It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

so much 'debunking' but what about...

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
heres some of that pilot analysis you seem to be discrediting. its must more detail than you would like to pay attention to i suppose. somehow this is all fake right..even though the data is from flight recorders and official reports?


the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.


It is impossible to determine the exact attitude or altitude of the aircraft in that released video due to the fact the view is through a FISH EYE LENS. He has used a "scorched earth" attitude with the NTSB, so it's not surprising at all that they won't answer to idiots with a telephone. Since it was NOT an accident, but a criminal investigation, so the FBI was in charge, not the NTSB. Haven't you noticed that the NTSB is the supreme expert when it confirms the conspiracy, but a bunch of incompetent bad guys when it doesn't?


Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?


He has no clue what the aircraft in that video is doing because of the "fish eye" lens as mentioned above. The aircraft G forces in the FDR data are pegged to the limits of it's ability to record indicating an impact with something. Just perhaps a generator or a building!


Originally posted by SGTSECRET

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.


This is a prime example of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". Ground effect was negligible at the speed AA 77 was traveling. Ballsucker has tried to peddle the ground effect nonsense from very early because it befuddles ignorant laymen or else he himself is ignorant. It's difficult to determine which...


Originally posted by SGTSECRET

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


Bernard has also said that he believed Hanjour would have had no trouble with the Pentagon Attack. Hanjour's problem with renting the Cessna was his poor English and his difficulty in landing, not his ability to control the aircraft. Those specific words referencing control are Ballsucker's words not the instructor's. Hanjour obtained Simulator training in a B 737 and he had all manuals for the B 757, but Ballsucker won't tell you that. He prefers to concentrate on his difficultly renting a Cessna because that impresses the layman...


Originally posted by SGTSECRET
this is all from the source i already showed you, you know..the one you skipped over just to trash talk about mr top gun pilot.


I didn't skip over a damned thing. You were specifically talking about Kolstad's comments not Ballsuckers. This stuff is Ballsucker's garbage and I was very familiar with it. It is not new...




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


I think that "ignore feature" is working just fine for you, since you managed to totally ignore the comment posted before yours. There should be some kind of award for that.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
I didn't skip over a damned thing. You were specifically talking about Kolstad's comments not Ballsuckers. This stuff is Ballsucker's garbage and I was very familiar with it. It is not new...


Heh heh heh, I like the nickname you gave Balsamo. He suffers from hyperopia, BTW. That might explain his inability to spot the plane wreckage on the Pentagon lawn.

Besides, we have less photographs of wreckage at the WTC, and for no planers, while the hole in the WTC is deemed too large, the hole in the Pentagon is deemed too small.

You can't argue with that!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Radar/Traffic Control: The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet.


You are "begging the question" again. That was not a spiral dive. It was a perfectly normal, but poorly flown descending Standard Rate Turn to lose altitude, which all pilots learn to do from their very first lesson. They do that at least once every time they fly. During his some 700 hours of flight time, Hanjour had done hundreds of descending turns to lose altitude just like the one flown on 9/11.

Second - How do you know WHY the Dulles Controllers thought it was a military jet? There was no extraordinary maneuvering that would cause that comment. There is a 250 Kt airspeed limit below 10,000'. The aircraft was going much faster than that. Military fighters are exempt from the 250 kt speed limit, therefore the only aircraft that normally exceed that speed limit. Controllers can easily see that on radar. That's why they thought it was a military jet (meaning a military fighter aircraft). It was obviously the speed, not maneuvering that caught their attention.


Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Flight Data Recorder: American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment. Also it is very odd that the FDR was missing a serial number used for aircraft identification in the event of an accident.


This has already been adequately addressed. I only have one point to add. This is but one example of the garbage coming from his site. Even when he's shown to be grossly wrong (he most always is) he refuses to remove or correct the erroneous false information...


Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Wreckage: where are the engines? yes yes ive seen the image of a piece that looks as if one person can pick it up. not only where ARE the engines but why is there no damage to the pentagon caused by the hardest, heaviest part of the aircraft? the pentagon has one small hole where we are to believe the nose hit, where are the other holes from where the engines would have hit, im sure there wouldnt be 3 seperate holes, most likely one BIG hole, but you get the point.


Good Lord. This one is so bad I'm just going to provide a link as opposed to trying to explain. It is not complicated... BTW, it's a "truther" web site....

911research.wtc7.net...


Originally posted by SGTSECRET
DNA: i didnt see bodies anywhere, but sure none of the news crews were right up in the action. this plane pretty much disintegrated i mean really nothing left other than a couple pieces you can pick up by hand, but somehow all the bodies were intact and identifiable, highly doubt it.


Where in the world did you get the idea that bodies were intact? They weren't, but DNA can be determined from the tiniest of fragments.


Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Light Poles: suprised you didnt notice this but..if you look at these light poles some are facing the wrong way to be knocked down by this plane headed into the pentagon.


How do you know which way they were suppose to be laying? Please show physics equations or some other scientifically supportable rationale for this statement. Common Sense won't hack it...

Do you really think you're the only one who's ever looked at the position of those poles?

Next.....

edit on 1-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
How do you know which way they were suppose to be laying? Please show physics equations or some other scientifically supportable rationale for this statement. Common Sense won't hack it...

Do you really think you're the only one who's ever looked at the position of those poles?

Next.....


The problem is, those poles could have been touched and moved between the moment they were hit and the moment they were photographed. I think this is in reference to pole #2, which was photographed by various photographers (I've found one credited to Staff. Sgt. Gary Coppage), as it lay on the downslope next to the bridge over Columbia Pike. We know pole #1 was moved by Lloyd England, and I know firefighters moved fence posts laying next to the generator, and they were photographed as well, in this case before and after move. In the latter example, one fence post faced the wrong way after it was moved.

We can't know for certain the position the poles were photographed in matches the position they were in right after being knocked over by AA 77. Pole #2 might have obstructed traffic and someone may have picked it up and moved it without regard for crime scene integrity. Some people on route 27 were collecting 'souvenirs' immediately after impact. That's not supposed to happen either, but it still occurred.

One of those 'souvenirs' was a plane part from AA 77 donated to a museum by Penny Elgas, as you know.

ETA: the pictures of pole #2 I know of were taken quite late, and a glance at Russel Pickering's former website confirms this.
edit on 1-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: Correction: Jason Ingersoll probably didn't photograph pole #2, corrected in text.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by comprehension
Do I understand this right, you helped peer-review a document that is used to prove the existence of planes by alleged truthers and trusters alike?


No, I helped peer review a paper that is used to prove AA 77 crashed at the Pentagon by sane, rational people without a debilitating obsession with titillating, sensationalist nonsense caused by an inability to process information properly.



Let me paraphrase here, I am a slow learner, so bear with me please. What I understand you to be saying is your peers are sane and rational, while people who disagree with them (and by extension, you) are debilitated by being obsessed with "titillating, sensationalist nonsense caused by an inability to process information properly". Golly, that's a mouthful, isn't it? I guess that's a fancy way of pointing out your superiority to we drooling idiots.




I don't use childish dichotomies like "truthers and trusters", as if "truthers" aren't as gullible and credulous as any.



True enough, you use long sentences and flowery phrases to say the same thing; you may not have much to say, but you're sure not at a loss for words.

From my perspective, it is good ol' American credulity the perpetrators were counting on, not to mention our slavish, if not sheepish desire to fit in.



See example in previous post.


Likewise.



Originally posted by comprehension
Is that really what 9/11 truth research is all about?




Yes.


I know many 9/11 researchers who would disagree, most of it is tedious and boring.

Lets say the government DID do the deed (they did). Would they not have a "truth movement" ready to go? You agree with this, right? The truth movement was started as controlled opposition, yes?




Originally posted by comprehension
I have yet to find this proof, so I must be one of those truthers in the majority. I feel like such a fool.



Unfortunately, yes.
edit on 1-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


Okay, so being a fool I will need some explaining. If the truth movement is a bunch of imbeciles, likely started by the government; wouldn't it make sense to suspect the movement's most popular hypotheses? Wouldn't it make more sense to scrutinize the hypotheses that are most loudly ridiculed by the movement? Wouldn't it make sense to doubt the folks with the loudest mouths; those who urge you not to look here, or not to look there?




edit on 1-1-2012 by comprehension because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by comprehension
I know many 9/11 researchers who would disagree, most of it is tedious and boring.


You wouldn't know 9/11 research if it jumped up and bit you. You could start reading through my 9/11 research dossier today and you still wouldn't be finished five years from now. So let's dispense with the "tedious and boring" lecture until you actually properly dedicate yourself to 9/11 research, shall we?


Originally posted by comprehension
Lets say the government DID do the deed (they did). Would they not have a "truth movement" ready to go? You agree with this, right? The truth movement was started as controlled opposition, yes?


The only people who can truly lay claim to being the 911 Truth Movement are the 9/11 victims families who pressed for accountability after 9/11. Fantasists glued to a keyboard promoting hoaxes don't really qualify.

A few posts ago, I posted a comment with testimonial and physical evidence of AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon. You seem more interested in quasi-self deprecating commentary actually intended to inflate your credentials and sharing your machinations about "controlled opposition".

Jon Gold's book about 9/11 is going to come out. When it does, I suggest you read it, so that you may learn from a proto-truther who actually sacrificed nearly ten years of his life supporting the 9/11 families and the 9/11 first responders. He has been continuously forced to battle crackpots who undermine the quest for 9/11 justice and accountability with bad information during that period.

Pentagon no planers are some of the worst liabilities and disruptors in the set.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Since this thread is about the Pentagon, my specialty, why don't you give it your very best shot and see what happens.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by comprehension
I know many 9/11 researchers who would disagree, most of it is tedious and boring.


You wouldn't know 9/11 research if it jumped up and bit you. You could start reading through my 9/11 research dossier today and you still wouldn't be finished five years from now. So let's dispense with the "tedious and boring" lecture until you actually properly dedicate yourself to 9/11 research, shall we?



Obviously, you're far more well versed on research than I, hell I don't even have a dossier. I may have read your work years ago, if you have that much material. Please provide a link, I always like reading the work of expert researchers like yourself.



The only people who can truly lay claim to being the 911 Truth Movement are the 9/11 victims families who pressed for accountability after 9/11. Fantasists glued to a keyboard promoting hoaxes don't really qualify.


Why? Would the movement be less-valid had it not been started by the alleged families? Have you researched the families, or are they off-limits for "real truthers"?



A few posts ago, I posted a comment with testimonial and physical evidence of AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon. You seem more interested in quasi-self deprecating commentary actually intended to inflate your credentials and sharing your machinations about "controlled opposition".


I try to be self-depreciating in the face of pompous superciliousness; it is less offensive than brandishing credentials and basking in my own limelight, you understand.



Jon Gold's book about 9/11 is going to come out. When it does, I suggest you read it, so that you may learn from a proto-truther who actually sacrificed nearly ten years of his life supporting the 9/11 families and the 9/11 first responders. He has been continuously forced to battle crackpots who undermine the quest for 9/11 justice and accountability with bad information during that period.


It sounds compelling, unlike political and wartime propaganda.



Pentagon no planers are some of the worst liabilities and disruptors in the set.


And you're an authority, so it must be true.

Okay, so now that we got those festivities out of the way, what great strides have you made in your quest to bring truth to we unwashed masses?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Since this thread is about the Pentagon, my specialty, why don't you give it your very best shot and see what happens.


Are you "calling me out"? Heh...okay, sure.

What's your position? Al Qaeda, box-cutters and the like?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
In the mean time:



"The Facts Speak For Themselves"


Okay...so you seem to be in support of the government-approved stories.

Nice video. Is that part of your dossier?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by comprehension

Originally posted by snowcrash911
In the mean time:



"The Facts Speak For Themselves"


Okay...so you seem to be in support of the government-approved stories.


Try not to trip over your own straw army.


Originally posted by comprehension
Nice video. Is that part of your dossier?


If this is really all you've got, then your initial assessment of yourself was right on the money.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by comprehension

Originally posted by snowcrash911
In the mean time:



"The Facts Speak For Themselves"


Okay...so you seem to be in support of the government-approved stories.


Try not to trip over your own straw army.


Originally posted by comprehension
Nice video. Is that part of your dossier?


If this is really all you've got, then your initial assessment of yourself was right on the money.



I'm still awaiting your opening argument, or was the "you-tube" it? The question was genuine; is that from your dossier?

You don't read much do you? You skipped a few pertinent questions, it must have been when you were gazing in the mirror, or when you were too busy virtually yapping. I'll give you some time to read my comments again, or for the first time.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by huh2142
Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.


Just so you know, I get exceedingly annoyed to see "debunker" nitwits cite research such as the recovery and analysis of flight AA 77's final moments, previously unavailable due to a bug in ROSE software, knowing it was prepared by "truthers" and peer reviewed by people like me, and then act as if they don't have "truthers" to thank for the very Pentagon no planer debunking they're citing.

Case in point: the serial number was indeed discovered inside the FDR data, and if you knew anything about Pentagon research justifying your big mouth, any of you omniscient "debunker" warriors would have mentioned that pertinent information to the author of the OP.

None of you have the faintest idea what 9/11 truth (or research) is really about and the same goes for the majority of 9/11 "truthers".
edit on 1-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


I'm fully aware of the outstanding research and work done by Warren Stutte (and Frank Legge??) in decoding the final frames of the FDR. It has been awhile since I reviewed their work. It is my understanding that the basic gist of their work shows that the FDR data is consistent with the radar data and eyewitnesses and the hypothesis that the plane hit the Pentagon. It is another item that demonstrates that the NOC/Flyover theory postulated by P4T is bunk.

It has been a decade since 9/11 and answers to the questions are widely available. If more "Truthers" behave like you, Legge, Stutte, Jonathan Cole P.E. and did serious research then the discussions would resemble reasonable debate instead of dog piling on the latest "victim".



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by comprehension
I'm still awaiting your opening argument, or was the "you-tube" it? The question was genuine; is that from your dossier?


And I am awaiting yours, since this thread is about the Pentagon. And your question most certainly wasn't genuine.


Originally posted by comprehension
You don't read much do you?


What books and reports on 9/11 have you read?


Originally posted by comprehension
You skipped a few pertinent questions, it must have been when you were gazing in the mirror, or when you were too busy virtually yapping. I'll give you some time to read my comments again, or for the first time.


I admit that while reading your comments I was wondering whether I should reply at all, considering I've read more interesting paragraphs in the advertisement section of some run-of-the-mill bathroom magazines.

In fact, I am busy virtually yapping, here, for example, where I'm dealing with other people who are clueless, ignorant and wrong in more sophisticated ways than you are.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
It has been a decade since 9/11 and answers to the questions are widely available. If more "Truthers" behave like you, Legge, Stutte, Jonathan Cole P.E. and did serious research then the discussions would resemble reasonable debate instead of dog piling on the latest "victim".


It's certainly true that we'll probably never have that debate because of the cesspool of misinformation clogging up every potentially enjoyable forum on the net.

I'm sorry if I respond a bit testy at times... but by now I consider myself fully independent from any group, and I have much bones to pick with both. I mostly spend my time these days debunking the nonsense peddled by what is supposed to be my own camp.

So, I understand the frustrations people have with 9/11 "truthers" as well.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   


Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.


Funny you choose to start your tirade when faced with the light pole question. Those knocked down don't add up with the plane's official trajectory.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234
Funny you choose to start your tirade when faced with the light pole question. Those knocked down don't add up with the plane's official trajectory.


And why not? Tell us something new!
edit on 2-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Morg234
 



It doesn't look as though you have read this :-

journalof911studies.com...




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join