekers are dishonest, incompetent and deranged.

Okay...so you are crying about personal attacks and then in the next paragraph you accuse me and other debunkers of being paid shills? The rest of your rant is speculative and accusatory. As usual you can not offer ANY proof or evidence.

You and all the other truthers have been asked to refute the evidence I showed twice now in this thread. Not a peep! This is why we try to take baby steps with truthers. We start with the 10 points and take them from there.

.

Six Sigma

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link

Originally posted by wcitizen
Those airline personnel who made those sworn statements. They actually knew MA before that date, so they could swear that the man they saw in the airport was indeed the genuine MA?

Or did they swear that a man, calling himself MA, arrived at the airport to board a flight?

Obviously, evidence does not work with you. But hey, don't blame us for trying:

Interview with Atta's father:

Atta's father praises London bombs
edition.cnn.com...

Michael Tuohey was the guy who checked him in. Have you bothered to look into his interview as to what he saw / did?

www.911myths.com...

dereks

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link

Originally posted by wcitizen
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals

Aren't they the group that falsely claim
"9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT "

Why yes they are, there "experts" made that silly claim about flight 77, and still have it on their front page, even though it has been thoroughly debunked..

Anything they post is suspect then, as they refuse to remove a known lie from their front page!

wcitizen

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by wcitizen
Nor is there any evidence to prove the evidence wasn't tampered with, by the same government and its agencies who lied about WMD.

Sorry, wcitizen are you are looking for me to prove something didn't happen? You and the truthers have created, without evidence, a fantasy. It is up to you to prove it.

Nice try, but you just keep stating that the OS is true because they OS says it is. Kind of looped logic.

Now we all know that there have been many instances in the past of gov agencies tampering with evidence.
But the suggestion that the 9/11 evidence might have been tampered with is met with suggestions that this is totally ridiculous. The logic seems to be: The OS says it has evidence of X, therefore the evidence wasn't tampered with.

Basically, I will answer the question for you. No - it has not been verified that the evidence has not been tampered with. And before you accuse me of asking for proof of a negative, evidence can and is frequently examined and scrutinised to verify its integrity.

With the exception of a partial transcript of Flight 93's CVR, the contents of the black boxes remained unknown to the public until August of 2006, when the long-hidden NTSB Reports including flight path and other studies of the commandeered flights were obtained on the basis of a Freedom of Information request.

Why the 5 year delay in making this information available?

Because, I believe it was to be used as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

Now, if you had bothered to read the concerns of the pilots seeking the truth of 9/11, you would be aware of the inconsistancies they have raised:

Oh, I am well aware of the unemployed pilot, Bob Balsamo. I am also aware of his pathetic website were he pimps wall clocks and coffee mugs. I have read his claims and have appealed to other pilots who laugh at him and show him how wrong his math consistently is. Weedwacker, a member here has shown his many mistakes here, and real engineers at the JREF forum shown him his many math errors.

Bob constantly posts his trash here under different socks. One time pretending he was a NASA Rocket Scientist. Now, I hear he is pretending to be a cute woman from LA?

Waddyano, that's the same old, same old tactic.

Yes,lol, I have been doing that on purpose, because that is what the debunkers do CONSTANTLY to truthers. They constantloy stamp their fists on the table like spoilt children and demand proof, proof, proof, proof.

YOU accuse a government of killing 3K + people without it. ZERO reliable proof. I posted 10 SOLID points of evidence that not a soul (including you) have been able to refute.

It is only your opinion that this evidence has not been refuted. When you dismiss as rubbish every possible comment which doesn't agree with you, you will never agree it has been refuted.

The personal attacks are such a common tactic used by OS supporters, and frankly, though tedious, are of no consequence to me. I confess to have indulged in this myself a little on this thread, kind of trying to get into the 'role' of typical OBS trusters abusive mindset. But, you know what, I find it pollutes my mind. Don't like it.

If you think that this continual puerile hurling of insults will stop me or any other genuine truthers, you are living in cloud cuckoo land, along with those who concocted the OBS and thought they would get away with it.

Besides this post regarding Bob Balsamo, I have not attacked anyone personally. I have made my posts concise and to the point. I offer very hard evidence that has not even been reasonably questioned.

Until then, those who defend the OBS and those who are paid to disrupt online discussions between truthers will continue to try to squash, discredit and distort. They will continue to assert, illogically, that the OBS and MSM statements prove that the OBS is true, and that the truth seekers are dishonest, incompetent and deranged.

Okay...so you are crying about personal attacks and then in the next paragraph you accuse me and other debunkers of being paid shills? The rest of your rant is speculative and accusatory. As usual you can not offer ANY proof or evidence.

You see, I didn't accuse you personally. I actually don't think you are. I said there are some people who do that. I stand by that 100% You accuse me of ranting - while you rant. Lol. Nice one!

You and all the other truthers have been asked to refute the evidence I showed twice now in this thread. Not a peep! This is why we try to take baby steps with truthers. We start with the 10 points and take them from there.

See earlier comment. That would be more of the same. No matter which points are put forward, they will either be trashed as rubbish or ignored. Nothing new going on here. Waste of time.

9/11 was an inside job.

Bye

.

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Six Sigma

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link

Originally posted by wcitizen

9/11 was an inside job.

Bye

Typical. When unable to produce ANYTHING.... scream "911 Was An Inside Job!"